Huntington University: Christian College of the Liberal Arts

Suggested Citation:
[Identification of Item]. Available at the United Brethren Historical Center website; http://www.huntington.
edu/ubhc/publications/ebooks/
virginia/virginiatitle.htm

History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Virginia Conference

by A. P. Funkhouser

CHAPTER XVI

CONCERNING SECRET SOCIETIES

In the century in which we live, secret fraternities are numerous. In the early years of the United Brethren church there were very few of them. The Masonic order was vastly more conspicuous than any other. As new societies arose, they were regarded as directly or indirectly the offspring of the Masonic by those persons who were opposed to secret societies in general.

Otterbein and Boehm were in agreement with Wesley in holding secret fraternities in much disfavor. As a class, the Germans in America were very hostile to Freemasonry. It thus followed that for several decades there was very general opposition to secret orders within the United Brethren church.

It was held that if there is anything good in secrecy, the public need not be kept in ignorance; and that if there is anything bad in it, the bad ought not to be shielded by an oath-bound veil. The claims of Masonry were thought to be anti-Christian and of no divine origin. To the Mennonite element the Masonic oaths were an offense. It was held to be sinful for the initiate to swear to obey a code of laws he was not acquainted with. As to the promise made to the person about to enter the order,—that there is nothing in its oaths to do violence to his duties to himself, his country, and his God,—it was held that this was a mere man-made opinion and not necessarily correct. And the admission by the Masons that the name of Jesus may not be used in their services was viewed as a stumbling-block that could not be surmounted.

In 1826 one William Morgan, a man residing in the west of New York, was known to be on the point of publishing a book that purported to be an exposure of Freemasonry. He was abducted and never again heard of. What became of him is still a secret to the world at

120

large, but the opponents of the order were convinced that Morgan was put out of the way and his body sunk in Lake Erie. There was great excitement over the matter throughout the United States. A new political party was formed,—the Anti-Masonic,—and in one presidential election, it carried the state of Vermont.

Within the United Brethren Church the opposition to Masonry did not begin with the Morgan affair. Several months earlier the Miami Conference resolved by a unanimous vote that it would bear with those of its brethren who had already joined the Masons, so long as they did not attend Masonic lodges; but that if any member subsequently joined the order he should be expelled. Three years later, the General Conference resolved by a unanimous vote that "in no way or manner shall Freemasonry be approved or tolerated in our church," and that "if any member join the Freemasons, such member, by such an act, excludes himself from membership in our church."

At this time the grounds of the opposition against the Masons were substantially the same as the following digest of the charges formulated by a convention of men who had withdrawn from the fraternity.

These men declared that Masonry assumes to exercise a jurisdiction over the citizens of any country in which it exists; that it claims the right to punish its members for offense unknown to the laws of our nation; that it conceals crime and the person committing the crime; that it provides opportunity for plots against persons and the very government itself; that it encourages crime by providing ways for the guilty to escape; that it assumes unrepublican titles and dignities and creates odious aristocracies; that it blasphemes the name of God and makes the Bible subserve its own concern; that by a profane use of religious forms it destroys a veneration for religion; that it promotes idleness and intemperance; that it accumulates at the expense of the indigent, funds to be used in dissipation; that it contracts human sympathy by conferring its favors and its charities on its members only.

121

But new fraternities appeared, and during the last eighty years they have become increasingly numerous. The Sons of Temperance, the pioneer of the anti-liquor secret societies, arose in 1842. Many of the younger people among the United Brethren went into its "divisions" (lodges) in the belief that the considerations urged against Masonry could not apply to a society whose leading aim was to further a cause very dear to the Church. And there were other persons in the denomination who were restive under the rulings on secret orders, and did not always observe them, even with respect to Masonry. This was particularly the case within the domain of the Virginia Conference.

As against the claims presented against the Masonic and other orders in a preceding paragraph, we now quote the substance of an address by Jacob Bachtel before the General Conference of 1849. In this session the rule that stood in the Discipline until 1861 was presented. It was adopted by a vote of thirty-three yeas and two nays. Bachtel and Markwood were the delegates voting in the negative. Burtner, the third delegate, was neutral. Mr. Bachtel spoke as follows:

"This report includes all secret orders. I am not much, if any, opposed to Masonry, and can not and will not turn a man out of the church, or refuse him admission to the church, on account of his being a Mason. I can not turn the Odd-fellows out or reject them. The object of the Sons of Temperance is grand, noble, and benevolent. They have done much good in Virginia, and have been the means of reforming many drunkards. Their secrecy is no just ground of objection. The disciples had secrets; warriors have secrets; the Church has secrets; annual conferences have secrets; sometimes it is necessary for them to have secret sessions, and there ought to be more. These societies must have secrets, or tests, to secure themselves against fraud and imposition. The passage of this resolution will nearly ruin the church in our conference."

122

Within the United Brethren Church, two wings, styled the radical and the liberal, were now arrayed against each other. The radicals held inflexibly to the traditional policy of the church. They conceded that not all fraternities might be harmful in tendency, but they did object to letting down the bars. They insisted that the new societies imitated the mechanism of the Masonic order. They also insisted that the essence of secrecy is the same, whatever the avowed or unavowed objects, and that secrecy muzzles freedom of opinion. They thought it better for the church to keep clear of all fraternities, so that ministers and members might be free to utter their honest, untrammelled opinion at any time, and without asking the permission of any secret organization whatever. They thought that serious complications with respect to church discipline might result if all restrictions were withdrawn. The liberals, on the other hand, maintained that a rigid, uncompromising rule was unwise and not in harmony with the spirit of the age. Their ranks were largely recruited from the non-German elements in the church membership.

But the popular feeling against the Masons subsided. This ancient order maintained its ground, and many new fraternities arose. Meanwhile, the liberal element within the United Brethren Church grew stronger and stronger, and in 1885 was able to secure the adoption of the modified rule which is now in force. This rule runs as follows:

A secret combination, in the sense of the Constitution, is a secret league or confederation of persons holding principles and laws at variance with the Word of God, and injurious to Christian character as evinced in individual life, and infringing upon the natural, social, political, or religious rights of those outside its pale.

Any member or minister of our Church found in connection with such combination shall be dealt with as in other cases of disobedience to the order and discipline of the Church,—in case of members, as found on page 23 of Discipline in answer to the third question of Section E, Chapter IV, and in case of ministers, as found in Chapter VI, Section 13, page 65.

Men of the type of Bishop Edwards were fierce in their denunciation of secret orders in general and the Masonic in particular, and that positive-minded man never receded

123

from his opinion. The stand taken by the Church was at first quite unanimously upheld and was very long continued. It operated to very nearly exclude the Church from the centers of population and cause it to be a church of the rural sections almost wholly. In a large sense this is still the case. Yet at the present time, there is no active hostility to secret fraternities, and members of the church feel free to connect themselves with such as are obviously not antagonistic to the public welfare.



	Contact Us \| 2303 College Avenue Huntington, IN 46750 \| 1.800.642.6493 \| Copyright 2004