I HAVE carefully watched the movements of the “New York Sabbath Committee,” as the representative organization in the Sunday-law interest, and beg leave to present one or two results of these observations.
(a.) The plan of procedure is faulty. (b.) The premises are false. (c.) The verdict of history condemns “Sunday laws.” (d.) The Word of God condemns them as being dishonorable toward the Lord of the Sabbath.
(a.) All civil legislation which places the human enactment more prominently before the mind than it does the divine law, drags the question down to the human level, strips it of its sacredness, and takes away the power of God’s authority. The less cannot regulate the greater. The inferior can never take precedence of the superior, without bringing disaster. The present Sunday-law movement proceeds upon the plea that the State has a right to regulate the observance of the Sabbath. It then assumes that Sunday is the Sabbath, with little or no appeal to God’s Word; and so leaves only the civil authority as the prominent standard. This is more especially true since all are forced to admit that an appeal to the Bible would end in defeat. Thus men see only a requirement of the State, and not a duty to God, and the true Sabbath idea is lost.
(b.) The premises are false in point of fact and in point of logic. The basic idea assumes that the Bible teaches the sacredness of the Sunday, in place of the Sabbath. The next step makes the Sunday a separate institution, a sort of compromise between God’s Sabbath and no Sabbath, the “Anglo-American Sabbath” of Dr. Schaff. Next comes the first idea carried on by making the Sabbath law of the Decalogue the basis on which to build a civil law enforcing observance to the Sunday. In support of the claim that the premise is false in point of fact, it need only be said that the first day of the week is mentioned in the Word of God only eight times; six of these being in connection with the announcement of the resurrection. The book of Acts contains but a single reference to the first day, and the first letter to the Corinthians, one. Neither of these refer to the day as commemorative, sacred, or sabbatic. Nor is there any trace of any discussion or practice relative to the change of the Sabbath, in all the New Testament history. The few inferences which have been sought from these passages are of modern date, and devoid of any logical connection with the case.
(c.) The verdict of history is pointed and clear. Cessation from labor on Sunday began with the Pagan legislation of Constantine, March 7, A. D. 321. During the same years the Papacy was born, church and state were united; and by the close of the fifth century the Sabbath was driven out of the body of the church by force of civil law, and the Sunday, as the leading weekly festival of the church, brought in. A long train of pall-covered centuries follow, during which the church has no Sabbath, and the Sunday no ground of support, aside from human legislation. Since the Reformation, the Continental Church of Europe has had, in some places, a somewhat higher type of the church Sunday; but it has borne no better fruitage than a careless no-Sabbathism, and a cold, canting infidelity.
Puritanism took higher ground, and taught the binding force of the Sabbath law, and the application of it to the Sunday. A complete trial of this theory in the American Church has revealed its unsoundness. All outward circumstances were in its favor. A vigorous theology and the strictest of civil laws conspired to support it. These civil enactments rode on the topmost wave of public opinion, and were rigidly enforced. The “stocks,” the “whipping post,” the “cage on Boston Common,” the “prison-cell,” and the never-relenting “fine,” were all familiar to those who dared transgress the Sunday laws of former days. Years have brought more light, and the “Puritan Sunday” is dead and being buried by a defiant no-Sabbathism, born of its own inconsistencies. Meanwhile, Europe is pouring a more turbid tide of sensual no-Sabbathism upon our shores; and we are sweeping away from God into corruption, ritualism, infidelity. We are repeating what all history has shown, that a Sabbathless people soon become a Godless people. To stem all this tide, the advocates of Sunday law offer the chaff-like opposition of civil enactments, which have no support in the Word of God, nor place in the religious convictions of the people. It is puerile, indeed, thus to oppose with a lance of straw the keen point which the history of the past presents to the breast of the present.
(d.) Sunday law teaches that the seventh day, which God declares to be sacred, is not sacred. It presents the Sunday as sacred, in place of the Sabbath, on the false grounds already noticed. Sunday laws thus dishonor that which God has commanded men to honor, and legalizes disobedience under the false plea of obedience. The pure sacrifice is thus taken from the altar, and one full of blemishes, and unsanctified, put in its stead. All this God’s word condemns.
Sunday laws, as an element of political power, may gain a temporary success; as an element of reform, they must fail. They touch neither the temperance nor the Sabbath question at the fountain-head. If they check the current of the stream, it is only to turn it into wider channels. It is like the folly of the ignorant charlatan who bandages a severed artery below the wound. The whole effort is unworthy men who have undertaken it, and the cause it wrongly seeks to aid. It is the last sad shift of inconsistency doubling on itself. When the Observer pleads for Sunday law in one breath, and scolds and threatens the Romanists who treat Sunday as Sunday, in the next, it only betrays an irritableness which is born of conscious weakness.
Do not misapprehend me. I am opposed, sternly, to all intemperance and rioting, always and everywhere. I deprecate no-Sabbathism as the sin of sins; but I protest, in the name of truth, against those false positions which only hinder the cause of true reform. If the Bible be true, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” and there can be no real Sabbath reform in connection with any other day. The choice is between God’s Sabbath and no Sabbath. Concerning the final issue there can be no doubt. God will not forsake his law; and truth can afford to wait, protesting by the lips of the few, yet steadily victorious in the power of God. God’s children are listening in every place to “hear the slogan,” while the forces gather for the conflict.
The above statements are made briefly, for want of space; but the writer holds himself responsible for each of them, whether historic or exegetical.—A. H. Lewis in N. Y. Independent.
IS IT A PERVERSION?
By C.
This is the question which heads an article of seven columns in the last issue of the “Voice of the West,” written, I presume, by the editor of that sheet. He complains of the criticism given by the editor of the Advent Herald of the recent work entitled “Adventism,” as being “decidedly ill-natured,” and “curt.” He also intimates that the editor of the Herald purposely withheld some facts relating to this matter, in order to deceive his readers. But leaving these points for the editor to attend to, let us notice some things stated by the Voice.
First, he affirms that the Herald “party renounced the name of Adventists, and adopted the appellation of Evangelical Adventists in Worcester, in 1857.” In doing this, he says “they left the older and simpler name of Adventist” to the body from which they sought thus to separate themselves. Now as the editor of the Voice was one of the most forward persons in that movement I would like to inquire if he then considered that he “renounced the name of Adventist” in giving his voice and vote to the motion which there prevailed. As he was one who then adopted the “appellation of Evangelical Adventists,” are we to understand that he now gives up that name, and wishes us to consider him simply as an “Adventist,” but not an Evangelical one? In other words, that he holds to the original Advent faith, but has connected with it several unevangelical or unscriptural sentiments? Certainly this is a natural inference from the statements he makes. He intimates further that when the Adventists came out from the other churches, they were generally believers in what is called the “death question,” and that those now styled “Evangelical Adventists” are “offshoots from the main body.” If this is correct, then I am in possession of information never before given to the world. I never until now knew that the belief of man's unconsciousness in death, and the final extinction of the being of the wicked, attended the early proclamation of the advent of Christ at hand, as it was given in the various churches, resulting in the formation of a new society known as Adventists. It has always been affirmed—and the editor of the Voice formerly joined in the affirmation—that after the Adventists had become a separate body, the “death question” was introduced among them, which created distraction and division among us.
I well recollect when Father Chapman had labored long and hard in the West in proclaiming the Advent doctrine, and had succeeded in raising up several churches to hold up the light, of hearing the editor of the Voice express his grief that certain ones had worked their way in among those churches to preach those distracting and dividing sentiments, and adding—“the only way I can reconcile myself to these things is by remembering that when God had made the earth all beautiful and good, and planted a garden so lovely for man’s residence, that the Devil was suffered to enter and spoil it all. And Satan has been at the same work ever since; and if God can endure it, Father Chapman and myself must submit.” “But,” said he, “those materialists do exactly as Satan did; they don’t go into new fields, and build up interests of their own, but they go and pervert those churches built up by the self-sacrificing labors of others. But Satan’s triumph is short, and so we’ll struggle on.” Now as his statements then and now do not agree, which will he have us credit? Moreover, it is well known that other pernicious errors were extensively propagated among the Advent churches, such as the denial of the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Ghost, the vicarious atonement, etc., so that many supposed these were the prominent and prevailing views of Adventists. Then the question was mooted, how shall we meet this obstacle in the way of our usefulness? This question was discussed at Worcester, which led to the adoption of the “appellation of Evangelical Adventists.” And many then holding their “materialistic notions,” voted for the addition. Did they by that vote renounce the name of Adventists? Nay; they affirmed that they stood on the original Advent basis, and that, as to other great Scriptural truths, not specifically distinguished as Adventistic, they were evangelical—that is, in reference to the great cardinal doctrines of Christianity
they were in agreement with the Evangelical Protestant world. William Miller, J. V. Himes, J. Litch, A. Hale, C. Fitch, and others, who were recognized as leaders in the Advent movement, never dreamed that the “death question” was an essential ingredient in the system of Adventism. Hence the Signs of the Times, afterward called the Advent Herald, which was started to defend and proclaim the Advent faith, never called attention to the above error only to oppose it. As this paper was the first organ of the Advent body, how is it that it did not advocate the materialistic doctrines, if they were considered as essential parts of Adventism, or if the “main body” of Adventists at that time held to those sentiments? I need not enlarge on this point; it speaks for itself. A work entitled “Adventism,” to do justice to all, should certainly give these facts a place on its pages. “Evangelical Adventists,” therefore, stand on the original platform, and publish still the “Advent Herald,” which continues to herald the same views it has from the beginning,—definite time alone excepted. Its editor consequently may well complain of injustice in his notice of the work entitled Adventism, in which these facts are suppressed, and the majority of his readers will join in the complaint. It is said “that the views now advocated by the Herald contain little or nothing to make its supporters a separate people.” But as there has been no change in the views of the Herald since the passing of 1844, when it gave up the advocacy of the definite time of the advent, the change was as good from the commencement of 1845 till 1859 or ’60, when its first publisher ceased his connection with it, as it is now.
Again, we read concerning the supporters of the Herald, that “their faith in the cleansing of the earth by fire at the commencement of the millennium, and rejection of the doctrine of the return of the Jews, are, perhaps, the only distinctive features of this ‘Evangelical’ body of Adventists.” Was this statement true of the editor of the Voice previous to his leaving his relation with the Herald? If not, as the Herald has made no change since, what shall we think of the above statement? If the writer of this article had uttered it, it would have been with the consciousness that he was uttering a deliberate falsehood.
The personal, pre-millennial advent of Jesus Christ, now nigh, “even at the doors,” is here omitted. Why was this? The Herald proclaims this truth as boldly as ever. And it is the great distinguishing feature of Adventism, and so considered by all who are well informed on the subject. And the Herald is as clear in its utterance on this point as the Voice; for the Voice has now very quietly ceased the advocacy of definite time. But still it declares that “time” and materialism are the “points of faith which cause a separation between Adventists and the churches generally.” As the Voice no longer contends for definite time, it can claim no distinction on that ground. As the only other point of distinction which it urges, is materialism, of course it follows that its separation from the Herald, and from all Evangelical churches, is on that question alone. But the assertion that we can proclaim freely every other point in the churches is not true, and the Voice knows it, and the writer knows it by sad experience.
Again, the Voice says that Father Miller was opposed to the views of materialists, and “this was the more natural because his mind was so fully occupied with the great truth of his early mission, and he feared the introduction of such doctrine might hinder our mission, and prove a new source of weakness and division, from which we had already suffered much.” (The italics are mine.) Here it is fully conceded that the “early mission” of the Adventists was entirely separate from the life and death question; and its introduction has had the very effect which the good old man “feared” it would have. The same thing is granted by the Voice in the following quotation: “One by one the old Adventists of the original movement have adopted the views they once called ‘heresy,’ until, comparatively speaking, but few of them are left standing on the old orthodox platform of eternal misery for the lost.” Who then has departed from the original Advent position? Who are the “offshoots” from the body? The answer is apparent to all.
Once more; the editor of the Voice speaks as though the Herald believed and taught the doctrine of the “natural immortality” of man. But he was too long associated with it not to know the exact truth in the case, especially as he then coincided in sentiment with what the Herald has invariably maintained. Then why does he not tell the whole truth?
He knows we do not believe the same as many in the churches do on this question; that we maintain man can secure immortality only through Christ, and that it is to be put on at the resurrection; that wicked men do not, and never will possess that attribute; and that we hold with the orthodox church from the beginning, up to the present century, on this question. Now I insist upon it that truthful men will tell the truth. If, therefore, the editor of the Voice wishes to be credited as a truth-teller, let him speak out the facts on this point as they are. In all his quotations from Enfield, and others, concerning the views of the ancient philosophers, and their intercourse with Jews and Christians, and the effects of their philosophy upon the latter, we perceive no especial pertinency to the case in hand.
Suppose they did teach the immortality of the soul, and suppose some in the Christian church have been improperly influenced by “vain philosophy,” what has all that to do with the true faith of the Bible as held by the primitive Christians, and the great body of the martyrs and Reformers, and by the present supporters of the Herald? Plainly nothing. The ancient philosophers, and heathen religion, had among them all the great doctrines of revelation in a corrupted form, having come to them more or less through the medium of tradition. The tendency of the human mind is to mix up human reasoning with divine revelation, hence the existence of so much error in the church throughout her entire history. But, admitting and maintaining all this, how does it follow that the doctrine of the separate existence of the soul, and the eternal punishment of the wicked, is unscriptural? Heathen philosophers had many errors, and many Christians have been corrupted by them, but it seems the only error of any consequence they had, which the Voice is able to see, was the one concerning the soul’s immortality. This is the “heresy which lies at the foundation of nearly all heresies.” A statement more easily made than demonstrated, judging from the article in question.
The Voice declares that “Martin Luther and others boldly refuted the immortality of the soul and its kindred errors.” And yet he partially admits Luther’s faith in the separate and conscious existence of the soul during the intermediate state. But why does he not state the Reformer’s faith plainly as he did in his discourse preached at the dedication of the chapel in Waterbury, Vt.? And in his criticism of remarks to which he listened at a funeral in Dec., 1858, and which he gave in the Herald? He then said that to “impute to Luther and the Reformers the view of the unconsciousness of the dead, was to do ‘the mighty dead injustice.’” And then quoted from Moritz Meurer’s Life of Luther, in proof, where he speaks of his remarks about the death of his daughter Magdalena, showing that the great Reformer believed that her spirit was in conscious peace and rest. After giving the quotation he added the following:
“When Luther’s testimony against the purgatory of the Romanist, and his denial of the immortality of the soul, are quoted to prove that he held to the unconsciousness of the dead, great injustice is done him. The above utterances were made at the age of sixty years (only four years previous to his death), when his opinions were matured; and in this faith he died. The other Reformers held the same views.”
Now, after nine years, he endeavors to invalidate the above testimony. At Waterbury, he showed clearly that Luther and his associates, J. Wesley, etc., did not believe in the soul’s going immediately to Heaven at death, and receiving its reward, and neither did they believe in the soul’s unconsciousness in death, but they held that the souls of the righteous rested in Paradise until the resurrection, and then came the period of reward. This was argued from the Bible, and from the faith of the early church, and of the Reformers. Now, if Luther was correctly represented, then why does he now seek to invalidate that testimony? If118
these were the sentiments of his mature life, and those in which he died, why speak about some uncertain expressions which he wrote twenty years before, as he was just emerging from papal darkness, in order to conceal the real facts in the case? To all who are well informed on this question, the professed “collection of historic facts” which the Voice gives us, will have no weight, while the grand display which has been made may have an opposite effect upon others.
No lover of truth will fear to have everything connected with his faith stated correctly and fully. There can be nothing gained in the end by efforts to conceal, or keep back historical facts relating to any Scripture doctrine. Notwithstanding the long article in the Voice, we are compelled to answer the question at its commencement in the affirmative,—most emphatically, would we call it a gross perversion.
Do we not have in the case of the editor of the Voice a striking illustration of the passage—“ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?” When the doctrine of the advent found him he was a Unitarian Materialist; at the Evangelical Alliance in London in 1846, he was staunchly orthodox; and after the discussion in Boston between Dr. Litch and Eld. Grant, he announced in the Herald his purpose to oppose materialistic views more earnestly than he had ever done, and now we find him absorbed in the advocacy of materialistic sentiments as the only distinguishing characteristic of Adventism, his time theory having slid from under his feet! Where shall we look for him next?—C.—in Advent Herald.
FREEMASONRY.—VI
By Charles G. Finney
BY REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY.
The benevolence so much boasted of by Freemasons is a sham; and the morality of the institution is opposed to both law and gospel.
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 undeniable. But does Masonry include 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 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 the 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.
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 the 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 mentioned comprise a vast majority, probably not less than two-thirds of all mankind. Again, they admit no deformed persons, and none but those who are physically perfect. In short they admit none who are likely to become chargeable to the institution.
Now, is this 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 lodge, 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 dollars; the yearly interest of which, at 7 per cent, is 787,500 dollars, which sum [allowing 100 dollars 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 dollars for the privilege of contributing 1, 5, or 50 dollars 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 were 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, for 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 frequently 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 principles 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 in 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 blind, the old and 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 treasures 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 partial 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 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 antichristian, and opposed to both the law and the 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 the 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 to 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 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 good men who are Freemasons, Freemasonry has not made them so; but119Christianity 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 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 claim 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.