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 puerilities 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 Illuminati.
"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!