THE
CHARACTER, CLAIMS AND
PRACTICAL WORKINGS
OF
FREEMASONRY
1869
By Rev. C. G. FINNEY
late President of Oberlin College, Ohio
Author's Preface
Chapter 1: Intro
Chapter 2: Scrap of History
Chapter 3: How Known
Chapter 4: Credibility of the Books
Revealing Freemasonry
Chapter 5: Examination of the Books
Revealing Freemasonry
Chapter 6: Masters Degree
Chapter 7: Royal Arch Degree
Chapter 8: Sworn to Persecute
Chapter 9: Awful Profanity of Masonic
Oaths
Chapter 10: Perverse and Profane Use of
The Holy Bible
Chapter 11: Freemasonry Imposes on the
Ignorant
Chapter 12: Masonry Susceptible of Change
Only By Additions
Chapter 13: The Claim of Freemasonry To
Great Antiquity Is False
Chapter 14: The Boasted Benevolence Of
Masons A Sham
Chapter 15: Freemasonry is a False
Religion
Chapter 16: The Argument That Great and
Good Men Have Been and Are Freemasons, Examined
Chapter 17: Masonic Oaths Are Unlawful and
Void
Chapter 18: Why Freemasons Resort To
Threats and Refuse To Discuss Their Principles
Chapter 19: Relations of Masonry to The
Church of Christ
Chapter 20: Conclusion
PREFACE
IN few words I wish to state what are not and
what are my reasons for writing this book.
1. It is not that I have any quarrel or
controversy with any member of the Masonic Order. No one of them can justly
accuse me of any personal ill-will or unkindness.
2. It is not because I am fond of
controversy--I am not. Although I have been compelled to engage in much
discussion, still I have always dreaded and endeavored to avoid the spirit and
even the form of controversy.
3. It is not because I disregard the
sensibility of Freemasons upon the question of their pet institution, and am quite
willing to arouse their enmity by exposing it. I value the good opinion and
good wishes of Freemasons as I do those of other men, and have no disposition
to capriciously or wantonly assail what they regard with so much favor.
4. It is not because I am willing, if I can
dutifully avoid it, to render any member of the Fraternity odious. But my
reasons are:
1. I wish, if possible, to arrest the spread of
this great evil, by giving the public, at least, so much information upon this
subject as to induce them to examine and understand the true character and
tendency of the institution.
2. I wish, if possible, to arouse the young men
who are Freemasons, to consider the inevitable consequences of such a horrible
trifling with the most solemn oaths, as is constantly practiced by Freemasons.
Such a course must, and does, as a matter of fact, grieve the Holy Spirit, sear
the conscience, and harden the heart.
3. I wish to induce the young men who are not
Freemasons "to look before they leap," and not be deceived and
committed, as thousands have been, before they were at all aware of the true
nature of the institution of Freemasonry.
4. I, with the many, have been remiss in
suffering a new generation to grow up in ignorance of the character of
Freemasonry, as it was fully revealed to us who are now old. We have greatly
erred in not preserving and handing down to the rising generation the
literature upon this subject, with which we were made familiar forty years ago.
For one, I must not continue this remissness.
5. Because I know that nothing but correct
information is wanting to banish this institution from wholesome society. This
has been abundantly proven. As soon as Freemasons saw that their secrets were
made public, they abandoned their lodges for very shame. With such oaths upon
their souls, they could not face the frown of an indignant public, already
aware of their true position.
6. Freemasons exhort each other to maintain a
dignified silence and are exhorted not to enter into controversy with opposers
of Freemasonry. The reasons are obvious to those who are informed. We know why
they are silent if they are so, and why they will not enter the field of
controversy and attempt to justify their institution. Let anyone examine the
question and he will see why they make no attempt to justify Freemasonry as it
is revealed in the books from which I have quoted. I greatly desire to have the
public, and especially the church of Christ, understand what Freemasonry is.
Then let them act as duty requires.
7. Should I be asked why I have not spoken out
upon this subject before, I reply that until the question was sprung upon us in
this place a year ago, I was not at all aware that Freemasonry had been
disinterred and was alive, and stalking abroad over the face of the whole land.
8. This book contains the numbers published in
the Independent last year. These are revised, enlarged and rearranged. To these
are added eight numbers not heretofore published.
9. I have said in the body of the work, and say
also in this preface, that I have no pecuniary intent in the sale of this work.
I have not written for money, nor for fame. I shall get neither for my pains. I
desire only to do good. C.G. FINNEY.
INTRODUCTION
IT is
high time that the Church of Christ was awake to the character and tendency of
Freemasonry.
Forty
years ago, we supposed that it was dead, and had no idea that it could ever
revive. But, strange to tell, while we were busy in getting rid of slavery,
Freemasonry has revived, and extended its bounds most alarmingly.
I propose
to write a series of articles, giving my views of the character and tendency of
the institution.
I know
something about it, for I have been a Freemason myself. Soon after I was
twenty-one years of age, and while in Connecticut at school, an old uncle of
mine persuaded me to join the Freemasons, representing that, as I was from home
and much among strangers, it would be of service to me, because if a Freemason
I should find friends everywhere. The lodge in that place was but a Master's
lodge. I therefore took three degrees, or as far as what they call "the
sublime degree of Master Mason." When I returned to the State of New York,
to enter upon the study of law, I found at Adams, where I resided, a Masonic
lodge, and united with them. I soon became secretary of the lodge, and met
regularly with the lodge. When I took especially the Master's degree I was
struck with one part of the obligation, or oath, as not being sound either in a
political or moral point of view.
However,
I had been brought up with very few religious privileges, and had but slight
knowledge on moral subjects; and I was not, therefore, greatly shocked, at the
time, with the immorality of anything through which I passed. The lodge where I
took my degrees was composed, I believe, mostly of professed Christians. But
when I came to join the lodge at Adams I found that the Master of the lodge was
a deist. At this distance of time I can not be certain whether the deist to
whom I refer, Eliphalet Edmunds, was Master of the lodge when I first joined.
My best recollection is that Captain Goodell was Master when I first joined the
lodge at Adams, and that Judge Edmunds was Master at the time of my conversion
to Christ. I am certain that deism was no objection to any man becoming a
member or a master of the lodge. There were in that lodge some as thoroughly
irreligious men as I have ever associated with anywhere, and men with whom I
never would have associated had they not been Freemasons. I do not recollect
that any Christian men belonged to that lodge at the time I joined it. There
were some very profane men who belonged to it, and some men of very intemperate
habits.
As I
paid the strictest attention to what they called their lectures and teachings,
I became what they call "a bright Mason;" that is, as far as I went,
I committed to memory their oral teachings--for they had no other.
The
oaths, or obligations, were familiar to me, as was everything else that
belonged to those three degrees that I had taken.
I had
belonged to the lodge in Adams nearly four years when I was converted to
Christ. During the struggle of conviction of sin through which I passed I do
not recollect that the question of Freemasonry ever occurred to my mind. The
season that I called properly my conviction of sin was short. My exercises were
pungent, and I very soon obtained hope in Christ.
Soon
after my conversion the evening came for attendance upon the lodge. I went.
They, of course, were aware that I had become a Christian, and the Master of
the lodge called on me to open the lodge with prayer. I did so, and poured out
my heart to the Lord for blessing upon the lodge. I observed that it created a
considerable excitement. The evening passed away, and at the close of the lodge
I was requested to pray again. I did so, and retired, but much depressed in
spirit. I soon found that I was completely converted from Freemasonry to
Christ, and that I could have no fellowship with any of the proceedings of the
lodge, Its oaths appeared to me to be monstrously profane and barbarous.
At that time
I did not know how much I had been imposed upon by many of the pretensions of
Masonry. But upon reflection and examination, and after a severe struggle and
earnest prayer, I found that I could not consistently remain with them. My new
life instinctively and irresistibly recoiled from any fellowship with what I
then regarded as "the unfruitful works of darkness."
Without
consulting any person, I finally went to the lodge and requested my discharge.
After manifesting considerable reluctance they granted my request. My mind was
made up. Withdraw from them I must; with their consent if I might, without
their consent if I must. Of this I said nothing; but some way it came to be
known that I had withdrawn from them. This created some little feeling amongst them.
They, therefore, planned a Masonic celebration or festival. I do not recollect
exactly what it was. But they sent a committee to me, requesting me to deliver
an oration on the occasion. I quietly declined to do so; informing the
committee that I could not conscientiously in anywise do what would manifest my
approval of the institution, or sympathy with it. However, at that time, and
for years afterward, I remained silent and said nothing against the
institution; for I had not then so well considered the matter as to regard my
Masonic oaths as utterly null and void. But from that time I never allowed
myself to be recognized as a Freemason anywhere. This was a few years before
the revelations of Freemasonry, by William Morgan, were published. When that book
was published, I was asked if it were a true revelation of Freemasonry. I
replied that it was, as far as I knew anything about it; and that, as nearly as
I could recollect, it was a verbatim revelation of the first three degrees as I
had myself taken them. I replied in this way because I saw, of course, that as
the thing was published, and no longer a secret, I could not be under any
obligation to keep it a secret, unless I could be under an obligation to lie,
and to lie, perpetually, by denying that that which had been published was
truly Freemasonry.
I knew
that I could be under no obligations to be guilty of a perpetual falsehood, and
that I really made no revelation of any secret when I frankly acknowledged that
that which had been published was a true account of the institution, and a true
expose of their oaths, principles, and proceedings.
Afterward
I considered it more thoroughly, and was most perfectly convinced that I had no
right to adhere to the institution, or to appear to do so; and that I was
bound, whenever the occasion arose, to speak my mind freely in regard to it,
and to renounce the horrid oaths that I had taken.
On
reflection and examination I found that I had been grossly deceived and imposed
upon. I had been led to suppose that there were some very important secrets to
be communicated to me. But in this respect I found myself entirely
disappointed.
Indeed,
I came to the deliberate conclusion, and could not avoid doing so, that my
oaths had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the
institution was in no respect what I had been previously informed that it was.
And, as
I have had the means of examining it more thoroughly, it has become more and
more irresistibly plain to my convictions that the institution is highly
dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ.
This I
expect to show in detail should I be spared to finish the articles which I
contemplate writing. But in my next it will be in place to inquire, How are the
public to know what Freemasonry really is?
After
this inquiry is settled, we shall be prepared to enter upon an examination of
its claims, its principles, and its tendency.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
II
SCRAP OF
HISTORY
IN number I must remind readers of some facts
that occurred about forty years ago; which, as matters of history, though then
well-known to thousands, are probably now unknown to the great majority of our
citizens. Elderly men and women, especially in the Northern States, will almost
universally remember the murder of William Morgan by Freemasons, and many facts
connected with that terrible tragedy. But, as much pains have been taken by
Freemasons to rid the world of the books and pamphlets, and every vestige of
writing relating to that subject, by far the larger number of young people seem
to be entirely ignorant that such facts ever occurred. I will state them as
briefly as possible.
About forty year ago, an estimable man by the
name of William Morgan, then residing in Batavia, N.Y., being a Freemason,
after much reflection, made up his mind that it was his duty to publish
Freemasonry to the world. He regarded it as highly injurious to the cause of
Christ, and as eminently dangerous to the government of our country, and I suppose
was aware, as Masons generally were at that time, that nearly all the civil
offices in the country were in the hands of Freemasons; and that the press was
completely under their control, and almost altogether in their hands. Masons at
that time boasted that all the civil offices in the country were in their
hands. I believe that all the civil offices in the county where I resided while
I belonged to them, were in their hands. I do not recollect a magistrate, or a
constable, or sheriff in that county that was not at that time a Freemason.
A publisher by the name of Miller, also
residing in Batavia, agreed to publish what Mr. Morgan would write. This,
coming to be known to Freemasons, led them to conspire for his destruction.
This, as we shall see, was only in accordance with their oaths. By their oaths
they were bound to seek his destruction, and to execute upon him the penalty of
those oaths.
They kidnapped Morgan and for a time concealed
him in the magazine of the United States Fort--Fort Niagara, at the mouth of
Niagara River, where it empties into Lake Ontario. They kept him there until
they could arrange to dispatch him. In the meantime, the greatest efforts were
made to discover his whereabouts, and what the Masons had done with him. Strong
suspicions came finally to be entertained that he was confined in that fort;
and the Masons, finding that those suspicions were abroad, hastened his death.
Two or three have since, upon their death-bed, confessed their part in the
transaction. They drowned him in the Niagara River. The account of the manner
in which this was will be found in a book published by EIder Stearns, a Baptist
elder. The book is entitled "Stearns on Masonry." It contains the
deathbed confession of one of the murderers of William Morgan. On page 311, of
that work, you will find that confession. But as many of my readers have not
access to that work, I take the liberty to quote it entire, as follows:
"CONFESSION.
"THE MURDER OF WILLIAM MORGAN, CONFESSED
BY THE MAN WHO, WITH HIS OWN HANDS, PUSHED HIM OUT OF THE BOAT INTO NIAGARA
RIVER!
"The following account of that
tragical scene is taken from a pamphlet entitled, 'Confession of the murder of
William Morgan, as taken down by Dr. John L. Emery, of Racine County,
Wisconsin, in the summer of 1848, and now (1849) first given to the public:'
"This 'Confession' was taken down as
related by Henry L. Valance, who acknowledges himself to have been one of the
three who were selected to make a final disposition of the ill-fated victim of
masonic vengeance. This confession it seems was made to his physicians, and in
view of his approaching dissolution, and published after his decease.
"After committing that horrid deed he was
as might well be expected, an unhappy man, by day and by night. He was much
like Cain--'a fugitive and a vagabond.' To use his own words, 'Go where I
would, or do what I would, it was impossible for me to throw off the
consciousness of crime. If the mark of Cain was not upon me, the curse of the
first murderer was--the blood-stain was upon my hands and could not be washed
out.
'He therefore commences his confession
thus:--'My last hour is approaching; and as the things of this world fade from
my mental sight, I feel the necessity of making, as far as in my power lies,
that atonement which every violator of the great law of right owes to his
fellow men' In this violation of law, he says, 'I allude to the abduction and
murder of the ill-fated William Morgan.'
"He proceeds with an interesting narrative
of the proceedings of the fraternity in reference to Morgan, while he was
incarcerated in the magazine of Fort Niagara. I have room for a few extracts
only, showing the final disposition of their alleged criminal. Many
consultations were held, 'many plans proposed and discussed, and rejected.' At
length being driven to the necessity of doing something immediately for fear of
being exposed, it was resolved in a council of eight, that he must die: must be
consigned to a 'confinement from which there is no possibility of escape--THE
GRAVE.' Three of their number were to be selected by ballot to execute the
deed. 'Eight pieces of paper were procured, five of which were to remain blank,
while the letter D was written on the others. These pieces of paper were placed
in a large box, from which each man was to draw one at the same moment. After
drawing we were all to separate, without looking at the paper that each held in
his hand. So soon as we had arrived at certain distances from the place of
rendezvous, the tickets were to be examined, and those who held blanks. were to
return instantly to their homes; and those who should hold marked tickets were
to proceed to the fort at midnight, and there put Morgan to death, in such a
manner as should seem to themselves most fitting.' Mr. Yalance was one of the
three who drew the ballots on which was the signal letter. He returned to the
fort, where he was joined by his two companions, who had drawn the death
tickets. Arrangements were made immediately for executing the sentence passed
upon their prisoner, which was to sink him in the river with weights; in hope,
says Mr. Valance, 'that he and our crime alike would thus be buried beneath the
waves.' His part was to proceed to the magazine where Morgan was confined, and
announce to him his fate--theirs was to procure a boat and weights with which
to sink him. Morgan, on being informed of their proceedings against him,
demanded by what authority they had condemned him, and who were his judges. 'He
commenced wringing his hands, and talking of his wife and children, the
recollections of whom, in that awful hour, terribly affected him. His wife, he
said, was young and inexperienced, and his children were but infants; what
would become of them were he cut off; and they even ignorant of his fate?' What
husband and father would not be 'terribly affected' under such
circumstances--to be cut off from among the living in this inhuman manner?
"Mr. V.'s comrades returned. and informed
him that they had procured the boat and weights, and that all things were in
readiness on their part. Morgan was told that all his remonstrances were idle,
that die he must, and that soon, even before the morning light. The feelings of
the husband and father were still strong within him, and he continued to plead
on behalf of his family. They gave him one half hour to prepare for his
'inevitable fate.' They retired from the magazine and left him. "How
Morgan passed that time,' says Mr. Valance, 'I cannot tell, but everything was
quiet as the tomb within.' At the expiration of the allotted time, they entered
the magazine, laid hold of their victim, 'bound his hands behind him, and
placed a gag in his mouth.' They then led him forth to execution. 'A short
time,' says this murderer, 'brought us to the boat, and we all entered
it--Morgan being placed in the bow with myself, along side of him. My comrades
took the oars, and the boat was rapidly forced out into the river. The night
was pitch dark, we could scarcely see a yard before us and therefore was the
time admirably adapted to our hellish purpose.' Having reached a proper
distance from the shore, the oarsmen ceased their labors. The weights were all
secured together by a strong cord, and another cord of equal strength, and of
several yards in length, proceeded from that. 'This cord,' says Mr. V., 'I took
in my hand [did not that hand tremble ?] and fastened it around the body of
Morgan, just above his hips, using all my skill to make it fast, so that it
would hold. Then, in a whisper, I bade the unhappy man to stand up, and after a
momentary hesitation he complied with my order. He stood close to the head of
the boat, and there was just length enough of rope from his person to the
weights to prevent any strain, while he was standing. I then requested one of
my associates to assist me in lifting the weights from the bottom to the side
of the boat, while the others steadied her from the stern. This was done, and,
as Morgan was standing with his back toward me, I approached him, and gave him
a strong push with both my hands, which were placed on the middle of his back.
He fell forward, carrying the weights with him, and the waters closed over the
mass. We remained quiet for two or three minutes, when my companions, without
saying a word, resumed their places, and rowed the boat to the place from which
they had taken it.'"
They also kidnapped Mr. Miller, the publisher;
but the citizens of Batavia, finding it out, pursued the kidnappers, and
finally rescued him.
The courts of justice found themselves entirely
unable to make any headway against the wide-spread conspiracy that was formed
among Masons in respect to this matter.
These are matters of record. It was found that
they could do nothing with the courts, with the sheriffs, with the witnesses,
or with the jurors; and all their efforts were for a time entirely impotent
Indeed, they never were able to prove the murder of Morgan, and bring it home
to the individuals who perpetrated it.
But Mr. Morgan had published Freemasonry to the
world. The greatest pains were taken by Masons to cover up the transaction, and
as far as possible to deceive the public in regard to the fact that Mr. Morgan
had published Masonry as it really is.
Masons themselves, as is affirmed by the very
best authority, published two spurious editions of Morgan's book, and
circulated them as the true edition which Morgan had published. These editions
were designed to deceive Masons who had never seen Morgan's edition, and thus
to enable them to say that it was not a true revelation of Masonry.
In consequence of the publication of Morgan's
book, and the revelations that were made in regard to the kidnapping and
murdering of Mr. Morgan, great numbers of Masons were led to consider the
subject more fully than they had done; and the conscientious among them almost
universally renounced Masonry altogether. I believe that about two thousand
lodges, as a consequence of these revelations, were suspended.
The ex-president of a Western college, who is
himself a Freemason, has recently published some very important information on
the subject though he justifies Masonry. He says that, out of a little more
than fifty thousand Masons in the United States at that time, forty-five
thousand turned their backs upon the lodge to enter the lodge no more.
Conventions were called of Masons that were disposed to renounce it. One was
held at Leroy, another at Philadelphia, and others at other places, I do not
now remember where. The men composing these conventions made public confession
of their relation to the institution, and publicly renounced it. At one of
these large conventions they appointed a committee to superintend the
publication of Masonry in all its degrees. This committee was composed of men
of first-rate character, and men quite generally known to the public. Elder
Bernard, a Baptist elder in good standing, was one of this committee; and he,
with the assistance of his brethren who had been appointed to this work,
obtained an accurate version of some forty eight degrees. He published also the
proceedings of those conventions, and much concerning the efforts that were
made by the courts to search the matter to the bottom, and also several
speeches that were made by prominent men in the State of New York. This work
was entitled "Light on Masonry." In this work any person who is disposed
may get a very correct view of what Freemasonry really is. This and sundry
other reliable works on Freemasonry may be had at Godrich's, and Fitch &
Fairchild's bookstores, in Oberlin. In saying this, it is proper to add that I
have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the sale of those or of any
book on Freemasonry whatever, nor shall I have in the sale of this which I am
now preparing for the press. Freemasons shall not with truth accuse me of
self-interest in exposing their institution.
Before the publication of "Bernard's Light
on Masonry," great pains were taken to secure the most accurate knowledge
of the degrees published by the committee, as the reader of that work will see,
if he reads the book through. An account of all these matters will be found in
"Light on Masonry," to which I have referred. In the Northern or
non-slaveholding States Masonry was almost universally renounced at that time.
But it was found that it had taken so deep a root that in all New England there
was scarcely a newspaper in which the death of William Morgan, and the
circumstances connected therewith, could be published. This was so generally
true throughout all the North that newspapers had to be everywhere established
for the purpose of making the disclosures that were necessary in regard to its
true character and tendency. The same game is being played over again at the
present day. The "Cynosure," the new anti-masonic paper published at
Chicago, is constantly intercepted on its way to subscribers. Four of its first
six numbers failed to reach me, and now in December, 1868, I have received no
number later than the sixth. The editor informs me that the numbers are
constantly intercepted. The public will be forced to learn what a lawless and
hideous institution Freemasonry is. But at present I refrain from saying more
on this point.
It was found that Masonry so completely baffled
the courts of law, and obstructed the course of justice, that it was forced
into politics; and for a time the anti-masonic sentiment of the Northern States
carried all before it. Almost all Masons became ashamed of it, felt themselves
disgraced by having any connection with it, and publicly renounced it. If they
did not publish any renunciation, they suspended their lodges, had no more to
do with it, and did not pretend to deny that Masonry had been published.
Now these facts were so notorious, so
universally known and confessed, that those of us who were acquainted with them
at the time had no idea that Masonry would have the impudence ever again to
claim any public respect. I should just as soon expect slavery to be
re-established in this country, and become more popular than ever before--to
take possession of the Government and of all the civil offices, and to grow
bold, impudent, and defiant--as I should have expected that Masonry would
achieve what it has. When the subject of Freemasonry was first forced upon our
churches in Oberlin, for discussion and action, I can not express the
astonishment, grief and indignation that I felt on hearing professed Christian
Freemasons deny either expressly or by irresistible implication that Morgan and
others had truly revealed the secrets of Freemasonry. But a few years ago such
denial would have ruined the character of any intelligent man, not to say of a professed
Christian.
But I must say, also, that Masonry itself has
its literature. Many bombastic and spread-eagle books have been published in
its favor. They never attempt to justify it as it is revealed in "Light on
Masonry," nor reply by argument to the attacks that have been so
successfully made upon it; neither have they pretended to reveal its secret.
But they have eulogized it in a manner that is utterly nauseating to those that
understand what it really is. But these books have been circulated among the
young, and have no doubt led thousands and scores of thousands of young men
into the Masonic ranks, who, but for these miserable productions, would never
have thought of taking such a step.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
III.
HOW KNOWN.
WE are prepared in this number to take up the
question, How are the public to know what Freemasonry really is? This we may
answer.
1. Negatively. (1.) Masonry cannot be known
from a perusal of the eulogistic books which adhering Masons have written. Of
course they are under oath in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of Masonry.
But it is their secrets that the public are concerned to know. Now their
eulogistic books, as any one may know who will examine them, are silly, and for
the most part little better than twaddle. If we read their orations and sermons
that have been published in support of Masonry, and the books that they have
written, we shall find much that is silly, much that is false, and a great deal
more that is mere bombast and rho domontade. I do not say this rashly. Any
person who will examine the subject for himself must admit that this language
is strictly true. But I shall have occasion hereafter when we come to examine
the character of the institution, to show more clearly the utter ignorance or
dishonesty of the men who have eulogized it.
Let it be understood, then, that adhering
Masons do not profess to publish their secrets. And that which the country and
the church are particularly interested to understand they never publish--their
oaths, for example; and, therefore, we cannot tell from what they write what
they are under oath to do.
(2.) We cannot learn what Masonry is from the
oral testimony of adhering Masons.
Let it be pondered well that every one of them
is under oath to conceal and in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of the
order. This Freemasons do not deny. Hence, if they are asked if the books in
which Masonry has been published are true, they will either evade the question
or else they will lie; and they are under oath to do so.
Observe, adhering Masons are the men who still
acknowledge the binding obligation of their oaths. Now, if they are asked if
those books truly reveal Masonry, they consider themselves under an obligation
to deny it, if they say anything about it. And, as they are well aware that to
refuse to say anything about it is a virtual acknowledgment that the books are
true, and would therefore be an indirect revelation of Masonry; they will
almost universally deny that the books are true. Some of them are ashamed to
say anything more than that there is some truth and a great deal of falsehood
in them.
(3.) As they are under oath to conceal the
secrets of Masonry, and in no wise whatever to reveal any part of them, their
testimony in regard to the truthfulness or untruthfulness of those books is of
no value whatever. It is mere madness to receive the testimony of men who are
under oath, and under the most horrid oaths that can be taken--oaths sustained
by the most terrific penalties that can be named to conceal their secrets and
to deny that they have been published, and that those books contain them--I say
it is downright madness to receive the testimony of such men, it matters not
who they are. Masons have no right to expect an intelligent person to believe
their denials that these books have truly revealed Masonry. Nor have they a
right to complain if we reject their testimony. What would they have us do?
Shall we believe the testimony of men who admit that they are under oath to
conceal and never in any way reveal the secrets of their order, when they deny
that their secrets are revealed in certain books, and shall we ignore the
testimony of thousands who have conscientiously renounced those horrid oaths,
at the hazard of their lives, and declared with one accord, and many of them
under the sanction of judicial oaths lawfully administered, that Morgan,
Bernard and others have truly revealed the secrets of Freemasonry? There are at
this day thousands of most conscientious men who are ready to testify on oath
that those books contain a substantially correct exposition of Freemasonry as
it was and is. I say again that Freemasons have no right to expect us to
believe their denials; for while they adhere to Masonry they are under oath to
"conceal and never reveal" any part of its secrets and of course they
must expressly or impliedly deny every revelation of its secrets that can be
made. Would they have us stultify ourselves by receiving their testimony ?
2. Positively. How, then, are we to know what
Masonry is? I answer: (1.) From the published and oral testimony of those who
have taken the degrees; and afterward, from conscientious motives, have
confessed their error, and have publicly renounced Masonry. But it has been
said that these are perjured men, and therefore not at all to be believed. But
let it be remarked that this very accusation is an admission that they have
published the truth; for, unless they have published the secrets of Masonry
truly, they have violated no Masonic oath. Therefore, when Masons accuse them
of being perjured, the very objection which they make to the testimony of these
witnesses is an acknowledgment on the part of Masons themselves that they have
truly published their secrets.
But again. If to reveal the secrets of Masonry
be perjury, it follows that to accuse the revealers of Masonry of perjury, is
itself perjury; because by their accusation they tacitly admit that that which
has been published is truly a revelation of Masonry, and therefore their
accusation is a violation of their oath of secresy. Let it then be understood
that the very objection to these witnesses, that they have committed perjury,
is itself an acknowledgment that the witnesses are entirely credible, and have
revealed Masonry as it is. And not only so--but in bringing forward the
objection, they commit perjury themselves, if it be perjury to reveal their
secrets, because, as I have said, in accusing the witnesses of perjury, they
add their testimony to the fact that these witnesses have published Masonry as
it is. So that by their own testimony, in bringing this charge of perjury, they
themselves swell the number of witnesses to the truthfulness of these
revelations.
(2.) Renouncing Masons are the best possible
witnesses by whom to prove what Masonry really is. (a.) They are competent
witnesses. They testify from their own personal knowledge of what it is. (5.)
They are in the highest degree credible witnesses. First, because they testify
against themselves. They confess their own wrong in having taken those terrible
oaths, and in having had any part in sustaining the institution. Secondly,
their testimony is given with the certainty of incurring a most unrelenting
persecution. Adhering Freemasons are under oath to persecute them, to destroy
their characters, and to seek to bring them to condign punishment. This we
shall see when we come to examine the books.
Adhering Masons have persecuted, and still
persecute, those that reveal their secrets, just as far as they dare. They are
in the highest degree intolerant., and this every Mason knows. In a recent
number of their great Masonic organ, published in New York, they advise the
Masons in Oberlin in no way to patronize those who oppose them. Those who
renounce Masonry are well aware of their danger. But, notwithstanding, they are
constrained by their consciences, by the fear and love of God, and by regard to
the interests of their country, to renounce and expose it. Now, surely,
witnesses that testify under such circumstances are entitled to credit;
especially as they could have had no conceivable motive for deceiving the
public. Their testimony was wrung from them by conscience. And the authors of
the books that I have named, together with several others--such as Richardson,
Stearns, and Mr. Allyn, and I know not how many others--are sustained by the
testimony of forty-five thousand who publicly renounced Masonry, out of a
little more than fifty thousand that composed the whole number of Freemasons
then in the United States. Now, it should be well remembered that the five
thousand who still adhered belonged almost altogether to the slaveholding
States, and had peculiar reasons for still adhering to the institution of
Masonry. And, further, let it be distinctly observed that, as they adhered to
Masonry, their testimony is null, because they still regarded themselves as
under oath in no wise to reveal their secrets; consequently, they would, of
course, deny that these books had truly revealed Masonry. I say again, it is
mere madness to receive their testimony.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
IV
CREDIBILITY
OF THE BOOKS REVEALING FREEMASONRY
I FURTHER observe: (3) The credibility of these
books in which Masonry is revealed is evident from the following
considerations: (a.) The murder of Morgan by Freemasons was an emphatic
acknowledgment that he had revealed their secrets. For, if he had not, he had
not incurred the penalty of Masonic obligations. They murdered him because he
had truly revealed their secrets; and they could have had no motive whatever
for murdering him if he had not done so. (b.) The credibility of these books is
further sustained by the fact that adhering Masons did then, and have always,
justified the murder of Morgan as that which their oaths obliged them to do.
They have said that he deserved and that he had taken upon him the obligation
consenting to suffer the penalty if he violated it. In the two small volumes
published by Elder Stearns, letters will be found from the most respectable and
reliable Christian men, that fully sustain this statement, that the adhering
fraternity, with very few exceptions, at that time, justified the murder of
Morgan. In thus justifying that murder they, of course, admit that he violated
his oath, and had truly published Freemasonry. I would quote these testimonies;
but, as they can be read from the books themselves. I will not cumber these
pages by copying them.
(c.) The credibility of these books is
sustained by the express testimony of the seceding Mason, who, after hearing
them read, ordered them printed.
(d.) The testimony of these books is further
sustained by the report of a committee appointed at that time by the
legislature of Rhode Island. That body appointed a committee, and gave them
authority to arrest and examine Freemasons to ascertain whether the oaths
published in these books were truly the oaths of Freemasons. This committee
succeeded in bringing before them men that had taken the first ten degrees of
Freemasonry. They put them on oath under the pains and penalties of perjury. In
these circumstances they did not dare to deny it; but owned to the committee
that they were the oaths taken by Freemasons. I said that they did not dare to
deny it, because they were well aware that of seceding Masons hundreds and
thousands might be obtained who would confront them and prove them guilty of
perjury if they denied
I should have said that these Masons that were
arrested, and that testified before this committee, were not seceding, but
adhering, Masons. So that here for the first ten degrees of Freemasonry we have
the admission on oath of adhering Masons that these books truly published their
oaths. These facts may be learned from the records of the legislature, or from
John Quincy Adams' letters to Mr. Livingston, who was at the head of the
Masonic institution in the State of New York at that time.
(e.) The credibility of these books is further
sustained by the implied admission of the two thousand lodges that suspended
because their secrets were revealed, and because they were ashamed any longer
to be known as sustaining the institution. These lodges, as I have before said,
contained some forty-five thousand members. Now it should be particularly noted
that, of all the seceding Masons in the United States, not one of them has
ever, to my knowledge, denied that these books had truly revealed Masonry;
while it is true that the five thousand who did not secede would never
acknowledge that these books were credible. A worthy minister, who used to
reside in this place, who has himself taken a great many degrees in Masonry,
wrote to one of our citizens, a few months since, denouncing the institution in
strong terms. He is a man who has traveled much among Freemasons for many years
in various parts of the United States; and in that letter he affirmed that he
had never known but one adhering Mason who would not deny, to those who did not
know better, that those books had truly revealed Masonry. This is what might be
expected.
(f.) The credibility of these books is further
sustained by the published individual testimony of a great many men of
unquestionable veracity--men standing high in the Christian ministry, and in
church and state.
The books to which I have alluded contain very
much of this kind of testimony.
But to all this testimony adhering Masons have
objected. First, that the movement against Freemasonry was a political one.
Answer: I have already said that by its having seized upon all the civil
offices, and totally obstructing the course of justice, it was forced into
politics by Masons themselves.
It was found that there was no other way than
for the people to rise up and take the offices out of their hands by political
action. At first there was no thought on the part of any one, so far as I could
learn, that it would ever become a political question. But it was soon found
that there was no other alternative.
But, again, it is said, Why should we receive
the testimony of those men who have passed away, rather than the testimony of
the living, thousands of whom now affirm that those books did not truly reveal
Masonry ?
To this I answer that these men are every one
of them sworn to lie about it--expressly, or virtually. Observe, they must
conceal as well as never reveal these secrets; therefore, as refusing to deny
would be regarded as a virtual admission, they are sworn to make an impression
amounting, morally, to a denial. At a recent conference of ministers and
delegates from churches, a report was read by a committee previously appointed
for that purpose, representing the true character of Freemasonry. I was not
present, but am informed, by unquestionable authority, that after the report
was read, a minister who was a Freemason represented the report as setting up a
"man of straw" thereby intending to make the impression that the report
was not true. But it was replied that the report may have exhibited "a man
of straw," for such Freemasonry may be, but he was asked, is not the
report true? To this question he refused to answer. Was this Christian honesty?
At recess another minister, also a Freemason, in conversation spoke of the
report as trash, but in being pressed with the question, "Is it not
true?" he refused to answer. These cases illustrate their manner of
disposing of this question. Many of them dare not expressly deny the truthfulness
of those revelations, but they will so express themselves as to amount to a
denial. They have numerous methods of doing this. They intend to deceive;
manifestly for selfish reasons, and are therefore guilty of lying, and so they
will find it held at the solemn judgment. If they adhere to their oaths, they
are sworn to deny that these books truly reveal Masonry; and, therefore, their
testimony is not to be received at all. But thousands of the seceding masons
still survive, and universally adhere to their testimony that those books did
truly reveal Masonry.
But it is said that Masonry is reformed, and is
not now what it was at that time.
Answer: First, this, then, is a virtual
acknowledgment that at that time it was truly revealed. This is contradicting
themselves.
As long as they can, they deny that these books
truly reveal it. But when forty-five thousand witnesses are summoned, among
whom are a great many of the most valuable citizens of the United States,
insomuch that they can have no face to deny that Masonry was revealed, as it
then was, then we are told, "Oh! it is reformed; it is not what it
was."
But, again if they have reformed, the burden of
proof is upon them. It is for them to show whether they have reformed out of it
those things that rendered it so odious in a moral point of view, and so
dangerous in a political point of view, as those books revealed it to be.
Again, their authorities do not pretend that it
has been reformed. Their most recently published books take exactly the
opposite ground, claiming that it is one and identical with what it was in the
beginning; and that it neither has been nor can be changed in any of its
essential principles or usages. They expressly require of their candidates to
conform to all the ancient principles and usages of the institution. In another
number I shall endeavor to set this question of reform at rest. It were
premature to do so before we have examined the books in which it is revealed
I might sustain these assertions by copious
extracts from their works, if it would not too much encumber this article. Let
those who wish to know, get their books, and read them for themselves. If
anything can be established by human testimony, it is forever beyond a doubt
that Mr. Morgan, EIder Bernard, Mr. Richardson, and others that published
Masonry, have published it substantially as it was and is.
I have already said that their secrets are
never written by themselves. All their secrets are communicated orally. They
take a great deal of pains to secure entire uniformity in regard to every word
and sentiment which they teach. Each State has its lecturers, who go from lodge
to lodge to teach and secure a uniformity as nearly perfect as possible.
And then there is a United States lecturer, who
goes from State to State, to see that the grand lodges are all consistent with
each other.
In spite, however, of all this painstaking and
expense, slight verbal differences will exist among them. But these differences
are only in words. The ideas are retained; but in some few instances they are
expressed by different words, as we shall see when we come to examine the books
themselves.
The fact is, that the great mass of young men
who have joined them have been grossly deceived. Having been imposed upon, as I
was imposed upon, they have been made to believe that the institution is a very
different matter from what it really is.
We shall see hereafter how this imposition
could be practiced upon them, and how it has been practiced upon them.
I would not be understood as denouncing the
individuals composing the whole fraternity; for I am perfect]y well persuaded
that the great mass of young men who belong to the institution are laboring
under a great delusion in regard to its real object, character, and tendency.
Lastly, it is inquired why we go to the enemies
of Freemasonry for a knowledge of what it is, instead of getting our
information from friends. "Why not," they say, "allow us to
speak for ourselves! We know what it is, and we can inform the public what it
is; and why should you go to our enemies?" But what do Freemasons mean by
asking such questions? Do they consider us idiots? Do they want to insult our
intelligence by asking us why we don't get their secrets from themselves? Of
course, as they well know, we cannot learn what the secrets of Masonry are from
its friends and adherents, because they are under oath to give us no
information about them. We are, therefore, under the necessity, if we would
know what it is, of taking the testimony of those who know what it is by having
taken its degrees, and have, from conscientious motives, renounced the
institution. If they are its enemies, it is only in the sense that they regard
the institution as not only unworthy of patronage, but as so wicked in a moral
point of view, and so dangerous in a political point of view, that they feel
constrained to reveal its secrets, and publicly to renounce it. These are the
only men from whom we can possibly get any information of what Freemasonry is.
It is absurd for adhering Masons to ask us why we do not allow them to teach us
what it is; for we know, and they know, that they can do no such thing without
violating their oaths and these oaths they still acknowledge to be binding upon
them. Under this head I take the liberty to subjoin--
1. The testimony of the Albany Evening Journal
Extra, of October 27, 1831. This article, as its date demonstrates, was written
at the time of the investigation of the Morgan murder, and refers to facts too
notorious to be denied:
"Since the public attention in this
quarter has been roused by recent events to the practical evils of Freemasonry,
numerous inquiries are made for the means of information respecting the
ridiculous ceremonies, the unlawful oaths, the dangerous obligations, and the
blasphemous mockeries of this order. Although these have been from year to
year, for the last five years, spread before the public, yet as our citizens
here were indifferent to the subject, they avoided reading what was so
profusely laid before them; and the consequence is, that now, when they begin
to feel and think on this momentous matter, they find themselves in want of
that information necessary to enable them to understand it. It shall be my
purpose to supply the deficiency to some extent, by pointing out the sources of
full and extensive knowledge, and by presenting as briefly as possible, the
prominent features in the character of Freemasonry. It has become a question of
such engrossing interest, that every man should desire to be informed, and
every citizen who is called upon to act in reference to it in his capacity as
AN ELECTOR, is bound by the highest duties of patriotism to act
understandingly.
"The first revelation of Masonry in this
country was made by William Morgan. In 1826, he published a pamphlet, entitled
'Illustrations in Masonry,' in which the ceremonies of initiation and the
obligations of the three first degrees were disclosed. For this publication he
was kidnapped and forcibly carried away from a wife and two children, and was
murdered by being drowned in the Niagara River. This was done by Freemasons.
Thus he has sealed the truth of his revelations by sacrificing his own life,
and the Freemasons established their accuracy incontrovertibly by the
punishment they inflicted on him. For according to their own bloody code, he
could not have incurred the penalty of death, if he had not revealed their
secrets. In February, 1828, a convention of seceding Masons was held at LeRoy,
in the County of Genesee, composed of some thirty or forty of the most
respectable citizens. They published a declaration to the world under their
signatures, in which they declared the revelations of William Morgan to be
strictly true and perfectly accurate. Under the same responsibility they also
published the oaths and obligations of the higher orders. In the course of the
same year, EIder Bernard, a Baptist clergyman of good character, and who was a
distinguished Mason, published a work, entitled 'Light on Masonry,' in which
the ceremonies, oaths and mummeries of the order are given at full length. In
1829, on the trial of Elihu Mather, in Orleans County, the obligations of the
three first degrees and of a Royal Arch Mason, were proved, at a Circuit Court
held by Judge Gardiner, by the testimony of three seceding Masons and one
adhering Mason. In obedience to a resolution of the Senate of New York, Judge
Gardiner reported this evidence, and it was printed by order of the Senate. In
1830, on a trial in Rhode Island, the same obligations were proved in open court,
and the trial was published at large in the newspapers. In 1831, on the trial
of H.C. Witherell, at New Berlin, in Chenango County, the same obligations were
proved by the oaths of three adhering Masons, among whom was General WeIch, the
sheriff of the county. In the year 1830, Avery Allyn, a regular Knight Templar,
published a book, called the 'Ritual of Freemasonry' in which the ceremonies of
initiation, the lectures, oaths and mummeries of thirty-one degrees are fully
exhibited. Thousands of Masons individually have, under their names in the
public papers, declared these publications of Bernard and Allyn to be strictly
accurate. These books may be found in our bookstores."
2. I next subjoin a tract, made up of "The
Petition to the Legislature of Connecticut," against extra-judicial oaths,
with an abstract of the evidence, and the report of the Committee to whom the
subject was referred. Published in 1834:
To the Honorable General Assembly of the State
of Connecticut, to be holden at Hartford, on the first Wednesday of May, A.D.
1833:
The Petitioners, inhabitants of said State,
respectfully request the attention of your Honorable body to the expediency of
some legal provision to prevent the administration of oaths in all cases not
authorized by law. It may justly be required of the Petitioners, before a
compliance can be expected with this request, that a case should be made out
requiring such Legislative provision; and your Petitioners confidently trust
that satisfactory grounds for this application will be found to exist in the
oaths which are administered in Masonic Lodges.
The disclosures which have been recently made
by the seceding Masons of the secret proceedings of those Lodges fully prove
that the Institution of Freemasonry consists of numerous degrees which may be
increased to an unlimited extent, and that an oath of an extraordinary
character is administered at the entrance of every degree. Your Petitioners
would not trespass upon the principles of decorum by an unnecessary recital of
all these horrid imprecations, but justice to the cause they have espoused
compels them to exhibit the following specimens, which are selected from the
oaths administered in the different degrees: The Entered Apprentice Mason
swears, "I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any part or
parts, art or arts, point or points of the secrets, arts, and mysteries of
Ancient Freemasonry which I have received, am about to receive, or may
hereafter be instructed in;" "without the least equivocation, mental
reservation, or self evasion of mind in me whatever, binding myself under no
less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the
roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea." The Master Mason
swears, "I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens, given,
handed, sent, or thrown to me from the hand of a brother Master Mason;"
"a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing
them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his
own, when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my
own election." The Royal Arch Mason swears, "I will aid and assist a
companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty; and espouse his
cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be
right or wrong." "A Companion Royal Arch Mason's secrets, given me in
charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and
inviolable in my breast as in his own, without exception." The following
obligations are contained in the oath of the Holy Thrice Illustrious order of
the Cross, Knights, or Kadosh, etc.: "I swear to put confidence unlimited
in every illustrious brother of the Cross as a true and worthy follower of the
blessed Jesus;" "I swear to look on his enemies as my enemies, his
friends as my friends, and to stand forth to mete out tender kindness or
vengeance accordingly." "I solemnly swear, in the presence of
Almighty God, that I will revenge the assassination of our worthy Master Hiram
Abiff, not only on his murderers, but also on all who may betray the secrets of
this degree." "I swear to take revenge on the traitors of
Masonry."
It can not be necessary for your Petitioners to
enter upon a formal argument in order to satisfy this enlightened Assembly that
oaths like the foregoing ought not to be administered. The guarded and
redundant language in which they are expressed, and the barbarous and abhorrent
penalties annexed to them, were evidently designed to impose upon the mind of
the candidate the necessity of entire and universal obedience to their
requirements. They purport to be the injunctions of supreme power, and claim
supremacy over every obligation, human or divine. In this light they were
regarded and acted upon by Masons of high standing and character who were
concerned in the late Masonic murder committed in the State of New York, or
connected with the trials which sprang from it, and in this construction these
Masons were justified and upheld by the Grand Chapter and Grand Lodge of that
State. Such obligations are obviously inconsistent with our allegiance to the
States and the obedience which is required by our Maker, and with those
fundamental principles which constitute the basis and the cement of civil and
of religious communities. The Masonic oaths lead directly to the sacrifice of
duties and the commission of crimes; they cherish a feeling of selfishness and
of savage revenge, instead of the spirit of the Gospel, and are the ground-work
of an insidious attempt to effect the entire overthrow of our holy religion.
It is for these reasons that your Petitioners
respectfully request your Honors, by a suitable legal provision, to prohibit
the administration of oaths not authorized by law; and they, as in duty bound,
will ever pray.
The foregoing was the petition of about
fourteen hundred citizens of the State of Connecticut, and was presented to the
Legislature at their session in May, 1833. By the House of Representatives it
was referred to a select committee, who, having given notice of the time and
place of their meeting, entered into an investigation of the subject. The
sittings of the committee were open to the public, and every person who wished
to hear the proceedings could attend, if he chose. Three witnesses were presented
by the Petitioners, viz.: Mr. Hanks, of New York, and Messrs. Welch and Hatch,
of this State, by whom they expected to substantiate the facts as set forth in
the petition. In giving his testimony, Mr. Hanks read the several oaths, etc.,
as published in Allyn's Ritual, beginning with that of the Entered Apprentice,
and pointing out, as he proceeded, any discrepancies or variations which he had
practiced or known. He had taken, administered, or seen administered, the
oaths, etc., in four different States of the Union viz.: New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio--had taken, himself, many degrees, and
testified from personal knowledge. The testimony of Mr. Hanks was full,
explicit, and particular of the first seven degrees of Masonry, and his
statements were supported by those of Messrs. Welch and Hatch, as far as their
experience extended.
Among the facts proved by the testimony were
the following, viz.: that Freemasonry, with its oaths and penalties, is
substantially the same everywhere--that the variations are slight, and, in most
instances, merely verbal, and such as have resulted from unwritten or
traditionary communication--that the oaths and penalties of the first seven
degrees are revealed to the world and correctly published by Mr. Allyn in his
Ritual, and by others--that they are so administered in the lodges, and are to
be understood according to the plain, literal import of the terms in which they
are expressed, and as they have been explained by seceding Masons
generally--that the declaration of the Massachusetts and Connecticut adhering
Masons can not be made, or signed understandingly, in consistence with
truth--that in the Royal Arch oath the terms "murder and treason not
excepted" are sometimes used; sometimes the expression "in all cases
whatsoever," or "in all cases without exception." Some other
verbal alterations were noticed, which need not be detailed here. It appeared,
also, from the statements of the witnesses, that the proportion of funds
disposed of for charitable purposes is extremely small, while the lodges are
scenes of extravagant mirth and bacchanalian revelry, and the admission,
passing, and raising of candidates occasions of much indecent sport and
ridiculous merriment, accompanied with mock murders, feigned discoveries, and
profane and blasphemous ceremonies and representations.
From the evidence before them the committee
came to the conclusions expressed in the following
REPORT.
To the Honorable General Assembly of the State
of Connecticut now in Session:
The committee to whom was referred the petition
of Gaius Lyman and others beg leave respectfully to report that we have had the
same under consideration, and inquired, by legal evidence, into the truth of
the matters therein set forth, and are of the opinion that the same have been
substantially proved, and are true. The committee, at the commencement of the
investigation, adopted the rule, and made known the same to the petitioners,
that we should attend to no evidence except such as, in our opinion, would be
admissible in a court of law. The petitioners accordingly summoned before us
sundry witnesses who, for aught we knew or could discover to the contrary, were
men of respectability and intelligence, and upon their testimony, and upon that
alone, have we come to our present result. It was proved by these witnesses
that oaths similar in character (and some of them identical in phraseology) to
those set forth in the petition had been, in their presence and within their
hearing, repeatedly administered in this State. The committee believe the
administration of such oaths to be highly improper, and that the same should be
prohibited by legal enactment. Our reasons for this opinion are:
1. Because they are unauthorized by law.
2. Because they bind the person to whom they
are administered to disregard and violate the law.
3. Because they are, in their natural tendency,
subversive of public morals and blasphemous.
4. Because the penalties attached to the breach
of them are such as are entirely unknown to our law, and are forbidden both by
the Constitution of the United States and by the Constitution of this State.
First, then, these oaths are not authorized by
law. In our code of statute law we have an act which points out the cases in
which oaths shall or may be administered, and prescribes their several forms.
In this act we find no such oaths. Indeed, we find, upon examination of this
code, that although extrajudicial oaths are nowhere expressly prohibited, their
unlawfulness is throughout clearly implied. And the implication is no less
clear, that no persons, except those expressly authorized by law, may
rightfully administer oaths. The committee would barely refer to a number of
those acts in which particular persons are, on particular occasions and for
particular purposes, authorized to administer oaths. In the act relative to
insolvency, the commissioners are expressly authorized to administer an oath to
the insolvent debtor. In the act relative to surveyors, the surveyors are
authorized to administer an oath to the chairmen. In the act relating to oaths,
passed in 1822, Clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the
Chairmen of Committees are, during the session of the Legislature, authorized
to administer oaths. There are other acts of the same nature, to which it can not
be necessary particularly to refer. The inference, as we think, plainly
deducible from these acts, is, that all persons have not the right to
administer oaths; and that those oaths only which the law prescribes may be
lawfully administered. And we need only ask this Honorable Body whether the
public sense of propriety would not be shocked at witnessing, in open daylight,
the administration of an oath by a person not by law authorized, and in a case
not by law provided for. For instance, suppose a clergy man, upon the admission
of a member into his church, should require him to kneel down, place his hand
upon the Bible, and then solemnly swear that he would observe all the rules and
regulations of that church, upon no less penalty than to have his throat cut
across, his tongue torn out by the roots, and his body buried in the rough
sands of the sea; would not an involuntary shudder pervade the whole community
at such a horrid exhibition; and would not our first impression be that this
clergyman had violated the law, and that he ought forthwith to be prosecuted?
And yet we may search our statute book in vain for any penal enactment that
would reach this case. Again, suppose that any one of the charitable and
benevolent societies of the present day should, on the admission of a member,
compel him to swear by the ever-living God that he would obey all the laws of
the society "upon no less penalty than to have his left breast torn open,
his heart and vitals taken therefrom, thrown over his left shoulder, and carried
into the valley of Jehoshaphat, there to become a prey to the wild beasts of
the field and the vultures of the air." And, moreover, suppose this oath
to be administered by some one not by law authorized to administer any oath. We
need scarcely ask whether an insulted community would not, under a sense that
their laws had been wantonly trampled upon, call aloud, and with earnestness,
upon the ministers of justice to punish such awful and disgusting profanity.
And yet the ministers of justice could afford them no aid, inasmuch as the law
has not, on this subject, clothed them with any authority.
Secondly. We object to the administration of
oaths like those set forth in the petition, because they bind the person
receiving them to disregard and violate the law. In one of the oaths, for
instance, the person receiving it swears that he will assist a companion of a
certain degree, so far as to extricate him from difficulty, whether he be right
or wrong. He also swears that he will keep the secrets of a companion of a
certain degree without exception, or as the witnesses testified they had heard
it administered, "murder and treason not excepted." Now, the
committee believe it to be morally wrong, as well as inconsistent with our
allegiance to the government under which we live, and a direct violation of the
law, to keep secret the commission of any great and flagrant offense against
the government. He who conceals treason is himself guilty of misprision of
treason. He who conceals murder is himself (in some cases at least) a murderer.
Thirdly. We consider the administration of
extra-judicial oaths, especially such as are set forth in said petition,
improper, because in their tendency they are opposed to sound morals and are
blasphemous. The obligation to assist another so far as to extricate him from
difficulty, whether he be right or wrong and to conceal another's secrets, even
though those secrets should involve the highest and most enormous crimes, is
most assuredly opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, and to the pure system of
morality therein inculcated. And to call upon the great and awful name of
Jehovah to give sanction to such obligations is, in our opinion, the height of
blasphemy.
Fourthly. We believe such oaths to be improper,
because the penalties attached to them are such as are unknown to our law, and
are opposed both to the Constitution of the United States and to the
Constitution of this State. If the breach of those oaths constitute the crime
of perjury, then, in our opinion, such breach should be punished as perjury in
other cases is punished. By our law every person who shall commit perjury, and
shall be thereof duly convicted, shall suffer imprisonment in the Connecticut
State Prison not less than two nor more than five years; and this is the extent
of the pains and penalties which the humanity of our law will suffer to be
inflicted upon him. But to the violation of the oaths above referred to is
annexed a great variety of most cruel and inhuman punishments, such as are not
known in the criminal codes of any civilized nation on the earth. Among them
are the tearing out of the tongue, or splitting it from tip to roots--the
cutting of the throat across from ear to ear--the tearing out of the heart and
vitals, and exposing them to be destroyed by wild beasts and birds of prey,
etc. These penalties we believe to be forbidden by the tenth article of the
amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the
infliction of all cruel and unusual punishments; and by the tenth section of
the first article of the Constitution of this State, which declares that
"No person shall be arrested, detained, or punished, except in cases
clearly warranted by law." For these and for various other reasons which
must be obvious to the good sense of this Honorable Body, we are of the opinion
that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted, and we would, therefore,
recommend the passage of the accompanying Bill for a public Act. All of which
is respectfully submitted. Signed per order,
THOMAS BACKUS, Chairman.
3. I introduce the published renunciation of
Freemasonry by Jarvis F. Hanks, of New York, 1829, and of Calvin Hatch,
published 1831. Also, the published renunciation of Henry Fish, Edwin Chapman,
and Bliss Welch, 1830. These are found on the cover of the tract, and are only
specimens of a multitude of similar renunciations published in various books
and journals.
RENUNCIATION.
"To the Editor of the Anti-Masonic Beacon:
"Sir: The time has come when I feel
constrained, from a sense of duty to God, my neighbor, and myself, to make void
my allegiance to the Masonic Institution. In thus taking leave of Freemasonry,
I am not sensible of the least hostility to Masons; but act under a solemn
conviction that Masonry is a wicked imposture, a refuge of lies, a substitute
for the Gospel of Christ; that it is contrary to the laws of God and our
country, and superior to either, in the estimation of its disciples; and
lastly, that it is the most powerful and successful engine ever employed by the
devil to destroy the souls of men.
"I was initiated into Masonry in 1821, and
have taken eighteen degrees. My motives were curiosity and the expectation of
personal advantage, while, at the same time, I was dishonest enough to profess
that disinterested benevolence to my fellow-men was my object. I have been
intrusted with the highest offices in the gift of a Lodge and Chapter, viz.:
Worshipful Master and Most Excellent High Priest, which I acknowledge, at that
time, I considered very flattering distinctions. I approved of the abduction of
William Morgan as a just act of Masonry, and had I been called upon to assist,
should, under the opinions I then held, have felt bound to attend the summons
and obey it. I remained in favor of the Institution several months after the
abduction of Morgan.
"I was convinced of the evil and folly of
Masonry from an inquiry instituted in my own mind, which I was determined
should be conducted privately, candidly, impartially, and, if possible, without
prejudice. Under the scrutiny of the investigation I brought the Law of God
contained in the Old and New Testaments, the laws of our country, the Masonic
oaths (so many as I have taken) Masonic professions, and Masonic practice. I
then resolved not to be influenced by the fear or favor of man, who can only
'kill the body, and after that has no more that he can do, but by the fear of
God, 'who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell.' (Luke iix.4,5.)
I feel assured that any Mason, or any man, taking the same course, must arrive
at the same conclusion. Yours, JARVIS F. HANKS.
"NEW YORK, February 13, 1829."
CALVIN HATCH'S RENUNCIATION OF FREEMASONRY.
"To the Church of Christ in Farmington:
"BRETHREN: Impressed with a sense of duty,
I would solicit your attention, while I make the following statement of facts:
Soon after I arrived at the age of twenty-one years I was induced (principally
from curiosity) to become a Freemason; and before I was twenty-two, I advanced
to the third, and soon after to the fourth degree of the then hidden mysteries
of that Institution, and remained a tolerably regular attendant upon its stated
meetings, until February, 1819; since which I have never attended any of its
meetings, though often requested.
"Hoodwinked to the principles of the
Institution, I felt that, as a professed follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, it
was not profitable to spend my time in the lodge-room.
"Another fact I wish to notice: that for
three years I was accustomed to hear prayers offered at the lodge by a man who
was considered an infidel; which, to my mind, was utterly revolting.
"Within about a year my attention has been
particularly called to this subject. At first, I felt that the Institution
could not be bad, except by being in the hands of bad men. I satisfied myself that
my withdrawment from the lodge, while Masonry was in good repute, spoke a
language which could not be misunderstood; and still, I confess I felt some
veneration for the institution, on account of its beneficence in relieving its
afflicted members.
"Early last spring I became satisfied that
one of our citizens had fallen a sacrifice to Masonic vengeance; yet, whether
the institution could be charged with it, was with me a question. I found that
it was thus charged by those opposed to the institution, and I hastily and
rashly resolved to read no more upon the subject, because I considered the
charge unjust. In the course of the last summer I had many misgivings for this
decision, which closed every avenue to information. Knowing that many of my
Christian brethren were grieved that any professor of the religion of Christ
should remain even a nominal member of a society, the principles of which they
believed were anti-christian, and opposed to the best interests of our country.
"Feeling that some deference was due to
their judgment, I, early in the fall, with prayerfulness, divesting myself of
all prejudice, took up the subject for investigating the principles, and sought
information through the press, and soon became satisfied that I had a duty to
perform which I had long neglected; and in December last, without consulting
anyone, came to the conclusion that nothing short of absolving myself from all
connection with the Masonic Fraternity, and from all its obligations, would be
answerable to my duty as a citizen and a member of the church of Christ. Since
that time I have read the proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic
Convention, disclosing facts before unknown to me, and am of the opinion that
it is the bounden duty of every professor of religion who feels bound in the
least by Masonic obligations to read the doings of that convention, with
prayerfuless and without prejudice, before he decides upon the path of duty.
"I feel that some acknowledgments are due
from me to those brethren who have been grieved by my dilatoriness upon a
subject so plain and a duty so clear. And if I have thus offended any of my
brethren, I pray them to forgive; and however great my sin has been, I trust I
have forgiveness of my God.
"I can not dismiss the subject without
beseeching my Christian brethren who remain as I have done, to examine and
decide, as in the presence of God, without delay; for what we do must be done
quickly. CALVIN HATCH.
"FARMINGTON, February 3, 1831."
COPY OF MY RENUNCIATION SENT BY MAIL TO NEW
MILFORD, FEBRUARY 3, 1831.
"To the Officers of St. Peter's Lodge, New
Milford, State of Connecticut:
"GENTLEMEN: For more than twenty years I
have been a member of your lodge; and now, from a conviction that it is my duty
as a citizen and a professed follower of our blessed Savior no longer to
remain, even as I have been for the last twelve years, a nominal member of a
society whose principles are opposed to the best interests of our country, and
whose rites are, many of them, not only immoral, but a profanation of
Scripture, and, consequently, opposed to the religion of the Gospel, I do,
therefore, absolve myself from all its obligations whatever. CALVIN HATCH.
"FARMINGTON, December 25, 1830."
RENUNCIATION.
"Having been initiated some years since in
the mysteries of Freemasonry, but without finding any of those advantages which
were so bountifully promised by the Fraternity, and now being fully convinced
that the Institution is corrupt to the very core, and used to promote ends
tending to subvert our free institutions, we deem it our duty publicly to
renounce all obligations to the 'Craft,' believing ourselves to be freed from
its oaths, inasmuch as no man can bind himself to do anything contrary to the
allegiance he owes to his country, or the duties he owes to his Maker.
"HENRY FISH, Salisbury, Master Mason.
"EDWIN CHAPMAN, Windsor, M. Mason. "BLISS WELCH, Chatham, Royal Arch.
"Dated at HARTFORD, Feb. 4 1830."
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
V
EXAMINATION
OF THE BOOKS REVEALING FREEMASONRY
HAVING established the fact that Bernard in his
"light on Masonry," William Morgan, Allyn, Richardson, and others,
all of whom substantially agree, have truly revealed Freemasonry as it was at
that time, I will now enter upon an examination of some of these books,
assuming as I must, or abandon all idea that any thing can ever be proved by
human testimony, that they contain a veritable revelation of Freemasonry.
After I have examined these books, and learned
and shown what Freemasonry was at their date, I shall consider the question of
its having undergone any material change since that date, and also whether it
can be so changed as to be an innocent institution and still retain the
distinguishing characteristics of Freemasonry.
That I may do no injustice to any one, I shall
not hold Masons responsible for oaths and degrees which are above and beyond
them and which they have not taken and of which they have no knowledge. The
question of their moral and responsible relation to the institution, as a
whole, will receive notice in another place. At present I shall hold Masons
responsible for those oaths, principles, teachings and degrees of which they
have knowledge.
In these numbers I need only to notice a few
points in the oaths of Masons, and I recommend all persons to obtain the books
in which their oaths, ceremonies, and secrets are fully revealed. The first of
their oaths is that of an Entered Apprentice. These oaths are administered in
the following manner: The candidate stands on his knees, with his hands on the
Holy Bible. The Worshipful Master pronounces the oath in short sentences, and
the candidate repeats after him. The oath of the Entered Apprentice is as
follows: "I, A.B., of my own free will and accord, in presence of Almighty
God and this worshipful lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, dedicated to God and
held forth to the holy order of St. John, do hereby and hereon most sincerely
promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any
part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secrets, arts, and mysteries
of ancient Freemasonry, which I have received, am about to receive, or may
hereafter be instructed in, to any person or persons in the known world, except
it be a true and lawful brother Mason, or within the body of a just and
lawfully constituted lodge of such; and not unto him or unto them whom I shall
hear so to be, but unto him and them only whom I shall find so to be after
strict trial and due examination, or lawful information.
"Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that
I will not write, print, stamp, stain, hew, cut, carve, indent, paint, or
engrave it on anything movable or immovable under the whole canopy of Heaven,
whereby or whereon the least letter, figure, character, mark, stain, shadow, or
resemblance may become legible or intelligible to myself or to any other person
in the known world, whereby the secrets of Masonry may be unlawfully obtained
through my unworthiness. To all of which I do most solemnly and sincerely
promise and swear, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or
self-evasion of mind in me whatever; binding myself under no less penalty than
to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body
buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and
flows twice in twenty-four hours. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the
due performance of the same."--Light on Masonry, 8th edition, page 27.
Upon this oath I remark:
1. That the administration and taking of it are
in direct violation of both the law and gospel of God. Jesus prohibits the
taking of oaths. Mat. V. 34. "But I say unto you swear not at all."
It is generally conceded that He intended only to forbid the taking of extra
judicial oaths. That He did formally and positively forbid the taking, and of
course the administering, of all oaths not regularly administered for judicial
and governmental purposes, is, I believe, universally admitted. Here then we
find that in the first step in Freemasonry the express command of Christ is set
at nought.
2. The administration and taking of this oath
is a taking of the name of God in vain and is therefore an awful profanity.
Exod. xx: 7: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain:
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Professing Christian Freemasons, do you hear and remember this, and are you
aware that in taking or administering this oath you take the name of God in
vain and that He will not hoId you guiltless? Do you also remember that whenever
you are present aiding, abetting, and consenting to the administering, and
taking of this or any other Masonic oath you are guilty of violating the
express command of Christ above quoted, and also the express prohibition of the
lawgiver at Sinai? And yet you can see nothing unchristian in Freemasonry.
3. This oath pledges the candidate to keep
whatever secrets they may communicate to him. But, for aught he knows, it may
be unlawful to keep them. This oath is a snare to his soul. It must be wicked
to thus commit himself on oath. The spirit of God's word forbids it.
4. The administrator of this oath had just
assured the candidate that there was nothing in it inconsistent with his duty
to God or to man. How is it, professed Christian, that you did not remember
that you had no right to take an oath at all under such circumstances and for
such reasons. Why did you not inquire of the Master by what authority he was
about to administer an oath, and by what authority he expected and required you
to take it? Why did you not ask him if God would hold him guiltless if he
administered an oath in His name, and you guiltless if you took the oath. And
when you have seen this or any other Masonic oath administered why have you not
rebuked the violation of God's law and left the lodge?
5. Why did the Master assure the candidate that
there was nothing in the oath contrary to his obligations to God or man, and
then instantly proceed to violate the laws of both God and man and to require
of the candidate the same violation of law, human and divine?
6. The penalty for violating this oath is
monstrous, barbarous, savage, and is utterly repugnant to all laws of morality,
religion or decency. Binding myself "under no less a penalty than to have
my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in
the sands of the sea at low-water mark, etc." Now, has any man a right to
incur such a penalty as this?
I say again" such a penalty is savage,
barbarous, unchristian, inhuman, abominable. It should be here remarked that in
this oath is really found the virus of all that follows in Freemasonry. The
candidate is sworn to keep secret everything that is to revealed to him in
Freemasonry of which as yet he knows absolutely nothing. This is frequently
repeated in the obligations that follow.
It will be observed that the candidate says,
"to all of which I do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without
the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self-evasion of mind in me,
whatever." Richardson, who published the Freemason's Monitor in 1860, on
the 4th page of his preface, says of Masonry: :The oaths and obligations were
then undoubtedly binding (that is when Freemasonry was first established), not
only for the protection of the members but for the preservation of the very
imperfect arts and sciences of that period. To suppose these oaths mean
anything now is simply absurd." What! How is this compatible with what is
said in this first oath of Masonry, and hence binding through every degree of
Masonry. "ALL THIS, I MOST SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY PROMISE AND SWEAR,
WITHOUT THE LEAST EQUIVOCATION, MENTAL RESERVATION, OR SELF-EVASION OF MIND IN
ME WHATEVER." And now we are told by one of the highest Masonic
authorities, that, to suppose that Masonic oaths mean anything in these days,
is simply absurd. THEN, SURELY THEY ARE BLASPHEMY.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
VI
MASTER'S
DEGREE
PASS over the second degree of Masonry, the
oath of which, in substance, is similar to that in the first, and in this
number will consider the oath, or obligation of a Master Mason. I do not notice
the ridiculous manner in which the candidate for the different degrees, is
dressed and conducted into the lodge. The scenes through which they pass, are
most humiliating and ridiculous, and cannot fail to be so regarded by all who
will read the books in which they are described. I quote from the eighth
edition of "Light on Masonry," by EIder David Bernard, published by
W.J. Shuey, Dayton, Ohio. The obligation of the Master's degree will be found
on the seventy-third and seventy-fourth pages of this work, and is as follows:
"I, A.B., of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God,
and this worshipful Lodge of Master Masons, erected to God, and dedicated to
the holy order of St. John, do hereby and hereon, most solemnly and sincerely
promise and swear, in addition to my former obligations, that I will not give
the degree of Master Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any one in
the known world, except it be to a true and lawful brother or brethren Master
Mason, or within the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such; and
not unto him nor unto them whom I shall hear so to be, but unto him and them
only whom I shall find so to be, after strict trial and due examination, or
lawful information received. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will
not give the Master's word which I shall hereafter receive neither in the lodge
nor out of it, except it be on the five points of fellowship, and then not
above my breath. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not give the
grand hailing sign of distress, except I am in real distress, or for the
benefit of the craft when at work; or should I ever see that sign given, or
hear the word accompanying it and the person who gave it, appearing to be in
distress, I will fly to his relief at the risk of my life, should there be a
greater probability of saving his life than of losing my own. Furthermore, do I
promise and swear, that I will not wrong this lodge, nor a brother of this
degree, to the value of one cent, knowingly, myself, nor suffer it to be done
by others, if in my power to prevent. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that
I will not be at the initiating, passing, and raising a candidate at one communication,
without a regular dispensation from the Grand Lodge for the same. Furthermore,
do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating, passing, or
raising a candidate in a clandestine lodge, I knowing it to be such.
Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating of an
old man in dotage, a young man in nonage, an atheist, irreligious libertine,
idiot, madman, hermaphrodite, nor woman. Furthermore, do I promise and swear,
that I will not speak evil of a brother Master Mason, neither behind his back,
nor before his face, but will apprise him of all approaching danger if in my
power. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not violate the
chastity of a Master Mason's wife, mother, sister, or daughter, I knowing them
to be such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent it.
Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will support the constitution of
the Grand Lodge of the State of -------- , under which this lodge is held, and
conform to all the by-laws, rules and regulations of this, or any other lodge,
of which I may at any time hereafter become a member. Furthermore, .do I
promise and swear, that I will obey all regular signs, summons, or tokens,
given, handed, sent, or thrown to me, from the hand of another brother Master
Mason, or from the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such,
provided it be within the length of my cable tow. Furthermore, do I promise and
swear, that a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I
knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as
in his own, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election.
Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will go on a Master Mason's errand
whenever required, even should I have to go barefoot and bareheaded, if within
the length of my cable tow. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will
always remember a brother Master Mason when on my knees, offering up my
devotions to Almighty God. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will be
aiding and assisting all poor, indigent Master Masons, their wives and orphans,
wheresoever disposed around the globe, as far as in my power without injuring
myself or family materially. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that if any
part of this solemn oath or obligation be omitted at this time that I will hold
myself amenable thereto, whenever informed. To all which I do most solemnly
promise and swear, with a fixed and steady purpose of mind in me, to keep and
perform the same, binding myself under no less penalty than to have my body
severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels
burnt to ashes in the center and the ashes scattered before the four winds of
heaven, that there might not the least track or trace of remembrance remain
among men and Masons of so vile and perjured a wretch as I should be, were I
ever to prove willfully guilty of violating any part of this my solemn oath or
obligation of a Master Mason. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due
performance of the same."
Upon this oath I remark:
1. The first sentence is both profane and
false. The Master instructs the kneeling candidate with his hand on God's Holy
Word to affirm, and the candidate does affirm that the lodge in which he is
kneeling is erected to God and dedicated to the holy order of St. John.
Remember this is said in and of every Master Masons' lodge. But is this true?
No, indeed, it is mere mockery. The words are a mere profane form. Does not
every Freemason know this?
2. This, and all the following oaths of
Masonry, are administered and taken as additions to all the previous oaths
which the candidate has taken. (See the oath.) All that is wicked and profane
in the former oaths is indorsed and reaffirmed in this and in every succeeding
oath. Thus Freemasons proceed to pile oath upon oath in a manner most shocking
and revolting. And is this a Christian institution? Is this obedience to Him
who has said "swear not at all?"
3. The grand hailing sign of distress mentioned
in this oath, consists in raising both hands to heaven in the attitude of
supplication. The words accompanying this sign are, "0 Lord, my God, is
there no help for the widow's son?" The candidate is told by the Master
that this attitude was taken and these words were used by Solomon when he was
informed of the murder of Hiram Abiff. Of this, "Light on Masonry"
will give the reader full information. This whole story of the murder of Hiram
Abiff is a profane falsehood, as I shall more fully show in another place.
Hiram Abiff was never murdered. Solomon never gave any such sign, or uttered
any such words. The whole story is false; both the grand hailing sign of
distress, and the accompanying words, are a profane mockery, and an insult to
God. But what is the thing promised in this part of a Master Mason's oath?
Observe, the candidate swears. 'should I ever see that sign given, or hear the
word accompanying it, and the person who gave it, appearing to be in distress,
I will fly to his relief at the risk of my life, should there be a greater
probability of saving his life than of losing my own" Observe, it matters
not what is the cause of the distress in which a Master Mason may be--if he has
committed a crime, and is likely to be arrested, or has been arrested; if he is
imprisoned, or likely to be imprisoned; if he is on trial in a court of justice
and likely to be convicted, and a Master Mason is on the bench as a judge, or
on the jury, or called as a witness; or is a Master Mason a sheriff and has the
prisoner in custody; or is he a constable, having charge of the jury to whom
the case is to be submitted; or is he a prosecuting attorney, appointed by the
government to prosecute him for his crime, and secure his conviction--in any of
these cases, the prisoner giving the grand hailing sign of distress, binds, by
a most solemn oath, the judge, jurymen, sheriff, constable, witness, attorney,
if a Master Mason, to seek to release him, at the hazard of his life. All who
are acquainted with the practical results of this section of the Master's oath,
as they appeared in the investigations connected with the murder of William
Morgan, are aware that Master Masons kept this oath inviolate, when efforts
were made to convict the kidnappers and murderers, insomuch that it was found
impossible to execute the laws. Cases are reported as having repeatedly
occurred in the administration of justice, where this hailing sign of distress
has prevailed to rescue the guilty from the hand of justice. In another part of
this oath, you will observe, the candidate swears, that he will apprise a
brother Master Mason of approaching danger, if within his power. This binds a
Master Mason to give a criminal notice, if he understands that he is about to
be arrested. If the sheriff has a writ for the arrest of a brother Master
Mason, this oath lays him under an obligation not to arrest him, but to give
him notice, that if he does not keep out of the way, he shall be obliged to
arrest him. If the magistrate who issued the writ is a Master Mason, his oath
obliges him to give the criminal Master Mason warning, so that he may evade the
execution of the writ. Reader, get and read the Pamphlet Published by Judge
Whitney, of Belvidere, Illinois. It can be had, I believe, at the bookstores in
this town. This pamphlet will give you an account of the trial of Judge
Whitney, who was Master of a lodge, before the Grand Lodge of Illinois. It will
show you how completely this oath may prevail to obstruct the whole course of
justice, and render the execution of the law impossible. If a Master Mason is
suspected of a crime, and his case comes before a justice of the peace who is a
Master Mason, or before a grand jury upon which there is a Master Mason, or
before a court or petit jury in which are Master Masons, if they keep inviolate
their oath, it is impossible to reach the execution of the law. Furthermore, if
there be Master Masons in the community, who hear of the guilt and danger of a
brother Master Mason, they are sworn to give him warning. It is no doubt for this
reason, that Masons try to secure amongst themselves all the Officers connected
with the administration of justice. At the time of the murder of Morgan, it was
found that to such an extent were these offices in the hands of Freemasons that
the courts were entirely impotent. I quote the following from "Stearns'
Letters on Freemasonry." page 127: "In speaking of the murder of
William Morgan, of the justice of it, and of the impossibility of punishing his
murderers, a justice of the peace in Middlebury, a sober, respectable man, and
a Mason, said, 'that a man had a right to pledge his life,' and then observed:
'What can you do? What can a rat do with a lion? Who are your judges? who are
your sheriffs? and who will be your jurymen?'" It is perfectly plain that
if Freemasons mean anything by this oath, as they have given frequent evidence
that they do, this obligation must be an effectual bar to the administration of
justice wherever Freemasons are numerous. No wonder, therefore, that dishonest
men among them are very anxious greatly to multiply their numbers. In the days
of William Morgan, they had so multiplied their numbers that it was found
impossible, and in these days Freemasons have become so numerous, that in many
places it will be found impossible to execute the criminal laws. Even in
commercial transactions where Freemasons are parties to a suit, it will be
found impossible to secure the ends of justice. Let not Freemasons complain of
this assertion
4. You will observe that in this oath the
candidate also swears, that "a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in
charge as such," * * "shall remain as secure and inviolate in my
breast as in his own, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election."
Now, this section of the oath is very broad and may be understood to cover
secrets of every description. But to put it beyond all doubt whether crimes are
to be kept secret, murder and treason are excepted, showing that the oath has
respect particularly to concealing the crimes of a Master Mason. He may commit
Theft, Robbery, Arson, Adultery, Rape, or any crime whatever, Murder and
Treason excepted, and however well the commission of these crimes may be known
to a Master Mason, if a Master Mason has committed them, he is under oath to
conceal them. Now, is this right? Is this consistent with duty, either to God
or man? Must not this often prove a fatal bar to the detection of crime, and
the administration of justice? Certainly it must, or Freemasons must very
frequently violate their solemn oath. If Freemasons deny this, in the denial
they maintain that Masons care nothing for their oaths. It is self-evident that
this Master's oath is either a conspiracy against the execution of law, or
Master Masons care nothing for the solemnity of an oath. Gentlemen, take which
horn of the dilemma you please! If these oaths are kept inviolate the course of
justice must be effectually obstructed. If they are not kept, Master Masons are
guilty of false swearing, and that continually. Which shall we believe to be
true? Do Master Masons continually treat this solemn oath with contempt, or, do
they respect their oaths, conceal the crimes of Master Masons, and fly to their
rescue if they are detected and likely to be punished? Let not Master Masons,
or any body else, exclaim: "Oh! these oaths are very innocent things!
Crimes will be detected, criminals will be punished, for Masons care nothing
for their oaths." Indeed! And does this excuse them? It is only by being
guilty of false swearing that they can fail to thoroughly obstruct the course
of justice. They are certainly under the most solemn oath to do that, in case
of crime committed by a Master Mason, which will effectually defeat the
execution of law. Let it be then particularly observed, that in every community
where there are Master Masons, they either compose a class of conspirators
against the administration of criminal law, and the execution of justice; or,
they are a class of false swearers who care nothing for the solemnity of an
oath. Let this not be regarded as a light thing. It is a most serious and
important matter, and that which I have stated is neither false nor
extravagant. It is a literal and solemn truth. Let it be well pondered. There
is the oath; read it for yourself; mark its different points and promises, and
you will see there is no escape from these conclusions.
5. The candidate in this oath swears, "I
will not wrong this lodge, nor a brother of this degree to the value of one
cent, knowingly myself, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to
prevent." Now observe, he makes this promise "under no less penalty,
than to have my body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and
south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the center, and scattered before the four
winds of heaven, that there might not the least track or trace of remembrance
remain among men or Masons of so vile or perjured a wretch as I should be, were
I ever to prove willfully guilty of violating any part of this my solemn oath
or obligation as Master Mason. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due
performance of the same." Now, observe, one part of this Master's
obligation is that which I have just quoted, that he will not wrong the lodge,
nor a brother of this degree to the value of one cent. For doing this, he
solemnly agrees to incur the awful penalty just above written. Is this just, as
between man and man? Has any man a right to take such an oath under such
penalties? Christian Freemason, can you see nothing wrong in this? Is not this
profane, abominable, monstrous?
6. Observe, upon the same penalty, the
candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not
be at the initiating, passing, and raising a candidate at one communication
without a regular dispensation from the Grand Lodge for the same."
Observe, then, to do this is so great a crime among Masons as to incur this
awful penalty. The candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and
swear, that I will not be at the initiating of an old man in his dotage, a
young man in his nonage, an atheist, irreligious libertine, idiot, madman,
hermaphrodite, nor woman." To do this, observe, is so great a crime among
Masons as to incur the awful penalty attached to this oath. And this is Masonic
benevolence! It professes to be a saving institution, and excludes the greater
part of mankind from its benefits! The candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do
I promise and swear, that I will not speak evil of a brother Master Mason,
neither behind his back, nor before His face." Now, observe again, to do
this is to incur this awful penalty, for this is one part of the oath. But who
does not know that Freemasons violate this part of the oath, as well as that
which relates to wronging each other, almost continually? The candidate
proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not violate the
chastity of a Master Mason's wife, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be
such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent." But
why not promise this in respect to all women? If this oath had included all
women., it would have the appearance of justice and benevolence, but as it is,
it is only an odious partiality, and does not imply even the semblance of
virtue. The candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that
I will support the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State of--------,
under which this lodge is held, and conform to all the by-laws, rules, and
regulations of this or any other lodge of which I may, at any time hereafter, become
a member? Observe that to violate this part of the obligation is to incur the
awful penalty attached to this oath. The candidate proceeds: "Furthermore
do I promise and swear, that I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or
tokens given, handed, sent, or thrown to me from the hand of a brother Master
Mason, or from the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such,
provided it be within the length of my cable tow." This, indeed, puts a
rope around the neck of every offending brother. He is under oath to answer any
sign or summons given him from a brother Master Mason, or from a lodge. If he
refuses or neglects to respond to the summons, he incurs the penalty, and is
liable to have it executed upon him. The cable tow is literally a rope of several
yards in length, but in a Master's Iodge is understood to represent three
miles. In the degrees of Knighthood the distance is reckoned to be forty miles.
This is fearful, and the responding to such summonses has, doubtless, cost many
a man his life, by placing him in the hands of an exasperated lodge. The
candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will go on
a Master Mason's errand, whenever required, even should I have to go barefoot
and bareheaded, if within the length of my cable tow." Now, failure to do
this incurs the awful penalty of this obligation. A Master Mason's errand! What
errand? From the words it would seem any errand, however trivial it may be;
every errand, however frequently, a Master Mason might wish to send another on
an errand. If it does not mean this, what does it mean? But whatever it means a
failure incurs the whole penalty. The candidate proceeds: "Furthermore do
I promise and swear, that I will always remember a brother Master Mason when on
my knees offering up my devotions to Almighty God." But do Masons do this?
In secret, family, public, social prayer, do they do this? Professed Christian
Mason, do you do it? If not, you are guilty of false swearing every time you
omit it. What! on your knees offering up your devotions to Almighty God, and
guilty, at that very moment, of violating a solemn oath, by neglecting to pray
for Master Masons! Remember, to fail in this respect incurs the awful penalty
attached to this obligation. Now comes that part of the obligation upon which
they lay so much stress as proving Masonry to be a benevolent institution:
"Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will be aiding and assisting
all poor, indigent Master Masons, their wives and orphans, wherever disposed
round the globe, as far as in my power, without injuring myself or family
materially." In another place I shall show that there is no benevolence
whatever in doing this, as every candidate pays into the public treasury money
to compose a fund for the supply of the wants of the families of indigent
Freemasons, simply upon the principle of a mutual insurance company. At present
I simply remark that a failure to do this incurs the whole terrible penalty of
this obligation. The candidate concludes his promises by saying: "Furthermore
do I promise and swear, that if any part of this solemn oath and obligation be
omitted at this time, I will hold myself amenable thereto, whenever
informed."
Some months since I received a letter from a
Master Mason who was manifestly a conscientious man. He informed me that he had
been reading my letters in the Independent, on Freemasonry--that his mind was
so distressed, in view of his Masonic obligations and relations, that he was
wholly unable to attend to business, and that he should become deranged, if he
could not escape from these entanglements----that he must and would renounce
Freemasonry at all hazards. When he took the oath of the Master's degree the
clause pledging him to keep a Master Mason's secrets, murder and treason
excepted, was omitted, so that he was not aware of that clause until afterward.
This clause, however, that I last quoted, bound him fast. No wonder that this
conscientious man was frightened when he came to understand his true position.
In administering this long oath to any conscientious man, any part of it that
would shock a tender conscience may be omitted, and yet the candidate is
pledged to hold himself amenable to that part or those parts, that have been
omitted, whenever informed of the same. This is a trap and a snare into which
many a tender conscience has been betrayed. And is this an oath which a
Christian man may take, or any other man, without sin? Can any man administer
this oath, or take it, or be voluntarily present, aiding and abetting, and be
guiltless of awful profanity and blasphemy? I have dwelt the longer upon this
oath, because probably two-thirds of the Masons in the United States have gone
no further than this degree. Now, is it not perfectly plain that a man who has
taken this oath ought not to be intrusted with the office of a magistrate, a
sheriff, marshal or constable? That he is not to be credited as a witness where
a Master Mason is a party? That he ought not to be allowed a place on a jury
where a Master Mason is a party? And, in short, that he can not safely be
intrusted with any office of honor or profit, either in Church or State? Is it
not plain that a Master's Lodge, in any community, is a dangerous institution,
and that the whole country is interested in the utter suppression of such an institution?
Let not this opinion be regarded as too severe.
The fact is that Freemasons intend to fulfill their vows, or they do not. If
Master Masons intend to do what they swear to do, is it right to intrust them
with the execution of the laws? If they do not intend to fulfill their vows, of
what avail will their oath of office be, since they have no regard for the
solemnity of an oath? In every view of the subject it is plain that such men
ought not to be trusted. Take either horn of the dilemma, it amounts to the
same thing. I shall have more to say on this subject hereafter.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER VII
ROYAL ARCH DEGREE
The fourth degree of Masonry is that of
"Mark Master." The fifth is that of "Past Master." The
sixth is that of "Most Excellent Master." In these the same points,
in substance, are sworn to as in the Master's degree. In each succeeding oath
the candidate recognizes and reaffirms all of his past obligations. In nearly
every obligation the candidates swear implicit allegiance to the Grand Lodge of
the United States and to the Grand Lodge of the State under which his lodge
holds its charter. The candidate swears, also, that he will never be present at
the raising of any person to a higher degree who has not regularly taken each
and all of the previous or lower degrees. In the first degree secresy alone is
enjoined. After this, additionaI clauses are introduced at every step, until
the oaths of some of the higher degrees spread over several pages. They nearly
all pledge pecuniary help to poor, indigent, worthy Masons, and their families,
as far as they can without material injury to themselves and families. They
never promise to deny themselves or families any comfort or luxury for the
purpose of helping indigent worthy sons or their families. They never promise
in their oaths to give pecuniary aid to any but Masons and their families.
These families, by their head, have paid into the Masonic fund the amount that
entitles them to aid, in case of pecuniary want, on the principle of mutual
insurance against want.
All Masons above the third, or Master's degree,
are sworn to keep inviolate the secrets of a brother, murder and treason
excepted, up to the seventh, or Royal Arch degree. In the oath of this degree
the candidate, as we shall see, swears to keep all the secrets of companion of
this degree, murder and treason not excepted. All Masons of and above this
degree are solemnly bound to do this. The same is true of all the points sworn
to in this obligation which we proceed to examine.
In reviewing this and the degrees above it, I
shall not need to give them in full, as they are substantially and almost
verbatim alike, except as new points are added as the candidate goes on from
one degree to another. The Royal Arch degree is taken in a lodge called a
chapter. A Mason of this degree is called a companion, while in the lower
degrees Masons address each other as brothers. After swearing to the same
points contained in previously taken oaths, the kneeling candidate, with hands
on the Holy Bible, proceeds: "I furthermore promise and swear, that I will
aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty, and
espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if within my power,
whether he be right or wrong.
Here, then we have a class of men sworn, under
most frightful penalties, to espouse the cause of a companion so far as to
extricate him from any difficulty, to the extent of their power, whether he is
right or wrong. How can such a man be safely intrusted with any office
connected with the administration of the law? He means to abide by and perform
this solemn oath, or he does not. It he does, will he not inevitably defeat the
due execution of law, if intrusted with office connected with it? Suppose he is
a magistrate, a sheriff, marshal, or constable, will he not be able to prevent
the execution of justice, if he does all within his power, as he is solemnly
sworn to do? If on a jury, if sworn as a witness, how can he be trusted, if he
fulfills his Masonic vows?
But suppose he does not intend to abide by and
fulfill his vows, but still adheres and does not renounce them; suppose he
still recognizes their obligation, but fails to fulfill them, is he a man to be
trusted with an office? If he does not respect and fulfill his Masonic oaths,
the validity of which he acknowledges by continued adherence, of what avail
will be his oath of office? Of what use will it be for him to swear that he
will faithfully execute the laws, if he has taken the oath of this degree, and
either fulfills or fails to fulfill it? If he fulfills it, he surely will not
execute the law upon a companion Royal Arch Mason. If he still adheres to, but
fails to fulfill his oath, he does not respect the solemnity of an oath, and
ought not to be intrusted with an office. If he publicly, sincerely, and
penitently renounces his Masonic oath as unlawful, profane, and not binding, he
may be trusted with office, but while he adheres he must violate either his
oath of office, or his Masonic oath, whenever the accused is a Royal Arch
Mason, and, indeed, whenever such an one is involved in any legal difficulty.
I beseech the public not to think this severe.
There is, in fact, no third way. Take either horn of the dilemma and it amounts
to the same thing. To treat this lightly, as some are disposed to do, or to get
over it under cover of the plea of charity, is worse than nonsense; it is
wicked to ignore the truth, and proceed as if there were no great wrong in this
case. There is great wrong, great sin, and great danger in this case--danger to
both Church and State, danger to the souls of men thus situated. I beseech this
class of men to consider this matter, and renounce this position. If they will
not, I see neither justice nor safety in allowing such men to hold an office in
Church or State.
But what is the moral character of a man who
espouses the cause, and does all he can to rescue a criminal from the hands of
justice
I answer, he is a partaker of his guilt. He is
truly an accessory after the fact. This oath does not contemplate the
professional services of an advocate employed to defend an accused person in a
court of justice. But even in this case an advocate has no right to defeat the
due administration of justice, and turn the criminal loose to prey upon
society. When he does this he sins both against God and society. It is his
business to see that no injustice is done the accused; to secure for him a fair
and impartial trial, but not to rescue him, if guilty. An advocate who would
"espouse the cause" of a criminal "so far as to extricate him
from his difficulty, whether right or wrong," would deserve the execration
of both God and man.
The candidate in this degree proceeds, as
follows: "Also, that I will promote a companion Royal Arch Mason's political
preferment in preference to another of equal qualifications." Bernard, who
has taken this and many other Masonic oaths, says, in his "Light on
Masonry," in a foot-note, that this clause of the oath is, in some
chapters, made a distinct point in the obligation, thus: "I furthermore
promise and swear, that I will vote for a companion Royal Arch Mason before any
other of equal qualifications," and in some chapters both are left out of
the obligation. Upon this clause I remark:
1. Freemasons deny that Freemasonry has
anything to do with any man's political opinions, or actions, provided he be
not the enemy of his country. From this obligation, or oath, he can judge of
the truth or falsehood of this profession. Again, who does not know that
thousands of the Southern rebels were and are accepted Freemasons. How does
this fact comport with the pretense that a Freemason must be loyal to the
government under which he lives. In the higher degrees they swear to be loyal
and true to their government, but are the Southern Masons so?
2. We see why such efforts are made to increase
the number of Royal Arch Masons, and the reasons held out to induce political
aspirants to become Royal Arch Masons. It is said, I suppose truly, that Royal
Arch Masons are multiplying by scores of thousands in this country. It is,
beyond doubt, the design of their leaders to control the elections and secure
the offices throughout the country. From letters received from reliable parties
I learn that in some localities Masons avow this design. But whether they avow
or deny it, this oath unmistakably reveals their design. Why is this clause
found in this oath? It is presumption and foolhardiness to ignore this plain
revelation of their design to control the government, secure the offices, and
have everything their own way. If the public can not be aroused to look this
conspiracy in the face, and rise up and put it down in time, they will surely
find, too late, that their hands are tied, and that virtual slavery or a bloody
revolution awaits us. Our children and grandchildren will reap the bitter
fruits of our own folly and credulity. What do Freemasons mean by this oath?
They either intend to keep it, or not to keep it. If they mean to do as they
have promised under the most solemn oath to do, then Freemasonry, at least
Freemasonry of this and all the higher degrees, is a political conspiracy to
secure the offices and the control of the government. I say Freemasonry of this
and of all the higher degrees, for be it remembered that all Masons of and
above this degree have taken the oath of this degree. I quote the following
from an able editorial in the Albany Evening Journal Extra, October 27, 1831:
"An addition was made to the Master's oath, in the northern part of this
State, a few years since, by Gov. Pitcher, who introduced it from Vermont.
It was to the effect that, in voting for
officers, preference should be given to a Mason over another candidate of equal
qualifications. Very respectable testimony of the fact was published very
generally in the newspapers, about two years since, and has never, to the
knowledge of the writer, been contradicted or questioned. It is admitted that
this obligation, in terms, has not generally been administered (that is, in a
Master's Lodge), but it is insisted that if the principle be once admitted that
men in our country may band together in secret conclave, for any purpose not
known to the laws, and may bind themselves under obligations involving the
penalty of death for their transgressions, they may as well pledge themselves
to any new object, or purpose, as to those for which they have already
associated. There is no limit to the extent of such associations, if they are
allowed at all. The principle itself is radically wrong. But independent of any
positive obligation, the very creation of such artificial ties of brotherhood,
the strength which they acquire by frequent repetition and by the associations
of the fraternity, necessarily produce a clannish attachment which will
ordinarily exhibit itself in the most important concerns of life in bestowing
business and patronage on a brother, and in elevating him to office and rank
which will reflect back honor upon the order to which he belongs. The
inevitable result, therefore, of such institutions is to give one class of
citizens unequal and unjust advantages over those who are not of the favored
order. And when we find this natural result hastened and strengthened by
obligations, under the most awful penalties, to fly to the relief of a brother,
to espouse his cause, whether right or wrong, and to conceal his crimes, have
not the rest of the community a right to say to these exclusives, these
privileged orders, "we will not submit to your usurpations, and until you
restore your fellowcitizens to equal rights and privileges with you, we will
not give you our votes or trust you with public office." To these remarks
I fully subscribe. But I return to another clause of this oath. The candidate
proceeds: "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a companion Royal Arch
Mason's secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such,
shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, murder and
treason not excepted." Bernard says, in a foot-note, "In some
chapters this is administered, 'All the secrets of a companion, without
exception.'" Upon this clause I remark:
1. That Freemasonry waxes worse and worse as
you ascend from the lower to the higher degrees. It will be remembered that in
the Master's oath murder and treason were excepted in the oath of secresy. In
this degree murder and treason are not excepted. Now, as all Masons who take
the degrees above this have also taken this oath, it follows that all that army
of Freemasons, composed of Royal Arch Masons, and all who have taken the
degrees above this are under the most solemn oath to conceal each other's
crimes, without exception. And what an institution is this, to be allowed
existence under any government, especially under a republican form of
government? Is it safe to have such a set of men scattered broadcast over all
the United States? Let us look this thing squarely in the face. It can not be
honestly denied that Royal Arch Masons take this oath. But a short time since a
minister of the Gospel of my acquaintance was confronted with this oath, and he
did not deny having taken it. Now, if all that vast army of Masons who have
taken this oath intend to do as they swear to do, what must be the result?
Scores and hundreds of thousands of men, scattered broadcast over the whole
land, are pledged by the most solemn oath, and under the penalty of death, to
conceal each other's crimes, without exception. Are such men to be safely
intrusted with office, either in Church or State? And must not a government be
on the verge of ruin when such a conspiracy is allowed to multiply its numbers
at such a frightful rate as it is doing, at this time, in this country? Will
the people of the United States have the foolhardiness to ignore the crime and
danger of this conspiracy against their liberty? Or will they good-naturedly
assume that Freemasons mean no such thing? Why, then, is this oath? Will they,
under the cover of mock charity, assume that these men will not cover up each
other's crimes? What kind of charity is this? Is it charity to believe that a
set of men will lie, under oath, as all Freemasons above the degree of Fellow
Craft must do, if they do not conceal each other's crimes? Again, what right
have Freemasons, themselves, to complain of a want of charity in those who
regard them as conspirators against good government? Why, what shall we do? If
they do not repent of, and renounce, these oaths, we must either regard them as
conspirators against government, or as men who will lie, under the solemnity of
a most awful oath. The gentlemen must choose which horn of the dilemma they
will take. On the one hand, they are sworn conspirators against the execution
of the criminal laws; on the other, they are a class of men that do not regard
the solemnity of an oath. This is the exact truth, and it is folly and madness
to ignore it. Freemasons, therefore, have no right to complain of us, if we
take them at their word, and believe that they mean to do what they have sworn
they will do. They demand charity of us. Is it not charitable to believe that
they intend to fulfill such solemn vows, made, and often repeated, under such
terrible sanctions ? The candidate of this degree concludes by saying:
"Binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my skull smote
off, and my brains exposed to the scorching rays of the sun, should I ever,
knowingly, or willfully, violate or transgress any part of this, my solemn oath
or obligation as a Royal Arch Mason. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast in
the performance of the same." Now, upon this awful sanction, the candidate
swears that he will not wrong the chapter, or a companion of this degree, out
of anything, or suffer it to be done by others, if in his power to prevent it.
Men in certain business partnerships and relations, whose partners have been
Royal Arch Masons, have been influenced to take this degree to prevent their
being wronged by their Masonic partners. On the best authority, I have been
informed of one case of this kind, recently, and it turned out that while the
one who was thus induced to take this degree was in the army, fighting the
battles of his country, his Royal Arch partner deliberately cheated him out of
several thousand dollars. What shall we say to, what shall we do with, these
men who swarm in every part of this country, and who are thus banded together
to espouse each other's cause and to extricate each other from any difficulty,
whether they are right or wrong, to conceal each other's crimes, to vote each
other into office, and the like? Can wholesome society continue to exist under
the influence of such an institution as this?
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER VIII
SWORN TO PERSECUTE
Masons are sworn to "persecute unto the
death anyone who violates Masonic obligation. In the oath of The THRICE
ILLUSTRIOUS ORDER of the CROSS the candidate swears, as follows, "Light on
Masonry," eighth edition, page 199: "You further swear, that should
you know another to violate any essential point of this obligation, you will
use your most decided endeavors, by the blessing of God, to bring such person
to the strictest and most condign punishment, agreeably to the rules and usages
of our ancient fraternity; and this, by pointing him out to the world as an
unworthy vagabond, by opposing his interest, by deranging his business by
transferring his character after him wherever he may go, and by exposing him to
the contempt of the whole fraternity and of the world, during his whole natural
life." The penalty of this obligation is as follows: "To all and
every part thereof we then bind you, and by ancient usage you bind yourself,
under the no less infamous penalty than dying the death of a traitor, by having
a spear, or other sharp instrument, like our Divine Master, thrust into your
left side, bearing testimony, even in death, to the power and justice of the
mark of the Holy Cross." Upon this obligation I remark:
1. Here we have an explanation of the notorious
fact that Freemasons try, in every way, to ruin the reputation of all who
renounce Masonry. The air has almost been darkened by the immense number of
falsehoods that have been circulated, by Freemasons, to destroy the reputation
of every man who has renounced Freemasonry, and published it to the world, or
has written against it. No pains have been spared to destroy all confidence in
the testimony of such men. Does not this oath render it impossible for us to
believe what Freemasons say of the character of those who violate their
obligations? Who of us that lived forty years ago does not remember how
Freemasons endeavored to destroy the reputation of William Morgan, of Elder
Bernard, of EIder Stearns, and also of Mr. Allyn, and who that is at all
acquainted with facts does not know that the utmost pains are taken to destroy
the reputation of every man that dares to take his pen and expose their institution.
When I had occasion to quote Elder Bernard's book, in preaching on the subject
of Freemasonry a few months ago, I was told in the streets, before I got home,
that he was a man of bad character. I knew better, and knew well how to
understand such representations, for this is the way in which the testimony of
all such men is sought to be disposed of by Freemasons. Will this be denied?
What, then, is the meaning of this oath? Are not Masons under oath to do this?
Indeed they are. A few months since I received the following letter. For
reasons which will be appreciated, I omit name and date. The writer says:
"About a week since, a man calling himself Professor W.E. Moore, the great
South American explorer, came to this place, lecturing on Freemasonry. He is a
Mason, and has given private lectures to the lodges here, and has lectured once
before the public. He claims to have been at Oberlin, recently, and that while
there he had an interview with you, and that he tested you sufficiently to
satisfy himself that you had never been a Mason; and further, he says that the
conversation he had with you resulted to his great satisfaction, and to your
great discomfiture." At nearly the same date of this letter, I received,
from the same place, a letter from a Freemason of my acquaintance, giving
substantially the same account of this Professor Moore. In this letter,
however, it is added that his conversation with me compelled me to confess that
I never had been a Mason, and to say I would publish no more against Masonry.
This last letter I have mislaid, so that I can not lay my hand upon it. From
the first I quote verbatim et literatim. I replied to these letters, as I now
assert, that every word of what this man says of me is false. That I never saw
or heard of this man, to my knowledge, until I received those letters. But this
is nothing new or strange. Such false representations are just what we are to
expect, if Freemasons of this and the higher degrees fulfill their vows. Why
should they be believed, and how can they complain of us for not believing what
they say of men who have renounced Masonry and oppose it? It is mere folly and
madness to believe them. It is not difficult, if Freemasons desire it, to
produce almost any amount of testimony to prove that every manner and degree of
falsehood is resorted to to destroy the testimony of men who witness against
them. Any man who will renounce these horrid oaths, and expose their profanity
to the public, should make up his mind beforehand to endure any amount of slander
and persecution which the ingenuity of Freemasons can invent.
In the degree of Knights Adepts of the Eagle or
Sun, "Light on Masonry," eighth edition, page 269, we have the
following: "The man peeping. By the man you saw peeping, and who was
discovered, and seized, and conducted to death, is an emblem of those who come
to be initiated into our sacred mysteries through a motive of curiosity; and if
so indiscreet as to divulge their obligations, WE ARE BOUND TO CAUSE THEIR
DEATH, AND TAKE VENGEANCE ON THE TREASON BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
TRAITORS!!!" Here we find that Freemasons of this and the higher degrees
are solemnly pledged to destroy the lives of those who violate their
obligations. Deacon William A. Bartlett, of Pella, Iowa, in his public renunciation
of Freemasonry, says--"Letters on Masonry," 'by EIder John G.
Stearns, page 169--"During the winter or spring following my initiation, a
resolution was offered in the lodge for adoption, and to be published outside
the lodge, condemning the abduction of Morgan. After much discussion, the
Worshipful Master called another to the chair, and said, 'Brethren, what do you
mean by offering such a resolution as this? Had we been at Batavia, we would
have done just what those brethren have done, and taken the life of Morgan,
because the oaths of Masonry demand it at our hands. And will you condemn
brethren for doing what you would have done had you been there? I trust not.'
When the vote to condemn them was taken, but three voted in favor of the
resolution." There is abundant proof that Freemasons generally, at first,
denied the murder of Morgan, and when they could no longer have courage to deny
it, they justified it, until public indignation was so much aroused as to make
them ashamed to justify it. Let those who wish for proof on the question of
their justifying it read the volume of EIder Stearns, to be had at the
bookstores, and he will find evidence enough of the fact.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
IX
AWFUL
PROFANITY OF MASONIC OATHS
IN the degree of Templar and Knight of Malta,
as found in the seventh edition of "Light on Masonry," page 182, in a
lecture in which the candidate is giving an account of what he had passed
through, he says: "I then took the cup (the upper part of the human skull)
in my hand, and repeated, after the Grand Commander, the following obligation:
'This pure wine I now take in testimony of my belief in the mortality of the
body and the immortality of the soul--and may this libation appear as a witness
against me both here and hereafter--and as the sins of the world were laid upon
the head of the Savior, so may all the sins committed by the person whose skull
this was be heaped upon my head, in addition to my own, should I ever,
knowingly or willful]y, violate or transgress any obligation that I have
heretofore taken, take at this time, or shall at any future period take, in
relation to any degree of Masonry or order of Knighthood. So help me
God?'" Now, observe what a horrid imprecation is here. These Knights
Templar and Knights of Malta take their oaths sustained by such a horrid
penalty as this. They say that they will incur this penalty, not merely if they
violate the peculiar obligation of this degree, but "any obligation that I
have heretofore taken, take at this time, or shall at any future period take,
in relation to any degree of Masonry or order of Knighthood." This is
called "the sealed obligation." Here, in the most solemn manner, the
candidate, drinking wine out of a human skull, takes upon himself this obligation,
under the penalty of a double damnation. What can exceed the profanity and
wickedness of this?
On the 185th page of the same book, we find a
note quoted from the work of Brother Allyn, who renounced Masonry and published
on the subject. I will quote the note entire. Mr. Allyn says of the fifth
libation, or sealed obligation, it "is referred to by Templars in
confidential communications, relative to matters of great importance, when
other Masonic obligations seem insufficient to secure secresy, silence, and
safety. Such, for instance, was the murder of William Morgan, which was
communicated from one Templar to another, under the pledge, and upon this
sealed obligation." He also remarks, in another place: "When I
received this degree I objected to drink from the human skull, and to take the
profane oath required by the rules of the order. I observed to the Most Eminent
that I supposed that that part of the ceremonies would be dispensed with. The
Sir Knights charged upon me, and the Most Eminent said: 'Pilgrim, you here see
the swords of your companions drawn to defend you in the discharge of every
duty we require of you. They are also drawn to avenge any violation of the
rules of our order. We expect you to proceed.' A clergyman, an acquaintance of
mine, came forward, and said: 'Companion Allyn, this part of the ceremonies is
never dispensed with I, and all the Sir Knights, have drank from the cup and
taken the fifth libation. It is perfectly proper, and will be qualified to your
satisfaction.' I then drank of the cup of double damnation."
Now, can any profanity be more horrible than
this? And yet there is nothing in Masonry, we are told, that is at all
inconsistent with the Christian religion! On the 187th page of the same volume,
the "Knight of the Christian Mark," at the conclusion of his
obligation, says: "All this I promise in the name of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Ho]y Ghost; and if I perform it not, let me be
ANATHEMA MARANATHA! ANATHEMA MARANATHA!!"
Anathema Maranatha is understood to mean accursed at the Lord's coming. Again,
the "Knights of the Red Cross" take their obligations upon the
following penalty, page 164: "To all of which I do most solemnly promise
and swear, binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my house
torn down, the timbers thereof set up, and I hanged thereon; and when the last
trump shall blow, that I be forever excluded from the society of all true and
courteous Knights, should I ever, willfully or knowingly, violate any part of
this solemn obligation of Knight of the Red Cross. So help me, God, and keep me
steadfast to keep and perform the same."
The "Knights of the Eagle, and Sovereign
Prince of Rose Croix de Heroden," in receiving this degree, pass through
the following, page 253, of Bernard's eighth edition of "Light on
Masonry:" "During this time the brethren in the second department
take off their black decorations, and put on the red, and, also uncover the
jewels. The candidate knocks on the door, and the Warden, for answer, shuts the
door in his face. The Master of Ceremonies says: 'These marks of indignity are
not sufficiently humiliating; you must pass through more rigorous proofs,
before you can find it.' He then takes off the candidate the chasuble and black
apron, and puts over him a black cloth, covered with ashes and dust, and says
to him: 'I am going to conduct you into the darkest and most dismal place, from
whence the word shall triumphantly come to the glory and advantage of Masonry.'
He then takes him into the third apartment, and takes from him his covering,
and makes him go three times around (showing him the representation of the
torments of the damned), when he is led to the door of the chapter, and the
Master of Ceremonies says to him: 'The horrors which you have just now seen are
but a faint representation of those you shall suffer, if you break through our
laws, or infringe the obligation you have taken.'" In a footnote, the
editor says: "This certainly caps the climax, and renders the institution
of Masonry complete. The torments of the damned, the awful punishment which the
Almighty inflicts on the violators of his righteous law is but a faint emblem
of the punishment which Masonry here declares shall be inflicted on the
violators of Masonic law, or those who are guilty of an infraction of Masonic
obligations!" But I get sick of pursuing these loathsome and blasphemous
details; and I fear I shall so shock my readers that they will be as wearied as
I am myself. In reading over these oaths, it would seem as if a Masonic lodge
was a place where men had assembled to commit the utmost blasphemy of which
they were capable, to mock and scoff at all that is sacred, and to beget among
themselves the utmost contempt for every form of moral obligation. These oaths
sound as if the men who were taking and administering them were determined to
annihilate their moral sense, and to render themselves incapable of making any
moral discriminations, and certainly, if they can see no sin in taking and
administering such oaths under such penalties, they have succeeded, whether
intentionally or not, in rendering themselves utterly blind, as regards the
moral character of their conduct. By repeating their blasphemy they have put
out their own eyes. Now these oaths mean something, or they do not. Masons,
when they take them, mean to abide by them, or they do not. If they do not, to
take them is blasphemy. If they do mean to abide by them, they are sworn to
perform deeds, not only the most injurious to society, to government, and the
church of God of any that can well be named, but they swear, in case of the
violation of any point of these obligations, to seek to have the penalties
inflicted on the violator. In other words, in such a case, they swear to commit
murder; and every man who adheres to such obligations is under oath to seek to
accomplish the violent death, not only of every man who shall betray the
secrets, but, also, of everyone who shall violate any point or part of these
obligations. Now, the solemn question arises, are these oaths a mere farce, a mere
taking of the name of God in vain, in the most trifling manner, and under the
most solemn circumstances? or, are we to understand that the Masonic
institution is a conspiracy, its members taking, in all seriousness and good
faith, such horrid oaths to do such horrid deeds, upon such horrid penalties?
Which are we to understand to be true? If either is true. I ask the church of
God, I ask the world, what more abominable institution ever existed than this?
And yet we are told that in all this trifling with oaths, or, if not trifling,
this horrid conspiracy, there is nothing inconsistent. with the Christian
religion! And even ministers of the Gospel are found who can justify it and
eulogize it in a manner most profane, and even blasphemous. Now, in charity, I
suppose it to be true that the great mass of Masons, who are nominally so, and
who have, in a hurry and under great excitement, taken more or less of the
degrees, have only a very confused conception of what Masonry really is.
Surely, if Masons really understood what Masonry is, as it is delineated in
these books, no Christian Mason would think himself at liberty to remain
another day a member of the fraternity. The fact is, a great many nominal
Masons are not so in reality. It is as plain as possible that a man, knowing
what it is, and embracing it in his heart, can not be a Christian man. To say
he can is to belie the very nature of Christianity.
But here let me ask, in concluding this
article, what is there in Masonry to justify the taking of such oaths, under
such penalties? If there is any good in Masonry, why should it be concealed?
and why should such oaths be taken to conceal it? If Masonry is an evil thing,
and its secrets are evil, of course, to take any oath to conceal the wickedness
is utterly unjustifiable. Does Masonry exact these oaths for the sake of
concealing from outsiders the miserable falsehoods that they palm off upon
their candidates, which everywhere abound in Masonry? But what is there in
these stories, if true, that should be concealed? If Hiram Abiff was murdered,
as Masons pretend; if the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred contents, was
really found in the vault under ground, as Masons pretend, is there any
justifiable reason for concealing from the whole world these facts. I have
sought in vain for a reason to justify the taking of any oaths at all in
Masonry. And it is passing strange that such oaths, under such penalties,
should ever have been so much as dreamed of by Masons as being justified by
their secrets. The fact is, their stringent secrecy must be designed, in part,
to excite the curiosity of men, and draw candidates into the snare. The highest
Masonic authority has affirmed that their secrecy is essential to their
existence; and that, if their secrets were exposed, the institution could not
live. Now, this is no doubt true, and is the great reason, as I conceive, for
guarding their secrets with such horrid oaths. But I said, in an early number,
that Masonry is swindle. Where are the important secrets which they promise to
their candidates? For what do the candidates pay their money but really to be
imposed upon? But it may be well asked, why do Masons, once embarked in
Masonry, go on, from one degree to another multiplying their oaths,
obligations, and imprecations? When they are once within a lodge to take a
degree, they dare not do otherwise than to go forward. I could quote numerous
instances from the writings of seceding Masons showing how they have been urged
from step to step, and assured, if they would proceed, that everything would be
explained to their satisfaction. They have been told, as in the case of Mr.
Allyn just noticed, that everything would be qualified and explained to their
satisfaction. Upon Mr. Allyn, as we have seen, the Sir Knights drew their
swords when he hesitated to go forward; and the Most Eminent informed him that
he must. go forward, or their swords would avenge his disobedience.
The fact is, when once within the lodge, they
dare not stop short of taking the obligation belonging to the degree; and they
are persuaded by those who have taken higher degrees, to go forward from one
degree to another.
And the great Masonic argument to keep them
steadfast in concealing the imposition that has been practiced upon them, and
to persuade them not to renounce and expose what they have passed through, is,
that of having their throats cut, their tongues torn out by the roots, their
heart and vitals torn out and thrown to the vultures of the air, drowning and
murder.
Masons profess not to invite or persuade any to
join the lodges; and the candidates, when they come forward for their degrees,
are asked if they come forward of their own free will and accord. To this, of
course, they answer, yes.
But what has made them willing? They have been
persuaded to it. They have been invited to join; --they have been urged to
join; motives of self-interest have been set before them in such a light as to
gain their consent. They are thus made willing; and, therefore, truthfully say,
that they do it of their own free will and accord.
But it is almost, if not quite, the universal
testimony of renouncing Masons, that they were persuaded to it. They were made
willing to join by such representations as overpersuaded them. I do not believe
that one in five hundred of those who join the Masonic lodge, join without
being persuaded to do so. But let me say also, that the great mass of
Freemasons have never taken more than the first three degrees. They may know
nothing about the higher degrees. Now in what sense are they responsible for the
wickedness of the institution as revealed in the higher degrees? I answer, they
would not be responsible at all, if they neither knew anything of those
degrees, nor had any opportunity to know anything of them.
But as these books have been widely circulated,
and are secretly kept by Masons, and are better known to Freemasons at present
by far than they are to the outward world',--those who have taken the lower
degrees, if they continue to sustain the institution, which is in reality a
unit, become morally responsible for the wickedness of the higher degrees. But
the obligations in the first three degrees are by no means innocent. They are
such obligations as no man has any right to take or to administer. To adhere to
the institution is to indorse it. But again, why do not Freemasons now, who
have these books, and who know, or ought to know thoroughly the nature,
designs, and tendency of the institution, publicly renounce the whole thing,
confess their sin, and proclaim their independence of the order? I answer,
first--They have seared their consciences by what they have done, and have,
therefore, very little sense of the great sinfulness of remaining a member of
such an abominable institution. I must say that I am utterly amazed at the want
of conscientiousness among Masons on this subject. As I have said, they have
put out the eyes of their moral sense, and do not at all appreciate the awful
guilt of their position. And, secondly--They dare not. And if by their oaths
they mean anything, it is not to be wondered at that they are afraid to
renounce Freemasonry. Why the fraternity are under oath to persecute them, to
represent them as perjured vagabonds, to destroy their characters, their
business, and their influence, and to follow them from place to place, transferring
their character after them during their whole natural life. This surely is
enough to deter common men from renouncing their allegiance to the institution.
To be sure, this danger does not excuse them; but weak as human nature is, it
is not wonderful that it has its influence.
But again, Masons are under oath, if they
renounce the order, to seek the destruction of their lives. And they have given
terrible proof that their oaths are not a dead letter in this respect, not only
in the murder of William Morgan, but of many others who have renounced their
allegiance to the brotherhood. In a sermon which lies before me, delivered by
Rev. Moses Thacher, a man well known in the Christian world, and who has
himself taken many degrees of Masonry, he says: "The institution is
dangerous to civil and religious rights. It is stained with blood. I have
reliable historical evidence of not less than seven individuals, including
Morgan, murdered under Masonic law." Since this sermon was preached other
cases have come to light, and are constantly coming to light, in which persons
have been murdered for disclosing Masonic secrets. And if the truth shall ever
be known in this world, I believe it will be found that scores of persons, in
this and other countries, have been murdered for unfaithfulness to Masonic
obligations. Freemasons understand quite well the malignity of the spirit of
Freemasonry. They understand that it will not argue, that it will not discuss
the reasonableness or unreasonableness, the virtue or the sin of the
institution; but that its argument is assassination. I am now daily in the
receipt of letters from various parts of the country, expressing the highest
satisfaction that anybody can be found who dares write against the institution
at this day. The fact is, there are a great many men belonging to the
institution, who are heartily sick of it, and would fain be rid of it; but who
dare not open their mouths or whisper to any individual in the world their
secret abhorrence of the institution. But it is time to speak out. And I do beg
my brethren in the ministry, and the whole Christian Church, to examine it for
themselves, and not turn away from looking the evil in the face until it is too
late.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
X
PERVERSE
AND PROFANE USE OF THE HOLY BIBLE
In this number I wish to call the attention of
my readers to some of the cases in which Freemasons misapply and misrepresent,
and most profane]y, if not blasphemously, use the Holy Scriptures.
I will not go far into the sickening details;
but far enough, I trust, to lead serious persons to reflect upon the nature of
a society that can trifle with such solemn things.
The "Knights of the East and West"
take the following oath, and then pass through the following ceremonies:--See
pp. 214--220 of the first edition, or eighth edition, 230--240, of Bernard's
Light on Masonry --"I ----, do promise and solemnly swear and declare, in
the awful presence of the only One Most Holy, Puissant, Almighty, and Most
Merciful Grand Architect of Heaven and Earth, who created the universe and
myself through His infinite goodness, and conducts it with wisdom and justice;
and in the presence of the Most Excellent and Upright Princes and Knights of
the East and West, here present in convocation and grand council, on my sacred
word of honor, and under every tie both moral and religious, that I never will
reveal to any person whomsoever below me, or to whom the same may not belong by
being legally and lawfully initiated, the secrets of this degree which are now
about to be communicated to me, under the penalty of not only being dishonored,
but to consider my life as the immediate forfeiture, and that to be taken from
me with all the tortures and pains to be inflicted in manner as I have
consented to in my preceding degrees. I further solemnly promise and swear that
I will pay due obedience and submission to all the degrees beyond this, &c.
All this I solemnly swear and sincerely promise upon my sacred word of honor,
under the penalty of the severe wrath of the Almighty Creator of Heaven and
Earth; and may He have mercy on my soul in the great and awful day of judgment
agreeably to my conformity thereto. Amen. Amen. Amen. The All Puissant then
takes the ewer filled with perfumed ointment, and anoints his head, eyes,
mouth, heart, the tip of his right ear, hand, and foot, and says, "You are
now, my dear brother, received a member of our society. You will recollect to
live up to the precepts of it; and also remember that those parts of your body
which have the greatest power of assisting you in good or evil, have this day
been made holy." The Master of Ceremonies then places the candidate
between the two Wardens, with the draft before him. The Senior Warden says to
him, "Examine with deliberation and attention everything which the All
Puissant is going to show you." After a short pause, he, the S.W., says,
"Is there mortal here worthy to open the book with the seven seals?"
All the brethren cast their eyes down and sigh. The Senior Warden hearing their
sighs, says to them, "Venerable and respectable brethren, be not
afflicted; here is a victim (pointing to the candidate) whose courage will give
you content."
S.W. to the candidate, "Do you know the
reason. why the ancients have a long beard?"
CAN. "I do not, but I presume you
do."
S.W. "They are those who came here after
passing through great tribulation, and having washed their robes in their own
blood: will you purchase your robes at so great a price?"
CAN. "Yes; I am willing."
The Wardens then conduct him to the basin, and
bare both his arms; they place a ligature on each, the same as in performing
the operation of blood-letting. Each Warden being armed with a lancet, makes an
incision in each of his arms just deep enough to draw a drop of blood, which is
wiped on a napkin, and then shown to the brethren. The Senior Warden then says,
"See, my brethren, a man who has spilled his blood to acquire a knowledge
of your mysteries, and shrunk not from the trial."
Then the All Puissant opens the FIRST SEAL of
the great book, and takes from thence a bone quiver filled with arrows, and a
crown, and gives them to one of the Ancients, and says to him, "Depart and
continue the conquest." He opens the SECOND SEAL, and takes out a sword, and
gives it to the next aged, and says, "Go and destroy peace among the
profane and wicked brethren, that they may never appear in our Council."
He opens the THIRD SEAL, and takes a balance, and gives it to the next aged,
and says, "Dispense rigid justice to the profane and wicked
brethren." He opens the FOURTH SEAL, and takes out a skull, and gives it
to the next aged, and says, "Go and endeavor to convince the wicked that
death is the reward of their guilt." He opens the FIFTH SEAL, and takes
out a cloth stained with blood, and gives it to the next aged, and says,
"When is the time. (or the time will arrive) that we shall revenge and
punish the profane and wicked, who have destroyed so many of their brethren by
false accusations." He opens the SIXTH SEAL, and that moment the sun is
darkened and the moon stained with blood! He opens the SEVENTH SEAL, and takes
out incense, which he gives to a brother, and also a vase, with seven trumpets,
and gives one to each of the seven aged brethren. After this the four old man in
the four corners show their inflated bladders (beeves bladders filled with
wind, under their arms), representing the four winds, when the All Puissant
says: "Here is seen the fulfillment of a prophecy (Rev. vii. 3); strike
not nor punish the profane and wicked of our order until I have selected the
true and worthy Masons." Then the four winds raise their bladders, and one
of the trumpets sounds, when the two Wardens cover the candidate's arms, and
take from him his apron and jewels of the last degree. The second trumpet
sounds, when the Junior Warden gives the candidate the apron and jewel of this
degree. The third trumpet sounds, when the Senior Warden gives him a long
beard. The fourth trumpet sounds, and the Junior Warden gives him a crown of
gold. The fifth trumpet sounds, and the Senior Warden gives him a girdle of
gold. The sixth trumpet sounds, and the Junior Warden gives him the sign,
token, and words. The seventh trumpet sounds, on which they all sound together,
when the Senior Warden conducts the candidate to the vacant canopy.
[This canopy, it will be recollected, is at the
right side of the All Puissant, who represents Jehovah. The sounding of the
seventh trumpet, and the conducting of the candidate to the canopy, is a
representation of the end of the world, and the glorification of true Masons at
the right hand of God, having "passed through the trials of
Freemasonry," and "washed their robes in their own blood!" If
this is not Antichrist, what is?" --Compiler.]
The editor also adds the following foot-note in
explanation of the foregoing:-- "Compare the foregoing with the fifth,
sixth and seventh chapters of Revelation, and the reader will discover that the
All Puissant represents Jehovah Seated on the throne of heaven; also, the Lamb
of God, opening the seven seals. The Senior Warden represents the strong angel
proclaiming: "Who is worthy to open the book," &c. The aged
brethren, and the four old with bladders, the angels of God with power; and
Masonry claiming its faithful servants as the servants of God, the 144,000 who
were sealed in their foreheads, and of whom it is said, "These are they
who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which
follow the Lamb," &c. See Rev.14th chapter.
The following ceremonies are performed in the
"Knights of the Christian Mark," found in the same book as the
preceding, pp. 168--170; or eighth edition, 188--190:
"The Knights come to order; the Senior
Knight takes his seat; the candidate continues standing; the conductor brings a
white robe, the Senior Knight says: 'Thus saith the Lord, he that believeth and
endureth to the end shall overcome, and I will cause his iniquities to pass
from him, and he shall dwell in my presence for ever and ever. Take away his
filthy garments from him, and clothe him with a change of raiment. For he that
overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and his name shall be
written in the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father and
His holy angels. He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the true believer. Set ye a fair miter upon his head, place a palm in his hand,
for he shall go in and out, and minister before me, saith the Lord of hosts;
and he shall be a disciple of that rod taken from the branch of the stem of Jesse.
For a branch has grown out of His root, and the Spirit of the Lord hath rested
upon it, the Spirit of his wisdom and might, and righteousness is the girdle of
his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins; and he stands as an
insignia to the people, and him shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be
glorious. Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, everyone with
the destroying weapon in his hand.' The six grand ministers come from the north
with swords and shields. The first is clothed in white, and has an ink-horn by
his side, and stands before the Invincible Knight, who says: 'Go through the
city; run in the midst thereof, and smite; let not thine eye spare, neither
have pity; for they have not executed my judgments with clean hands, saith the
Lord of hosts.' The candidate is instructed' to exclaim: 'Woe is me, for I am a
man of unclean lips and my dwelling has been in the tents of Kedar, and among
the children of Meshec.' Then he that has the ink-horn by his side, takes a live
coal with the tongs from the altar, and touches the lips of the candidate, and
says: 'If ye believe, thine iniquities shall be taken away, thy sins shall be
purged. I will that these be clean with the branch that is given up before me.
All thy sins are removed, and thine iniquities blotted out For I have trodden
the wine-press alone, and with me was none of my people for behold I come with
dyed garments from Bozrah, mighty to save. Refuse not., therefore, to hearken;
draw not away thy shoulders; shut not thine ear that thou shouldst not hear.'
The six ministers now proceed as though they were about to commence the
slaughter, when the Senior Knight says to him with the ink-horn: 'Stay thine
hand; proceed no further until thou hast set a mark on those that are faithful
in the house of the Lord, and trust in the power of his might. Take ye the
signet, and set a mark on the forehead of my people that have passed through
great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and have made them white in the
blood of the Lamb, which was slain from the foundation of the world.' The
minister takes the signet and presses it on the candidate's forehead. He leaves
the mark in red letters, 'King of kings, and Lord of lords.' [Foot-note: 'The
reader is requested to turn to the following passages:--Isa. vi. 5-7; Ps. cxx.
5; Isa. xliii.15; and lxiii. 1-3. Rev. viii. 2-14; and xix.16; and xv. 3; Zech.
iii; 7. Song of Solomon viii. 6,7. The impious perversion of these passages is
incapable of defense or excuse.] The Minister opens the scroll, and says: 'Sir
Invincible Knight, the number of the sealed is one hundred and forty-four
thousand.' The Invincible Knight strikes four, and all the knights stand before
him. He says: 'Salvation belongeth to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and
to the Lamb.' All the members fall on their faces, and say: 'Amen. Blessing,
honor, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, and power, mighty majesty, and dominion, be
unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.' They all cast down crowns and palm
branches, and rise up and say: 'Great and numberless are thy works, thou King
of saints. Behold, the star which I laid before Joshua, on which is engraved
seven eyes as the engraving of a signet, shall be set as a seal on thine arm,
as a seal on thine heart; for love is stronger than death, many waters cannot
quench it. If a man would give all the treasures of his house for love, he
cannot obtain it; it is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'"
The following is found in the Royal Arch
degree, pp. 126, first edition, 137, eighth edition:
"Question.--'Are you a Royal Arch Mason?'
Answer. --'I am that I am.'" [Note. "I AM THAT I AM, is one of the
peculiar names of the Deity; and to use it as above, is, to say the least,
taking the name of God in vain. How must the humble disciple of Jesus feel when
constrained thus to answer the question, "Are you a Royal Arch
Mason?"] Light on Masonry, seventh edition. On pp. 154, 155, we have a
description of a ceremony in the same degree, as follows: "The candidates
next receive the obligation, travel the room, attend the prayer, travel again,
and are shown a representation of the Lord appearing to Moses from the burning
bush. This last is done in various ways. Sometimes an earthen pot is filled
with earth, and green bushes set around the edge of it, and a candle in the
center; and sometimes a stool is provided with holes about the edge, in which
bushes are placed, and a bundle of rags or tow, saturated with oil of
turpentine, placed in the center, to which fire is communicated. Sometimes a
large bush is suspended from the ceiling, around the stem of which tow is wound
wet with the oil of turpentine. In whatever way the bush is prepared, when the
words are read, 'He looked and behold the bush burned with fire,' etc., the
bandage is removed from the eyes of the candidate, and they see the fire in the
bush; and at the words, 'Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes,' etc., the
shoes of the candidate are taken off, and they remain in the same situation
while the rest of the passage to the words, 'And Moses hid his face; for he was
afraid to look upon God,' is read. The bandage is then replaced and the
candidates again travel about the room while the next passage of Scripture is
read."
[Note. "This is frequently represented in
this manner: When the person reading comes to that part where it says, 'God
called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said.' etc., he stops reading,
and a person behind the bush calls out, 'Moses, Moses.' The conductor answers,
'Here am I.' The person behind the bush then says: 'Draw not nigh hither; put
off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy
ground.' His shoes are then slipped off. 'Moreover, I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' The person first reading then
says: 'And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.' At these
words the bandage is placed over the candidate's eyes."] And, if any
himself will examine, and read the books through for themselves, in which these
revelations are made, they will find that the higher degrees are replete with
the same shocking and monstrous perversion of the Scriptures. Many of the most
solemn passages in the Bible are selected, read in their lodges, repeated by
their candidates, and applied in a manner too shocking to read.
Here you observe the candidate taking the Royal
Arch degree, when asked if he is a Royal Arch Mason, replies: "l am that l
am;" which is represented in the Bible as being said by Jehovah himself.
This answer was given by God to Moses when he inquired after the Divine name.
God answered, "I AM THAT I AM." Just think! a Christian, when
inquired of if he is a Royal Arch Mason, affirms of himself "I am that I
am," taking to himself the name of the God of Israel.
Again, in this representation of the burning
bush, the candidate is told to take off his shoes from off his feet, for the
place on which he stands is holy ground; and then the Master of the lodge
claims to be the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now how awfully
profane and blasphemous is this!
Again, observe that that most solemn scene,
depicted in the ninth chapter of Ezekiel, is misapplied in the most profane
manner. Reader, the chapter is short; will you not take your Bible and read it?
So again, in those chapters in Revelation, the
opening of the seals by the Son of God is misapplied, and profanely
misrepresented. Just think! Four aged men, with bladders filled with wind, are
made to represent the four angels that hold the four winds from desolating the
earth till the servants of God were sealed in their foreheads. What a shocking
misapplication and misrepresentation do we find here! And the cases are
numerous in which, as I have said, the most solemn passages in the Word of God
are used in their mummeries and childish ceremonies, in so shocking a manner
that we can hardly endure to read them. I beg my Christian readers to examine
these books for themselves, and then see what they think of the assertions of
so many professors of religion, and even of professed Christian ministers, that
"there is nothing in Freemasonry inconsistent with the religion of Jesus
Christ!" I cannot imagine anything more directly calculated to bring the
Word of God into contempt, than such a use of it in Masonic lodges. It is
enough to make one's blood curdle in his veins to think that a Christian
minister, or any Christian whatever, should allow himself to pass through such
an abominable scene as is frequently represented in the degrees of
Masonry:--multiplying their horrid oaths, heaping one imprecation upon another,
gathering up from every part of the Divine oracles the most solemn and awful
sayings of Jehovah, and applying them in a manner so revolting, that the scene
must make a Christian's heart tremble, and his whole soul to loathe such
proceedings.
In some of my numerous letters I am requested
to quote the oaths entire. But this would be to rewrite a great part of the
books in which Masonry is revealed. Some of these degrees have several
different oaths to sustain them, filling several pages of the work. I can only
give parts of these oaths, and must leave the readers to consult the books for
themselves which I beseech them to do.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XI
FREEMASONRY
IMPOSES ON THE IGNORANT
In what is called the "Sublime Degree of
Master Masons" there are the following gross misrepresentations worthy of
notice:
First, Hiram Abiff is represented as going
daily into the Most Holy place for secret prayer; whereas the Bible
representation is that no one was allowed to enter the Most Holy place, except
the high priest. Neither Solomon nor Hiram were allowed to enter it. And the
high priest was allowed to enter it only once a year, and that on the great day
of atonement "not without blood, which he offered first for himself and
then for the errors of the people."
Again, this Hiram is represented in Masonry as
having been murdered by three ruffians, who demanded of him the Master's word.
As he refused to give it, they murdered him,
and buried him at a distance from Jerusalem, in a grave "six feet deep
perpendicular," where he remained fourteen days.
Then, after a great deal of twaddle and
misrepresentation in regard to the supposed circumstances of his murder and
burial, Solomon is represented as raising him from this depth in the earth by
the Master's grip, and that "upon the five points of fellowship,"
which are, "foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back,
and mouth to ear."
It is no wonder that infidel Masons should
ridicule the credulity of professed Christian Masons in crediting such a
ridiculous story as this.
Again, Masonry goes on to represent that, after
Hiram was thus raised from this grave, six feet deep--"foot to foot, knee
to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to ear."--he was
brought up to Jerusalem, and buried under the Most Holy place in King Solomon's
Temple. I will quote from the lecture of this degree, as found in the seventh
edition of Bernard, p. 81; "Question[speaking of the body].--What did they
do with the body? Answer.---Raised it in a Masonic form, and carried it up to
the temple for more decent interment. Q.--Where was it buried? A.--Under the
Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies, over which they erected a marble
monument, with this inscription delineated thereon, A virgin weeping over a
broken column, with a book open before her; in her right hand a sprig of
cassia; in her left, an urn; Time standing behind her, with his hands infolded
in the ringlets of her hair."
Now, observe, this burial was under the Most
holy place in King Solomon's Temple; and the marble monument was erected over
it, and consequently must have been in the Most Holy place itself. Does not
every careful reader of the Bible know that this is false? We have a minute
description in the Bible of everything relating to the Most Holy place--its
form, size, embellishments, and of every article of furniture there was in it.
No such statue was ever there, and the whole story is a gross falsehood.
But let me quote a little further from this
lecture, continuing on page 81: "Q.--What does a Master's lodge represent?
A.--The Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies of King Solomon's Temple. Q.--How
long was the temple building? A.--Seven years; during which it rained not in
the daytime, that the workmen might not be obstructed in their labor."
This is a likely story! Is there anything of this kind in the Bible? And does
anyone believe that a miracle of this kind could have been wrought without
having been recorded in the Bible? But again: Q.--What supported the temple?
A.--Fourteen hundred and fifty-three columns, and two thousand one hundred and
six pilasters, all hewn from the finest Parian marble." Where did they get
this? Again: "Q.--What further supported it? A.--Three grand columns or
pillars. Q.--What were they called? Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty. Q.--What did
they represent? A.--The pillar of Wisdom represented Solomon, King of Israel,
whose wisdom contrived the mighty fabric." But the Bible represents
Solomon as having received the whole plan of the temple from David, who
received it directly from God. Solomon never contrived the building at all.--1
Chon., xxviii. 11,12,20.
Again, on page 82, we have the following:
"Q.--How many constitute a Master's lodge?--Three Master Masons. Q.--Where
did they usually meet? A.--In the sanctum sanctorum, or Holy of holies of King
Solomon's Temple." Now, this misrepresentation is kept up; and in the work
of making a Master Mason they make the lodge represent the Most Holy place in
King Solomon's Temple. A Masonic lodge in the Most Holy place of King Solomon's
Temple! What an absurd, unscriptural, and ridiculous representation is this!
And yet this is seriously taught to the candidate whenever a Master Mason is
made.
But, again, this whole representation in regard
to Hiram Abiff is utterly false. If any one will examine the fourth chapter of
2 Chron. he will see that Hiram Abiff finished the work for which he was
employed; and, so far as we can get any light from the Bible, he must have
lived till after the temple was finished. Where and when he died we know not,
as he, no doubt, returned to Hiram, King of Tyre, who sent him to assist
Solomon. But that he died in the manner represented by Freemasons, that he was
buried in a grave six feet deep, and raised upon the five points of fellowship,
that he was then buried again under the Most Holy place of King Solomon's
Temple, and a marble monument erected in the Most Holy place to his memory, is
a glaring falsehood.
Again, Masonry teaches that the Master's word
could only be given by three persons standing in a peculiar attitude, and each
one repeating one of its syllables. That this word was known at the time by
only three persons, Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff; and that,
consequently, when Hiram was killed, the word was lost, as they were under oath
never to give it except in that particular manner.
Now, in the Royal Arch degree, Masonry
professes to give an account of the manner in which that word was recovered.
Some men, it is said, were employed in digging
about the temple, and discovered a stone, which proved to be the key-stone of
an arch covering a vault deep under ground, constructed, as it is said, by
Hiram Abiff, in which they found the Ark of the Covenant.
On pp. 78, 79, of Richardson's "Monitor of
Freemasonry," we have their explanation of this pretended discovery as
follows. On p. 78: "Principal Sojourner.-- Most Excellent, in pursuance of
your orders, we repaired to the secret vault and let down one of our
companions. The sun at this time was at its meridian height, the rays of which
enabled him to discover a small box or chest standing on a pedestal, curiously
wrought and overlaid with gold, * * * We have brought this chest up for the
examination of the Grand Council. High Priest [looking with surprise at the Ark].--Companion
King this is the Ark of the Covenant of God. King [looking at it.]--It is
undoubtedly the true Ark of the Covenant, Most Excellent. High Priest [taking
the Ark].--Let us open it, and see what valuable treasure it may contain.
[Opens the Ark, and takes out a book.] High Priest to the King.--Companion,
here is a very ancient looking book. What can it be? Let us read it. [Reads the
first three verses of the first chapter of Genesis.]"
After reading several other passages, the High
Priest says: "This is a book of the law--long lost, but now found.
Holiness to the Lord! [He repeats this twice]. King.--A book of the law--long
lost, but now found. Holiness to the Lord! Scribe repeats the same. High Priest
to Candidates--You now see that the world is indebted to Masonry for the
preservation of this sacred volume. Had it not been for the wisdom and
precaution of our ancient brethren, this, the only remaining copy of the law,
would have been destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem." After several
further misrepresentations, on p. 79, we have the following: "Looking
again into the Ark, the High Priest takes out four pieces of paper, which he
examines closely, consults with the king and scribe, and then puts them
together so as to show a key to the ineffable characters of this degree. After
examining the key, he proceeds to read by the aid of it the characters on the
four sides of the Ark. High Priest reading first side: Deposited in the year
three thousand. Second side: By Solomon, King of Israel. Third side: Hiram,
King of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff. Fourth side: For the good of Masonry generally,
but the Jewish nation in particular." If any one will consult the
ceremonies just as they occur, and as they are recorded by Richardson, he will
see to what an extent the candidate is misinformed and deceived in this degree.
And the same in substance may be learned from "Light on Masonry."
Now, observe, Masonry teaches in this most solemn manner that in Solomon's time
the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred contents, was buried in a vault by
Solomon and the two Hirams.
Solomon was only the third king of Israel. And
when did he have this Ark buried? Did it not stand in the Most Holy place
during his own reign? Was not the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred
contents, in the Most Holy place in the temple after Solomon's day? What reader
of the Bible does not know that this representation of Masonry is false ?
Again, the candidate is also falsely taught that the world is indebted to
Masonry for preserving the book of the law; that, but for this discovery of the
Ark with its contents in that vault, no book of the law would have been
preserved, as this was the only copy in existence. But this, again, is utterly
false. Masonry teaches that, but for the discovery of this volume, the Bible
would have been lost at the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is no truth in
this; for copies had been multiplied before the first, and still further
multiplied before the last, destruction of Jerusalem.
The following examples I extract from Professor
Morgan's report: "It is alleged that, in consequence of the murder of
Hiram Abiff; a particular keystone failed of its designation; but that Solomon
caused search to be made for it, when it was found by means of certain initial
letters which Hiram had employed as a mark. These letters were the initials of
the English words, Hiram, Tyrian, widow's son sent to King Solomon. These
initial letters are now employed as the mark of the Mark Master's degree.
Masons sometimes wear a seal or trinket with these letters on it. I have seen
them exhibited in a picture of a seal or badge in a widely circulated Masonic
manual. Here we have Hiram, who never could have known one word of English--the
English language not existing till thousands of years after his time--employing
the initials of eight English words as his mark. And, in honor of his employing
them, Mark Masters display them as their mark, and thus display the ignorance
or imposture of their craft."
Another alleged historic fact is given in
Richardson's "Monitor of Freemasonry," p. 155--the Gold Plate story.
"In the ceremonies connected with the degree of 'Grand Elect, Perfect, and
Sublime Mason,' the Master says: 'I will now give you the true pronunciation of
the name of the Deity as revealed to Enoch; and he engraved the letters
composing it on a triangular plate of gold, which was hidden for many ages in
the bowels of the earth, and lost to mankind. The mysterious words which you
received in the preceding degrees are all so many corruptions of the true name
of God which was engraved on the triangle of Enoch. In this engraving the vowel
points are so arranged as to give the pronunciation thus, YOWHO. This word,
when thus pronounced, is called the Ineffable word, which cannot be altered as
other words are; and the degrees are called, on this account, Ineffable
degrees. This word, you will recollect, was not found until after the death of
Hiram Abiff; consequently, the word engraved by him on the ark is not the true
name of God.'
"Here we have a most ridiculous piece of
imposture, more than parallel with the gold plate imposture of Mormonism. Every
Hebrew scholar of the most moderate attainments knows that the vowel points,
here alleged to have been used by Enoch before the flood, did not even exist
till six or eight centuries after the birth of Christ. Besides, the merest
smatterer in Hebrew, with very little thought. would know that the name of God
could not, by any proper arrangement of vowels, be pronounced in this way.
"The story could impose only on the grossest
ignorance, or most careless inconsiderateness."
To quote all that is scandalously false in its
teachings and pretensions would be to quote these books almost entire. We hear
professed Christians, and even ministers, claiming that Freemasonry enables
them to better understand the Bible. Can it be that they are so ignorant as to
believe this? But this is often urged as an inducement to join the lodge.
Indeed Masonry claims that, to this day, none but Freemasons know even the true
name of God. After Enoch's day, the Divine name was unknown until recovered by
Freemasons in the days of Solomon, and that this true name of God is preserved
by them as a Masonic secret. Of course, all others are worshiping they know not
what. So this is Masonic benevolence and piety, to conceal from all but their
craft the name of the true God. How wise and benevolent Freemasonry is! I
wonder how many ministers of the Gospel are engaged in keeping this secret!
They only of all ministers know the true name of God, and have joined a
conspiracy to conceal it from all but Masons!
Before I close this number, I wish to ask
Freemasons who have taken the degrees above the Fellow craft, or second degree,
have you believed the teaching of these degrees, as you have taken them one
after another? Have you believed that the lodges, chapters, commanderies, etc.,
were really erected to God, and consecrated to the holy order of Zerubbabel and
St. John? Have you believed what you are taught in the Master's degree,
respecting King Solomon, Hiram, king of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff? Have you
believed the teachings of the Royal Arch degree, and of all those degrees in
which King Solomon figures so largely? Have you believed that to Masonry the
church owes the preservation of the only remaining copy of the law of God ?
Have you believed the Gold Plate story, that Enoch lived in the place where the
Temple of Solomon was afterward built, that he built, deep in the earth, nine
arches, one above the other, in which, on the place where the temple was
afterward built, he deposited a golden plate on which was written the true name
of God, that this name was written with the Hebrew vowels attached, and that
its true pronunciation is YOWHO, as Masonry teaches? Now you have believed
these, and other outrageous falsehoods taught in Masonry, or you have not. If
you have believed them, you have been greatly imposed upon, you have been
grossly deceived. Will you allow yourselves to still give countenance to an
institution that teaches such falsehoods as these? Had I space I could fill
scores of pages with the palpable falsehoods which Masonry teaches its
membership: How can you adhere to an institution so basely false and
hypocritical as this? The secrets are all out. Both you and the world are now
made aware of the base falsehoods that are palmed off upon its members by
Freemasonry. Professed Christian Freemason, how can you hold up your head
either in the church or before the world, if you still adhere to this most
hypocritical institution? Just think of the Worshipful Masters, the Grand High
Priests, in their mitres and priestly robes, the great and pompous dignitaries
of Masonry arrayed in their sacerdotal robes, solemnly teaching their members
such vile falsehoods as these, claiming that to Freemasons the church owes the
preservation of the law of God, and that the true name of God is known only to
Freemasons! Shame! But I said you have either been made to believe these things
or you have not. If you have never believed them, pray, let me ask you how it
is that you have ever given any countenance to this institution when you did
not at all believe its teaching? How is it that you have not long since
renounced and denounced an institution whose teaching is replete with
falsehoods taught under the most solemn circumstances? These falsehoods are
taught as Masonic secrets, under the sanction of the most awful and solemn
oaths. What shall we say of an institution that binds its members by such
oaths, to keep and preserve as truth and secrets, such a tissue of profane
falsehood? You see nothing in it inconsistent with Christianity! Why, my dear
brother, how amazing it is that you can be so blinded! Are you not afraid that
you shall be given over to believe a lie, that you may be damned, because you
believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XII
MASONRY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF CHANGE ONLY BY ADDITIONS
In proof of this, I first appeal to the
testimony of Masons themselves. Hear the testimony, given under oath, of
Benjamin Russell, once Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. His
and other depositions were given in Boston, before a justice of the peace, by
request of Masons themselves. Observe, he was an ex-Grand Master of one of the
most important lodges in the world. This surely is conclusive Masonic
authority. He says: "The Masonic institution has been, and now is, the
same in every place. No deviation has been made, or can be made at any time,
from its usages, rules and regulations." Observe, he does not say that no
additions can be made, but no deviations. He proceeds: "Such is its
nature, that no innovations on its customs can be introduced, or sanctioned, by
any person or persons. DeWitt Clinton, the former Governor of New York and
Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York and of the United States, also made
an affidavit on the same occasion. He says: "The principles of Masonry are
essentially the same and uniform in every place" (Powell, p. 40, as quoted
by Stearns). In Hardy's Monitor, a standard Masonic work, we have the
following, p. 96: "Masonry stands in no need of improvement; any attempt,
therefore, to introduce the least innovation will be reprobated not by one, but
by the whole fraternity." The Grand Lodge of Connecticut asserts: "It
is not in the power of man, nor in any body of men, to remove the ancient
landmarks of Masonry" (Allyn's Rituals p. 14). These are the highest
Masonic authorities, and to the same effect might be quoted from all their standard
works.
Second.--From the nature of the institution it
cannot be changed, except by addition. In proof of this I observe
I. That Masonry is extended over the civilized
world, at least Masons themselves boast that it includes men of every language,
and of every clime. They claim for Masonry that it is a universal language;
that men of every country and language can reveal themselves to each other as
Freemasons; that by their signs and grips and pass words, etc., they can not
only know each other as Masons, but as having taken such and such degrees of
the order, that as soon as they reveal themselves to each other as having taken
certain degrees of Masonry, they know their obligations, each to the
other--what they may demand or expect of each other, and what each is under
oath to do for the other. Now this must be true, or of what avail would Masonry
be to those who are traveling through different countries, where there are
different languages. Unless their methods of knowing each other were uniform,
universal, and unchangeable, it is plain that they could not know each other as
Masons. It is true in some particular localities there may be an additional
pass word or sign, to indicate that they belong to that locality, but in all
that is essentially Masonic, it must be universal and unchangeable.
II. The same is true with respect to their
oaths. They must all, in every place, be under the same obligations to each
other, or it would introduce endless confusion and uncertainty. Every Mason, of
every place, must know that every other Mason, having taken the same degrees,
has taken the same oaths that he himself has taken; that he owes the same
duties, and can claim the same privileges of any other Mason of the same
degree. If this were not so, Masonry would be of no value among strangers.
Furthermore, if their obligations were not exactly alike, they would
necessarily be betrayed into violating them. If they found that they claimed
duties of each other which were not necessarily imposed by the obligations of
both, or claimed privileges of each other not conferred by the obligations of
both, they would in this way make each other acquainted with their respective
obligations which were not in fact alike. Thus each would reveal to the other,
secrets which he was sworn to keep.
III. The oaths of every degree, from the lowest
to the highest, must be uniform, everywhere the same, and unchangeable. If they
were not the same in every country, in every language, and at every time,
Masonry would be a perfect babel. Now degrees may be added ad infinitum, but a
Mason of any degree must Know that Masons of the same degree in every place,
have taken the same oath that he has taken, and have taken all the oaths of the
previous degrees, just as he has himself. If this were not true, Masons could
not everywhere know with what they might entrust each other. Suppose, for
example, that the obligation to conceal each other's crimes, and to keep each
other's secrets, was not universal and unchangeable, how would they know with
what they might trust each other in different places? Suppose the obligation to
assist each other in getting out of any difficulty, whether right or wrong, was
not uniform and universal, how would they know what they might demand of, or
were under obligation to perform for, each other? But can not its objectionable
points, it may be asked, be dropped out, and what is valuable preserved? Drop
from the obligation, for instance, in any place, the clause that binds them to
keep each other's secrets, murder and treason excepted, or without
exception,--to deliver each other from difficulty, whether right or wrong, to
give each other precedence in business or politics, to give each other warning
of any approaching danger and the like. Now if you drop out any one of these,
at any time or place, you introduce confusion, and Masons could not understand
each other. Furthermore, drop out the most objectionable features of Masonry,
and you have robbed it of its principal value to the membership, you have
annihilated the principal reasons for becoming and for remaining a Mason. But
the changes are manifestly impossible. There is nowhere any authority for such
change; and, as has been stated, the whole fraternity would rebuke any attempt
at such innovation. We may rest assured, therefore, that Freemasonry is not,
and can not be, essentially changed, except by addition. To this point all
their highest authorities bear the fullest testimony. Its very nature forbids
essential innovations at any time or in any place. But should Masons affirm that
the institution is changed, how are we to know what changes have been made?
They are under oath to keep this a profound secret. Suppose they were to affirm
that, since the revelations made by Morgan, Bernard, and others, the
institution has been greatly improved, this is a virtual admission that those
books are true, which they have so often denied. But since they have first
denied that those books were true, and now virtually admit their truth, by
claiming that Masonry has been improved since those books were written, what
reason have we to believe them? I have, in a previous number, shown that it is
irrational to believe what Masons themselves say in respect to their secrets. I
do not know that any intelligent and respectable Freemason pretends that Masonry
has been improved. But suppose they should, how shall we know in what respects
it has been improved, that we may judge for ourselves whether the changes are
improvements. If any number of them were now to affirm that Masonry, as it now
exists, is divested of all the objectionable features that formerly belonged to
it, how shall we know whether this is true? They have always denied that it had
any objectionable features; they have always claimed that it needed no
improvement, and their highest authorities have many times affirmed that all
improvement and innovation were impossible. In view of all the testimony in the
case, we have no right to believe that Masonry is at all improved from what it
was forty years ago. As late as 1860, Richardson revealed sixty-two degrees of
Masonry as it then existed. It was then the same in every essential feature as
when Bernard made his revelation in 1829, and when Avery Allyn made his
revelation in 1831. We are all, therefore, under the most solemn obligations to
believe that Masonry is, in all important particulars, just what is has been
since its various degrees have been adopted and promulged. We certainly do
greatly err and sin, if, in view of all the facts, we assume, and act upon the
assumption, that Freemasonry is divested of its immoral and obnoxious features.
Such an assumption is utterly unwarranted, because, on the one hand, there is
no evidence of the fact, and, on the other, there is positive and abundant
proof that no such change has been made. We are all, therefore, responsible to
God and to humanity for the course we shall take respecting the institution. We
are bound to judge of it, and to treat it, according to the evidence in the
case, which is, that, Freemasonry is necessarily a wicked institution, and
incapable of thorough moral reformation.
I have spoken frequently of its having the
character, in certain respects, of a mutual aid, or mutual insurance, company.
It is inquired, are all these necessarily wicked? I answer, no. The benefits of
these institutions may be real and great. For example, an insurance company
that insures persons against loss by shipwreck, by fire, or by what we call
accident of any kind, may be very beneficial to society. When they help each
other in cases of calamity that involve no crime, they are not necessarily
wicked, but may be very useful. The benefits of these companies are open to all
upon reasonable conditions; and if any do not reap the fruits of them, it is
not the fault of the society, but of those who neglect to avail themselves of
its benefits. But Freemasonry is by no means a mere insurance or mutual aid
society. The moral character of any institution must depend on the end at which
it aims; that is, the moral character of any society is found in the end it is
intended to secure. Mutual aid and insurance companies, as they exist for
business purposes, do not necessarily deprive any one of his rights, and are
often highly useful. The members of such societies or companies do not know
each other, nor exert over each other any personal influence whatever. They are
not bound by any oath to render each other any unlawful assistance, to conceal
each other's crimes, nor "to espouse each other's cause, whether right or
wrong." There is no clannish spirit engendered by their frequent meeting
together, nor by mutual pledges under the most awful oaths and penalties, to
treat each other with any favoriteism under any circumstances. But Freemasonry,
on the contrary, does pledge its members by the most solemn oaths, to aid each
other in a manner that sets aside the rights of others. For example, they are
sworn first, in the Master's degree, to conceal each other's crimes,
"murder and treason only excepted;" second, in the Royal Arch degree,
"murder and treason not excepted;" in this same degree they swear to
endeavor to extricate each other, if involved in any difficulty, whether they
are right or wrong; third, they also swear to promote each other's political
elevation in preference to any one of equal qualifications who is not a Freemason;
fourth, to give each other the preference in business transactions. --See
Richardson's Monitor of Freemasonry, p. 92. Degree of Secret Monitor: "I
furthermore promise and swear, that I will caution a brother Secret Monitor by
signs, word, or token, whenever I see him doing, or about to do, any thing
contrary to his interest in buying or selling. I furthermore promise and swear,
that I will assist a brother Secret Monitor in preference to any other person
by introducing him to business, by sending him custom, or in any other manner
in which I can throw a penny in his way." They swear "to represent
all who violate their Masonic oaths as worthless vagabonds, and to send this
character after them to ruin their business and their reputation wherever they may
go and be to the end of their lives." They also swear to seek the condign
punishment of all such in the infliction of the penalties of their oaths upon
them. They swear to seek their death. They swear to a stringent exclusiveness,
excluding from their society all that would most naturally need aid and
sympathy, and receiving none who are not "physically perfect." Old
men in dotage, young men in nonage, all women, idiots and other needy classes,
are all excluded. Freemasonry has a vast fund of money at its disposal. The
fraternity are very numerous. They boast of numbering in this country at the
present time six hundred thousand, and that they are multiplying faster than
ever. They permeate every community, and their influence is almost omnipresent.
Of course, such an aid society as this will everywhere and in every thing
ignore and trample on the rights of others to secure advantages for each other.
As an illustration of the workings of this society, I make an extract or two
from "The American Freemason," published in Louisville, Kentucky,
dated April 8, 5854, that is 1854, and edited by Robert Morris, an eminent
Masonic author. From the eighty-fifth page I quote as follows: "Lynn,
Indiana.-- In hauling a load of pork to the depot a year or two since, I found
the rush of wagons so great that the delivery was fully three days behind. This
was a serious matter to me, for I could not lose so much time from my business,
and was seriously weighing the propriety of going on to Cincinnati with my
load, when the freight agent, learning from a casual remark of mine, that I was
a Freemason, was kind enough at once to order my errand attended to, and in
three hours I was unloaded, and ready, with a light heart, to set my face
homeward. Is it not an admirable thing, this Masonic spirit of brotherly
love?" To this the editor adds: "Verily it is. We have seen it in
many varieties of form, but our kindhearted brother's is but an every-day
experience of Masonic practice, but to the world how inexplicable do such things
appear." Here we have a specimen of Masonic brotherly love. But was this
right, to give this preference to this man, and wrong all who were there before
him, and had a right to have. their business done before him! He gained three
days' time, and saved the expense of waiting for his turn, whilst others were
obliged to lose both the time and expense. And this we are coolly told, by high
Masonic authority, is the "constant practice of Freemasons." What an
exquisite brotherly love is this. It is delicious! But this is in entire
accordance with the spirit of their oaths. But is it not a trampling on the
rights of others! In this same paper we have, in an illustration of the nature
of Freemasonry, a tale, the substance of which is, that a criminal, under
sentence of death, was set free by Freemasons under the pretense that he was
not guilty of the murder for which he was condemned. So they took the case into
their own hands, and set aside the judgment of the court and jury. Observe,
this is given as an illustration of the manner in which Freemasons aid each
other.
These cases are given as their own boast of
specimens of their brotherly love. But is this consistent with right and good
government? The fact is, that it is impossible to engage in any business, to
travel, to do any thing, to go anywhere, without feeling the influence of this
and other secret societies. Wrongs are constantly inflicted upon individuals
and upon society, of which the wronged are unaware. We can be wronged any day
by a favoritism practiced by these societies, without being aware how or by
whom we are wronged. I was informed of late, that in a large manufacturing
establishment, poor men, dependent for their daily bread upon their labors in
the factory, were turned out to give place to Freemasons who were no better
workmen than themselves. Indeed it is inevitable that such a society should act
upon such a principle. But it may be asked, can not Masonry be essentially
reformed, so that it shall involve no wrong.? I answer, no, unless its very
fundamental principle and aim be reversed, and then it would cease to be
Freemasonry. In its workings it is a constant wrong inflicted upon society. It
is an incessant and wide-spread conspiracy for the concealment of crime, to
obstruct the course of justice, and, in many instances, to persecute the
innocent and let the wicked go free. To reform it, its ends and its means must
both be reformed. It must cease to be exclusive and selfish. It must cease to
promise aid in many forms in which it does promise it. I have said that it was
more than an innocent mutual aid society. Its members are pledged to aid each
other in concealing iniquity, and in many ways that trample upon the rights of
others.
And it is because this society promises aid in
so many ways, and under so many circumstances, that men unite themselves to it.
I have never heard any better reason assigned for belonging to it, than that,
in many respects, one might reap a personal advantage from it. Now reform it,
and make it a truly benevolent society; reform out of it all unrighteous
favoritism, and all those forms of aid which are inconsistent with the
universal good, and the highest well-being of society in general, and you have
altered its essential nature; it is no longer Freemasonry, or any thing like Freemasonry.
To reform it is to destroy it. In this view of Freemasonry, it is easy to see
how difficult, if not impossible, it is for a man to be a consistent Freemason
and yet a Christian. Just conceive of a Christian constantly receiving the
preference over others as good as himself, in traveling, in railroad cars, on
steamboats, at hotels, and everywhere, and in business transactions, and in
almost all the relations of life, allowing himself to be preferred to others
who have equal rights with himself. To be sure, in traveling, he may bless
himself because he is so comfortable, and that so much pains are taken to give
him the preference in every thing. If at a hotel, he may have the best seat at
the table, and the best room in the house, and may find himself everywhere more
favored than others.
But can he honestly accept this? Has he any
right to accept it? No, indeed, he has not! He is constantly favored at the
expense of others. He constantly has more than his right, while others are
deprived of their rights. In other words, he is selfish, and that continually.
He finds a personal benefit in it. Yes, and that is why he adheres to it. But
again, if true to his oath, he is not only thus constantly receiving benefits
unjustly, or to the injury of others, but also conferring them.
Whenever he sees a Masonic sign and recognizes
a Masonic brother, he, of course, must do by him as a Freemason, as he himself
is done by.
How can a man who is a Christian allow himself
to be influenced by such motives as are presented in Freemasonry? Now let it be
understood that all action is to be judged by its motive. No man has a right to
receive or confer favors that interfere with the rights of others. And a man
who can travel about the country and make himself known as a Freemason for the
purpose of being indulged, and finding the best place in a hotel, or the best
seat in a railroad car, or the best state-room in a steamboat, must be a
selfish man, and can not be a Christian, --for a selfish man is not a
Christian. Let it then be understood that Masonry in its fundamental principle,
in which its moral character is found, is not reformed, and can not be reformed
without destroying its very nature.
It can not be a part of general benevolence,
but stands unalterably opposed to the highest well-being of society in general.
The same, let me say, is true to a greater or less extent of all secret
societies, whose members are bound by oath or pledge to treat each other with a
favoritism that ignores the rights of others. Now, it has been said, and I
think truly, that in the late war if a man wished preferment and high rank, he
must be a high Mason. Such things were managed so much by high Masons that it
was difficult for a man to rise in rank unless he could make himself known as a
high Mason. And let the facts become known--and, I hope that measures will be
taken to make them know--and I believe it will be found that the great mass of
the lucrative offices in the United States are in the hands of the Freemasons.
It is evident that they are aiming to seize
upon the government, and to wield it in their own interest. They are fast doing
this, and unless the nation awake soon it will be too late. And let the church
of God also awake to the fact that many of her ministers and members are uniting
with a society so selfish and wicked as this, and are defending it, and are
ready to persecute all who will not unite with them in this thing. What Mr.
Morris said of the nature of Freemasonry, that is, that it was the constant
practice of Freemasons to give each other the preference, as in the case of the
man delivering his load, is really what every observant man, especially if he
has ever been himself a Mason, knows to be true.
When Freemasons say that it is "a good
thing" they mean by this that men reap personal advantage from it. But I
am bound to say, that I should feel utterly ashamed to have any one offer to
give me a right that belonged to others because I was a Mason.
It has been frequently said, by persons:
"If I was going to travel, I would become a Freemason." A physician
in the United States Army in the late war, said to a relative of his: "If
I were going into the army again, I would be sure to become a Freemason. There
is such a constant favoritism shown by Freemasons to each other, on every occasion,
that were I going to take the field again, I would be sure to avail myself of
the benefits of that institution." Now, in opposition to this, I would
say, that were I going to travel, or were I going to enlist in the army, I
should be ashamed to avail myself of any such benefits at all. It is not right
that any such favoritism should exist, and any man ought to reject with
indignation the proposal of such favoritism. Any man should blush, if he has
entertained the thought of allowing himself to be placed in such a selfish
position. But it is asserted, no doubt with truth, that oftentimes the lives of
brother Masons have been spared, simply because of this relation. But shall a
man save his life by wrongdoing? He had better remember, that if he attempts
this, he ruins his own soul. He that would thus "save his life, shall lose
it." A man can gain nothing in the end by wrong-doing; let him do right,
and if, by so doing, he loses his life, he will be sure to save it. With my
present knowledge of Freemasonry I would not become a Freemason to save my life
a thousand times.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XIII
THE
CLAIM OF FREEMASONRY TO GREAT ANTIQUITY IS FALSE.
We have seen that Freemasonry has been truly
revealed. We have examined its oaths, principles, claims, and teaching, so far
as to prepare the way for an examination of its moral character and tendencies,
and also its relations to both Church and State. This I now proceed to do. And
1. .Its claims to great antiquity are false. Every
one at all acquainted with the claims of Freemasonry knows that it professes to
have existed in the days of Solomon; and it is claimed that Solomon himself was
a Freemason, and that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were Freemasons.
Indeed, the writers frequently trace it back as coeval with the creation
itself. Masons have claimed for their institution an antiquity antecedent to
human government; and from this they have argued that they have a right to
execute the penalties of their oaths, because Masonry is older than government.
Now an examination will show that this claim is utterly false. Their own
highest authorities now pronounce it to be false; and still these claims are
kept up, and their oaths and ceremonies, and the whole structure of the
institution profess the greatest antiquity.
Solomon, for instance, figures as a Freemason
everywhere in their ceremonies.
Their lodges are dedicated to St. John; and in
the third degree there is a scene professed to have been enacted in the temple
and at the building of the Temple of Solomon.
Now, all this is utterly fallacious, a false
pretense, and a swindle; because it is the obtaining of money from those who
join them under false pretenses.
Steinbrenner, a great Masonic historian, after
much research, with manifest candor, says that Speculative Freemasonry --which
is the only form of Freemasonry now existing-- dates no further back than 1717.
The article on Freemasonry in the new "American Encyclopedia" agrees
with this statement of Steinbrenner. Indeed, all modern research on this
subject has resulted in dating the commencement of Freemasonry, as it now
exists, not far from the middle of the eighteenth century.
Dr. Dalcho, the compiler of the book of
constitutions for South Carolina, says: "Neither Adam, nor Noah, nor
Nimrod, nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Solomon, nor Hiram, nor St. John
the Baptist, nor St. John the Evangelist, were Freemasons. Hypothesis in
history is absurd. There is no record, sacred or profane, to induce us to
believe that those holy men were Freemasons; and our traditions do not go back
to those days. To assert that they were Freemasons may make the vulgar stare,
but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise."
Now, observe, this is a high authority, and
should be conclusive with Masons, because it is one of their own leaders who
affirms this. But, if this is true, what shall we think of the claims of
Freemasonry itself? For every one who reads these revelations of Freemasonry
will see that Solomon, and Hiram, and those ancient worthies everywhere figure
in these rites and ceremonies; so that, if these men were indeed not Masons,
then Freemasonry is a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. What! has it come to
this, that this boasted claim of antiquity, which everywhere lies at the
foundation of Masonic rites, ceremonies, and pretensions, is now discovered to
be false?
Through all the Masonic degrees the pretense is
kept up that Masonry has always been one and the same; and that its degrees are
ancient, and all its principles and usages of great antiquity. Let any one
examine the books in which it is revealed, and he can not help being struck
with this. Furthermore, in the orations, sermons, and puffs that are so common
with Masons on all occasions on which they show themselves off, they flaunt
their very ancient date, their very ancient principles and usages, and they
pledge their candidates, from one degree to another, to conform to all the
ancient rites, principles, and usages of the order.
But what shall we at the present day say of
these pretensions? I have before me the Masonic Monthly for October, 1867,
printed in Boston. It will not be denied, I suppose, that this is one of their
standard authorities. At any rate, whatever may be said of the editor of this
paper, it will not be denied that the authorities quoted in the discussions in
this number are high, if not the very highest authorities in the Masonic
fraternity. If I had space to quote nearly this entire number, I should be very
happy to do so, for it is occupied almost entirely, from beginning to end, with
exposing these pretensions to which I have alluded. It appeals to their own
standard authorities; and insists that Speculative Freemasonry, in all its
higher degrees, is an imposture and a swindle. It quotes their great historian
Steinbrenner, of New York--to show that Speculative Freemasonry was first
established in London, in 1717; and that at that time Masonry consisted
probably, of but one degree. That about 1725 a Mr. Anderson added two degrees;
and, as the writer in this number states, began the Christianizing of
Freemasonry. There is at this day a great division among Freemasons themselves,
the point of disagreement being this: One party maintains that the Christian
religion is of no more authority with Masons than any other form of religion;
that Masonry proper does not recognize the Bible as of any higher authority
than the sacred books of heathen nations, or than the Koran of Mohammed; that
Freemasonry proper recognizes all religions as equally valid, and that so far
as Masonry is concerned it matters not at all what the religion of its
adherents is, provided they be not Atheists. The other party maintains that
Masonry is founded upon the Bible, and that it is substantially a Christian
institution.
This controversy is assuming extensive
proportions, and it is very interesting for outsiders to look into it. I say
outsiders--and I might say it is important, and would be very creditable, for
the members of the fraternity to understand this matter better than they do;
for I doubt if one in twenty of them is posted in regard to the real state of
this question among the fraternity themselves. Mr. Evans, who is the editor of
this Masonic Monthly, takes the ground, and I think sustains it fully from
their own authorities, that all the upper degrees of Masonry are an imposture.
He goes on to show where and by whom, in
several important cases, these upper degrees were manufactured and palmed off on
the brotherhood as ancient Freemasonry.
For example, he shows that Mr. Oliver, one of
their most prolific authors, asserts that one of the grand lodges in London
gave charters, about the middle of the eighteenth century, to the Masonic
lodges in France; and that in France they immediately betook themselves to
manufacturing degrees and palming them off on the public as of very ancient
origin. They proceeded to manufacture a thousand of these degrees in France.
Many of them they asserted they had received from Scotland; but the Grand Lodge
of Scotland denied ever having known of those degrees.
It is also asserted in this number that the
Royal Arch degree was at first but an appendage to a Master's lodge, and had no
separate charter, and for a long time was not recognized at all as any part of
Freemasonry. And it informs us when and by whom the Royal Arch degree was
manufactured. This number also shows that many of the Masonic degrees have
originated in Charleston, South Carolina; and that a man by the name of Webb,
in Massachusetts, manufactured the Templars' degrees. In short, we find here
their own standard authorities showing up all the higher degrees of Masonry as
having been gotten up and palmed off on the fraternity in order to make money
out of them; and is not this a swindle? I wish to call the attention especially
of the fraternity to these statements in this number of the Masonic Monthly.
Indeed, it is now common for the highest and
best informed Masons to ridicule the pretense that Speculative Freemasonry is
an ancient institution, as a humbug and a lie, having no foundation in correct
history at all. Now will Freemasons examine this subject for themselves?--for
they have been imposed upon.
I am particularly anxious to have professed
Christians who are Freemasons thoroughly understand this matter. They have
regarded Freemasonry as entirely consistent with the Christian religion, and
have professed to see in it nothing with which a Christian can not have
fellowship. In the third, or Master's, degree we find the story of Hiram Abiff
introduced into Masonry.
Now this number of the Monthly charges, that
this class of Freemasons went on to construct all the subsequent degrees of
Freemasonry from the Bible, by ransacking the whole Old and New Testaments for striking
passages from which they could construct new degrees, thus leaving the
impression that Masonry was a divine institution, and founded upon the Bible.
If professed Christians who are Freemasons will
really examine this subject, they will see that a Masonic lodge is no place for
a Christian.
But suppose it should be asked, may we not
innocently take those degrees that are founded upon the Bible, and that
recognize the Christian religion as of divine authority? I answer, Christians
cannot be hypocrites. Let it be distinctly understood, that all these higher
degrees are shown to be an imposture; and that this Christianizing of
Freemasonry has consisted in heaping up a vast mass of falsehood, and of
palming it off upon the fraternity as truth and as ancient Freemasonry.
Can Masonic orators be honest in still claiming
for Speculative Masonry great antiquity, divine authority, and that it is a
saving institution? Masons are themselves now showing that the whole fabric of
Speculative Freemasonry is an enormous falsehood. Stone Masonry, doubtless, had
its simple degree, and its pass words and signs by which they knew each other.
It also had its obligations. But upon that little stem have been engrafted a
great number of spurious and hypocritical degrees.
This does seem to be undeniable. Now will
Freemasons be frank enough to acknowledge this, and to say frankly that they
have been imposed upon? Will they come out from all fellowship with such an
imposture and such a swindle?
It has then come at last to this, that the
highest authority among Freemasons has taken the ground that the Freemasonry
which has been so eulogized throughout the length and breadth of the land, and
which has drawn in so many professed Christians and ministers, is nothing less
than an enormous cheat. That those behind the curtain, who have manufactured
and sold these degrees--those Grand Chapters and Encampments and Commanderies,
and all those pompous assemblies--have been engaged in enticing the brotherhood
who had taken the lower degrees, to come up into their ranks and pay their
money, that they may line their pockets. Now remember that these positions are
fully sustained by Masons themselves, as their views are set forth in this
number of the Masonic Monthly.
I do most earnestly entreat Freemasons to
inform themselves on this subject; and not turn around and tell us that they,
being Freemasons, know more about it than we do ourselves. The fact is, my
friends, many of you do not. You do not read. I have myself recently conversed
with a Freemason who admitted to me that he was entirely ignorant of what was
being said in Masonic periodicals on this subject. I do not believe that one in
twenty of the Masonic fraternity in this country is aware of the intense
hypocrisy with which all the higher degrees of Masonry have been palmed off
upon them, and upon the whole fraternity. Can men of honor and of principle
allow their names and influence to be used to sustain such an enormous mass of
false pretension?
But again, no one can read Bernard on Masonry
through, or any of these authors, without perceiving the most unmistakable
evidence that most of the degrees in Masonry are of modern date. I do not know
why so much stress should be laid upon the antiquity of Masonry by those who
embrace and adhere to it. It surely does not prove that it is of any value, or
that it is true. Sin is of very ancient date, heathenism is of very ancient
date, and most of the abominations that are in the world are of very ancient
date; but this is no reason tbr embracing them, or regarding them as of any
great importance.
But to certain minds there is a charm in the
appearance and profession of antiquity; and young Masons are universally
deceived in this respect, and led to believe that it is one of the most ancient
of existing institutions, if not the very most so. Now I would not object to
Masonry because it is of modern origin; for this would not prove it to be
false, if it did not profess to be of ancient origin. I notice this false
pretense not because I think its being of recent date would prove it unworthy
of notice, or of immoral character or tendency. But observe that its
pretensions from first to last are that it is of very ancient date; and it is
traced back to the days of inspiration, and is claimed to have been founded and
patronized by inspired men.
What would Masonry be if all its claims to
antiquity were stricken out, and if those degrees in Masonry, and those
ceremonies and usages, were abolished that rest upon the claim that Solomon,
that Hiram Abiff, and John the Evangelist, were Freemasons? What would remain
of Freemasonry if all those claims found in the very body of the institution
were stricken out? Why, their very lodges are dedicated to the holy order of
St. John and Zerubbabel, etc. But what had St. John to do with Freemasonry?
Manifestly nothing. He never heard or thought of it. Nor did Solomon or
Zerubbabel.
And here let me say a word to young men who
have been urged to unite with this fraternity, and who have been made to
believe that the institution is so very ancient that it was established and
patronized by those holy men. My dear young men, you have been deceived. You
have been imposed upon as I was imposed upon. You have been made to believe a
lie. They have drawn your money from you under false pretenses that some very
ancient mysteries were to be revealed to you; and that the institution was one
established as far back, at least, as the days of Solomon, and that St. John
was the patron of the institution. Now this, rely upon it, is but a pretense, a
sham, an imposture, and a swindle. I beg you to believe me; and if you will
examine the subject for yourselves, you will find it to be true.
Your own best historian, Steinbrenner, will
teach you that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it is now universally known,
dates no further back than the eighteenth century. And Dr. Dalcho, who is good
authority with the brotherhood, as we have seen, repudiates the idea of its
antiquity as that which "may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite
the contempt than the admiration of the wise." I know that Masons affirm
that the institution in its present form is the descendant of a brotherhood of
stone masons, whose history may be traced back for some seven hundred years.
But remember that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it now exists, is not at
all what it was among those simple artisans. The name is preserved, and some of
its symbols, for the purpose of claiming for it great antiquity. But do not be
deceived. If you will examine the subject for yourselves, you will find that
modern Freemasonry is entirely another thing from that from which it claims to
be descended. And when you hear ministers, or orators, on any occasion,
claiming for Speculative Freemasonry--which is the only form in which it now
exists--a great antiquity, let it be settled, I pray you, in your minds, that
such claims are utterly false; and that those who make them are either grossly
ignorant or intensely dishonest. King Solomon a stone mason! Hiram a Grand
Master of a Grand Lodge of stone masons! Those men uniting in a lodge with a
company of stone masons! Does any one really believe the silly tale?
How long shall the intelligent of this
generation be insulted by having this pretended antiquity of Freemasonry
paraded before the public? Do not intelligent Freemasons blush to hear their
orators on public occasions, and even ministers of the Gospel in their Masonic
sermons, flaunt the silly falsehoods of the great antiquity of Freemasonry
before the public, and claim that Enoch, Zerubbabel, Solomon, the St. Johns,
and all the ancient worthies, were Freemasons?
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XIV
THE
BOASTED BENEVOLENCE OF MASONS A SHAM
The law of God requires universal benevolence,
supreme love to God, and equal love to our neighbor--that is, to all mankind.
This the Gospel also requires, and this is
deniable. But does Masonry inculcate this morality? and is this Masonic
benevolence?
By no means. Masonic oaths require partial
benevolence; or strictly, they require no benevolence at all. For real
benevolence is universal in its own nature. It is good willing; that is, it
consists in willing the well-being or good of universal being--and that for its
own sake, and not because the good belongs to this or that particular
individual.
In other words, true benevolence is necessarily
impartial. But Masonic oaths not only do not require impartial and universal
benevolence, but they require the exact opposite of this. The law and Gospel of
God allow and require us to discriminate in our doing good between the holy and
the wicked.
They require us to do good, as we have
opportunity, to all men, but especially to the household of faith. But the
Masonic oaths make no such discriminations as this, nor do they allow it. These
oaths require Masons to discriminate between Masons and those that are not
Masons; giving the preference to Masons, even if they are not Christians,
rather than to Christians if they are not Masons.
Now this is directly opposite to both the law
and the Gospel. But this is the benevolence and morality of Freemasonry,
undeniably.
The law and the Gospel require our
discriminations in our treatment of men to be conditional upon their holiness
and likeness to God and their faith in Jesus Christ.
But the oaths of Freemasons require their
discriminations to be founded upon the mere relation of a brother Mason,
whatever his Christian or moral character may be.
It is not pretended that a man may not be a
good and worthy Mason who is not a Christian. It is admitted and claimed by
Freemasonry that a man's religion, or religious character, has nothing to do
with his being a Mason. If he admits the being of a God this is enough.
Now this, I say again, is not only not in
accordance with Christian morality, and with the law and Gospel of God; but it
is directly opposed to both law and Gospel.
But, again, the utter want of true benevolence
in the Masonic institution will further appear if we consider the exclusiveness
of the institution. A minister in Cleveland, recently defending the institution
of Masonry, declared that the glory of Masonry consists in its exclusiveness.
But is this in accordance with the benevolence required in the Gospel?
Masonry, observe, professes to be a benevolent
institution. But, first, it excludes all women from a participation in its
rights, ceremonies, privileges, and blessings, whatever they may be. Secondly,
it excludes all old men in their dotage. Thirdly, it excludes all young men in
their nonage; that is, under twenty-one years of age. Several other classes are
excluded; but these that I have named comprise a vast majority, probably not
less than two-thirds of all mankind. Again, they admit no deformed person, and
none but those who are physically perfect. In short, they admit none who are likely
to become chargeable to the institution.
Some time since the Grand Lodge of the State of
New York adopted a series of articles defining certain landmarks and principles
of Freemasonry. These articles have been accepted and eulogized by the Masonic
press. The first is as follows. I quote it from the American Freemason, edited
by "Robert Morris, Knight Templar, and author of various Masonic
works," with his preface and strictures. These articles Mr. Morris regards
as high Masonic authority. The number from which I quote is dated at
Louisville, Kentucky, 8th of April, 5854, Masonic date, in other words, in
1854, fourteen years ago.
"Our New York brethren are eminent for the
matchless ability with which their Grand Lodge documents are prepared. In this
department they have set the example for others, and there are yet a few that
would do well to look to the East for more light. We copy their 'Thirty-four
Articles' with some condensation and a few comments of our own, and present
them to our readers as a well-digested system of Masonic law and practice.
"'Article I. It is not proper to initiate
into our lodges persons of the negro race; and their exclusion is in accordance
with Masonic law, and the ancient charges and regulations. Because of their
depressed social condition; their general want of intelligence, which unfits
them as a body to work in or adorn the craft; the impropriety of making them
our equals in one place, when from their social condition and the circumstances
which almost everywhere attach to them, we can not do so in others; their not
being, as a general thing, free-born; the impossibility, or at least the
difficulty, of ascertaining, if we once commence, their free birth, and where
the line of intelligence and social elevation commences and ends, or divides
portions of their race; and finally, their not being as a race "persons of
good report," or who can be "well recommended" as subjects for
initiation, their very seldom being persons who have any "trade, estate,
office, occupation or visible way of acquiring an honest livelihood and working
in the craft, as becomes members of this ancient and most honorable fraternity,
who ought not only to earn what is sufficient for themselves and families, but
likewise something to spare for works of charity and for supporting the ancient
grandeur and dignity of the royal craft, eating no man's bread for
naught;" and their general positive deficiency of natural endowments. All
which would render it impossible, as a general thing, to conciliate and continue
between them and us good will and private affection or brotherly love, which
cements into one united body the members of this ancient fraternity.'
"COMMENT. These arguments can not be
successfully controverted. We, in the Southern or slave-holding States, whose
experience with the colored race is greater than that of others, affirm the New
York doctrine in every particular. However occasional instances may be offered
to the contrary, they are but the exceptions to prove the general rule, that
the race ought not to amalgamate socially or physically.
"'ARTICLE II. No person of the negro race
shall be examined or admitted as a visitor of any lodge of Masons under this
jurisdiction, if made in an African lodge in North America. Because all such
lodges are clandestine and without legal authority.'"
Here we have their benevolence unmasked. A
depressed social condition is a bar to admission to this benevolent society.
What if the Christian church should adopt such an article? Is this Christian
benevolence? Is it consistent with Christian morality? Christian ministers, is
this the morality you teach and practice? You profess to teach and practice the
precepts of Christ, and join and hold fast to a society whose law is to exclude
men for being in a depressed social position, whatever their wants, their moral
and religious character may be. You boast of your benevolence and exclude the
very class who have most need of sympathy and benevolence, and are you a
professed disciple, and perhaps a professed minister of Jesus. Shame!
Start here
But is this real benevolence, or Gospel
morality? No, indeed! It is the very opposite of Gospel morality or true
benevolence. In a recent number of the National Freemason--I think its date is
the 18th of January--it is admitted by the editor of that great national organ
that benevolent institutions have been so much multiplied that there is now
seldom any call upon Masons for charitable donations. Yes, but who has
multiplied these benevolent societies? Surely Masons have not done this, Christians
have done it. And Masonry now seems forced to admit that Christian benevolence
has covered the whole field, and left them nothing to do. So far as I have had
experience in Freemasonry, I can say that I do not recollect a single instance
in which the lodge to which I belonged ever gave any money to any charitable
object whatever.
As a Freemason, I never was called upon, and to
my recollection I never gave a cent as a Freemason, either to an individual as
a matter of charity or to any object whatever. My dues and fees to the lodges,
of course, I paid regularly; but that the money thus collected was given to any
charitable object whatever I do not believe.
Again, Freemasonry, at the best, is but a
mutual insurance company. Their oaths pledge them to assist each other, if in
distress or in necessitous circumstances; and each other's families, if left in
want. This they can well afford to do, on the principle of mutual insurance:
for they have vast sums, almost incalculable in amount, taking the whole fraternity
together; and they can lay out almost any amount of money in fitting up their
sumptuous lodges of the higher degrees, in building Masonic temples, in seeking
each other's promotion to office, and in defending each other in case any one
of them commits a crime and is liable to suffer for it.
The following estimate, taken from a note in
the revised edition of Bernard's "Light on Masonry," p. 96, will give
some idea how large are the sums held by Masons. "Supposing that in the
United States there are 500,000 Entered Apprentices, 400,000 Masters, and
200,000 Royal Arch Masons, also 10,000 Knights, and that they all paid the
usual fees for the degrees, the amount would be the enormous sum of
$11,250,000; the yearly interest of which, at seven per cent is $787,500, which
sum (allowing $100. to each individual) would support 7,875 persons.
Now, I ask: Do Masons, by their charities,
support this number of poor in the United States? Do they support one-tenth
part of this number? Supposing they do, is it necessary to give $10, or $50 for
the privilege of contributing $1, $5, or $50 masonically? Must the privilege of
being a charitable man be bought with gold? How many there are who have
rendered themselves incompetent to bestow charities, by their payment for and attendance
on Masonic secrets and ceremonies! If all the money paid for the degrees of
Masonry was applied to charitable purposes, the subject would appear
differently; but it is principally devoted to the erection of Masonic temples,
support of the Grand Lodges, and for refreshment for the craft, and I think I
may add, their support in kidnapping and murder."
It is no doubt true that but a very small part
of their funds is ever used for the support of even their own poor. If it is,
it behooves them to show it, and let the public know. They boast much of their
benevolence; and the charities of Freemasons are frequent]y compared with those
of the church--and that, too, boastfully; they maintaining that they are more
benevolent and charitable, and do more for the poor and destitute than even the
church has done.
But let us look at this. Is there any truth in
all this boasting? What has Freemasonry done for general education in any part
of the world? Let them tell us. Again, what has Freemasonry done for the general
poor? Nothing. What have they done for their own poor, as a matter of charity
and benevolence? Absolutely nothing. They have not even disbursed the funds
which have been paid in for that purpose. Let them show, if they can, that on
the principle of a mutual insurance society they have faithfully paid out to
their own poor that fund which has been paid in by Masons for the purpose of
securing to themselves and families, in case they should be reduced to poverty,
what would meet their absolute necessities. We challenge them to show any such
thing. We challenge them to show that, on the principle of benevolence and
charity, they have really done anything for either the general poor or their
own poor. They compare themselves with the Church of Christ in this respect!
What have they done for the Southern poor during our great struggle, and during
the long period of starvation and distress that has reigned in the South? What
have Freemasons, as such, done for the freedmen? And what are they now doing?
What have they done in any age of the world, as Freemasons, for Christian
missions, for the conversion of the world, for the salvation of the souls of
men? What! compare themselves boastfully with the Church of God, as being more
benevolent than Christians?
The fact is, the Church of Christ has done ten
thousand times as much for humanity as they have ever done. And she has not
done it on the principle of a mutual insurance company, but as a matter of true
benevolence; including in her charities the poor, the lowly, the halt and the
blind, the old and the young, the black and the white.
The Church of Christ has done more for the
bodies of men, ten thousand times more, than Freemasonry has ever done or ever
will do.
Besides, the Church of Christ has poured out its
treasure like a flood to enlighten mankind generally, to save their souls, and
to do them good both for time and eternity. But what has Freemasonry done in
this respect? Their boasted benevolence is a sham. I admit that they do
sometimes afford relief to an indigent brother Mason, and to the families of
such. I admit that they have often done this. But I maintain that this is not
done as an act of Christian charity, but only as an act of Masonic charity; and
that Masonic charity is only the part payment of a debt. Masons pay in their
money to the Masonic fund; and this fund is that out of which their poor are
helped, when they are helped at all.
What individuals do for individuals, on rare
occasions, is but a trifle. Indeed, it is seldom that they are called on as
individuals. The help granted to the poor is almost always taken from the funds
of the lodges. And I seriously doubt whether there is a lodge in the United
States that has ever paid as much for the support of their own poor as has been
paid in to their funds by those who have joined the lodge. Let it be
understood, then, that their boast of benevolence and of Christian morality is
utterly false. Their oaths do not pledge them at all to the performance of any
truly Christian morality; but to a Masonic benevolence, which is the opposite
of true Christian morality.
Instead, therefore, of Masonry's inculcating
really sound morality, instead of its being almost or quite true religion, the
very perfection of that morality which their oaths oblige them to practice is
anti-Christian, and opposed to both the law and Gospel of God. It is partial.
And here let me again appeal to the dear young men who have been persuaded to
join the Masonic fraternity under the impression that it is a benevolent
institution. Do not, my dear young men, suffer yourselves to be deceived in
this respect. If you have well considered what the law and Gospel require, you
will soon perceive that the benevolence and morality required by your Masonic
oaths is not Gospel morality or true benevolence at all; but that it is
altogether a spurious and selfish morality. Indeed, you yourselves are aware
that you joined the lodge from selfish motives; and that the morality
inculcated by Masons is an exclusive, one-sided, and selfish affair altogether.
In some of the lectures, you are aware that occasionally the duty of universal
good-will is, in few words, inculcated. But you also know that your oaths,
which lay down the rule of your duty in this respect, require no such thing as
universal and impartial benevolence; but that they require the opposite of
this. That is, they require you to prefer a Mason because he is a Mason to a
Christian because he is a Christian; and, instead of requiring you to do good
especially to the household of faith, your oaths require you to do good
especially to those who are Freemasons, whether they belong to the household of
faith or not. But this you know to be anti-Christian, and not according the
Gospel. But you know also that Christians devote themselves to doing good to
Masons and to those who are not Masons, to all classes and descriptions of men.
And this they do, not on the principle, as I have said, of a mutual insurance
society, but as a mere matter of benevolence. They deny themselves for the sake
of doing good to the most lowly and even to the most wicked men.
Do not allow yourselves, therefore, to suppose
that there is any good in Masonry. We often hear it said, and sometimes by
professed Christians and Christian ministers, "that Masonry is a good
thing."
But be not deceived. If by good is intended
morally good, the assertion is false. There is nothing morally good in
Freemasonry. If there are any good men who are Freemasons, Freemasonry has not
made them so; but Christianity has made them so. They are good not by virtue of
their Freemasonry, but by virtue of their Christianity. They have not been made
good by anything they have found in Freemasonry; but, if they are good, they
have been made good by Christianity, in spite of Freemasonry. I must say that I
have always been ashamed of Freemasons whenever I have read, in their orations,
or in the sermons of ministers who have eulogized it, or in their eulogistic
books, the pretense that Freemasonry is a benevolent institution. Many have
claimed it to be religion, and true religion. This question I shall examine in
another place. But the thing I wish to fix your especial attention upon in the
conclusion of this article is, that Freemasonry has no just claims to Christian
morality or benevolence; but that in its best estate it is only partiality, and
the doing in a very slovenly manner the work of a mutual insurance company. I
do not claim that as a mutual insurance company it is necessarily wicked but I
do insist that, being at best a mutual insurance company, it is wicked and
shameful to flaunt their hypocritical professions of benevolence before the
public as they constantly do. How long shall an intelligent people be nauseated
with this pretense? How can they expect us to have the least respect for such
claims to benevolence? We must regard the putting forth of such claims as an
insult to our common sense.
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XV
FREEMASONRY
IS A FALSE RELIGION
Some Freemasons claim that Freemasonry is a
saving institution, and that it is true religion. Others hold a different
opinion, claiming that it is the handmaid of religion, a system of refined
morality. Others still are free to admit that it is only a mutual aid or mutual
insurance society. This discrepancy of views among them is very striking, as
every one knows who has been in the habit of reading sermons, lectures, and
orations on Masonry published by themselves. in this article I propose to
inquire, first, Do their standard authorities claim that Masonry is identical with
true religion? secondly, Does Freemasonry itself claim to be true religion?
and, thirdly, Are these claims valid?
1. Do their standard authorities claim that
Masonry is true religion?
I quote Salem Town. I read his work some forty
years ago. The book professes on its title-page to be "A System of
Speculative Masonry, exhibited in a course of lectures before the Grand Chapter
of the State of New York, at their annual meetings in the City of Albany."
It was reduced to a regular system by their special request, and recommended to
the public by them as a system of Freemasonry. It is also recommended by nine
grand officers, in whose presence the lectures were delivered; by another who
had examined them; and by "the Hon. DeWitt Clinton, General Grand High
Priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States of America, Grand
Master of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, etc., etc.
The book was extensively patronized and
subscribed for by Freemasons throughout the country, and has always been
considered by the fraternity as a standard authority. From this author I quote
as follows:
"The principles of Freemasonry have the
same coeternal and unshaken foundations, contain and inculcate the same truths
in substance, and propose the same ultimate end, as the doctrines of
Christianity."--P. 53. Again he says: "The same system of faith and
the same practical duties taught by revelation are contained in and required by
the Masonic institution."--P. 174. "Speculative Masonry combines
those great and fundamental principles which constitute the very essence of the
Christian system."--P. 37. "It is no secret that there is not a duty
enjoined nor a virtue required in the volume of inspiration but what is found
in and taught by Speculative Freemasonry." "The characteristic
principles are such as embrace the whole subject-matter of divine
economy." P. 31.
Again he says: "As the Word in the first
verse of St. John constitutes both the foundation, the subject-matter, and the
great ultimate end of the Christian economy, so does the same Word, in all its
relations to man, time, and eternity, constitute the very spirit and essence of
Speculative Freemasonry."--P. 155. Again, referring to the promise of the
Messiah, he says: "The same precious promise is the great corner-stone in
the edifice of Speculative Freemasonry."--P. 171. Again he says: "The
Jewish order of priesthood from Aaron to Zacharias, and even till the coming of
Messias, was in confirmation of the great event, which issued in the redemption
of man. All pointed to the eternal priesthood of the Son of God, who by his own
blood made atonement for sin, and consecrated the way to the Holy of holies.
This constitutes the great and ultimate point of Masonic research."--P.
121.
"That a knowledge of the divine Word, or
Logos, should have been the object of so much religious research from time
immemorial adds not a little to the honor of Speculative Freemasonry."--P.
151.
Again he says: "It is a great truth, and
weighty as eternity, that the present and everlasting well-being of mankind is
solely and ultimately intended." --P. 170. This he says of Freemasonry.
But again he says: "Speculative Masonry, according to present acceptation,
has an ultimate reference to that spiritual building erected by virtue in the
heart, and summarily implies the arrangement and perfection of those holy and
sublime principles by which the soul is fitted for a meet temple of God in a
world of immortality." --P. 63. Does not Freemasonry profess to be a
saving religion?
Again he says: "In advancing to the fourth
degree, the good man is greatly encouraged to persevere in the ways of
well-doing even to the end. He has a name which no man knoweth save him that
receiveth it. If, therefore, he be rejected and cast forth among the rubbish of
the world, he knows full well that the great Master-builder of the universe,
having chosen and prepared him a lively stone in that spiritual building in the
heavens, will bring him forth in triumph, while shouting grace, grace to the
Divine Redeemer. Then the Freemason is assured of his election and final
salvation. Hence, opens the fifth degree, where he discovers his election to,
and his glorified station in, the kingdom of his Father." Then again he is
assured of his "election and glorified station in the kingdom of his Father."
If this is not claiming for Freemasonry a saving power what is? Salem Town is
the great light in Freemasonry, as the title and history of his work imports.
Does he not claim that Freemasonry is a saving religion? To be sure he does, or
no words can assert such a claim. "With these views, the sixth degree is
conferred, where the riches of divine grace are opened in boundless
prospect." "Then he beholds in the eighth degree, that all the
heavenly sojourners will be admitted within the veil of God's presence, where
they will become kings and priests before the throne of his glory forever and
ever."--Pp. 79-81. By the "heavenly sojourners," he certainly
means Freemasons. Observe what he asserts of them: "Then he (the
Freemason) beholds in the eighth degree that all the heavenly sojourners will
be admitted within the veil of God's presence, where they will become kings and
priests before the throne of his glory forever and ever." This clenches
the claim. The maxims of wisdom are gradually unfolded, till the whole duty of
man is clearly. and persuasively exhibited to the mind."--P. 184.
Again: "Principles and duties which lie at
the foundation of the Masonic system,. and are solemnly enjoined upon every
brother; whoever, therefore, shall conscientiously discharge them in the fear
of God fulfills the whole duty of man."--P. 48. Then he claims for
Freemasonry all that is or can be claimed for the law or Gospel of God.
Again he says: "The Divine Being views no
moral character in a man with greater complacency than his who in heart
strictly conforms to Masonic requirements." "The more prominent
features of a true Masonic character are literally marked with the highest
beauties."--Pp. 33, 185. Then again he represents Masonry as forming as
holy a character in man as the Gospel does or can.
Again he says that "every good Mason is of
necessity truly and emphatically a Christian."--P. 37. Then he represents
Freemasonry as identical with Christianity. A true Mason must necessarily be a
true Christian. That Masonry professes to conduct its disciples to heaven we
find affirmed by Town, in the following language. Of the inducements to
practice the precepts of Masonry he says: "They are found in that eternal
weight of glory, that crown of joy and rejoicing laid up for the faithful in a
future world."--P. 188.
By the faithful here he means faithful
Freemasons. This same writer claims that Solomon organized the institution by
inspiration from God. On page 187, he says: "So Masonry was transmitted
from Enoch, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and their successors, till Solomon,
being inspired of God, established a regular form of administration."
This will suffice for the purpose of showing
what is claimed for Masonry by their standard authorities. The same in
substance might be quoted from various other standard writers. I have made
these quotations from Elder Stearns' book, not finding in my library a copy of
Town. In another place I shall find it convenient to quote sundry others of
their standard writers, who, while they claim it to be a religion, do not
consider it the Christian religion.
This conducts us (2) to the second inquiry:
What does Freemasonry claim for itself?
And here I might quote from almost any of the
Masonic degrees to show that this claim is put forth in almost every part of
the whole institution. As Town claims for it, so it claims for itself, a power
to conduct its disciples to heaven. Any one who will take pains to read
Bernard's "Light on Masonry" through, will be satisfied that Town
claims for the institution no more than it claims for itself.
I beg of all who feel any interest in this
subject to get and read Bernard on Masonry; to read it through, and see if Town
has not rightly represented the claims of Freemasonry. I deny, observe, that he
has rightly represented its principles, and that which it really requires of
Masons. That he has misrepresented Masonic law I insist. But in respect to its
promises of heaven as a reward for being good Freemasons he has not misrepresented
it. It claims to be a saving institution. This certainly will appear to any
person who will take the pains to examine its teachings and its claims as
revealed in "Light on Masonry." Mr. Town has grossly misrepresented
Masonic Law and morality as we have seen in examining its claims to
benevolence, and in scrutinizing their oaths and their profane use of
Scripture. But that Mr. Town has not misrepresented the claims of Masonry to be
a saving religion has been abundantly shown in these pages by quotations from
"Light on Masonry." I might quote many pages from the body of Masonry
where it teaches the candidates that the observance of Masonic law, principles
and usages will secure his salvation. The Gospel professes no more than this,
that those who obey it shall be saved. Surely Masonry claims to be a saving
religion just as much as the Gospel of Christ does.
Just take the following from the degree of
"The Knights of the East and West." "Light on Masonry,"
first edition, p. 217, already quoted in another place.
In explaining the ceremony of sounding the
seventh trumpet, and conducting the candidate to the vacant canopy, we find the
following: "This canopy it will be recollected is at the right side of the
All Puissant who represents JEHOVAH. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, and
the conducting of the candidate to the vacant canopy, is a representation of
the end of the world, and the glorification of all true Masons at the right
hand of God, having passed through the trials of Freemasonry and washed their
robes in their own blood." If Freemasonry does not claim to be a saving
religion how can such a claim be made? The compiler adds: "If this is not
Antichrist what is?" But I must beg of the reader to examine the books
that reveal Masonry for themselves, since to quote the claims of Masonry on
this head further than I have done, would not only be useless and tiresome, but
would swell this work too much.
This brings me (3) to the third inquiry: Are
the claims that Masonry is a true and saving religion valid?
To this question I reply that it is utterly
false; and in this respect Freemasonry is a fatal delusion. From the quotations
that I have made from Town, it will be perceived that he represents Freemasonry
as identical with Christianity.
Mr. Preston is another of their standard
writers. I quote the following note from Stearns on Masonry, p. 28: "Mr.
Preston's book, entitled 'Illustrations of Masonry,' has been extensively
patronized by the fraternity as a standard work. The copy before me is the
first American, from the tenth London edition." Mr. Preston says in his
book, p. 30: "The universal principles of the art unite in one
indissoluble bond of affection men of the most opposite tenets, of the most
distant countries, and of the most contradictory opinions." Again, p. 125,
he says: "Our celebrated annotator has taken no notice of Masons having
the art of working miracles, and foresaying things to come. But this was
certainly not the least important of their doctrines. Hence, astrology was
admitted as one of the arts which they taught, and the study of it warmly
recommended."
"This study became, in the course of time,
a regular science." . So here we learn that Masons formerly claimed the
power of working miracles. I quote again from Bradley, p. 8. He says: "We
leave every member to choose and support those principles of religion and those
forms of government which appear consistent to his views." In the work of
Preston, p. 51, we have the following: "As a Mason, you are to study the
moral law as contained in the sacred code, the Bible; and in countries where
that book is not known, whatever is understood to contain the will or law of
God." O, then, in every country Masons are to embrace the prevalent
religion, whatever it may be, and accept whatever is claimed in any country
where they may reside, to be the law and will of God. But is this Christianity,
or consistent with it? It is well known and admitted that Masonry claims to
have descended from the earliest ages, and that the institution has existed in
all countries and under all religions; and that the ancient philosophers of
Greece and Rome, the astrologers and soothsayers, and the great men of all
heathen nations have belonged to that fraternity.
It is also well known that at this time there
are multitudes of Jews, Mohammedans, and skeptics of every grade belonging to
the institution. I do not know that this is denied by any intelligent Mason.
Now, if this is so, how can Freemasonry be the true religion, or at all
consistent with it? Multitudes of Universalists and Unitarians, and of
errorists of every grade, are Freemasons; and yet Freemasonry itself claims to
save its disciples, to conduct them to heaven!
The third question proposed for discussion in
my last number is: Are the claims of Masonry to be a true and saving
institution valid? To this I answer, No. This will appear if we consider,
first, that the morality which it inculcates is not the morality of the law and
Gospel of God. The law and the Gospel, as I have shown in a former number, lay
down the same rule of life. And Christ, in commenting upon the true meaning and
spirit of the law, says: "If ye love them that love you, what thank have
ye? Do not even the publicans the same?" He requires us to love our
enemies, and to pray for them, as truly as for our friends. In short, he
requires universal benevolence; whereas Freemasonry requires no such thing. Its
oaths, which are its law, simply require its members to be just to each other.
I say just, for their boasted benevolence is simply the payment of a debt.
They do, indeed, promise to assist each other
in distress, and to help each other's families, provided they fall into
poverty. But on what condition do they promise this? Why, that a certain amount
is to be paid into their treasury as a fund for this purpose. But this, surely,
is not benevolence, but the simple payment of a debt, on the principle of
mutual insurance.
This I have abundantly shown in a former
number. Again, the motives presented in Freemasonry to secure the course of
action to which they are pledged are by no means consistent with the law or the
Gospel of God. In religion, and in true morality, everything depends on the
motive or reason for the performance of an action. God accepts nothing that
does not proceed from supreme love to Him and equal love to our fellow-men. Not
merely to our brother Masons; but to our neighbor--that is, to all mankind.
Whatever does not proceed from love and faith is sin, according to the
teachings of the Bible. And by love, I say again, is meant the supreme love of
God and the equal love of our neighbor.
But Masonry teaches no such morality as this.
The motive urged by Masons is, to honor Masonry, to honor the institution, to
honor each other. While they are pledged to assist each other in distress; to
keep each other's secrets, even if they be crimes; and to aid each other
whether right or wrong, so far as to extricate them from any difficulty in
which they are involved; yet they never present the pure motives of the Gospel.
They are pledged not to violate the chastity of a brother Mason's wife, sister,
daughter, or mother; but they are not pledged by Masonry, as the law and Gospel
of God require, to abstain from such conduct with any female whatever. But
nothing short of universal benevolence, and universal morality, is acceptable
to God.
But again: It has been shown that Masonry
claims to be a saving institution; that this is claimed for it by the highest
Masonic authorities; and that this claim is one set up by itself as well. But
an examination of Freemasonry shows that it promises salvation upon entirely
other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel
nowhere inculcates the idea that any one can be saved by obedience to the law
of God. "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" is the
uniform teaching of the Bible. Much less can any one be saved by conformity to
Masonic law, which requires only a partial, and therefore a spurious, morality.
The Bible teaches that all unconverted persons are in a state of sin, of total
moral depravity, and consequent condemnation by the law of God; and that the
conditions of salvation are repentance and a total renunciation of all sin,
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Now
these are by no means the conditions upon which Freemasonry proposes to save
its members. The teachings of Freemasonry upon this subject are summarily this:
Obey Masonic law, and live.
Now, surely, whatever promises heaven to men
upon other conditions than those proposed in the Gospel of Christ is a fatal
delusion. And this Freemasons can not deny, for they profess to accept the
Bible as true. Freemasonry lays no stress at all upon conversion to Christ by
the Holy Spirit. It presents no means or motives to secure that result. The
idea of being turned from sin to holiness, from a self-pleasing spirit to a
supreme love of God, by the preaching of the Gospel, accompanied by the Holy
Spirit, is not taught in Freemasonry.
It nowhere recognizes men as being justified by
faith in Christ, as being sanctified by faith in Christ, and as being saved as
the Gospel recognizes men as being saved.
Indeed, it is salvation by Masonry, and not
salvation by the Gospel, that Masonry insists upon. It is another gospel, or
presents entirely another method of salvation than that presented in the
Gospel. How can it be pretended by those who admit that the Gospel is true that
men can be saved by Freemasonry at all? If Freemasons are good men, it is not
Freemasonry that has made them so; but the Gospel has made them so, in spite of
Freemasonry. If they are anything more than self-righteous, it is because of
the teachings of the Gospel; for certainly Freemasonry teaches a very different
way of salvation from that which the Gospel reveals. But, again, the prayers
recorded in Freemasonry, and used by them in their lodges, are not Christian
prayers; that is, they are not prayers offered in the name of Christ.
But the Gospel teaches us that it is
fundamental to acceptable prayer that it be offered in the name of Christ.
Again, as we have seen in a former number, the teachings of Freemasonry are
scandalously false; and their ceremonies are a mockery, and truly shocking to
Christian feelings.
Again, Freemasonry is a system of gross
hypocrisy. It professes to be a saving institution, and promises salvation to
those who keep its oaths and conform to its ancient usages. It also professes
to be entirely consistent with the Christian religion. And this it does while
it embraces as good and acceptable Masons hundreds of thousands who abhor
Christianity, and scoff at the Bible and everything that the Bible regards as
sacred. In a Christian nation it professes to receive Christianity as a true
religion; in Mohammedan countries it receives the Koran as teaching the true
religion; in heathen countries it receives their sacred books as of as much
authority as that which is claimed in Christian countries for the Bible. In
short, Freemasonry in a pagan country is pagan, in a Mohammedan country it is
Mohammedan, and in a Christian country it professes to be Christian; but in
this profession it is not only grossly inconsistent, but intensely
hypocritical.
Notwithstanding all the boasts that are made in
its lower degrees of its being a true religion, if you will examine the matter
through to the end, you will find that, as you ascend in the scale of degrees,
the mask is gradually thrown off, until we come to the "Philosophical
Lodge," in the degree of the "Knights Adepts of the Eagle or
Sun;" in which, as will be seen, no concealment is longer attempted. I
will make a short quotation from this degree, as any one may find it in
"Light on Masonry."--P. 18.
"Requisitions to make a good Mason.--If
you ask me what are the requisite qualities that a Mason must be possessed of
to come to the center of truth, I answer you that you must crush the head of
the serpent, ignorance. You must shake off the yoke of infant prejudice,
concerning the mysteries of the reigning religion, which worship has been
imaginary and only founded on the spirit of pride, which envies to command and
be distinguished, and to be at the head of the vulgar in affecting an exterior
purity, which characterizes a false piety joined to a desire of acquiring that
which is not its own, and is always the subject of this exterior pride and unalterable
source of many disorders; which, being joined to gluttonness, is the daughter
of hypocrisy, and employs every matter to satisfy carnal desires, and raises to
these predominant passions altars upon which she maintains without ceasing the
light of iniquity, and sacrifices continually offerings to luxury,
voluptuousness, hatred, envy, and perjury.
"Behold, my dear brother, what you must
fight against and destroy before you can come to the knowledge of the true good
and sovereign happiness! Behold this monster which you must conquer--a serpent
which we detest as an idol that is adored by the idiot and vulgar under the
name of religion!"-- See "Light on Masonry," pp. 270, 271. 8th
edition.
Here, then, Masonry stands revealed, after all
its previous pretensions to being a true religion, as the unalterable opponent
of the reigning or Christian religion. That it claims to be a religion is
indisputable; but that it is not the Christian religion is equally evident.
Nay, it finally comes out flat-footed, and represents the reigning or Christian
religion as a serpent which Masons detest, as an idol which is adored by the
idiot and vulgar under the name of religion.
Now let professed Christians who are Freemasons
examine this for themselves. Do not turn away from examination of this subject.
And here, before I close this article, I beg to
be understood that I have no quarrel with individual Masons. It is with the
system that I have to deal. The great mass of the fraternity are utterly
deceived, as I was myself. Very few, comparatively, of the fraternity are at
all acquainted with what is really taught in the higher degrees as they ascend
from one to another. None of them know anything of these degrees any further
than they have taken them, unless they have studied them in the books as they
are revealed. I can not believe that Christian men will remain connected with
this institution, if they will only examine it for themselves and look it
through to the end. I know that young Masons, and those who have only taken the
lower degrees, will be shocked at what I have just quoted from a higher degree.
I was so myself when first I examined the higher degrees. But you will inquire
how, and in what sense, are we who have only taken the lower degrees
responsible for the oaths and teachings of the higher degrees, which we have
not taken. In a future number I shall briefly answer this question. Most
Freemasons, and many who have been Masters of lodges of the lower degrees, are
really so ignorant of what Masonry as a whole is, that when they are told the
simple truth respecting it, they really believe that what you tell them is a
lie. I am receiving letters from this class of Freemasons, accusing me of lying
and misrepresentation, which accusations I charitably ascribe to ignorance. To
such I say, Wait, gentlemen, until you are better informed upon the subject,
and you will hold a different opinion.
I have quoted from Salem Town showing that he
claims that Solomon established the institution by divine authority--that Town
claims for it all that is claimed for Christianity as a saving religion. I
might show that others of their standard writers set up the same claim. Now I
am unwilling to believe that these writers are hypocrites. It must be that they
have been imposed upon as I was. They were ignorant of the origin of
Freemasonry. Perhaps this was not strange, especially as regards Mr. Town; for
until within the last half century this matter has not been searched to the
bottom. But certainly there is now no excuse for the ignorant or dishonest
assertions that are so often made by Freemasons. Such pretenses palmed off as
they now often are, upon those whose occupation or other causes forbid their
examination of the subject, ought to arouse the righteous indignation of every
honest citizen. I say it ought to do so; yes, and it must do so, when we see
our dear young men lured by false pretenses in crowds into this snare of Satan.
They get drawn in and committed, and, as we see, are afraid to be convinced of
their error and become uncandid and will not honestly examine the subject. They
will shun the light when it is offered. Can men be saved in this state of mind?
FREEMASONRY
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
CHAPTER
XVI
THE
ARGUMENT THAT GREAT AND GOOD MEN HAVE BEEN AND ARE FREEMASONS, EXAMINED
IT is the universal practice of Freemasons to
claim as belonging to their fraternity a great many wise and good men.
As I have shown in a former number, Masonry
itself claims to have been founded by Solomon, and to have been patronized by
St. John. Their lodges are dedicated to St. John and Zerubbabel, as I have
shown; and Solomon figures more or less prominently in a great number of their
degrees. Now it has already been shown by their highest authorities that this
claim of having been founded by Solomon and patronized by St. John is utterly
without foundation. Strange to tell, while it claims to have always been one
and identical, and that it never has been changed, still on the very face of
the different degrees it is shown that the great majority of them are of recent
origin. If, as their best historians assert, Speculative Freemasonry dates no
further back than the eighteenth century, of course, the claim of Freemasons
that their institution was established and patronized by inspired men can
command no respect or confidence.
But, if this claim is false, what reason have
we to have confidence in their assertions that so many great and good men of
modern times were Freemasons. Investigation will prove that this claim is to a
very great extent without foundation. It has been asserted here with the utmost
confidence, over and over again, that Bishop McIlvaine was a Freemason. But
having recently been written to on the subject, he replied that he never was a
Freemason.
Again, it is no doubt true that many men have
joined them, and, when they have taken a sufficient number of degrees to have
the impression entirely removed from their minds that there is any secret in
Freemasonry worth knowing, they have become disgusted with its shams, its
hypocrisies, its falsehoods, its oaths and its ceremonies, its and its
blasphemies; and they have paid no further attention to it.
Freemasons have paraded the fact that Gen.
Washington was a Mason before the public. The following conclusion of a letter
from him will speak for him, and show how little he had to do with Masonry.
Before his death he warned the whole country to beware of secret societies. The
letter alluded to is dated "Mt. Vernon, September 25, 1798." Here we
have its conclusion. It needs no comment:
"I have little more to add than thanks for
your wishes, and favorable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run
into of my presiding over the English lodges in this country. The fact is I
preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice within the
last thirty years. I believe, notwithstanding, that none of the lodges in this
country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the society of the
Illuminate.
"Signed, GEORGE WASHINGTON."
I might quote numerous instances in which good
men have at first hesitated, and finally refused to go any further in Masonry,
and have threatened to expose the whole of it to the world. Whoever will read
Elder Stearns' little books on Masonry will find examples of this.
But why should Freemasons lay so much stress on
the fact that many good men have been Freemasons? It has always been the
favorite method of supporting a bad institution to claim as its patrons the
wise and good. This argument might have been used with great force, and
doubtless was, in favor of idolatry in the time of Solomon and the prophets.
Several of the kings of Israel were idolaters, as well as the queens and the
royal family generally.
The great mass of the prophets, and religious
teachers, and great men of the nation, lapsed into idolatry. Nearly all the
learning, and wealth and influence of the whole nation could be appealed to as
rejecting Christ. Those who received him were but a few fishermen, with some of
the lowest of the people. Now what a powerful argument was this! If the argument
of Masons be of any value, how overwhelming an argument must this have been
against the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Why the rejecters of Jesus could quote all the
great men of the nation, and the pious men, and the wise men, as decidedly
opposed to his claims! The same was true after his death and resurrection for a
great while. The question would often arise: "Do any of the rulers believe
on him?"
An institution is not to be judged by the
conduct of a few of its members who might have been either worse or better than
its principles. Christianity, e.g., is not to be judged by the conduct of
particular professed Christians; but by its laws, its principles, by what it
justifies and by what it condemns. Christianity condemns all iniquity. It
abhors covering up iniquity. In the case of its greatest and most prominent
professors, it exposes and denounces their sin, and never justifies
But Masonry, on the other hand, is a secret
work of darkness. It requires its members to take an oath to cover up each other's
sins. It requires them to swear, under the most awful penalties, that they will
seek the condign punishment of every one who in any instance violates any point
of their obligation. It, therefore, justifies the murder of those who betray
its secrets.
Masons consistently justified the murder of
Morgan, as everybody in this country knows who has paid any attention to the
subject.
This is not inconsistent with their principles.
Indeed, it is the very thing demanded, the very thing promised under oath.
But again: This same argument, by which Masons
are attempting to sustain their institution, was always resorted to to sustain
the practice of slaveholding.
Why, how many wise and good men, it was said,
were slaveholders. The churches and ecclesiastical bodies at the North were
full of charity in respect to them. They could not denounce slaveholding as a
sin.
They would say that it was an evil; but for a
long time they could not be persuaded to pronounce it a moral evil, a sin. And
why? Why, because so many doctors of divinity were slaveholders and were
defending the institution. Because a large portion of the church, of nearly
every denomination, were involved in the abomination. "They are good
men," it was said; "they are great men--we must be charitable."
And so, when this horrid civil war came on,
these great and good men, that had sustained the institution of slavery,
sustained and stimulated the war.
Many of them took up arms, and fought with
desperation to sustain the institution. But what is thought now--at least
throughout all the North, and throughout all the Christian world--of the great
and good men who have done this thing? Who does not now admit that they were
deluded? that they had anything but the Spirit of Christ? that they were in the
hands of the Devil all along?
The fact is, this has always been the device of
those who have sustained any system of wickedness. They have taken pains, in
one way and another, to draw into their ranks men of reputation for wisdom and
piety, men of high standing in Church and State. A great many of those who are
claimed by Freemasons to be of their number never were Freemasons at all.
Others were entrapped into it, and turned a "cold shoulder" upon it,
and paid no more attention to it; but were ever after claimed as Freemasons.
But there are great multitudes of Freemasons
who have taken some of the degrees, and have become heartily disgusted with it.
But, knowing that Freemasons are under oath to persecute and even murder them
if they publicly renounce it and expose its secrets; they remain quiet, say
nothing about it, and go no further with it; but are still claimed as
Freemasons. As soon as public sentiment is enough aroused to make them feel
safe in doing what they regard as their solemn duty, great numbers of them will
no doubt publicly renounce it. At present they are afraid to do so. They are
afraid that their business will be ruined, their characters assailed, and their
lives at least put in jeopardy.
But it should be understood that, while it may
be true that there are many pious and wise men belonging to the Masonic
fraternity, yet there are thousands of learned and pious men who have renounced
it, and thousands more who have examined its claims, and who reject it as an
imposture and as inconsistent either with Christianity or good government
It is sometimes said: "Those men that
renounced Masonry in the days of Morgan are dead. There are now thousands of
living witnesses. Why should we take the testimony of the dead instead of that
of the living? The living we know; the dead we do not know."
To this I answer, first: There are thousands of
renouncing Masons still living who reiterate their testimony on all proper
occasions against the institution. Many of them we know, or may know; and they
are not dead witnesses, but living. Now, if it was wickedness that led those
men to renounce Freemasonry and publish its secrets, how is it that no instance
has ever occurred in which a seceding Freemason has renounced and denounced his
renunciation, and gone back into the ranks of Freemasons? I have never heard of
such a case. It is well for the cause of truth that this question has come up
again before the Masons that renounced the institution in the days of Morgan
were all dead. It is well that hundreds and thousands of them are still alive,
and are still living witnesses, bearing their steady and unflinching testimony
against the institution.
But, again: The present living witnesses who
testify in its behalf, let it be remembered, are interested witnesses. They
still adhere to the institution. They are under oath not to speak against it,
but in every way to support it. Of what value, then, is their testimony in its
favor?
The fact is, we have their secrets published;
and these books speak for themselves. Let the living or the dead say what they
may, the truth is established that these books truly reveal Masonry; and by
this revelation let the institution stand or fall.
If any thing can be established by human
testimony, it is established that Bernard's "Light on Masonry" has revealed
Masonry substantially as it is. Bernard is still living. He is an old man; but
he has recently said: "What I have written I have written on this subject.
I have nothing to add, and I have nothing to retract." And there are still
hundreds and thousands of men who know that he has published the truth. How
vain and frivolous, then, is the inquiry, "Why should we not take the
testimony of living rather than of dead witnesses?" The prophets and
apostles are dead. Why not take the testimony of living skeptics that we know?
Some of them are learned and respectable men. Alas! if dead men are not to be
believed!