THEIR OATHS AND PROMISES.
1. Another serious objection to secret associations is the profanation
by them of the oath of God. We regard such profanation as the natural
result of their secrecy. When associations of men endeavor to keep
secret their operations from generation to generation, they will not
be willing to trust to the honor and honesty of their members. A
simple promise of secrecy will not be deemed sufficient. Oaths or
promises, with dreadful penalties, will very likely be required of all
those who are admitted as members. Secret societies may, perhaps,
exist without such oaths and promises. If the members of an
association are few in number, or if the publication of its secrets
would not be regarded as very injurious to its interests, perhaps a
simple promise of secrecy will be regarded as sufficient; but whenever
an association endeavors to secure a numerous membership, and regards
a disclosure of its secrets as likely to damage its reputation or
hinder its success, something more than a simple promise of secrecy
will very likely be required at the initiation of members.
Accordingly, some secret associations, it is known, do employ awful
sanctions in order to secure concealment. Even when the members of a
secret order claim that they are not bound to secrecy by oath, but
only by a simple promise, it will, perhaps, be found on examination
that that promise is, in reality, an oath. An appeal to God or to
heaven, whether made expressly or impliedly, in attestation of the
truth of a promise or declaration, is an oath. Such an appeal may not
be regarded as an oath in our civil courts, the violator of which
would incur the pains and penalties of perjury; yet certainly it is an
oath according to the teachings of the Bible. Our Savior teaches that
to swear by the temple, is to swear by God who dwelleth therein; and
that to swear by heaven, is to swear by the throne of God, and by him
that sitteth thereon. (Matt. xx: 23.) We find, also, that the words,
"As the Lord liveth," is to be regarded as an oath. King David is
repeatedly said to have sworn, when he used this form of expression,
in attestation of his sincerity. (1 Sam. xx: 3; 1 Kings i: 29.) An
appeal to God, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the truth
of a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, a
secret association may exist without an oath. But we are not sure that
any does. Odd-fellows have declared that they have no initiatory oath.
In the address published by the Grand Lodge of the United States,
referred to before, the following declaration is made: "No oath, as
was once supposed, is administered to the candidate." (App. to
Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, p. 10.) Yet Grosch, in his
Odd-fellows' Manual, speaks of an "appeal to heaven" in the
initiation, at least, into one of the degrees. (P. 306.) Perhaps the
contradiction arises from a difference of opinion in regard to what it
takes to constitute an oath, or, perhaps, from the fact that an oath
is required in initiations into some degrees, but not in others.
However this may be, we know that some secret societies have
initiatory oaths, and that nearly all administer what, in the sight of
God, is an oath, though they may not so view it themselves. Nor do we
see any reason to discredit the declaration of Grosch that the
candidate "appeals to heaven."
2. Now, the taking of an initiatory oath is, to say the very least of
it, of doubtful propriety. Every one who does so swears by the living
God that he will forever keep secret things about which he knows
nothing. The secrets of the association are not imparted to him until
after he has sworn that he will not reveal them. He is kept ignorant
of them until the "brethren" are assured by his appeal to heaven that
they can trust him. Now, the inspired apostle lays down the principle
that a man sins when he does any thing about the propriety of which he
is in doubt. He declares that the eating of meats was in itself a
matter of indifference, but that if any man esteem any thing unclean,
to him it is unclean. He then makes the following declaration: "But he
that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. xiv: 22, 23.) According to
this most emphatic declaration, we must have faith and confidence that
what we do is right, else we are blameworthy. We sin whenever we do
any thing which is, according to our own judgment, of doubtful
propriety. The man who is initiated into an oath-bound society, swears
that he will keep secret things about which he knows nothing--things
which, for aught he knows, ought not to be kept secret. If the apostle
condemned, in most emphatic language, the man who would do so trivial
a thing as eat meat without assuring himself of the lawfulness of his
doing so, what would he have said had the practice existed in his day
of swearing by the God of heaven in regard to matters that are
altogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogether
inconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which the
Scriptures enjoin. The apostle also condemns the conduct of those who
"_understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm_" (1 Tim.
i: 7.) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about what
they swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?
3. There is another objection to taking an initiatory oath. We are
expressly forbidden to take God's name in vain. To pronounce God's
name without a good reason for doing so is to take it in vain.
Certainly, to swear by the name of the living God demands an important
occasion. To make an appeal to the God of heaven on some trifling
occasion is a profanation of his oath and name. If the secrets of
Masonry, Odd-fellowship, Good Templars, and similar associations, are
unimportant, their oaths, appeals to heaven, and solemn promises made
in the presence of God are profane and sinful. Perhaps their boasted
secrets are only signs, grips, pass-words, and absurd rites of
initiation. To swear by the name of the Lord about things of this kind
is certainly a violation of the third commandment. The candidate does
not _know_ that the secrets about to be disclosed to him are of any
importance, and he runs the risk of using God's name and oath about
light and trivial things. He must be uncertain whether there is any
thing of importance in hand at the time of swearing, and how can he
escape the disapproval of God, since the inspired Paul declares that
the doubtful eater of meat is damned? (Rom. xiv: 23.)
4. We have already adverted to the fact that concealment is resorted
to in order to take advantage of "a weakness in human nature," and to
recommend things which, if known generally, would be disregarded. Is
it right to use the name and oath of God for the accomplishment of
such purposes? Is it right to use the name and oath of God in order to
take advantage of "a weakness in human nature," and to invest with
fictitious charms things which, if seen in the clear light of day,
would be regarded with indifference or contempt? The taking of oaths
for such purposes, and under such circumstances will generally be
avoided by those who give good heed to the command, "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."
5. While we do not claim that there is any passage of Scripture which
expressly declares the initiatory oaths under consideration to be
profane and sinful, at the same time there are many passages which
require us to beware how and when we swear:
"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,
neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be
yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation_." (James v:
12.) Does not this command condemn those who swear to keep secret they
know not what, and to fulfill obligations which devolve upon them as
members of an association, before they know fully what that
association is, or what those obligations are? Should not every one
consider himself admonished not to swear such an oath lest he fall
into condemnation? Again: Our Savior says, "Swear not at all; neither
by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his
footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black; but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay;
for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." These words were
spoken in condemnation of those who employed oaths frequently and on
improper occasions. They should make every one hesitate in regard to
swearing, in any form, on his initiation into an order the obligations
and operations of which have not yet been revealed to him. Once more:
"_Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to
utter any thing before God, for God is in heaven and thou upon earth;
therefore, let thy words be few_." (Eccl. v: 2.) Is it not a rash
thing to bind one's self by the oath of God to keep secret things as
yet unknown, or to bind one's self to conform to unknown regulations
and usages? In view of these declarations of the Word of God, it
certainly would be well to avoid taking such oaths as generally are
required of the members of secret associations at their initiation.
6. The _promise_ required of candidates at their initiation, whether
there be an oath or not, is also, at least in many cases, improper and
sinful. For instance, the "candidate for the mysteries of Masonry,"
previous to initiation, must make the declaration that he "will
cheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customs
of the fraternity." (Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 34.) Grosch, in
his Odd-fellows' Manual, directs the candidate at his initiation as
follows: "Give yourself passively to your guides, to lead you
whithersoever they will." (P. 91.) Again, in regard to initiation into
a certain degree, he says: "The candidate for this degree should be
firm and decided in his answers to all questions asked him, and
patient in all required of him," etc. (P. 279.) In the form of
application for membership, as laid down by Grosch, the applicant
promises as follows:
"If admitted, I promise obedience to the usages and laws of the Order
and of the Lodge." (P. 378.)
These declarations, by reliable authors, plainly show that both in
Masonry and Odd-fellowship obligations are laid on members of which,
at the time, they are ignorant. Candidates for Masonry must promise to
conform, yes, "cheerfully conform to all the ancient established
usages and customs of the fraternity." The application for membership
in the association of Odd-fellows must be accompanied by a promise of
obedience to the usages and laws both of the whole Order and of the
lodge in which membership is sought. No man has a right to make such a
promise until he has carefully examined the usages, and customs, and
laws referred to. While he is ignorant of them, he does not know but
some of them or all of them may be morally wrong. Before the candidate
has been initiated, he has not had an opportunity of acquainting
himself with all the laws, usages, and customs which he promises to
obey. Is not such a promise condemned by the divine injunction, "Be
not rash with thy mouth?" Is not the man who promises to obey
regulations, customs, and usages before he knows fully what they are
as blameworthy as the doubtful eater of meats, who, the inspired
apostle tells us, is damned for doing what he is not confident is
right? The candidate for initiation into Odd-fellowship must "give
himself passively to his guides." Such demands indicate the spirit
which secret associations require of their members. They must
surrender the exercise of their own judgment, and permit themselves to
be blindly led by others. No man has a right thus to surrender himself
passively to the guidance of others. Every man is bound to act
according to his own judgment and conscience. Before a man promises to
obey any human regulations, or to conform to any usage or custom, he
is bound to know what that regulation, usage, or custom is, and to see
that it is morally right. To do otherwise is to sin against conscience
and the law of God.
7. Besides this, the promise to "preserve mysteries inviolate," made
before they have been made known to the promiser, is condemned by
sound morality. He may have heard the declaration of others that there
is nothing wrong in "the mysteries," but this is not sufficient to
justify him. A man is bound to exercise his own reason and conscience
in regard to all questions of morality.
No man has a right, at any time, to lay aside his reason and
conscience and allow himself to be "guided passively" by others. Every
man is bound to see and decide for himself in every case of duty and
morals. We should not let the church of Christ even decide for us in
such matters, much less some association, composed, it may be, of
infidels, Mormons, Jews, Mohammedans, and all sorts of men except
atheists. (See pages 37, 31.) A band of such men may have secrets very
immoral in character, and which it would be a violation of God's law
to preserve inviolate. To promise beforehand that any "mysteries"
which they may see fit to enact and practice shall be forever
concealed, is to trifle with conscience and morality. It is useless to
plead that a member can withdraw as soon as he discovers any thing
wrong in the regulations and usages which he is required to obey.
Every one who joins such an association as those under consideration
must make up his mind to do so before he knows what "the mysteries"
are, and he must promise (either with or without an oath) that he will
preserve them inviolate before "the brethren" will intrust them to
him. The possibility of dissolving his connection with the association
afterward does not exonerate him of promising to do he knows not
what--of laying aside his own conscience and reason, and yielding
himself "passively" to others. The promise of secrecy and of obedience
to unknown regulations and customs, required at the initiation of
candidates into such associations as we are considering, is,
therefore, a step in the dark. It involves the assuming of an
obligation to do what _may be_ morally wrong, and is, therefore,
inconsistent with the teachings of the Word of God and the principles
of sound morality.