THEIR SECRECY.
1. One of the objectionable features of all the associations of which
we are writing is their secrecy. We do not say that secrecy is what is
called an _evil or sin in itself_. Secrecy may sometimes be right and
even necessary. There are family secrets and secrets of State.
Sometimes legislatures and church courts hold secret sessions. It is
admitted that secrecy in such cases may be right; but this does not
prove that secrecy is _always_ right. The cases above-mentioned are
exceptional in their character. For instance, a family may very
properly keep some things secret; but were a family to act on the
principle of secrecy, they would justly be condemned, and would arouse
suspicions in the minds of all who know them. Were a family to
endeavor to conceal every thing that is said and done by the fireside;
were they to invent signs, and grips, and passwords for the purpose of
concealment; were they to admit no one under their roof without
exacting a solemn oath or promise that nothing seen or heard shall be
made known, every one would say there is something wrong. So, too, if
a church court would always sit in secret; were none but members at
any time admitted; were all the members bound by solemn promises or
oaths to keep the proceedings secret, and were they to employ signs,
grips, and passwords, and to hold up horrid threats, in order to
secure concealment, such a church court would lose the confidence of
all men whose esteem is of any value. Such studious and habitual
concealment would damage the reputation of any family or church court
in the estimation of all sensible people. The same result would follow
in case a Legislature would endeavor, as a general thing, to conceal
its proceedings. As to State secrets, they generally pertain to what
is called diplomacy; and even in straightforward, manly diplomacy
there is generally no effort at concealment. In our own country,
Congress very often asks the President for information in regard to
the negotiations and correspondence of the Executive Department with
foreign governments, and almost always the whole correspondence asked
for is laid before Congress and published to the country. It is very
seldom that the President answers the call with a declaration that the
public welfare requires the correspondence to be kept secret. Besides
this, the concealment is only temporary. It is never supposed that the
secrecy must be perpetual. It is true that many diplomatists--perhaps
nearly all the diplomatists of Europe--do endeavor to cover up their
doings from the light of day. It is also true that the secrecy and
deceit of diplomatists have made diplomacy a corrupt thing. Diplomacy
is regarded by many as but another name for duplicity. Talleyrand, the
prince of diplomatists, said "the design of language is to conceal
one's thoughts." This terse sentence gives a correct idea of the
practice of secret negotiators. With regard, then, to State secrets,
we remark that real statesmen do not endeavor to cover up their doings
in the dark, and that the practices of diplomatists, and the
reputation they have for duplicity, are not such as should encourage
individuals or associations to endeavor to conceal their proceedings.
We see nothing in the fact that there may be secrets of State to
justify studied and habitual secrecy either in individuals or
associations.
2. The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further illustrated.
An individual who endeavors to conceal the business in which he is
engaged, or the place and mode of carrying it on, exposes himself to
the suspicion of his fellow-men. People lose confidence in him. They
feel that he is not a safe man. They at once suspect that there is
something wrong. They do not ask or expect him to make all his
business affairs public. They are willing that he should say nothing
about many of his business operations. But habitual secrecy, constant
concealment, unwillingness to tell either friend or foe what business
he follows, or to speak of his business operations, will cause any man
to be regarded as destitute of common honesty. This fact shows that,
in the common judgment of men, constant concealment is suspicious and
wrong. Wherever it is practiced, men expect the development of some
unworthy purpose.
We regard secrecy just like homicide and other actions that in general
are very criminal. To take human life, as a general thing, is a very
great crime; but it is right to kill a man in self-defense, and to
take the life of a murderer as a punishment for his crime. The
habitual concealment of one's actions is wrong, but it may be right at
particular times and for special reasons. It is not a dreadfully
wicked thing, like the causeless taking of human life, and may be
justifiable much oftener and for less weighty reasons. Still habitual
secrecy, or secrecy, except at particular times and for special
reasons, is, according to the common judgment of men, suspicious and
unjustifiable. Now, with secret societies secrecy is the general rule.
They practice constant concealment. At all times and on all occasions
must the members keep their proceedings secret. If an individual would
thus studiously endeavor to conceal his actions; were he to throw the
veil of secrecy over his business operations, refusing to speak to any
of his fellow-men concerning them, he would justly expose himself to
suspicion. His fellow-men would lose all confidence in his integrity.
If habitual secrecy on the part of an individual, in regard to
business matters, is confessedly suspicious and wrong, it must be so,
also, on the part of associations of men. There is less excuse,
indeed, for concealment on the part of a number of men banded together
than on the part of an individual. An individual working in the dark
may do much mischief, but an association thus working can do much
more. All those considerations which forbid individuals to shroud
their actions in secrecy and darkness, and require them to be open,
frank, and straightforward in their course, apply with equal or
greater force to associations.
3. In the case of secret societies, the reasons for concealment set
the impropriety of it in a still stronger light. So far from there
being any necessity or special reason to justify habitual secrecy in
their case, we believe the very _design_ of their secrecy to be
improper and sinful. We present the following quotation from a book of
high authority among those for whose benefit it was specially
intended:
"If the secrets of Masonry are replete with such advantages to
mankind, it may be asked, Why are they not divulged for the general
good of society? To which it may be answered, were the privileges of
Masonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institution
would be subverted, and, being familiar, like many other important
matters, would soon lose their value and sink into disregard."
--_Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 21_.
The same author intimates that the secrecy of Masonry is designed to
take advantage of "a weakness of human nature." He admits that Masonry
would soon sink into disregard if its affairs were generally known.
Although this remark is made with special reference to the giddy and
unthinking, yet it is certainly not the contempt of such persons which
Masons fear. They would not care for the contempt of the giddy and
unthinking, if they could retain the esteem of the thoughtful and
wise. The real reason, then, for concealing the doings of Masons in
their lodges, is to recommend things which, if generally known, would
be regarded with contempt. The design of concealment in the case of
other secret associations, we understand to be the same. The following
is an extract from an address delivered at the national celebration of
the fortieth anniversary of Odd-fellowship, in New York, April 26,
1859, and published by the Grand Lodge of the United States:
"But even if we do resort to the aid of the mysterious, to render our
meetings attractive, or as a stimulant to applications for membership,
surely this results, in no injury to society or individuals."
--_Proceedings of Grand Lodge of United States_, 1859, _Ap., p. 10._
Here, again, it is pretty plainly hinted that the design of secrecy in
the case of Odd-fellowship, is to invest it with unreal attractions,
or, at least, with attractions which it would not possess, were the
veil of concealment withdrawn. Here, again, as in Masonry, it is
virtually admitted that secrecy is designed to take advantage of "a
weakness in human nature," and to recommend things which, if not
invested with the attractions which secrecy throws around them, would
sink into contempt.
Doubtless the design of concealment in the case of other secret
associations is the same. We are not aware that Good-fellows, Good
Templars, Sons of Temperance, and other similar associations, have any
better reason for working, like moles, in the dark than Masons and
Odd-fellows. There is, then, as it respects secret societies, no
necessity for concealment--nothing to justify it. The real motive for
it is itself improper and sinful.
4. That the concealment of actions and principles, either by
individuals or associations, is inconsistent with the teachings of the
Bible, is, we think, easily shown. Thus our Savior, on his trial,
declared: "_I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the
synagogue, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
nothing_." (John xviii: 20.) An association which claims to be
laboring in behalf of true principles, and for the moral and
intellectual improvement of men, and yet conceals its operations under
the impenetrable veil of secrecy, is certainly practicing in direct
opposition to the example and teaching of the Son of God.
Again: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of the
Most High, as recorded by the prophet: "_Woe unto them that seek deep
to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark;
and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us_?" (Is. xxix: 15.)
Those on whom a divine curse is thus pronounced are described as
endeavoring to _hide their works in the dark_. This description
applies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only at
night, and in rooms with darkened windows, and which require their
members solemnly to promise or swear that they will never make known
their proceedings.
Again: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies in
denouncing the sins prevalent in his own day: "_And have no fellowship
with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it
is a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret_."
(Eph. v: 11, 12.) It is not without reason that commentators
understand the shameful things done in secret, of which the apostle
speaks, to be the "mysteries" of the "secret societies" which
prevailed among the ancient heathen. They maintained religious rites
and ceremonies in honor of their imaginary deities, just as most
modern "secret societies" make a profane use of the word and worship
of God in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shame
to speak of the rites performed by the heathen in their secret
associations in honor of Bacchus and Venus, the god of wine and the
goddess of lust, and of their other abominable deities. But whether
the apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other pagan
mysteries, or not, the _principle of secrecy_ comes in for a share of
his condemnation.
The concealment practiced by "secret societies" is inconsistent, also,
with such declarations of the Bible as the following: "_For every one
that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest
his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in
God_." (John iii: 20, 21.) "_Let your light so shine before men that
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in
heaven_." These are the words of our Savior, and they certainly
condemn the concealment practiced by secret associations, and all the
means employed for that purpose--their signs, grips, and passwords;
their shunning the light of day; their secret gatherings in the night,
and in rooms with darkened windows; the terrible oaths and solemn
promises with which they bind their members to perpetual secrecy; the
disgraceful punishments which they threaten to inflict on any member
who will expose their secret doings--all these things are inconsistent
with the spirit, if not the very letter, of the commands of our Savior
quoted above.
5. Besides, if the doings of these associations, in there secret
meetings, are _good_, then it is in the violation of the express
command of our Savior to keep them concealed; for he tells us to let
others see our good works. In case their doings are bad, it is,
perhaps, no violation of Christ's command to keep them hid; but, most
certainly, such things ought not to be done at all. So far as the
moral character of secret societies is concerned, it matters not
whether the transactions which they so studiously conceal are good or
bad, sinless or wicked. If such transactions are good, the Savior
commands that they be made known; if they are improper and sinful, he
commands us to have no fellowship with them. In either case secret
associations are to be condemned as practicing contrary to the
teachings of the Bible.
Hence, we conclude that the concealment so studiously maintained and
rigidly enforced by the associations whose moral character we are
considering is condemned both by the common judgment of men and by the
Word of God.