“The Heretical Theology of Jesse Morrell” Refuted by Jesse Morrell

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

“The Heretical Theology of Jesse Morrell” Refuted by Jesse Morrell

A REFUTATION TO THE ARTICLE:

“THE HERETICAL THEOLOGY OF JESSE MORRELL”

by Josef Urban, published by Grace in the Triad

Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban (Part One) – Open Theism & Atonement

The False Charges of Josef Urban & Grace in the Triad Against Jesse Morrell

JESSE MORRELL (MORAL GOVERNMENT THEOLOGY)

REFUTES JOSEF URBAN (CALVINISM)

The words of Josef are in bold, my response to what he said comes after each quote.

Josef Urban is a man who believes that Charles Finney and John Wesley are in hell right now because they were “false teachers” for teaching “Christian holiness”. He also believes that Leonard Ravenhill, Albert Barnes, and Paris Reidhead were heretics for their moral government and atonement views. Therefore, I do not take it too personally that he calls me a heretic, since it seems I am in good company. Josef himself is a five point Calvinist. He greatly misunderstands and misrepresents my theology in his article. I have tried to correct this in the past but he has stubbornly ignored my corrections and has continued on in his slander. I have tried to reasonably dialog with him in the past, but he has refused to answer my questions and instead resorts to harsh accusations and name calling. The impression that I have gotten from him over the years is that he is overly critical and harsh, and comes off as very mean spirited and even cruel, as lest towards me.

You will notice that in his accusations against me, and in his attacks against my theology, he NOT EVEN ONCE provides a single quote of something I have said.

“Yet, despite the outward appearance of zeal in evangelism and devotion to theological subjects, there is reason to have grave concern about this man and the ministry he leads. Not only has he employed unscriptural and cruel tactics of “shock and awe” preaching where crude statements are shouted in the open air in the hopes of offending people so that a heckler will rise up and yell and then a crowd will gather,” quote

What are my “cruel tactics” or what are the “crude statements” that I have made?? He gives absolutely no quotes whatsoever. I have nearly 200 videos on YouTube people can watch to see what it is that I say and do. Anyone can judge my open air preaching by watching the videos.

While I do say, “The unrighteousness will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If you are sleeping with your girl friend you are on your way to hell”. I do not see this as crude or cruel. It is truth spoken in love.

Jesus Christ often said shocking statements like “unless you repent, you will perish”, “I am the way the truth and the life”, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood”, etc. The truth is often shocking. For me to say, “God is going to judge your life” or “God is angry with the wicked every day” might be considered “shock and awe” but it is completely biblical.

There is no doubt that I aim at dialoging with those who disagree with me. I go to a campus, not to talk to those who already agree, but with those who disagree. And so I will bring up controversial issues that I know others will get an opposing opinion about. Examples would be abortion, homosexuality, etc. I am not bringing up these topics in the “hopes of offending people” but in the hopes that those who disagree would vocalize their disagreement, so that we could discuss it. Crowds do gather when there is a public debate, I use this for the advantage of the Gospel.

“and not only does he align himself with false evangelists who are known for their shockingly offensive and anti-biblical methods of ministry,” quote

He is talking about Ruben Israel, Kevin Farrer, JK, Jed Smock, Micah Armstrong, Dick Christenson, etc. These men are my friends and I believe they preach the truth. They are not “False evangelists”.

“I have already communicated with Jesse on numerous occasions pleading with him from God’s Word to recognize his error and to renounce the false doctrines he believes, and have communicated with him numerous times and even rebuked him sharply, all to no avail.” Quote

I once had to ban Josef from my message board because he was making false accusations and was not open to a discussion. He refused to answer any of my questions but just continued to rail on in his false accusations. I told Josef that he would be allowed back on if he would be willing to engage in reasonable dialog.

But I am not going to “repent” of what I believe is taught in the Bible. I am not going to “repent” and become a Calvinist.

“The doctrine of God’s Omniscience: Simply stated and summarized, Jesse does not believe that God immutably knows the future” quote

I believe that God is omniscient. Omniscient means “all knowledge”. God has all the knowledge that exists. God knows everything that there is to know. The parts of the future that are predetermined, God knows as predetermined, and the parts of the future that are undetermined, God knows as undeteremined.

The future is partly settled, because God had made predeterminations. And the future is partly open, because God allows men to choose.

* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3

* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10

* God’s willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13

* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31

* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35

* God has expected things to happen that didn’t come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51

* The prayers of men have changed the plans of God: Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19

* God is said to have repented (changed His mind) multiple times in the Bible: Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14

* Prophecies are often God foretelling what He Himself will later bring to pass. So they have to do more with God’s omnipotence then His omniscience: Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17

* Scriptures that say God has a past, present, and a future: Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8

* Scriptures that say God’s eternity is endless time, that is, time without beginning or end: Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14;

* Scriptures that say man’s eternity is endless time: Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;

* Scriptures that say eternity is endless time for Heavenly creatures: Rev. 4:8

* Scriptures that say there will be time in Heaven, or a distinction between the past and the present: Rev. 5:12

* Eternity is time without end (endless time instead of timelessness): Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14; Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11

The future is not some eternal fixity. The future is flexible. The future is not entirely certain, the future is changeable. Examples of how the future can be changed is how God was going to destroy Israel but did not (Numbers 14:11-20), how Hezekiah was going to die but God added years to his life (2 Kings 20:1-6), how Nineveh was going to be destroyed but was not (Jonah 3:10) and how Jesus Christ could have escaped the cross by being rescued by angels (Matt. 26:53). The future multiple possibilities which God and man can choose between. The future can be changed.

“but that God just makes really good guesses.” Quote

Prophecy is not God making “really good guesses”. There are four different types of prophecies:
1. ABSOLUTE PROPHECIES

These are prophecies of events that will inevitably come to pass. This relates to the omnipotence of God to bring about events predetermined by Himself. The matter is completely settled and certain.

Two example would be:

– God will crush the head of Satan:

“And I WILL put enmity between thee and the women, and between thy seed and her seed, and it shall bruise thy head.” Gen 3:15

– The end of of the world:

“Declaring THE END from the beginning, and from ancient times, the things that are not yet done, saying MY COUNSEL shall stand, and I WILL do all MY PLEASURE… I have spoken it, I WILL also bring it to pass, I have purposed it, I WILL also do it.” Isaiah 46:10-11

2. CONDITIONAL PROPHECIES

These are prophecies of contingent events. They relate to the freewill of men. The matter is completely open and contingent.

Two examples of this would be:

– The repentance of Judah:

“Perhaps they will hear and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I purposed to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.” Jer 26:3

– Blessings and wrath contingent upon obedience and disobedience:

“At what instance I shall speak concering a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instance I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jer 18:7-10

3.EXTRAPOLATIVE PROPHECIES

These are prophecies that are predicted, based upon God’s exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present. Looking at the pattern of the past and the circumstances of the present, our Infinite God is able to make accurate and detailed predictions of the future behind our own finite comprehension:

Examples of this type would be:

– The future disobedience of Israel

“For when I shall have brought them into the land which I swore unto their fathers, that flows with milk and honey; an they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouth, of their seed: I KNOW THEIR IMAGINATION which they go about, EVEN NOW, before I have brought them into the land which I swore.” Deut 31:20-21

– Peters denial:

Mark 8:31-34, Peters heart was revealed that he greatly feared the cross. He rebuked Jesus for talking about crucifixion and the Lord rebuked Peter for His cowardice.

Mat 26:34, Jesus knew Peter’s heart had not changed. And Jesus new all the circumstances Peter would face that night, since Jesus knew the devil was orchestrating Peter’s circumstances (Lk. 22:31), and predicted Peters denial based upon his past pattern, present character, and present/future circumstances.

4. PARALLEL OR ANALOGOUS SCRIPTURE FULFILLMENTS

These are events found in the New Testament, which correlate with events found in the Old Testament. The scriptures used had an original meaning in the Old, yet are applicable to a situation in the New.

Examples would be:

– My Son called out of Egypt:

Hos 11:1 speaking of Israel in the Old Testament.

This is also applied to Jesus in the New Testament, Mat 2:15.

– The betrayal of a trusted friend:

Psa 41:9, David speaking of his trusted friend and counselor Ahithephel.

John 13:18, this is also applied to Jesus and his trusted friend and disciple Judas.

– The replacement of Judas, Acts 1:16:

Acts 1:20, Peter applies two Scriptures to the situation of Judas.

Ps. 69:25, talks about “their habituation” being desolate, but Peter modifies it so say “his habituation”, and “let none dwell in their tents”

Ps. 109:8, David curses his enemies, who treated him wickedly.
WHAT PROPHECIES DO NOT PROVE:

– That the future has already happened

– That God already lives in the future

– That God lives outside of time

– That God has determined everything

– That all events are foreknown as certain

WHAT PROPHECIES DO REVEAL:

– That the future is partly settled by God (absolute prophecies)

– That the future is partly open and contingent (conditional prophecies)

– That the future is partly predictable to the Divine Mind (extrapolative prophecies)

– That the future is repetitive and similar to the past (parallel or analogous prophecies)

“This is the result of exalting the free will of all “moral agents” to a Deified position, exalting free will even above God Himself.” Quote

Again, a false accusation. When have I ever exalted moral agents to a deified position, or exalted free will above God? Give me a quote.

God, man, and angels, have a free will. But God is above man. God not only has a free will, God is omnipotent. While we are free to will whatever we want, only God is free to do whatever He wills. Free will does not mean that we have the ability to do anything. Free will is the ability to will, not to do. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything, and only God is omnipotent.

Because God is above man’s free will, God can take away man’s free will whenever He chooses, and God also holds men accountable for the way that he uses his free will.

All of the Early Church taught that mankind has a free will. The only people who denied that man had a free will were the Gnostics.

“Therefore, Jesse thinks that even God has to submit to the free will of man” quote

God does not submit to the free will of man. God has graciously granted man a free will:

“Behold I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God…. And a curse if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God” (Deut. 11:26-28).

Man is free to choose between obedience and disobedience. But God has freely determined to punish those who disobey.

“and doesn’t know what any man will choose to do before that man actually makes the choice and does it.” Quote

See the above about prophecy and omniscience. If God predetermines what a man will do (like King Cyprus or John the Baptist) then God can know it because there is no free will involved. And if God knows a person’s heart and character (like Israel and Peter) he can know what they will do in the immediate future. Again, see the above on prophecy.

“Because of this, Jesse believes that God doesn’t know the future, but kind of just makes the best choices He can as He finds out what free moral agents decide. This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the whole Bible! In Jesse’s theology, God Almighty has been stripped of His Omniscience!” quote

See the above about prophecy and omniscience. I believe that God does know the future as it is, and God is omniscient.

“Yet the fact that God knows the future and declares it immutably is one of the glorious attributes of His character that distinguishes Him from false pagan gods and from every other being in creation:

Isaiah 42:9 – “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.” Quote

This is talking about things that God has predetermined to do. Prophecies are often God fortelling what He will do. This does not mean that the far in the future free will choices of man are foreknown a head of time.

Remember:

* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3

* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10

* God’s willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13

* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31

* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35

* God has expected things to happen that didn’t come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51

Isaiah 46:5-10 – “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship. They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea, one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble. Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

The difference between the pagan idols and the God of the Bible is that God can say He will do something in the future, and then He will actually do it! This verse is not contrary to the open view of God, but is actually teaching it. In the open view, prophecies are often God foretelling a head of time what He plans on doing in the future.

Acts 15:18 – “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Quote

The context of this was the salvation of the Gentiles.

“That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” Acts 15:17-19

The Gentiles were not a “plan B” for God. God always planned on blessing all nations through the seed of Abraham. All of God’s purposes have been determined from the very beginning, and now He is finding ways to carry them out.

Romans 8:29-30 – ”For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Quote

Who did He foreknow? He knew the Israelites in the Old Testament. “Foreknew” does not mean to know in the future, it means to have known in the past. An example of this is when Paul uses the same Greek word to say how the Israelites knew him when he was a Pharisee (Acts 26:5). That is what it means when it says that the Lord has not cast off his people whom he foreknew (Rom. 11:2). God, who knew the Israelites in the past, has not cast them off. The Greek word “foreknew” does not teach exhaustive foreknowledge, or that God foreknows the outcome of a contingency before it occurs.

“The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement” quote

This is not true. I believe that the atonement of Christ substitutes our eternal punishment of hell. The six hours of Jesus’ suffering, and his death, is a substitute for our eternal torment in hell. Because an atonement has been provided, which substitutes our eternal penalty, God can remit our penalty by His grace and mercy.

“The real doctrine of the Atonement as taught in the Bible teaches us that Christ died as a literal Substitute for sinners; that Christ took our sin and was punished on behalf of our sin as our Substitute under the wrath of God so that the righteous demands of God’s holy Law could be satisfied and we could receive the forgiveness of sins and His righteousness and eternal life as a free gift of grace.” Quote

1. Christ suffered and died for our sins (Isa. 53:5; 1 Peter 3:18). Punishment implies sin and guilt. Sacrifice implies the sin and guilt of another. Jesus Christ was sacrificed for our sins.
2. The law demanded the eternal death of the guilty (Eze. 18:20; Prov. 17:15, 26; 2 Thes. 1:9) and therefore the atonement could not have satisfied the demands of the law. The atonement rather satisfied the purpose of penalty, it honored the law as equally as the penalty would have.
3. The penalty for our sins is eternal hell (2 Thes. 1:9)
4. Jesus did not suffer eternal hell, He suffered six hours on a cross.
5. Therefore Jesus suffered a substitute for our penalty, not the penalty itself.
6. Jesus said that the disciples would drink the same cup that he drank (Mark 10:38-39), therefore Jesus did not drink the cup of God’s wrath. The cup of God’s wrath is still full after the atonement (Rev. 16:19).
7. God still has wrath after the atonement (Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 2:5; Rom. 2:8-9; Col. 3:6; Rev. 6:17; Rev. 14:10, Rev. 14:19, Rev. 15:7; Rev. 16:1) and therefore the atonement did not satisfy God’s wrath.
8. Nobody is saved from God’s wrath until they forsake their sins (Isaiah 55:7; Jer. 26:13; Prov. 28:13; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22).
9. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty (Heb. 9:22), so that God could remit our penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25) without dishonoring or weakening His law.
10. Forgiveness is the remission of penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22). Forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 85:2-3; Micah 7:18). But if Jesus took our penalty and satisfied God’s wrath, there could be no real forgiveness. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty to be remitted, it makes it possible for God to turn away from His wrath when sinners repent.

We can see that the atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone. Many of those for whom Christ died will ultimately perish for their sin (1 Cor. 8:11) because they choose to continue in their sin (Heb. 10:26-31). Though Christ died for all (Isa. 45:22; 53:6; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Matt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16; Rom. 2:11; 5:15; Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:11; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:22; Rev. 3:20), many are on the broad road (Matt. 7:13). It’s possible to deny the Lord that bought us and thereby fall into condemnation (2 Pet. 2:1).

“Simply put, He bore our sins and our punishment so we could receive His righteousness and reward. Any denial of this truth is a denial of the essential truth of the biblical Gospel. To deny that Christ literally suffered in our place on the Cross in order to bear the wrath of God which we deserve, as our Substitute, in order to avert God’s wrath and condemnation from us and to purchase our redemption, is to deny the Gospel.” Quote

Jesus did not suffer our punishment (eternal hell) but Jesus provided a replacement for our punishment (his own blood shed on the cross) so that God could forgive us our sins by remitting our penalty and turn away from His wrath.

See the above 10 points.

“Jesse Morrell believes that Christ did not actually bear our sin on the Cross, that our sin could have never been imputed to Christ, and therefore Christ could have never been punished for our sin.” Quote

I do believe that Christ bore our sins on the cross, that He suffered and died for our sins, suffering the replacement for the penalty of the law, so that the eternal punishment for our sins could be withheld.

“This is heresy, and if this is true, we are all yet dead in our sins and there is no forgiveness in Christ since there can only be forgiveness if He actually bore our sin and took it away.” Quote

It is not heresy to say that our punishment is eternal hell and that God still has wrath after the atonement. It is not heresy to say that our penalty could be remitted and God could turn away from His wrath because of the atonement of Christ. If the atonement is not a substitute for our penalty, but was actually our penalty, then there can be no forgiveness of sins because forgiveness is when our penalty is remitted. Our penalty cannot be executed and remitted at the same time.

Many men have held to the view of the atonement that I am expounding, such as Leonard Ravenhill, Jonathon Edwards Jr, Albert Barnes, Gordon Olson, Harry Conn, Charles Finney, Catherine Booth, etc. Were they all heretics?

“The Christ of God offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of man. The Divine law had been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore its penalty must be endured by the transgressor, or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as rendered it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner. His sacrifice is never represented in the Bible as having purchased or begotten the love of the Father, but only as having opened up a channel through which the love could flow out to His rebellious and prodigal children. The doctrine of the New Testament on this point is not that ‘God so hated the world that His own Son was compelled to die in order to appease His vengeance,’ as we fear has been too often represented, but that ‘God so LOVED the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” Catherine Booth (Popular Christianity, p. 30, Published by Convention Bookstore)

“The very idea of atonement is something done, which, to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse…a less degree or duration of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 7)

“His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured. There are some things in the penalty of the Law, which the Lord Jesus did not endure, and which a substitute or a vicarious victim could not endure. Remorse of conscience is a part of the inflicted penalty of the Law, and will be a vital part of the sufferings of the sinner in hell – but the Lord Jesus did not endure that. Eternity of sufferings is an essential part of the penalty of the Law – but the Lord Jesus did not suffer forever. Thus, there are numerous sorrows connected with the consciousness of personal guilt, which the Lord Jesus did not and cannot endure.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)

“He did not endure eternal death….eternal death was the penalty of the law…No man can possibly hold that the Redeemer endured eternal sorrow; and no man, therefore, who believes that the penalty of the law is eternal death, can consistently maintain that he endured the literal penalty of the law.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 236-237)

“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is an atonement.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)

“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6)

The death of Christ manifests God’s hatred of sin and love of holiness in the same sense as the damnation of the wicked manifests these, namely, on the supposition that the divine law is just and holy. If it be allowed the divine law is just and holy, then every thing done to support and execute that law, is a declaration in favor of holiness and against sin; or a declaration of God’s love of holiness and his hatred of iniquity…By atonement I mean that which, as a substitute for the punishment which is threatened in the law, supports the authority of that law, and the dignity of the divine government.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (Inferences and Reflections on Atonement, p. 3)

“If free pardon is to be extended to penitent sinners, some great measure must be substituted for the punishment of sinners that will uphold the moral government of God at least equally as well as the pronounced consequences would have done.” Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 95)

“In his undertaking the work of redemption; in his manifested character on earth; in his teaching; in the spirit with which he bore his trials; in his readiness to meet death, and in the manner in which he actually met it; in the offers of salvation which he made to mankind on the ground of the sacrifice which he made for human guilt, no one who believes the Saviour at all can doubt that he was in all respects pleasing to God. Whatever were the sufferings which were brought upon him, they were not of the nature of punishment for his own offences; whatever was the reason why he was left in darkness and gloom on the cross, it was not because he had incurred for himself the wrath of God. In the very midst of those sufferings he was performing a work which, of all the works ever performed on the earth, was most acceptable to a pure and holy God.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 292-293)

“An atonement is, properly, an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment; it is that which will answer the same end which would be secured by the literal infliction of the penalty of the law. It is not a commercial transaction, – a matter of debt and payment, of profit and loss. It pertains to law, to government, to holiness; not to literal debt and payment.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 230)

“Retributive justice, therefore, is not at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But the general justice to the Deity and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which supports the authority of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory of God, and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (Inferences and Reflections on Atonement)

“The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent to the meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by the infliction of the legal penalty upon all sinners.” Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 100)

“The death of Christ is not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty. The necessity of an atonement is not found in the fact that the justice of God requires an invariable execution of deserved penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of God, and the welfare of his creatures, require that his essential and rectoral righteousness be adequately declared. The death of Christ is exponential of divine justice, and is a satisfaction in that sense, and not in the sense that it is, as of a debt, the full and complete payment of all its demands.” John Miley (The Governmental Theory of the Atonement, p. 9)

Atonement is, properly, an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment. It is that which will answer the same end secured by the literal infliction of the penalty of the law… The atonement is the governmental provision for the forgiveness of sins, providing man meets the conditions of repentance and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Harry Conn (Four Trojan Horses, Published by Mott Media, p. 80-81)

“It [the atonement] provides a substitute for the penalty of the law”. Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, The Nature of Sin, Published by Communication Foundation Publishers)

“Yet the Bible clearly refutes Jesse’s (and Moral Government Theology’s) heretical doctrine of the Atonement:” quote

He hasn’t even stated what my doctrine of the atonement is. He said, or tried to say, what I do not believe. But he hasn’t even said what I do believe. This is probably because he doesn’t even know what I believe, or at least could not properly articulate it.

“2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Quote

I agree with Adam Clarke on this passage that it means Jesus was made a sin offering for us. A sin offering is something which God will accept on behalf of someone’s sins, so that He does not need to execute the penalty of their sins upon them.

I disagree with Martin Luther on this passage. Jesus was not turned into a sinner on the cross. Jesus did not become guilty of any sin. Jesus was offered as a spotless lamb to God.

I agree with Albert Barnes that the moral character of Jesus never changed. He never became a sinner. He was always sinless.

“Though innocent, he was treated in his death as if he had been guilty; that is, he was put to death as if he had personally deserved it…He was suspended on a cross, as if he had been a malefactor. He was numbered with malefactors; he was crucified between them; he was given up by God and man to death as if he had himself been such a malefactor.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 296)

“Standing for the sinner, he must, in an important sense, bear the curse of the law–not the literal penalty, but a vast amount of suffering, sufficient, in view of his relations to God and the universe, to make the needed demonstration of God’s displeasure against sin, and yet of his love for both the sinner and all his moral subjects. On the one hand, Jesus represents the race; on the other, he represented God.” Charles G. Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 4)

“The Savior identifies Himself with sinners so intimately that He is treated as if their sins were His, if the seemingly insurmountable problems of reconciliation were to be solved. He must be the great High Priest who voluntarily places the sin of mankind, not upon the head of an innocent animal, but upon Himself, with dreadful heart-broken solemnness, until it crushes out His holy and spotless life.” Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 33)

“Christ was treated as though he had been a sinner – and as his sufferings answered the purpose of the sinner’s punishment, and are the ground of his pardon, it may be said with respect to all believers, that their sins were imputed or reckoned to Christ, and his righteousness imputed or reckoned to them. That is, Christ was treated as sinners deserve, and sinners are treated as Christ deserves.” Nathan Beman (Four Sermons on the Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 39)

“Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy. I have hesitated whether I should copy expressions here on this subject from one of the greatest and best of men (I mean Luther) to show the nature of the views which people sometimes entertain on the subject of the imputation of sin to Christ. But as Luther deliberately published them to the world… and since similar views are sometimes entertained now; and as it is important that such views should be held up to universal abhorrence, no matter how respectable the source from which they emanate, I will copy a few of his expressions on this subject…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” “But if it is not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say that he was accursed, and of all sinners, the greatest.” “God, our most merciful Father, sent His only Son into the world, and laid upon him all the sins of all people, saying, be thou Peter, that denier; Paul, that persecutor, blasphemer, and cruel oppressor; David, that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the fruit in Paradise; that thief who hung upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person who has committed the sins of all people; see, therefore, that thou pay and satisfy for them” – Luther on the Galatians, Gal_3:13. (pp. 213-215. London edition, 1838).

“Luther was a great and holy man. He held, as firmly as anyone can, to the personal holiness of the Redeemer. But this language shows how imperfect and erroneous views may warp the language of holy people; and how those sentiments led him to use language which is little less than blasphemy.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)

1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”quote

I completely believe in the substitution of “the just for the unjust”. The death of the innocent (Jesus Christ) substitutes the eternal death of the guilty (sinners). This verse is teaching substitution, and the moral government view of the atonement teaches substitution.

“the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners.” Charles Finney (Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 281)

Romans 3:23-26 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Quote

The atonement is a declaration of God’s righteousness so that He could remit our penalty. Now that the atonement has been made, God can remit our penalty and still be just to Himself, just to His law, and just to His universe. He is just to Himself because He has made a public declaration of His righteousness and His regard for His law. He is just to His law because the value of the law is declared through the atonement of Christ as equally as it would have been through the penalty being executed. And God is just to His universe because the atonement of Christ maintains the authority and influence of God’s law, just as equally as the penalty would have, and therefore the rights and well-being of the universe are protected even though God withholds our punishment or remits our penalty.

Galatians 3:13-14 – “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Quote

The curse of Jesus Christ hanging on the tree saves us from the eternal curse of the law (hell fire). Because Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross, we can be saved from eternal hell if we repent and believe.

Isaiah 53:4-6 – “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Quote

Because all men have been sinners by choice, “all we like sheep have gone astray” we need the atonement of Christ “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”.

The wounding and bruising and whipping of Jesus Christ was done on behalf of our sins, so that the penalty for our sins, or the eternal punishment of hell, could be remitted. God does not need to send sinners to eternal hell, in order to maintain his law, because Jesus Christ has suffered for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:10 – “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” Quote

God sacrificed His son, by giving him into the hands of wicked men, and it pleased the Lord to make such a sacrifice, because through the sacrifice of the atonement God will be able to pardon mankind without dishonoring or weakening His law, without encouraging sin, without endangering His universe.

Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban (Part Two) – Original Sin / Sinful Nature / Born Sinners

@font-face { font-family: “Book Antiqua”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }“The doctrine of Original Sin: This core Christian belief states that all men enter this world with an inherently sinful nature and all men possess an inherent moral corruptness in their own flesh.” Quote
Josef, I know for a fact, teaches Gnosticism which says that our flesh is sinful. Some of his friends have confronted him on this but he has not repented. In Gnosticism, sin is not a choice of the will but a substance of the body. That is why Josef believes that we are sinners because of the type of body we inherit, and why he believes we cannot be morally perfect until we get a glorified body.But the Bible does not teach that it is a sin to have flesh, or that our flesh is sin. It is sinful to live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to live selfishly (Rom. 8:7). But it is not sinful to have flesh, since Jesus Christ had flesh (John 1:14; Luke 24:39; 1 Tim. 3:16). Nor do you need a glorified body to be morally perfect, because Jesus Christ was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) before He had a glorified body (Luke 13:32).The Gnostics denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh because they believed that the flesh was sinful:“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist…” 1 John 4:3“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 2 John 1:7Sinfulness is not a substance of matter. Our flesh is not a sin in and of itself. We could use our body for sinfulness or we could use our body for righteousness:“Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” Rom. 6:13“I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh, for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” Rom. 6:19“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thes. 5:23Sin is when we choose to gratify our flesh in an unnatural and forbidden way. Jesus Christ was tempted in the wilderness, not because he had a sinful nature or because his flesh was a sin, but because he had a natural desire for food (Matt. 4:3). Eve was tempted because of her natural God given desires (Gen. 3:6). Eve choose to gratify her God given flesh in a forbidden way. She had a natural desire for food and wisdom, but it was forbidden for her to gratify that desire by eating of the fruit.

God is the one who forms us in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3) and that is why God is responsible for the condition of our flesh when we are born (Exodus 4:11). Men are not sinful because God has created us with a flesh. Men are sinful because they have chosen to violate God’s law. Sin is not a substance of matter, sin is the choice to transgress God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4).

“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way.” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)

“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).

“God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite… The infant cannot think of terms of duty, responsibility, or moral choice…. The self-centeredness of infants has all the appearances of a vice. But they are acting on natural, God-given impulses to survive and seek their own pleasure…. They do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to say “No” to appetites and impulses. They cannot yet be held responsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness…. But the growing child or adult who doesn’t rise above self-indulging desires has fallen from God’s intention and design. The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… When does this innocent, natural selfishness of a child become sin? In other words, when is a child to blame? Keep in mind that a child will not come under condemnation until his moral faculties are fully operative… When a child goes against his conscience, however limited and incomplete his understanding may be, he is then guilty. The degree to which his understanding has developed is the degree to which his actions can be called sin…. As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.” Michael & Debi Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20)

“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).

“We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted.” Sin is to “pervert… natural, legitimate, human desires.” F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).

The Bible does not teach that men are born sinners. The Bible teaches that men are sinners by choice (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23.) It is their own fault because it is their own choice, and therefore they deserve punishment and therefore they need Christ’s atonement and God’s mercy.
Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17). Jesus said that if you were blind, you would have no sin. Since infants are morally blind, they have no sin.

Children do not inherit the guilt or sin of the parent: Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20.

Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13.

“If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43)

“Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)

“If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)

“And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature’s fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 43, published by The Boydell Press).

“If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.” Ignatius (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume One, p. 61)

“The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.” Origen (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, published by Hendrickson Publishers)

“All men are therefore sinners by nature” quote

Ephesians 2:2-3 says that we are by nature children of wrath, but in context this is talking a lifestyle of living for the flesh. Those who are selfish, those who live for the gratification of their flesh, are children of wrath. “By nature” simply means that they are choosing to live for their flesh, instead of living for God, instead of subjected their flesh to its proper place and presenting it to God for His service. The “natural man” is someone who lives for his flesh, instead of for God.

Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.” (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261).

An unknown writer in the Early Church said, “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press).

“To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).

“The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, ot only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.” Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115).

Men are sinners because they choose to sin, not because of the flesh that they inherit from their parents. Sinners are criminals because of their choices, they are not victims of their circumstances.

It should also be noted that sin is contrary to our design, and our conscience demands obedience to God, and in this way sin is contrary to human nature. Our body naturally coughs when it first smokes a cigarette. Our body throws up and suffers a hang over when consuming alcohol. These sins are contrary to our design and are therefore against our nature. Men also naturally feel guilt and shame when they sin, which shows that our nature is against sin. The Bible says that homosexuals do that which is against nature (Rom. 1:26-27) and our conscience, which demands obedience to God, is part of our nature (Rom. 2:14-15).

“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For is they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if it true that he was born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. In fact the murderer, the rapist, and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the rapist or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created al men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. No man is born a homosexual.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8).

“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).

“The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good…. Men must go against their nature to sin.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7).

“and apart from redemption through the grace of Christ, are under the curse of the Law” quote

Agreed. But the law commands us to make certain choices, therefore those who choose contrary to the law are under the curse of the law. Men are not under the curse of the law because of the body or flesh that they have, since the law does not demand us to have a certain type of flesh neither does it forbid us from having a certain type of flesh.

“abide under the wrath of God” quote

Agreed. Those who are sinning are under the wrath of God, notwithstanding the atonement of Christ. While the atonement of Christ made it possible for God to turn away from His wrath without dishonoring or weakening His law, no man is actually saved from God’s wrath until they are converted. Men, after the atonement, are still under the wrath of God while they are sinning.

“are by nature children of wrath” quote

Agreed. Those who are choosing to live after their flesh, who are living for their own selfish gratification, are children of wrath. Anyone who chooses to be a sinner, who chooses to live for their flesh, is under God’s wrath.

“are dead in trespasses and sins” quote

Agreed. Sinners do not have a relationship with God, but are separated from Him, because they have personally chosen to sin. To be dead in sin means that you do not have a relationship with God (Luke 15:24). Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13.

“do nothing that pleases God” quote

Agreed, because sinners are entirely selfish, they are living supremely for themselves, and God is not pleased with this. Sinners are carnally minded, which means that their purpose is to gratify their flesh, and this is violation of God’s law and does not please Him (Romans 8:6).

“and sin continually against God as a manifestation of the wicked sinful nature in their own hearts.” Quote

Sinners sin continually because of their own sinful character, not because of the nature, flesh, or body that they inherit. Sinners sin because of their own sinful hearts. The term “heart” in the Bible is a symbolic word used to describe man’s will. All sin comes out of the heart Jesus said (Matt. 15:19). The root of man, which brings forth fruit, is his own heart or will (Luke 6:43-45). God commands sinners to make unto themselves a new heart (Eze. 18:31), which means that He wants them to change the state of their will. God command men to change from having a disobedient will to an obedient will.

“The Bible teaches that we (commit acts of) sin because we’re sinners (by nature), not that we are sinners only because we (commit acts of) sin” quote

Disagree. Men are sinners because they sin. The definition of a sinner is someone who sins. Until you sin, you are not a sinner. Adam was not a sinner until he sinned. Eve was not a sinner until she sinned. Lucifer was not a sinner until he sinned.

Likewise, the Bible does not teach that men sin because they are servants of sin. The Bible teaches that men are servants of sin because they sin (John 8:34, Romans 6:16). Nobody serves sin until they choose to sin.

“that outward acts of sin are manifestations of the moral depravity of our own hearts.” Quote

Sin is not merely an action, sin is a state of the will. Men are sinners when they choose to have disobedient hearts, when they choose to have rebellious wills.

Outward actions of sin are the manifestations of the disobedient will or rebellious hearts of men. This is what Jesus taught in Luke 6:43-45. If our will (heart) is good, our life (fruit) will be good. But if our will (heart) is sinful, our life (fruit) will be sinful. Actions are the fruit of the will. The will is the cause, the actions are the effects. Good trees have good fruit, bad trees have bad fruit. Sinful actions are manifestations of sinful hearts. A sinful life is proof that a person is choosing to be selfish, that they have a selfish heart.

“Moral Government Theology and Jesse Morrell deny that this is true, and believe that all come into this world in a morally neutral state” quote

We inherit physical depravity from Adam (1 Cor 15:22), that is, we all physically die as a consequence of Adam’s sin because he was removed from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22).

But while physical depravity is hereditary, moral depravity is not, because moral depravity has to do with the will.

Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17).

“and deny that all of Adam’s posterity died spiritually in Adam’s original sin in the beginning.”

Children do not inherit the guilt or sin of the parent: Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20.

Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13.

Men are not born dead in sins, they become morally depraved and relationally separated from God when they voluntarily choose to sin: Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:14, Rom. 7:9, Rom. 7:11, Col. 2:13.

“Further, they declare that all sin is a choice and only a choice, and therefore all must make the choice to “stop sinning” and become morally perfect in order to be accepted by God.”

Repentance is the choice to stop sinning, it is a change of mind about breaking God’s law. Until a sinner repents, until they make this choice, they are not accepted by God. True repentance is not forsaking some sin, it is forsaking all sin. If a person does not forsake all sin, they do not forsake sin at all.

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

“Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin… Cast away from you all of your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die… For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves and live ye” (Ezekiel 18:30-32).

“wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14).

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:7).

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Proverbs 28:13).

“Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22).

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent…. For the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).

“Repent, ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out…” (Acts 3:19).

“Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

The Bible talks about “repentance to salvation…” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

“he believes that when a man chooses to stop sinning” quote

The Bible says that it is a choice to sin or not sin (Deut. 30:19; Isaiah 1:16; Rom. 6:13; Rom. 6:19; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 4:26) Repentance is a change of mind about sinning. This change of mind results in a change of life. That is called the fruit of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Acts 26:20). If a person changes their mind about sinning, they will stop sinning. But they are later free to change their mind again and begin to sin again (Matthew 21:28-30; Ezekiel 3:20; 18:26-27; 33:18-19).

“that man can enter a state of sinless and moral perfection” quote

We cannot have physical perfection in this life (Php. 3:12) but we can have moral perfection in this life, or have a perfect heart (1 Kings 8:61; 1 Kings 11:4; 1 Kings 15:4). Since sin is not having a certain type of body, we do not need a new body to be free from sin. But sin is the intention of the heart, and therefore to be free from sin we simply need a new heart. Moral perfection is not getting a glorified body, moral perfection is having a pure heart of love (Matt. 5:48, Rom. 13:8). Since sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4), but love is the fulfillment of the law (Gal. 5:14; James 2:8), the person who has a loving heart does not have any sin in their life, they are morally perfect. We cannot have glorification in this life, but we can be sanctified in this life (Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; Hebrews 2:11; Heb. 10:10; Heb. 10:14; Jude 1:1).

“and must keep his right-standing with God based on his own works by maintaining such a state of sinless perfection.”

God only forgives those who turn away from their sin, and therefore we remain forgiven as long as we stay away from sin. If we return to our sin, we are returning to the broad road the leads to destruction. If anyone is sinning, they are on the broad road to destruction.

The Bible says that if a believer sins, they are not covered by the cross and are under the wrath of God (Heb. 10:26-31), but they can be restored through repentance. If backsliders repent (Lk. 13:3; Jas. 5:19-20) and seek forgiveness (Matt. 6:12; 1 Jn. 1:9), they can be restored (Ps. 51:9; Jer. 3:22; 4:1; Lk. 15:20; 22:32; Rom. 11:23; Jas. 5:19-20) unless they are apostates (Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:14-16), having grieved away the Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32; Eph. 4:30), having resisted (Acts 7:51) all possible influence (Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Tim. 3:8).

The Bible tells believers to pray for forgiveness if they sin (Matt. 6:12). Charles Finney said, “if Christians are not condemned when they sin, they cannot be forgiven, for forgiveness is nothing else than setting aside the penalty. And therefore, if they are not condemned, they cannot properly pray for forgiveness. In fact, it is unbelief in them to do so.” (Oberlin Evangelist, Justification, July 19, 1843)

The wrath of God is impartial (Ex. 32:33; Deut. 10:17; Rom. 2:9; 2 Cor. 10:6; Col. 3:25; 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 Jn. 3:15; Rev. 21:8; 22:15), so anyone who consciously or knowingly sins or rebels is under condemnation (Jn. 3:19; Rom. 1:18, 2:6-11; Heb. 10:26-31; 1 Jn. 3:8, 3:15, 3:20; 2 Jn. 1:9).

The notion of being positionally righteous but still practicing unrighteous is absolutely contrary to scripture (1 Jn. 3:7; 3:10). Such a concept is false doctrine and damnable heresy (2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 1:4-5). Jesus is the author of salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9),

The Bible says that those who are going to Heaven are sanctified (Acts 20:32, 26:18; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).

The Bible says that those who are breaking God’s law not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) but only those who keep God’s commandments will enter into Heaven (Matt. 7:21; Matt. 19:17; Rev. 22:14).

There is no salvation or forgiveness apart from repentance. If a believer sins, they must repent or perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

“if Christians are not condemned for one sin, they would not be for ten thousand, and that the greatest apostates could be saved without repentance. But what kind of a gospel is that? It would overthrow the entire government of God.” Charles Finney (Oberlin Evangelist, Justification, July 19, 1843)

“Now when any individual sins, he must be condemned till he repents, or forsake his sin…. Repentance is a hearty and entire forsaking of sin, and entrance upon obedience to God…. when one has truly repented, he is justified, and remains so just as long as he remains obedient, and no longer; and that when he falls into sin, he is as much condemned as any other sinner, because he is a sinner.” Charles Finney (Oberlin Evangelist, Justification, July 19, 1843)

The entire Bible repeatedly and abundantly teaches the doctrine of probation or conditional security for believers, or that salvation could be lost or forfeited by sin (Eze. 3:20-21; 18:18-31; 33:12-20; Matt. 6:14-15; 10:22; 24:13; 24:48-51; 25:1-13; Mk. 4:16-19; 13:13; Jn. 6:66; 8:31; 15:6; Acts 1:25; 11:23; 13:43; 14:22; Rom. 8:13; 11:20-23; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:9-10; 9:27; 10:5-13; 15:1-2; Gal. 5:4-9; 5:19-21; 6:7-9; Col. 1:21-23; 1 Thes. 3:5; 3:8; 2 Thes. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:5-6; 1:18-20; 3:6; 4:1; 4:16; 5:15; 2 Tim. 2:12; 4:9-10; Heb. 2:1; 2:3; 3:6; 3:8-15; 3:18-19; 4:1; 4:11; 4:14; 6:1; 6:8; 6:11-12; 6:15; 10:23; 10:26-31; 10:35-39; 12:14-15; 12:25; Jas. 1:13-16; 5:19-20; 2 Pet. 1:9; 2:20-22; 3:17; Rev. 2:4-7; 2:10-11; 2:17; 2:25-26; 3:2-5; 3:10-12; 3:16; 3:19; 3:20; 21:8; 22:15).

The Bible speaks of Christians who have departed from the faith (Matt. 18:21-34; 24:10; Mk. 4:17; Lk. 8:13; Jn. 6:66; Acts 1:25 w. Matt. 19:28; 2 Thes. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:19; 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:8; 4:10; Heb. 3:12-15; 4:1-11; 6:6; 10:29; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; Jud. 1:5).

We have the example of the unforgiving servant who was forgiven of his unpaid debt, but then later had his debt reinstated because of his immoral conduct (Matt. 18:23-35). This parable clearly shows how the Lord can graciously pardon an individual and then later execute the punishment that they deserve.

We also see the example of the Apostle Judas who lost his salvation. Judas was a disciple of the Lord and therefore he left all to follow Jesus (Lk. 14:33). He picked up his cross (Lk. 14:27) and even loved Jesus more then his own family (Lk. 14:26). Judas was picked by Jesus specifically to cast out devils, heal, and preach (Matt 10:1-27). Judas was a friend Jesus trusted (Ps. 41:9; Jn 13:18), so Judas kept the money (Jn. 12:6; 13:29). Jesus told Judas that He was shedding His blood for him (Lk. 22:14-20), and previously said that His name was written in the Lambs book of life (Lk. 10:20). Jesus even said that Judas was one of His sheep (Matt. 10:1-4, 16), who received His truth (Matt 10:1-4, 8), who’s Father was God (Matt 10:1-4, 20), who even had a throne in Heaven upon which he would judge Israel (Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30). But then later we see that Judas became a devil (Jn. 6:70) and therefore it would have been better for him to have never been born (Mk. 14:21). He even began to steal money from the group (Jn. 12:6). Judas fell from his apostleship by his transgression (Acts 1:25) because He failed to do what Jesus picked him for. His name was blotted out of the book of life (Ex. 23:33; Rev. 3:5).

“Judas was sincere, when Christ chose him to the apostleship.” John Fletcher

“Judas was at first a child of the kingdom and heard it said to him with th disciples, ‘You shall sit upon twelve thrones’ but at last he became a child of hell” St. Chrysostom

“For both Saul and Judas were once good…Sometimes they are at first good, who afterward become and continue evil; and for this respect they are said to be written in the book of life, and blotted out of it.” St. Ambrose

Genesis 6:5 – “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (See also Gen. 8:21) quote

This is talking about the unconverted. This is not talking about those who have been changed and transformed by Jesus Christ. This verse is not saying that sanctification is not attainable in this life, or that moral perfect or purity of heart is not possible on earth.

Likewise Romans 3:10-18 is taking about the unconverted. Many apply these passages to everyone, but they are specifically talking about those who are not saved because it says they do not have the fear of God and they do not know the way of peace.

It is interesting that right after Genesis 6:5, in verse 6, it says that God repented of making mankind because he saw their wickedness. This implies that God did not know mankind was going to sin and that mankind was not created for the purpose of sinning. God created mankind to obey Him, not to disobey Him, which is why he sent the flood. This is a great text used for open theism.

Psalms 51:5 –“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”quote

1. This scripture is talking about David and his mother. It is not referencing all of humanity. It says nothing about Adam.
2. The event spoke of is the conception of David, not the birth of David. He is not saying that he was born a sinner, he is saying that his mother was in sin when she conceived him.
3. A strong case can be made that Ps. 51:5 is talking about the defilement of David’s mother, because of a previous marriage to another man – a heathen.

1.) David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16).

2.) The father of David’s half sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25).

3.) Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12).

(4.) David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash. But the Father of David’s half sisters were daughts of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness towards David (2 Sam. 10:2).

(5.) David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife which had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king.

(6.) This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30).

(7.) This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons (1 Sam. 16:11).

(8.) David’s mother apparently had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).

1. The context of David’s prayer of repentance is not consistent with David making an excuse for his adultery, “I was born this way”. In true repentance, an individual takes full responsible for their sin, offering no excuses for justification. David was not blaming his sin on his birth. David was simply stating that even the circumstances of his birth were surrounded by sexual sin.
2. David said that he was “wonderfully” and “marvelously” made by God in the womb (Ps. 139:13-14). Therefore, he could not have been sinfully made by his mother in the womb. It is not wonderful to be born sinful or marvelous to be created evil.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Quote

This might have been true in the days of Solomon, but it was not true of all generations. And this might be true of the unsaved, but it is not true of the saved. The Bible says that Joseph was a “just man” (Matt. 1:19), that those who are born of God “doeth good” (3 John 1:11), and the Bible says that whosoever abides in Christ “sinneth not” (1 John 3:6; 5:8). So in the New Testament “There are men that are just upon the earth, that doeth good, and that sinneth not”.

Romans 5:12-19 – “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Quote

“For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19:

1. If we are going to apply the first section of the passage unconditionally and universally, we must also apply the second section of the passage unconditionally and universally, since the language for both is the same. If the first section means mankind is universally and unconditionally condemned in Adam, then the second section would mean that mankind is universally and unconditionally justified through Jesus.
2. By Adam’s disobedience of eating from the tree, Adam provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be sinners, since moral knowledge has been granted to all men. A sinner is an individual who voluntarily chooses contrary to their moral knowledge. The result of one man’s disobedience (eating from the tree of knowledge) was that many were made sinners (men have chosen to be sinners).
3. By Christ’s obedience of hanging on the tree, Christ has provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be saved, since remission of sin has been offered to all men upon condition of their repentance and faith.
4. The word “made” used in these passages is not referring to a constitutional change, but referring to a conditional position which requires the consent of the will. Being a sinner is conditional upon choosing to sin. Likewise, being justified is conditional upon choosing to repent and believe.

You can read my entire commentary on Romans 5 at LibraryofTheology.com in the writing section, in the original sin section, called “The Fall of Mankind”.

Ephesians 2:1-3 – “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Quote

1. The word nature can describe a man’s God given constitution: (Rom 1:26; 1:31; 2:14; 2:27; 2 Tim 3:3). But this is just dirt and it is created by God. Therefore it cannot be sinful in and of itself.
2. The word nature can describe a man’s self chosen character, custom, habit, or manner of life: (Jer. 13:23; Acts 26:4; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-3; Gal 2:14-15; 2 Tim 3:10; 2 Pet 1:4). This is voluntary and has to do with the heart. Therefore moral character, or sinfulness, can belong to this type of nature.
3. The context of this particular passage is talking about a former manner of life, addressing a previous lifestyle. “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world… among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind…” Eph. 2:2-3
4. To say that they are “children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2, 5:6) and “by nature children of wrath” is to say the same thing.
5. That which brings the “wrath” of God is voluntary moral character, not involuntary constitutions.
6. A sinful nature is moral not physical, it is a person’s self chosen character and not his God given constitution. A man’s heart (will) can be sinful, but a man’s body can only be an occasion of temptation. Though continual choices of self-gratification, man has developed a habit of sin.

Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban (Part Three) – Holiness, Perfection, Imputed Righteousness, Inability, Free Will, Justification, Regeneration

@font-face { font-family: “Book Antiqua”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }1 John 1:8 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Quote1. This passage must always be looked at in context. The entire book of John must be consulted, especially verses 1:7-10, 2:1. Those who isolate this passage usually twist its meaning to be contrary to the rest of the epistle which is about moral perfection. The meaning of a verse is always lost or misunderstood when scripture isolation is practiced. The immediately surrounding context gives us much clarity into this verse.

2. The phrase, “have no sin” in verse 8 could mean two things. It could mean “have no sin” in your present conduct, or it could mean “have no sin” on your record. Verse 10 is very clear that John is talking about those who deny having any disobedience on their record by saying “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” None can deny that they have sinned or disobeyed in the past, but Christians can say that they presently obey God.
3. Verse 7 and 9 promise, not merely the pardon of sin, but also cleansing from sin. There is a proper distinction made between forgiveness and cleansing, “to forgive us our sins, AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” These passages promise not only forgiveness of sin but also freedom from sin. They promise freedom, not merely from some sins, but freedom from “all” sins, “to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness”.
4. The man spoken of in verse 8 is the man who had not yet experienced verse 9. That is, the deceived man who denies having any sin is the one who has not yet confessed their sins, been forgiven of their sins, and has had their sins cleansed out of their life. Verse 8 is directed to, or specifically talking about, the man who has not yet been forgiven and cleansed as described in verse 9. Verse 9 is written as the solution to the sin described in verse 8. The man in verse 8 is the one who denies his need for what is offered in verse 9, that is, he denies instead of confesses his sins, and therefore says he needs no forgiveness or cleansing, he denies his need of being converted and denies his need of Jesus Christ.
5. If 1:8 means that nobody can state that Jesus Christ has cleansed them from all sin, then saying that you have experienced 1:9 makes you a liar. This interpretation of 1:8 would mean that believing 1:9 would make you “deceived”.
6. If “have no sin” means that no Christian can state as Paul did that we are presently “free from sin” (Romans 6:22), then John immediately contradicts his purpose as stated in 2:1, “these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” This interpretation would mean that John was writing this epistle so that we would “deceive ourselves” and so that “the truth” would not be “in us”. Why would John write them so that they “sin not” if when they believe that they “sin not” they are simply “deceived” without “the truth”?
7. If 1:8 means that you are a liar if you claim to presently keep God’s commandments, then 2:3-4 is a total contradiction. These passages state that “we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Such an interpretation would amount to this: if you claim to keep God’s commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you (1:8), but if you claim to know God but do not keep His commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you (2:4). So the truth would not be in the one who claims to keep God’s commandments, and the truth would not be in the one who says they know God yet breaks His commandments. Then the only logical conclusion would be that nobody knows God, if the Bible teaches that everyone presently breaks God’s commandments and you cannot know God if you presently break His commandments.
8. If 1:8 means that we all always have sin in our lives, then we do not “abideth in him” and have “not seen him, neither known him” according to 3:6, we are all “of the devil” according to 3:8, and we have njesseot been born of God according to 3:9.
9. If 1:8 means that you are a liar if you state that you no longer break God’s commandments, then the Apostle John is a liar because he says “we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” in 3:22. According to the popular interpretation of 1:8, this would make the Apostle “deceived”, it would mean that the Apostle was without “the truth” because he claimed to “keep his commandments”.
10. The difference between the children of God and the children of the devil, is that the children of God do what is righteous, but the children of the devil commit sin, according to 3:8-10. This could not be a proper or accurate distinction if 1:8 means that everyone converted or not has present disobedience in their life.
11. The meaning of this passage is clear: If anyone claims that they have never sinned, that they “have no sin” on their record, they are deceived. But if they confess that they have sinned, their sin can be both forgiven and cleansed out of their lives, so that they will walk in holiness and righteousness.

Regarding 1 Jn 1:8 Charles Finney said, “This verse is immediately preceded by the assertion that the “blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.” Now it would be very remarkable, if immediately after this assertion the apostle should mean to say, (as they suppose he did,) that it does not cleanse us from all sin, and if we say it does, we deceive ourselves; for he had just asserted, that the blood of Jesus Christ does cleanse us from all sin. If this were his meaning, it involves him in as palpable a contradiction as could be expressed…. This view of the subject then represents the apostle in the conclusion of the seventh verse, as saying, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; and in the eighth verse, as saying, that if we suppose ourselves to be cleansed from all sin, we deceive ourselves, thus flatly contradicting what he had just said. And in the ninth verse he goes on to say, that “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;” that is, the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin; but if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. “But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Now, all unrighteousness is sin. If we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, we are cleansed from sin. And now suppose a man should confess his sin, and God should in faithfulness and justice forgive his sin, and cleanse him from all unrighteousness, and then he should confess and profess that God had done this; are we to understand, that the apostle would then affirm that he deceives himself, in supposing that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin? …. This then appears to me to be the meaning of the whole passage. If we say that we are not sinners, that is, have no sin to need the blood of Christ; that we have never sinned, and consequently need no Saviour, we deceive ourselves.” (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Lecture LXX)

Adam Clarke said, “If we say that we have no sin – This is tantamount to 1Jo_1:10 : If we say that we have not sinned. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and therefore every man needs a Savior, such as Christ is. It is very likely that the heretics, against whose evil doctrines the apostle writes, denied that they had any sin, or needed any Savior.” (Commentary)

THESE ARE SOME OTHER VERSES EXPLAINED WHICH ARE USED FOR THE IDEA OF BEING BORN A SINNER:

1. “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Ps. 58:3:
2. This is a poetic book which verses can be taken figuratively or literally.
3. The context of this passage requires a figurative interpretation.

(1.) The entire chapter is figurative; the surrounding verses are all poetic. It talks of men being like serpents and deaf adders (vs. 4), of God breaking the teeth of the young lions (vs. 6), men melting away like running water (vs.7), God bending his bow to shoot arrows (vs. 7), men passing away as a snail which melts (vs. 8), and God destroying like a whirlwind (vs. 9).

(2.) It says that children speak lies from the womb.

(3.) Infants do not know how to speak as soon as they are born.

(4.) Therefore, this passage is poetic not realistic; it is figurative not literal.

1. The obvious meaning of this passage is that individuals choose to sin at a very early age, from the dawn of their moral agency, and the first sin which children usually commit is lying.
2. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” Jeremiah 13:23
3. This passage is talking about Israel during a certain period of time in their history. This passage is not talking about all sinners of all time. To apply this passage to all sinners of all time is to ignore the proper rules of hermeneutic interpretation, particularly context.
4. This passage is not talking about the way Israel was born. This passage is talking about the way Israel had become through their self-chosen habitual manner of life. The unchanging state of these people was a moral condition by choice, not a constitutional condition by birth.
5. Israel had resisted God for a long time. These men disobeyed God continually, after God had been reaching out to them time and time again. But despite all of the efforts of God, they were still wicked and evil. In fact, they were worst than when they started, because they had to continually harden their hearts as God was reaching out to them. They were well accustomed in doing evil.
6. They were so accustomed to do evil that their reformation would be comparable to a leopard changing his spots or an Ethiopian changing his skin. Through their habitual choice of disobedience, they made themselves reprobates. They resisted the influence of God to the point of no return. It was as likely to see an Ethiopian changing his skin, or a leopard changing his spots, as it would be to see these hardened reprobates changing their moral ways.
7. This passage was given to show Israel that they were without excuse, not with excuse. If they were born evil, or had no choice, they would have an excuse for being evil. God was revealing to them the justice of their punishment (Jer. 13:21-22). They rightly deserved punishment because of their continual disobedience, because of their voluntary and well established custom in doing evil.

“The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone: The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from works, based not on what we do, but solely on what Jesus Christ did for us.” Quote

The Bible teaches that God forgives, by His grace and mercy, those who turn from their sins and trust in Christ. Only those who decide to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel are saved by God’s grace and mercy through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

“Since all have sinned, there is therefore no difference between men and all are sinners deserving of God’s just punishment, but since Jesus Christ purchased our redemption, we can be saved by believing in Him with a true saving faith in our hearts and upon believing, have our sins forgiven and receive the perfect righteousness of God.” Quote

All men can be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ, if they will repent (turn from sin) and believe (trust in Christ). Those who turn from sin and trust in Jesus are forgiven, which means they are imputed or treated as righteous (Romans 4:6-8).

“Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God doesn’t justify those already righteous, but that He justifies the wicked, the sinner, the rebel, while that person is still a sinner.” Quote

God does not justify us while we are still sinning, God justifies those who repent, those who forsake their sin, those who turn from their sins. Only those with repentant hearts are granted the remission of sins. God does not pardon those who have not had a change of mind about crime, whose heart is still planning on rebellion.

“Of course, with this justification of the sinner comes regeneration, which gives that sinner a new heart and a new nature which will choose to hate sin and love the holy things of God, and this will be evident in his life by a radical change of life.” Quote

Nobody is justified (forgiven) until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit (brought to repentance and faith).

“Nevertheless, the Gospel is that through Christ, God justifies the ungodly and makes them Godly, that God transforms the sinner into a saint by His free unmerited grace.” quote

God justifies or forgives those who have sinned, when they turn from their sins, and transforms their moral character by bringing them to repentance through the influence of the Holy Spirit. Through repentance and faith, sinners are turned into Saints. We are forgiven by God’s unmerited favor, by God’s grace and mercy, and not because our repentance and faith has earned it.

“Since our sin was imputed to Christ and He bore the punishment in full, now His righteousness is imputed to us as a free gift by faith in Him.” Quote

A term in the Bible which is used to describe forgiveness and justification is “imputed righteousness”. King David and the Apostle Paul described in detail what imputed righteousness is. Their description is the clearest presentation of imputed righteousness in the Scripture. According to these inspired writings, imputed righteousness consists in being considered righteous, having your transgressions forgiven, having your sins covered, and as not having your iniquities imputed or accounted against you (Ps. 31:1-2; Rom. 4:7-8). In other words, to be imputed righteous is when God pardons our crimes, not giving us the governmental treatment that we deserve, but rather treating us as if we were righteous, that is, giving us the treatment of law abiding citizens. God considers us righteous by treating us as righteous.

The New Testament word “logizomai” is translated as “think” (2 Cor. 3:5; 10:2; 10:7; 10:11; 12:6; Phi. 4:8), as “imputed” (Rom. 4:11; 4:22-24; Jam. 2:23), as “counted” (Rom. 2:26; 4:3; 4:5; 9:8), as “reckoned” (Lk. 22:37; Rom. 4:4; 4:9-10), as “accounted” (Rom. 8:36; Gal. 3:6), as “reckon” (Rom. 6:11; 8:18), as “suppose” (2 Cor. 11:5; 1 Pet. 5:12), as “account” (1 Cor. 4:1), as “accounting” (Heb. 11:19), as “conclude” (Rom. 3:28), as “count” (Phi. 3:13), as “esteemeth” (Rom. 14:14), as “impute” (Rom. 4:8), as “imputeth” (Rom. 4:6), as “imputing” (2 Cor. 5:19), as “laid” (2 Tim. 4:16), as “numbered” (Mk. 15:28), as “reasoned” (Mk. 11:31), as “thinkest” (Rom. 2:3), as “thinketh” (1 Cor. 13:5), and as “thought” (1 Cor. 13:11). When an individual is imputed righteous, it simply means that their sins are forgiven and they are thought of as righteous, esteemed as righteous, counted as righteous, reckoned as righteous, or considered as righteous. When a person is imputed as righteous they are treated as if they were righteous, treated as if they were never unrighteous, being treated as law abiding citizens.

The Old Testament equivalent word is “chashab” and it is translated as “counted” (Gen. 15:5-6; 31:15; Lev. 25:31; Num. 18:30; Jos. 13:3; Neh. 13:13; Job 18:3; 41:29; Ps. 44:22; 88:4; 106:31; Prov. 17:28; 27:14; Isa. 5:28; 40:15; 20:17; Hos. 8:12), as “thought” (Gen. 38:15; 50:20; 1Sam. 1:13; 18:25; 2 Sam. 14:13; Neh. 6:2; Ps. 73:16; 119:59; Jer. 18:8; Mal. 3:16), as “think” (Neh. 6:6; Job 41:32; Isa. 10:7; Jer. 23:27; 29:11; Eze. 38:10), as “accounted” (Deut. 2:10-11; 2:20; 1 Kin. 10:21; 2 Chro. 9:20; Isa. 2:22), as “imagine” (Job 6:26; Ps. 140:2; Hos. 7:15; Zec. 7:9-10), as “esteemed” (Isa. 29:16-17; Isa. 53:3; Lam. 4:2), as “reckoned” (Num. 18:27; 23:9; 2 Sam. 4:2; 2 Kin. 12:15), as “count” (Lev. 25:27; 25:52; Job 19:15), as “reckon” (Lev. 25:50; 27:18; 27:23), as “counteth” (Job 19:11; 33:10), as “imagined” (Ps. 10:2; Ps. 21:11), as “imputed” (Lev. 7:18; 17:4), as “account” (Ps. 144:3), as “considered” (Ps. 77:5), as “esteem” (Isa. 53:4), as “esteemeth” (Job 41:27), as “imagineth” (Nah. 1:11), as “impute” (2 Sam. 19:19), as “imputeth” (Ps. 32:2), as “reckoning” (2 Kin. 22:7), as “regard” (Isa. 13:17), as “regardeth” (Isa. 33:8), as “thinkest” (Job 35:2), and as “thinketh” (Psa. 40:17). To be imputed righteous is to be counted as righteous, to be thought of as righteous, to be esteemed as righteous, to be reckoned as righteous, to be considered as righteous, to be regarded as righteous, etc.

The word “imputed” does not mean transferred. It is a theological error to say that “the righteousness of Christ is transferred to our account”. If imputed means transferred, when God imputed an uncircumcised individual as circumcised (Rom. 2:26), it means that someone else’s circumcision is transferred to them! The obvious meaning is that they are simply considered circumcised, reckoned as circumcised, or thought of as circumcised, but not that someone else loses their circumcision so that it could be transferred to another. Some have represented the doctrine of the imputed righteousness “of Christ” as the Gospel itself. But if this is the Gospel, neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever preached it! The Scriptures abundantly talk about imputed righteousness, but it never talks about the imputed righteousness “of Christ”. Rather, the truth is that we have imputed righteousness through Christ!

When a person is imputed righteous God considers them righteous and governmentally treats them as righteous. It is not that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to them. To say that we need the perfect obedience that Christ rendered to the law to be transferred to our account in order to be justified is to say that we are in fact justified by the works of the law. Christ needed to perfectly obey the law in order to be a spotless sacrifice and qualify as a sin offering (Exo. 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Php. 2:8), but justification is by Christ’s blood (Rom. 5:9) and by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal 3:24), but not at all by the works of the law (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20; 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4). Christ was under obligation to obey the law of love for Himself (Matt. 5:17; Gal. 4:4), just as God is under obligation to His own conscience (Gen. 3:22; 18:25; Job 34:10, 12), so Christ’s obedience to the law cannot be a work of supererogation, there can be no “extra” obedience to be transferred to another. So if Christ was under obligation to the law, His obedience to the law cannot be transferred to another. And if Christ was not under obligation to the law, there would be no obedience to be transferred. It was not His obedience to the law, but His suffering on the cross, which is credited to us. He suffered and died for us and His suffering was a work of supererogation since He was not obligated to do it. That is the means of justification.

Some have supposed that when God looks upon a Christian who is sinning that God doesn’t see the Christian sinning but “see’s the righteousness of Christ” instead. But God clearly saw the bad works of the Christians in Revelations (Rev 2:2, 2:9; 2:13; 2:19; 3:1; 3:8; 3:15), not “the righteousness of Christ”. Imputed righteousness is not some scheme that fools or blinds God so that He no longer knows reality as it is, or no longer see’s individuals as they are. That would mean God is no longer omniscient. Whenever anyone is in sin, our omniscient God sees it clearly and perfectly (Prov. 15:3; Eze. 8:12; 9:9; Jer. 32:19; Mal. 2:17; Heb. 4:13).

Imputed righteousness is a gift of God (Rom. 5:17), it comes from God (Isa. 54:17; 2 Cor. 5:21) by His grace and mercy, not earned or deserved by anything that we have done. It is “the righteousness of God” as opposed to the righteousness of man, since it comes from God and not from man. It is a gift from God, through Christ, to man. Christ is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30) because it is only through Him, what He did for us on the cross, that God is able to treat us as if we were righteous, treating us as if we were never unrighteous. Imputed righteousness is not the transfer of Christ’s righteousness, neither is it a scheme that blinds God the Father so that He does not see our true condition, but it is rather the same thing as forgiveness and justification, it is when God set’s aside the punishment that we deserve for our unrighteousness and treats us as if we had always been righteous, when God reckons or considers us as righteous, because Christ shed His blood for our sins. Forgiveness, justification, and imputed righteousness are expressions of the same event, when God forgives our sins and remits our penalty, letting our iniquities go as if they had not been committed (forgiveness), thus treating us as if we were just (justification), treating us as if we were righteous (imputed righteousness), because of the blood of Jesus.

But let it be clear that forgiveness, justification, or imputed righteousness is conditional upon an attitude of heart repentance (Isa. 55:17; Eze. 18:32; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 13:3; 13:5; 24:47) and faith from the heart (Jn. 3:18; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9; Eph. 2:8-9). And final salvation is ultimately conditional upon perseverance unto the end (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mk. 13:13; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:22; Heb. 3:6; 3:14; 2 Pet. 2:20). Repentance is when a person changes their mind about sinning and makes up their mind to sin no more (Isa. 1:16; 55:7; Jn. 5:14; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 4:22-28), and faith is the hearts embrace and obedience to the truth (Lk. 24:25; Acts 8:37; 15:9; 26:18; Rom. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:22). The notion of being righteous in our position but unrighteous in our practice is absolutely contrary to scripture (1 Jn. 3:7; 3:10), and it over looks the conditions of forgiveness and the nature of saving faith. Such a concept is false doctrine and damnable heresy (2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 1:4-5). Jesus is the author of salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9), the Gospel must be obeyed (Rom. 2:8; 6:17; 10:16; Gal. 3:1; 5:7; 2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). Christians are those who keep God’s commandments (1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22; 5:2-3). Only those who keep God’s commandments will enter through the gates into the Heaven (Matt. 7:21; 19:17; 25:21, 23, 46; Lk. 10:28; Heb. 12:14; Rev. 22:14), while all sinners will be left outside the Holy City (Matt. 7:23; Lk. 13:27; Rev. 22:15). God will kill and destroy all sinners and rebels (Amos 9:10; 2 Cor. 10:6; 2 Thes. 1:8; Heb. 10:27; 1 Pet. 4:8; 4:17). Remember, the wrath of God is impartial (Ex. 32:33; Deut. 10:17; Rom. 2:9; 2 Cor. 10:6; Col. 3:25; 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 Jn. 3:15; Rev. 21:8; 22:15), so anyone who consciously or knowingly sins or rebels is under condemnation (Jn. 3:19; Rom. 1:18, 2:6-11; Heb. 10:26-31; 1 Jn. 3:8, 3:15, 3:20; 2 Jn. 1:9). God is utterly against all those who sin every day (Isa. 52:5; Hos 13:2; 2 Pet. 2:14). God must condemn all those who do not stop sinning since God is absolutely benevolent and therefore always enforces His laws which protect the well-being of all. And remember, Christians are those who were formerly disobedient (Tit. 3:3; 1 Pet. 3:20) but are no longer disobedient (Rom. 6:17; Php. 2:12). Christians make the daily choice to obey God (Lk. 9:23; 1 Cor. 15:31). Christians are not sinners (Ps. 66:18; Jn. 9:31; 2 Cor. 6:14; 1 Tim. 1:9; Jas. 5:16; 1 Pet. 3:12; 4:18; 1 Jn. 3:22) unless they backslide (Jas. 4:8; 5:19-20), all Christians are saints (Acts 9:13; 9:32; 9:41; 26:10; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-16; 15:26; 15:31; 16:2; 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1-2; 14:33; 16:1; 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 9:12; 13:13; Eph. 1:1; 1:15; 1:18; 2:19; 3:8; 3:18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18; Php. 1:1; 4:22; Col. 1:2; 1:4; 1:12; 1:26; 1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:10; Phm. 1:5; 1:7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jud. 1:3; 1:14; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:7; 13:10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; 20:9). As saints, Christians are sanctified (Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 2:11; 10:10; 10:14; Gal. 5:24; Jud. 1:1), that is, Christians are free from deliberate rebellion or intentional sin (Jn. 8:34-36; Rom. 6:2; 6:6-7; 6:11; 6:18; 6:22; 8:2; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 6:6). Christians have pure hearts (Matt. 5:8; Rom. 6:17; 1 Pet. 1:22), so they keep God’s commands (1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22; 5:2-3).

When men turn from all their sins and put their faith in the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for them, God forgives them of their sin by remitting the penalty they deserve. God considers them righteous, governmentally treating them just as if they had never sinned.

“This is, if I understand it, the true doctrine of ‘imputation;’ not that there is any transfer of moral character from us to the Redeemer, or from him to us, and not that God literally ‘reckons’ or imputes our sins to him as his, or his righteousness to us as ours, but that his work may be estimated as performed in the place and on the account of sinful men, and that in virtue of that we may be regarded and treated as if it had been performed by ourselves.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany House, p. 315)

“God imputeth righteousness. Whom God treats as righteous… forgiven, and whose sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man. And it is evidently in this sense that the apostle uses the expression ‘imputed righteousness’ i.e. he does not imputed, or charge on the man his sins; he reckons and treats him as a pardoned and righteous man.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on the Romans, p. 105)

“This passage [Rom. 4:5-8] deserves special attention, as it explains all those text that seem to favor, and have been construed to support the theory of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness to the sinner. Here it is manifest that justification, imputation of righteousness, forgiving iniquities, covering sins, and the non-imputation of sin, are phrases substantially of the same import, and decide positively that the Scripture view of the great doctrine under consideration, is an actual deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin: from which it follows, that the phrases so often occurring in the writings of Paul – the righteousness of God and of Christ – must mean God’s righteous method of justifying the ungodly, through the atonement and by the instrumentality of faith – a method that upholds the rectitude of the Divine character, at the same time that it offers a full and free pardon to the sinner.” Asbury Lowrey, (Positive Theology, Published by R. P. Thompson, 1854, pg. 211-212)

“In theology, the remission of sin, and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner, and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.” Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

“Holiness isn’t something you can borrow – you either have it or you don’t. The theological doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ has been grossly distorted in our day. We are told that God looks at us through the blood of Christ and see’s us as righteous, regardless of our actual state… Let’s stop kidding ourselves. God sees us exactly the way we are. If we are living in obedience, He sees it. If we are living selfish, unholy lives, we can be sure he sees that too.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 40)

“As one ‘made under the law’ (Ga. 4:4-5), Christ was obliged to obey and keep the law. Since He had to obey for Himself, He could not obey for others in the sense that His obedience could be literally imputed to them… while Christ could not obey for us, He could die entirely in our behalf since there was not the least guilt charged against Him for which He must die.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 91)

“Forgiveness of sin, such that the penalty is not carried out, is sufficient to qualify as a definition of ‘imputed righteousness’… How could the Holy Spirit convict us of sin if he did not know we were sinning? How could we grieve the Spirit of God if he never saw us as anything other than righteous? God has a very good sense of reality, he knows when we sin, and he sees us exactly as we are.” Michael Saia (Understanding the Cross, Published by Xulon, p. 132).

“Moral Government Theology and Jesse Morrell deny the biblical doctrine of justification by faith and believe that salvation is conditional upon abiding in a state of sinless perfection, that one has to completely stop sinning in order to be justified before God.” Quote

Justification is synonomous with forgiveness and it is conditional upon repenting and believing. True faith includes both repenting and believing.

We are forgiven if we turn away from our sin, if we change our mind about sinning. If we turn back to sin, or if we make up our mind to disobey God, we are no longer under His grace but are under His wrath.

“Jesse denies that Christ’s righteousness could be imputed to us as a free gift” quote

Imputed righteousness, according to Romans 4, is synonymous with forgiveness. Those who repent and believe are imputed righteous, that is, they are forgiven and treated as if they had never sinned. Forgiveness is a free gift granted to those who repent and believe. Turning from sin and turning to Jesus does not earn or merit forgiveness.

“and states that we must earn our own salvation by offering our own righteousness to God.” Quote

This is a blatant false accusation. When we repent and believe, we have no righteousness at all. God forgives us when we repent and believe, not after we perform works of righteousness. Nothing we do can ever earn our salvation. God offers salvation by His grace and mercy to those who forsake their sin and trust in Christ.

“This is salvation by works, not by grace, and is condemned with an “Anathema” in the book of Galatians for adding works to the Gospel of grace, and is refuted by the entire Bible’s teaching on the plan of salvation.” Quote

Repentance (turning from sin, forsaking your sin) is NOT salvation by works, it is NOT contrary to grace, and it is NOT condemned in the Bible! Jesus Christ preached repentance. John the Baptist preached repentance. The holy prophets and apostles taught repentance!

When the Bible talks about justification by works, it is not talking about repentance preachers, it is talking about Judaizers who say that you must be circumcised and obey the Torah (Acts 15:1; Rom. 2:25-29; Rom. 3:28-30; Rom. 4:4-10; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:3-7; Gal. 5:2-4). Read these passages in context and you see that Paul’s point was that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised or obey the Torah. He was not saying that you can be forgiven without repenting of your sins!

“Galatians 1:9 – “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”quote

This is talking about Judaizers who say that you must be circumcised and obey the Torah (Acts 15:1; Rom. 2:25-29; Rom. 3:28-30; Rom. 4:4-10; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:3-7; Gal. 5:2-4). It is not condemning those who say you must repent of your sins (turn from them, forsake them) as a condition of forgiveness or pardon.

“Romans 3:20-22 – “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.”

Romans 4:5 – “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Quote

This is talking about Judaizers who say that you must be circumcised and obey the Torah (Acts 15:1; Rom. 2:25-29; Rom. 3:28-30; Rom. 4:4-10; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:3-7; Gal. 5:2-6). It is not condemning those who say you must repent of your sins (turn from them, forsake them) as a condition of forgiveness or pardon, otherwise the Apostle is condemning the prophets and Jesus Christ.

“Romans 5:1 – “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Quote

What kind of a faith? An easy believism? No. Faith that turns from sin, a living faith, a loving faith, and love is the fulfillment of the law

.

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” 1 Cor. 7:19

“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, not uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.” Gal. 5:6

“and though I have all faith… and have not love, I am nothing” 1 Cor. 13:2

“What doth is profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?… Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone… ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” James 2:14, 17, 24

Romans 5:6-10 – “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Quote

AMEN! I do not see Josef’s point in using this passage.

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Quote

AMEN! We are not saved because we deserve it or earn it by our works. We are saved by God’s grace and mercy when we choose to repent and believe.

“The doctrine of Biblical Regeneration: The Bible teaches that regeneration, or in other words, the New Birth, is a supernatural miracle of God’s sovereign grace that imparts to us a new nature by the power of the Holy Spirit and changes us and transforms us by God’s power to create in us the very nature of Christ Himself and thereby imparts to us the ability to please God. It involves receiving a new heart and a new spirit and being given the ability by God to habitually glorify God and take pleasure in the commands of Christ in the Gospel. Jesse Morrell teaches that regeneration is not a miracle which gives one the ability to obey God (since he believes that all sinners have this ability in and of their own selves), but Jesse teaches that regeneration is simply a change of life that is effected by the sinner’s own willpower. This is a denial of one of the most glorious and essential truths of the Gospel and what it does, essentially, is turn Jesse’s “gospel” into one that calls sinners to exercise their own ability, willpower, and morality in order to change their own selves and make their own selves holy and acceptable to God. This is not in accordance with God’s Word and equates to “another gospel”. Quote

Men are created with the ability to obey God. Regeneration is when the Holy Spirit influences us and brings us to the place where we actually start to obey God. A sinner’s problem isn’t that he can’t obey God, but that he won’t obey God:

We see this in Luke 19:14, “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, we WILL NOT have this man to reign over us.” They had rebellious hearts, that is, they had disobedient wills. Their problem was not their nature (their constitutional abilities). Their problem was their will. It is not that they could not obey God, but that they would not obey God. It was a moral not a constitutional problem. Men are sinners through the liberty of their will, not through a necessity of their nature.

We also read in Luke 19:27, “But those mine enemies, which WOULD NOT that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Jesus said that their problem was their will, not their nature. Their problem was not inability, but how they were using their ability. Jesus didn’t say that they “could not” but that they “would not”. That is precisely why it is just for Jesus to slay them. They could submit to his reign, but refuse to. Therefore they rightly and justly deserve punishment. But if they could not obey, it would not be right or just to command them to obey or to punish them for not doing so. It would be as cruel as punishing the lame for not walking, or the blind for not seeing. Sinners are objects of God’s wrath for sinning, because they choose to sin when they don’t have to. “As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye WOULD NOT be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God” (Deut. 8:20). Sinners are punishable, not because they were not capable of obeying God, but because they were not willing to obey God.

Justin Martyr said, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whatever they may be … for neither would a man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”

Theodorite said, “For how can He punish [with endless torments] a nature which had no power to do good, but was bound in the hands of wickedness?”

Irenaeus said, “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.”

John Fletcher said, “As to the moral agency of man, Mr. Wesley thinks it cannot be denied upon the principles of common sense and civil government; much less upon those of natural and revealed religion; as nothing would be more absurd than to bind us by laws of a civil or spiritual nature; nothing more foolish than to propose to us punishments and rewards; and nothing more capricious than to inflict the one or bestow the other upon us; if we were not moral agents.”

Consider God’s dealings with Israel. “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Romans 10:21). Why would God do this if they were not capable of obedience? Why would God make the effort of reaching out to them unless they were capable of doing what He wanted? Their problem was not that God didn’t want them to obey, or that God didn’t give them the ability to obey, but that they were choosing to be disobedient out of the freedom that God had granted them. Disobedience is not the fault of someone’s nature (inability). God determines what type of nature we have. Disobedience is the fault of someone’s will (unwillingness). They determine what type of choices they make. Rebellion is not a constitutional problem, cause by a fault in our design. Rebellion is a moral problem, caused by our own will.

We see this all throughout God’s dealings with Israel. He does not ever say, “They disobey me because they cannot obey me”. Neither does He say, “They cannot obey me because I took away their free will when Adam sinned.” God never says that Israel could not obey, but that they would not obey. He accuses them of not being willing to obey, which is the nature of rebellion.

“Notwithstanding ye WOULD NOT go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God” (Deut. 1:26).

“So I spake unto you; and ye WOULD NOT hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord…” (Deut. 1:43)

“As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye WOULD NOT be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God” (Deut. 8:20).

“And yet they WOULD NOT hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord: but they did not so” (Judges 2:17).

“Notwithstanding they WOULD NOT hear, but hardened their necks, like the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God” (2 Kings 17:14).

“Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and WOULD NOT hear them, nor do them” (2 Kings 18:12).

“That whosoever WOULD NOT seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death…” (2 Chronicles 15:13).

“Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the Lord; and they testified against them: but they WOULD NOT give ear” (2 Chronicles 24:19).

“And the Lord spake to Mannasseh, and to his people: but they WOULD NOT hearken” (2 Chronicles 33:10).

“And testifiedst against them, that thou mightest bring them again unto thy law: yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he shall live in them;) and withdraw the shoulder, and hardened their neck, and WOULD NOT hear. Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet WOULD they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands” (Nehemiah 9:29-30)

“Because they turned back from him, and WOULD NOT consider any of his ways” (Job 34:27).

“But my people WOULD NOT hearken to my voice; and Israel WOULD none of me” (Psalms 81:11).

“To whom he said, this is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they WOULD NOT hear” (Isaiah 28:12).

“For thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quitness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye WOULD NOT” (Isaiah 30:15).

“Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? For they WOULD NOT walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law” (Isaiah 42:24).

“For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the Lord, that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they WOULD NOT hear” (Jeremiah 13:11).

“Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the Lord, which I sent unto them by my servant the prophets, rising up early and sending them, but ye WOULD NOT hear, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 29:19).

“But they rebelled against me, and WOULD NOT hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt…” (Ezekiel 20:8).

“Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they WOULD NOT hear, so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 7:13).

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered they children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye WOULD NOT” (Matthew 23:37).

“To whom our fathers WOULD NOT obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt” (Acts 7:39).

It could not be any clearer that the problem God has with sinners is not that they could not obey Him, but that they would not obey Him. God wants men to obey Him, but men do not want to obey God. My point is that a sinner’s problem is not constitutional; otherwise he could blame God who forms us in the womb. The sinner’s problem is moral. Sin is his own fault because it is his own choice. God has given us the ability to obey or disobey Him. That is our own choice and therefore it is our own fault if we do not use our ability to obey Him. If the sinner’s problem is constitutional, he would be a cripple – someone who cannot obey God. But if the sinner’s problem is moral, he is a criminal – someone who doesn’t want to obey God. If sinners are cripples, they deserve pity. If sinners are criminals, they deserve punishment. It is abundantly clear from the Bible that God views sinners as criminals who are worthy of eternal punishment. Therefore God must view sinners as moral beings who are capable of obeying His law, but who refuse to do so.

To be born again, or regenerated, means that the Holy Spirit brings you to repentance and faith. Regeneration is not a change of our constitution, it is a change of our character. And regeneration is not by force, regeneration is by gracious influence.

“Regeneration is a moral change wrought in the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit. This change is neither physical nor intellectual, although both the body and the mind my be affected by it. It is not a change in the substance of the soul, nor is it the addition of any new powers. Regeneration is not a metamorphosis of human nature. Man does not receive a new ego. His personal identity is the same in essence after regeneration as before. He has the same power of intellect, feeling and will, but these are given a new direction. God does not undue in the new creation what He did in the first creation. The change is, therefore, not in the natural constitution of man, but in his moral and spiritual nature. Furthermore, it is important to believe that the whole man, and not merely certain powers of his being, is the subject of this spiritual renewel.” H. O. Wiley (Christian Theology, V.2, p. 419)

“The work accomplished is a change of choice, in respect to an end or end of life. The sinner whose choice is changed, must of course act. The end to be chosen must be clearly and forcibly presented; this is the work of the third person, and of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them to the soul. The truth is employed, or it is truth which must necessarily be employed, as an instrument to induce a change of choice.” Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, pg 275

“Truth; this must, from the nature of regeneration, be employed in effecting it, for regeneration is nothing else than the will being duly influenced by truth.” Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, pg 275

“Regeneration is nothing else than his embracing the gospel.” Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, pg 276

2Pet 2:20 “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”

1Pet 1:22 “Seeing ye have PURIFIED your souls in OBEYING THE TRUTH through the Spirit”

2Pet 1:2-3 “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE of God and of Jesus our Lord, according as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.”

John 6:63 “It is the SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; the flesh profiteth nothing: THE WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.”

John 6:44-45 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all TAUGHT of God. Everyman therefore that hath HEARD, and hath LEARNED of the Father, cometh unto me.”

John 8:32 “And ye shall KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you FREE.”

Titus 2:11-12 “For the grace of God that BRINGETH SALVATION has APPEARED unto all men, TEACHING US that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.”

1Tim 2:4 “Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH.”

1Cor 4:15 “For though ye have ten thousand INSTRUCTORS in Christ, yet have yet not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have BEGOTTEN you through the GOSPEL.”

Ps 17:7 “SHOW thy marvelous loving-kindness, O thou that savest”

James 1:18 “Of his own will BEGAT he us WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH, that we should be a king of firstfruits of his creatures.”

1Pet 1:23 “BEING BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of the incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth forever.”

James 1:21-22 “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted WORD, WHICH IS ABLE TO SAVE YOUR SOULS. But be ye DOERS OF THE WORD, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

Rom 2:8 “But unto them that are contentious, and DO NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.”

2Thes 1:8 “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that KNOW not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

John 15:3 “Now ye are CLEANE THROUGH THE WORD which I have SPOKEN unto you.”

1Pet 4:17 “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of God?”

John 17:17 “SANCTIFY them THROUGH THY TRUTH: thy WORD is TRUTH.”

Rom 6:17 “But God be thanked, that ye were servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of DOCTRINE which was DELIVERED unto you.”

Ps 25:8 “Good and upright is the Lord, therefore will he TEACH sinners in the way.”

Ps. 51:13 “Then will I TEACH transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be CONVERTED unto thee.”

“The Bible teaches that regeneration is a supernatural miracle performed by God apart from human willpower, ability, or morality” quote

This is monogism vs. synergism. Monogism says that God repents and believes for us, it is not our free choice. Synergism says that God brings us to repentance and faith by the influence of the Holy Spirit. I believe in synergism. Man’s will and the Holy Spirit is involved in conversion. God commands men to make the choice to repent of their sins, and God brings men to repentance by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 – “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” Quote

Yes God does give us a new heart, but not against our will. Our own will is involved:

“Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” Ezekiel 18:31

“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” James 4:8

“Let your heart therefore be perfect with the Lord our God” 1 Kings 8:61

John 1:12-13 – “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Quote

It says that we must make the decision to “receive him”. Our will, or choice, is involved.

To be born of blood, or the will of flesh, or the will of man, is talking about our natural birth. The Jews thought that they were saved because they were children of Abraham. But Jesus told them that they must be born again. We are not born saved because of who our parents are (like we are not born condemned because of who our parents are). Neither condemnation nor salvation is hereditary, but both require personal choice. That is why we must “receive him”.

John 3:3-8 – “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” Quote

To be born again is not some involuntary miracle that happens to us. To be born of the Spirit means that we yield to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to change and transform us.

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 – “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” Quote

How does this teach that regeneration does not include man’s free will??

Titus 3:5 – “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” quote

We are not saved because we deserve it. But we are transformed by the influence of the Holy Spirit. This again is not without our free will consent. This verse doesn’t say anything against our will being involved in regeneration.

“The heresy of Pelagianism: This is a historically recognized heresy and has been universally recognized as such since the 5th Century A.D. This heretical system of theology comes from the early monk named Pelagius who lived in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. Pelagius taught that no man is tainted by the sin of Adam but that all sin is only a choice, and therefore since Adam’s since didn’t taint us then Christ’s death doesn’t literally save us but instead provides a good example to us. Thus the cross of Christ is made of none effect in this theology. Thus Adam set a bad example to us and Christ set a good example for us, and now it’s up to us to save ourselves by our own ability and morality. In Pelagianism, salvation is of man, and not of God, and therefore not all of grace.” Quote

While Pelagius did teach that Jesus gave us an example, He also taught in his commentary on the Romans that we are “justified by faith alone”. Pelagius taught that we need the grace of God. He taught three specific graces. 1. The grace of creation, where He graciously gave us a free will. 2. The grace of revelation, which includes the law and the work of the Holy Spirit. 3. The grace of redemption, the atonement of Christ through which we can have our sins forgiven by God’s grace and mercy. Pelagius specifically taught in his commentary on Romans that we cannot earn salvation, but that it is a gift from God.

I agree with the Pelagians that:

1. Mankind has a free will
2. Men are sinners by choice
3. Sin is a choice, not a hereditary substance
4. Infants are morally innocent because they haven’t sinned yet.

“The heresy of Sinless Perfection: This is a teaching that Christians can enter and abide in a state of absolute sinlessness, being just as sinless as Adam before the Fall of man, or just as without sin as Jesus Christ Himself as He walked this earth.” Quote

I believe that it is possible to live the rest of your life without sinning (1 Cor. 10:13). But we can never be as sinless as Adam before the fall, because we have all sinned and therefore are forever guilty of sin. And we can never be as sinless as Jesus since Jesus Christ never sinned! But we certainly could forsake all of our sins in this life.

“Many of those who hold to sinless perfection also believe that it is essential to attain to this state of sinless perfection in order to be “sanctified” and even saved.” quote

To be sanctified is to be set apart from sin and to the service of God. What is moral perfection except being free from sin? Romans 6 teaches that Christians have been free from sin. No man is sanctified while he is sinning!

We do not need to live free from sin for a certain period of time before God will forgive us. God will forgive us as soon as we repent (change our mind about sinning), and than after we have been forgiven, our change of mind will result in a change of life.

“This is heresy according to 1 John 1:8” quote

1 John 1:8 does not say that you cannot have victory over sin in this life. That would contradict the rest of the Bible, like Romans 6 and the rest of 1 John. This verse, as I said early, is saying that those who are not saved cannot deny having sin on their record.

“and those who believe this only deceive themselves” quote

Those who say that they know God, but do not keep His commandments, are liars and the truth is not in them. (1 John 2:4)

“furthermore, they don’t understand the grace of God” quote

The grace of God teaches us to live a holy life (Titus 2:11) and the grace of God means that we do not need to live a sinful life (Romans 6:14). The grace of God changes us.

“While it is true that no real Christian will want to sin and will desire perfect holiness, the Bible teaches that all Christians still carry around a corrupt flesh that is affected by sin and therefore needs to be crucified, denied, and put to death all the time” quote

Here Josef’s Gnostic view of the flesh comes out again. Since Josef believes that we are sinners because we are born with sinful substance (flesh) he says that we cannot be free from sin in this life, not until we get a new substance (glorification). This is straight up Gnosticism.

“The heresy of Legalism:This is a teaching that we need to attribute to our salvation by our own works and that there is merit before God in our own works.” Quote

No man is justified by the works of the law, and our works cannot merit salvation! We are saved by God’s grace and mercy, if we repent, believe, and persevere unto the end.

“This is the heresy that is refuted by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Galatians.” quote

The heresy that Paul addressed in Galatians was that of the Judaizers who said that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and obey the Torah. He was not coming against those who say you must forsake your sin to be forgiven. It was not that the Galatians were repenting of their sins and Paul thought to himself, “I better put a stop to this!” The Galatians were Gentiles who started to believe that they must be circumcised, become Jewish and obey the Torah, to be saved.

How was Nineveh, the Gentile city, saved? Were they circumcised? Did they convert to Judaism? Did they start to obey the Torah? No! They believed God (Jonah 3:5) and they turned from their sins (Jonah 3:8-10). That is how Gentiles are saved.

“As one Moral Government Theologian stated, “There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law.” [Finney’s Systematic Theology]. Quote

This quote is taken out of context and its meaning is being twisted. Finney said that the law can only legally justify those who have never sinned, therefore we cannot be legally justified! Finney taught that we need Gospel justification, which is synonomous with forgiveness or pardon. Legal justification is when a person is declared innocent because they have never sinned. Gospel justification is when the guilty are pardoned by God’s grace and mercy.

Finney said, Legal justification, consists in pronouncing a moral agent innocent of all violation of the claims of the law, so that it has no charge against him. Gospel justification, consists in pardoning a sinner for whatever transgressions he may have committed, that is, in arresting or setting aside the execution of the penalty which he has incurred… Legal justification is out of the question, as all the world has become guilty before God.” (Oberlin Evangelist, Justification, July 19^th 1843)

“The heresy of Open Theism:As already stated above, this is a denial that God knows the future, and a belief that God changes His mind regularly and reforms His own decisions and judgments as He learns new things. This is a denial of the Omniscience of God, and leads to tons of other practical theological errors.” Quote

This is what I stated above:

I believe that God is omniscient. Omniscient means “all knowledge”. God has all the knowledge that exists. God knows everything that there is to know. The parts of the future that are predetermined, God knows as predetermined, and the parts of the future that are undetermined, God knows as undeteremined.

The future is partly settled, because God had made predeterminations. And the future is partly open, because God allows men to choose.

* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3

* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10

* God’s willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13

* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31

* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35

* God has expected things to happen that didn’t come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51

* The prayers of men have changed the plans of God: Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19

* God is said to have repented (changed His mind) multiple times in the Bible: Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14

The future is not some eternal fixity. The future is flexible. The future is not entirely certain, the future is changeable. Examples of how the future can be changed is how God was going to destroy Israel but did not (Numbers 14:11-20), how Hezekiah was going to die but God added years to his life (2 Kings 20:1-6), how Nineveh was going to be destroyed but was not (Jonah 3:10) and how Jesus Christ could have escaped the cross by being rescued by angels (Matt. 26:53). The future multiple possibilities which God and man can choose between. The future can be changed.

“However, let me be clear, what I am promoting in this article is not just the doctrines associated with Calvinistic belief, but these are things that historical Arminians and Calvinists alike agree on.”

That is not true. Once again Josef Urban either lies or shows his ignorance.

Calvinism typically teaches monergism for regeneration. Arminianism teaches synergism for regeneration.

Calvinism teaches limited penal substitution. Arminianism teaches unlimited governmental atonement.

1. D. McCabe was an Arminian Methodist Professor who taught the open view of God.

John Wesley was an Arminian who started the Methodist church. He taught that Pelagius was a wise and holy man. He taught moral perfection was attainable. He denied the imputed righteousness of Christ. He taught that salvation could be lost.

Albert Barnes was a Calvinist. He taught the unlimited governmental atonement, the natural ability of man, and denied that babies were guilty or condemned for Adam’s original sin.

Lyman Beecher was a Calvinist who taught the freedom of the will.

New School Calvinism, also called New School Presbyterianism, New England Theology, New Haven Theology, or New Divinity, taught that the atonement was governmental and unlimited, that man has the natural ability necessary to obey the law of God, that sin is a choice and is not hereditary, that men become sinners at the age of accountability, that men are not guilty or held accountable for the original sin of Adam, etc.

I can go on and on and show how both Calvinists and Arminians have agreed with my Moral Government Theology.

“These are doctrines that deny the essential truth of the Bible and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore anyone who holds to them dogmatically must not be considered a brother in Christ, but treated as a false believer or false teacher, pleaded with in love to repent, and shunned from Christian fellowship until they come to be ashamed of their false doctrines and repent. We cannot tolerate false teachings that deny the core truth of the Gospel of Christ but must stand firm and earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Quote

I could just as easily say that to teach a limited atonement, when the Bible clearly teaches an unlimited atonement, is a false Gospel and anyone who teaches such is a false believer and a false teacher, and must be shunned unless they repent and are ashamed of their doctrine.

I could also say that anyone who teaches that sinners do not need to forsake their sin to be forgiven, when the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself taught repentance, is preaching a false Gospel and anyone who teaches such is a false believer and a false teacher, and must be shunned unless they repent and are ashamed of their doctrine. Anyone who teaches a view of grace and the atonement, which makes repentance unnecessary, is teaching false grace and a false atonement.

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Is Open Theism Heresy? Jesse Morrell

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

 

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH OPEN THEISM?

Jesse Morrell

* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze.12:3; Jer. 36:3; 36:7

* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10; Jonah 3:10

* God’s willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13

* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31

* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35

* God has expected things to happen that didn’t come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51

* The prayers of men have changed the plans of God (God changes the future: Ex. 32:10- 14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5

* God is said to have repented (changed His mind) multiple times in the Bible: Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14

* Prophecies are often God foretelling what He Himself will later bring to pass. So they often have to do more with God’s omnipotence to bring about His plans then merely foreseeing the future: Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); 46:10; Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17. This type of prophecy includes the prophecies of the Messiah. So His birth, the location of His birth, the miracle of His birth, were not accidents or merely foreseen events, but were the deliberate plan of God (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 9:6; 53:6; Acts 2:23, 4:28)

* The future is partly open (undetermined, uncertain): Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3; Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; Jdg. 2:20-22, Jdg. 3:4, Ex. 33:2, Ex. 34:24; 1 Sam. 2:30, 2 Chron. 12:6-7, 2 Chron. 16:9; 2 Chron. 32:31; Ps. 81:13-14; Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20; Matt. 24:20; 26:53; Mk. 13:20.

* The future is partly settled (determined, certain): Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 9:6; 53:6; Acts 2:23, 4:28.

* The future can be changed: Gen. 19:17-22;  Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10; Ex. 32:10-14; Num.11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5; Matt. 24:20; Mk. 13:20;

* Scriptures that say God has a past, present, and a future: Jn. 1:14; Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8; 5:12;

* Scriptures that say God’s eternity is endless time, that is, time without beginning or end: Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14;

* Scriptures that say man’s eternity is endless time: Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;

* Scriptures that say eternity is endless time for Heavenly creatures: Rev. 4:8

* Eternity is time without end (endless time instead of timelessness): Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14; Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11

A PARTIALLY DETERMINED & PARTIALLY OPEN FUTURE

There are certain things about the future, relating to eschatology, which has already been determined. There are things which God will bring to pass (2 Thes. 2:11; Rev. 17:17), and even things relating to eschatology which Satan has predetermined to do (2 Thes. 2:9). However, there are certain things that seem to be open. For example, Jesus said, “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day” (Matt. 24:20). The indication here is that the time of their flight was not yet predetermined, and that prayer would help determine it. God had not yet made up His mind as to whether or not their flight would be in winter or on the Sabbath, and the prayers of the people would help make up His mind and help determine the future. It was determined that they would have a flight, but it was not determined yet when that flight would be. This is a flexible openness within determined boundaries – compatibleness between future determinism and future openness. Another example of how the future is not necessarily eternally or exhaustively fixed is when Jesus said, “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Matt. 24:22). I learn from this verse that God can change the future. He can and has shortened the days of the tribulation. God even has the power to add days to your life like he did with Hezekiah or to shorten your days (Isa. 38:5; Prov. 10:27). These are just some examples of how the Scriptures often assume an open perspective on the future. See also Exodus 32:10-14; Jer. 18:7-10; Matt. 26:53.

Jesus said, “And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.” Lk. 10:31. The Greek word Jesus used for chance means “accident” (Strongs & Thayer’s). This is contrary to the micro-manger system that Calvin believed God set up.  John Calvin said, “Nothing happens by chance.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 4).

THE FUTURE CAN BE CHANGED

This is abundantly seen in the Old Testament. 1. God was once planning on destroying Israel and making a great nation out of Moses. He repented of this and consequently altered the future (Ex. 32:10, 14). 2. God was once going to establish the throne of Saul forever but the Lord repented of this and replaced Saul with David, thus altering the course of history (1 Sam. 13:13; 15:11, 28, 35). 3. God was once planning on destroying Nineveh in forty days but when He saw how they repented of their sins, the Lord repented of His prophecy about the future (Jonah 3:10). 4. God prophesied through Isaiah that Hezekiah would die and not recover from sickness but Hezekiah prayed, God repented and added fifteen years to his life, thus changing the future (Isaiah 38:1-5). God is so Sovereign that He can increase or decrease the number of your days, thus changing your future for the better or worse (Prov. 10:27).

This doctrine of the flexibility and changeability of the future, as opposed to a fatalistic or immutable view of the course of history, is also taught in the New Testament. New Testament examples of how the future can be changed is 1. Jesus said he could pray for twelve legions of angels to deliver him from the cross, despite all the Messianic prophecies, if he so chose (Matt. 26:53). 2. Jesus said to pray that your flight not be in winter, implying that the future was not settled on this point yet and that our prayers could help in settling it (Matt. 24:20; Mk. 13:18). 3. Jesus said for the sake of the elect those days were shortened, which means the future was in fact changed (Matt. 24:20).

Here is a simple question: Can God change the future? If not, then He is not all powerful and cannot be God.  If yes, then the future has openness or alternative possibilities.

A STUDY ON THE WORD FOREKNEW AND FOREKNOW

The word translated as “foreknew” (Rom. 11:2) or “foreknow” (rom. 8:29) is the word “proginōskō”. However, it is falsely assumed that this word necessarily implies that this knowledge is eternal and exhaustive, thus creating the doctrine of eternal and exhaustive foreknowledge. This, however, cannot be the case as Paul uses the same word to apply to the knowledge of men (Acts 26:5). In fact, the Apostle Peter also used this same word to describe the knowledge of men (2 Pet. 3:17).

Peter uses the word to say that the believers knew a specific truth before, thus they foreknew it. Paul uses the word to say that Israel knew him before. This use of the word is not describing a foreknowledge of the future, but a knowledge of someone in the past. There were Israelites who knew Paul before he was arrested, thus they foreknew him. That is how Paul used the word in Acts 26:5, and that also seems to be how Paul used it in Romans. 8:29 and 11:2.  The word is not being used to describe a foreknowledge of a future event, but the knowledge God had of Israel and of Old Testament Saints before the New Testament. God knew Israel and Old Testament Saints before the New Testament, thus He foreknew them.

GOD CHANGES HIS MIND, NOT HIS CHARACTER

In Jer. 18:7-10 when the Bible says that God will repent, this is not God changing His character but God changing His plans in light of new circumstances, and by changing His plans He is acting according to His never changing His character. So when God repents (changes His mind) this is God changing His plans, not changing His character, and changing His plans in these situations is due to God’s never changing character. God’s character never changes, as He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

However, for God to actually repent or change His plans, then He was at first planning something else. If God was not really planning on doing something else, then He didn’t really repent at all, thus explicit statements of Scripture would be false. And if God was planning to do something else but then He repented or changed His plans, then the future is open and changeable and not eternally fixed, settled, or foreknown as a certainty.

ADVANTAGE AND SUPERIORITY OF OPEN THEISM OVER CLOSED THEISM

Suppose that God is in time and is observing events occur as they occur and His foreknowledge of the future consists of possibilities that may or may not be.  And God is watching you drive at a certain speed down a road that He knows has a blind turn. And He sees another driving on the same road come the opposite direction at a certain speed. And God knows this man’s driving abilities and practices from the past and knows that he always passes over the dividing line on turns. So God is able to foreknow that you are going to get into a car accident with that man based upon His present knowledge that you are both on the same road heading opposite directions, driving at a certain speed each so that you will both take the turn at the same time, and His knowledge of this man’s driving abilities given His observation of His past practices.

Given all of the present circumstances, God can foreknow with certainty that you are going to get into a car accident. However, this certain foreknown future event is contingent upon the current circumstances. If the circumstances change, the future outcome would change. God knows that the event will only be certain if the current circumstances remain the same. The event is really only a possibility or a contingency, not an actuality or a certainty, as God is able to intervene and change the circumstances to prevent what He foresees coming.

So before the accident occurs, God intervenes and gives the other man a flat tire. The man pulls over before taking the blind turn. You take the turn and see the man on the side of the road with a flat tire and think nothing of it, not knowing that God just intervened to save you from death – thus changing the future.

Or, as God governs free moral beings through motives, God could prevent the accident by giving the man thoughts of food, appealing to his hungry stomach, so that the man pulls over at a gas station or a restaurant before the blind turn. Thus God again changes the future from what He foresaw it to be, since what He foresaw was a contingency or a possibility, or only a certainty given the current circumstances, so that God was free to intervene and prevent it.

On the other hand, suppose God simply foreknew from eternity that you were going to get into a car accident with that man on the blind turn. God’s foreknowledge of the event is eternal and certain, so it cannot be otherwise. God’s eternal foreknowledge cannot be wrong. God knows that it will happen. Not even God can prevent it as God cannot change the future to be other than what He has eternally and certainly foreknown it to be.

That is why a foreknowledge of possibilities is what liberates God to make plans, change plans, determine the future, and change the future.  Whereas an eternal foreknowledge of certainties would take the course of history and the future completely out of His hands. If all things are eternally foreknown as certain by His mind, then nothing could be determined by His will, as all things are already eternally settled. God, from eternity, has watched the movie of human history as if it were already completed and He is therefore the mere passive audience and not the dynamic director who is on the set orchestrating it and directing it to bring to pass what He wills.

The only third alternative is that God foreknows all future events with certainty because God has predetermined all future events. In which case God foreknows that you will be in a car accident tomorrow and die because God has predetermined that you should. In which case, there is nothing that you or anyone else can do to prevent your car accident and death.”

But to many of us this idea of God foreknowing all things with certainty because He has predetermined all things is unthinkable and blasphemous as it makes God the author of sin. God could have prevented all sin but He chose not to. In this case, God prefers sin over holiness in every instance that it actually occurs. And we see God in the Bible making plans in time and even altering and changing those plans at time, thus we learn from the Bible that God has not predetermined all things from eternity.

The real debate between Calvinists and Open Theists is not so much over the knowledge of God, as both agree that God knows reality perfectly, but over the nature of the reality in which God knows. If the future is predetermine, God foreknows it as certain. If the future has open possibilities given the free will of God, men, and angels, then God foreknows the future as contingent. If the future has some predeterminations and some openness, then God knows the future as having both contingencies and certainties. God knows the certainties as certainties and the contingencies as contingencies. Whatever the nature of reality is, the omniscient mind of God perfectly corresponds to it. A contradiction would exist to say that God eternally foreknows with certainty the outcome of a future contingency, for then God’s mind does not correspond to the nature of reality since He knows a contingency as a certainty.

The Open Theist is consistent in saying that God foreknows contingencies as possibilities, and the Calvinist is consistent in saying that God foreknows predeterminations as certainties, but the classical Arminian is inconsistent in saying that God eternally foreknows with certainty the future outcome of a contingency. The Classical Arminian says God foreknows contingent future events as certainties, though they are free will choices which may or may not be, and yet they are not predetermined as certain by God. The Classical Arminian would be in the dilemma of God foreknowing that which He cannot change, as He eternally foreknows all things but has not predetermined all things. God’s eternal foreknowledge cannot be wrong, so what He foreknows as certain will happen and cannot be otherwise, and yet these events are not caused or determined by God originally.

CHARTS ILLUSTRATING OPEN THEISM

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

The Heretical Theology of Calvinism & Josef Urban (Missionary Pastor to Mexico / Preaching Christ Crucified)

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Josef Urban is a Calvinist who believes that men like John Wesley, Charles Finney, and William Booth were heretics. He wrote a slanderous article against me, accusing me of heresy, which I fully refuted. A link can be found at the bottom of this article.

The truth is that Calvinism is heresy, a denial of the gospel itself, as it denies that Jesus Christ “tasted death for every man” along with many other essential Christian doctrines.

Calvinism, also known as Reformed Theology or the so called “Doctrines of Grace,” has had some resurgence in recent years. This has deeply disturbed and troubled me as Calvinism is a very heretical and dangerous theology that believers can be deceived into. Still, many believers have never even heard of Calvinism.For that reason, I find it necessary to post what it is that Calvinism teaches and how these false doctrines are in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.

These are some of the major theological problems with Calvinism:

1. CALVINISM DENIES MAN’S FREE WILL

Calvinism denies man’s free will to obey or disobey God, which is the basis of man’s responsibility and accountability, as taught by the Bible: (Gen. 4:6-7; Deut. 11:26-28; 30:11-15, 19; Josh. 24:15; Jer. 38:20; Eze. 18:30; Acts 17:30-31);

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” Deut. 30:19

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Augustine said, “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”

Augustine said, “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.”

Augustine said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”

Martin Luther said that “the law demands of men what they cannot do…”

Martin Luther said, “For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?”

See also:

Is Free Will Biblical? 

Does the Bible Teach Free Will?

The Natural Ability of Man: A Study On Free Will & Human Nature by Jesse Morrell is an exhaustive theological volume that defends the Christian doctrine of man’s free will against the false Gnostic/Calvinist doctrine of man’s natural inability.

This volume explains the truth of man’s freedom of choice in light of Church history and other doctrines like total depravity, regeneration, atonement, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, predestination, repentance, faith, the believers security, original sin, etc. One Bible teacher called this book “the most comprehensive exposition on man’s natural ability in print.”

See More Here

2. CALVINISM DENIES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ALONE

Calvinism denies that each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sins committed in their own life, and will not be damned for the sins of anyone else, as the Bible teaches: (Lev. 18:29; Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-6; Eze. 18:20; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-6; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:11-12; Rev. 22:12);

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

John Calvin stated, “Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his fall, into eternal damnation.”

 3. CALVINISM DENIES THE UNLIMITED ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 

Calvinism denies that Christ died for everyone (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2),and His unlimited atonement does not make salvation automatic for anyone, but available for everyone (Jn. 3:14-17; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:11; Rev. 22:17), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1); as the Bible teaches.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:9

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Custance said, “No man can be held accountable for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment.”

Boettner said, “For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards to the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them.”

Wayne Grudem said, “Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.”

Joshua Williamson said, “If Christ died for everyone, everyone would be saved.”

A good video playlist on “Vicarious Atonement: Penal vs. Governmental”

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLos_9Ta3AvwcmI4srFN1SqjuoLHiwe-Hh

4. CALVINISM DENIES THE LOVE OF GOD

Calvinism denies the universal benevolence or love of God, which wants all sinners to repent and be saved as taught by the Bible: (Eze. 33:11; John 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 3:19);

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent” Acts 17:30

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

John Calvin said, “not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing.”

John Calvin said, “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.”

John Calvin said, “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.”

Alan Kurschner said, “God desires that his sheep are saved. God desires that his people are saved. He does not desire that every single individual who has ever lived, live in glory with him forever. If that were the case, we have an incompetent, unhappy, and impotent God.”

Matthew McMahon said, “I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel. I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp.”

Erwin Lutzer said, “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.”

John Calvin said, “His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect.”

John MacArthur, comments: “His patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all of His own…”

5. CALVINISM DENIES THE CONDITIONAL SECURITY OF BELIEVERS

Calvinism denies the conditional security of believers or the possibility of falling away from the faith as taught by the Bible (Matt. 24:13; Jn. 15:6; Acts 11:23; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:13; Rom. 11:20-21; 1 Cor. 9:27; Heb. 2:1-3; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-21);

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Corinthians 9:27

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Martin Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

Westminster Confession of Faith said, “They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”

6. CALVINISM DENIES MAN’S ROLE & RESPONSIBILITY IN SALVATION

Calvinism denies man’s role, responsibility, and choice to cooperate with God in regeneration or in the changing of his heart as taught by the Bible (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 18:30-32; Ps. 78:8; Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:15; Act 7:51; 17:30-31; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9-10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 1 Tim. 4:16).

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians 5:20

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Martin Luther said, “I say that man… when he is re-created does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves…”

A. W. Pink said, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part in it.”

7. CALVINISM DENIES GOD’S POWER TO DELIVER FROM SIN

Calvinism denies that there is deliverance available from all sin in Jesus Christ, or the possibility of overcoming sin in this life by the grace of God as taught by the Bible (Matt. 1:21; Jn. 8:36; Rom. 6:18, 20, 22; 8:2; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 Thes. 5:23; Titus 2:11-12; Jude 1:24; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Jn. 1:9; 3:9).

“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.” Jude 1:24

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

The Westminster Catechism says, “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in word, thought, and deed.”

8. CALVINISM TEACHES SALVATION IN SIN NOT FROM SIN

Calvinism denies that man’s choice to repent of all his sins is a necessary condition of forgiveness, but rather teaches that justification by grace through faith is nothing more than justification in sin and impenitence (Antinomianism), as opposed to what the Bible teaches: (Isa. 55:7; Eze. 18:30; Prov. 28:13; Matt. 7:21; 19:17; Lk. 13:3; Acts 8:22; Rom. 2:5; 6:1-2; Titus 2:1112; Jude 1:4; Rev. 22:14).

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Charles Spurgeon said, “You must not expect that you will be perfect in ‘repentance’ before you are saved. No Christian can be perfect. “Repentance” is a grace. Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself…”

Harry Ironside said, “The Gospel is not a call to repentance, or to amendment of our ways, to make restitution for past sins, or to promise to do better in the future. These things are proper in their place, but they do not constitute the Gospel; for the Gospel is not good advice to be obeyed, it is good news to be believed. Do not make the mistake then of thinking that the Gospel is a call to duty or a call to reformation, a call to better your condition, to behave yourself in a more perfect way than you have been doing in the past … Nor is the Gospel a demand that you give up the world, that you give up your sins, that you break off bad habits, and try to cultivate good ones. You may do all these things, and yet never believe the Gospel and consequently never be saved at all.”

9. CALVINISM TEACHES GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF SIN

Calvinism denies that God is not the author of sin, nor the sovereign cause of its entrance into the world, as taught by the Bible (Gen. 1:31; 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 19:5, 32:35; Isa. 5:4; Zeph. 3:5; Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 6:10; Lk. 7:30; 1 Cor. 14:33; Heb. 1:9, James 1:13).

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” James 1:13

Calvinists and Reformed Theologians have denied the truths of these scriptures by the following statements:

Martin Luther said, “Since, therefore, God moves and does all in all, He necessarily moves and does all in Satan and the wicked man…”

Martin Luther said, “God worketh all things in all men even wickedness in the wicked…”

John Calvin said, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.”

See also the article, “Is God the Author of Sin?“

There are many other orthodox doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures and which were held by all of the Early Church which are denied by Augustinian and Reformed Theology, but the above is sufficient for this article.

As much as Calvinism claims to be orthodox, its doctrines are utterly opposed to the doctrines of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine, and they have more in common with the heretical teachings of the Gnostics and Manicheans.

WATCH BEYOND AUGUSTINE THE FULL DOCUMENTARY:

_________________________________________________

WATCH THE TEASER TRAILER FOR BEYOND AUGUSTINE:

See the article, “Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?“

Sadly, many Calvinist groups function as a cult today, claiming exclusively that Calvinism is Christianity, that their doctrine of T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel itself, and that anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is a “heretic,” “false teacher,” or “false convert.” They are quick to break fellowship with, and falsely accuse, any Christian that contradicts their own theology.

I have always found it interesting that these groups will hail John Calvin as a hero, but will label Charles Finney a heretic. Charles Finney was America’s greatest revivalist, who lead a quarter of a million people to the Lord. The vast majority of his converts stayed in the faith until their dying day, unlike other evangelists like D. L. Moody or Billy Graham, who’s converts mostly fell away. John Calvin on the other hand had excommunicated and even killed countless individuals. Calvinists overlook this and often seek to justify it, while they are quick to condemn Finney because he used “altar calls.” I can supply story after story of Finney winning sinners to Christ, but Calvinists have been unable to provide for me even a single story of John Calvin ever personally leading a sinner to Jesus. There are plenty of stories of John Calvin burning sinners at the stake, but not a single one of him leading souls to Christ like Charles Finney did. Yet, they exalt Calvin as a hero and criticize Finney for calling sinners to repentance at the altar.

See also the article, “The Secret of Success In The Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Gordon C. Olson“

God Bless,

Jesse Morrell
http://www.OpenAirOutreach.com

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Why “Limited Atonement” is Heretical Doctrine & False Gospel by Jesse Morrell

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

JESUS DIED FOR EVERYONE:

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa. 53:6)

_____

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).

“he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9).

“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Tim. 2:6).

“For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” (2Co 5:14-15).

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

JESUS DIED FOR THOSE WHO PERISH:

“Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15)

“And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (1 Corinthians 8:11)

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1)

Since the Bible declares that Jesus Christ died for everyone, Calvinism actually attacksand denies the gospel by teaching that he didn’t. Their doctrine of a limited atonement is therefore a heretical doctrine and a false gospel.

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

The Real Heresy of Sinless Perfection by Jesse Morrell

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

The Real Heresy of Sinless Perfection

By Jesse Morrell

Sinless Perfection is a heresy that says it is impossible for true believers to sin and that if you sin it means you were never truly saved to begin with. This is heresy.

The Bible says it is possible for believers to sin and it is possible for a believer not to sin – 1 John 2:1. At the moment of temptation we have a choice to sin or not – 1 Corinthians 10:13.

It is possible for a believer to sin and even depart from the faith, the Bible warns.

To my shame, I’ve sinned as a believer, meaning I deliberately disobeyed God. I didn’t have to do it but I did it and I shouldn’t of. I was chastened of the Lord and quickly repented, lest I perish with the world.

A false convert is someone who lives in sin, they practice sin, they sin every day and never stop. A true convert is someone who habitually obeys God, who practices righteousness. If sin occurs, it is the exception and not the rule.

I am often falsely accused of teaching “sinless perfection.” This is a slander. I do not believe it is impossible for a believer to sin. I simply believe that it is possible not to sin – that at the moment of temptation you have a choice to say yes or no and that you can overcome it by faith in Christ.

I’ve never believed in “sinless perfection” as I’ve defined it here and I have never ever used the term “sinless perfection” to describe my doctrine of Christian Holiness.

Sinless Perfection denies free will and denies Conditional Security (that believers can lose their salvation by sinning and not repenting), and I have always believed in free will and Conditional Security.

Teaching that sin is avoidable is not the heresy of sinless perfection. Teaching that you have to live holy to go to heaven is not the heresy of sinless perfection. The real heresy of sinless perfection is teaching that true Christians cannot sin, backslide, fall away from the faith, and lose their salvation.

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

A Response to Tony Miano’s False Accusation that Moral Government Theology is Heresy

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

A REBUTTAL TO TONY MIANO’S CRITICISM OF MARK CAHILL

AND HIS ATTACKS ON JESSE MORRELL, KERRIGAN SKELLY,

AND OTHER NON-CALVINISTS

By Jesse Morrell

THE FALSE THEOLOGY OF CALVINISM

There is a major problem in the church today with the spreading of a theology known as Calvinism. Calvinism is a religion founded by John Calvin. A “Calvinist” as they call themselves, is a follower of the teachings of John Calvin. Calvin was in the habit of excommunicating or burning at the stake any one who opposed or contradicted him or his theology. Geneva was not a popular tourist attraction during the reign of Calvin. Many of his followers today seem to be of the same persecuting spirit. I have had Calvinists say to me, “What happened to the good old days, when we used to burn heretics like you.” And also, “My only hope is that you will castrate yourself.” Calvinists typically seem to have this very un-Christ-like attitude when dealing with those who deny their doctrines and often show anything but the fruit of the spirit when debating with them.

John Calvin learned much of his theology from Augustine, who was a student of Platonic and Gnostic teachings. Augustine also severely persecuted his theological opponents. All throughout church history, the doctrines of Augustinianism and Calvinism have caused great controversy and division within the body of Christ.

Old School Calvinism or Reformed Theology denies orthodox Christian doctrines like:

               1. Man’s free will to obey or disobey God, which is the basis of man’s responsibility and accountability (Gen. 4:6-7; Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; Jer. 38:20; Eze. 18:30; Acts 17:30-31);

Augustine said, “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[1]

Augustine said, “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” [2]

Augustine said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[3]

Martin Luther said that “the law demands of men what they cannot do…”[4]

Martin Luther said, “For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?”[5]

               2. That each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sins committed in their own life, and will not be damned for the sins of anyone else (Lev. 18:29; Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-6; Eze. 18:20; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-6; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:11-12; Rev. 22:12);

John Calvin stated, “Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his fall, into eternal damnation.”[6]

               3. Christ died for everyone (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2), and His unlimited atonement does not make salvation automatic for anyone, but available for everyone (Jn. 3:14-17; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:11; Rev. 22:17), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1);

Custance said, “No man can be held accountable for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment.”[7]

Boettner said, “For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards to the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them.”[8]

Wayne Grudem said, “Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.”[9]

Joshua Williamson said, “If Christ died for everyone, everyone would be saved.”[10]

               4. The universal benevolence or love of God, which wants all sinners to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; John 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 3:19);

John Calvin said, “not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing.”[11]

John Calvin said, “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.”[12]

John Calvin said, “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.”[13]

Alan Kurschner said, “God desires that his sheep are saved. God desires that his people are saved. He does not desire that every single individual who has ever lived, live in glory with him forever. If that were the case, we have an incompetent, unhappy, and impotent God.”[14]

Matthew McMahon said, “I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel. I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp.”[15]

Erwin Lutzer said, “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.”[16]

John Calvin said, “His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect.”[17]

John MacArthur, comments: “His patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all of His own…”[18]

               5. The conditional security of believers or the possibility of falling away from the faith (Matt. 24:13; Jn. 15:6; Acts 11:23; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:13; Rom. 11:20-21; 1 Cor. 9:27; Heb. 2:1-3; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-21);

Martin Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”[19]

Westminster Confession of Faith said, “They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”[20]

               6. Man’s role, responsibility, and choice to cooperate with God in regeneration or in the changing of his heart (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 18:30-32; Ps. 78:8; Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:15; Act 7:51; 17:30-31; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9-10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 1 Tim. 4:16);

Martin Luther said, “I say that man… when he is re-created does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves…”[21]

A. W. Pink said, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part in it.”[22]

               7. That there is deliverance available from all sin in Jesus Christ, or the possibility of overcoming sin in this life by the grace of God (Matt. 1:21; Jn. 8:36; Rom. 6:18, 20, 22; 8:2; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 Thes. 5:23; Titus 2:11-12; Jude 1:24; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Jn. 1:9; 3:9).

The Westminster Catechism says, “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in word, thought, and deed.”[23]

               8. That God is not the author of sin, nor the sovereign cause of its entrance into the world (Gen. 1:31; 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 19:5, 32:35; Isa. 5:4; Zeph. 3:5; Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 6:10; Lk. 7:30; 1 Cor. 14:33; Heb. 1:9).

Martin Luther said, “Since, therefore, God moves and does all in all, He necessarily moves and does all in Satan and the wicked man…”[24]

Martin Luther said, “God worketh all things in all men even wickedness in the wicked…”[25]

John Calvin said, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.”[26]

               See also the article, “Is God the Author of Sin?“

There are many other orthodox doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures and which were held by all of the Early Church which are denied by Augustinian and Reformed Theology, but the above is sufficient for this article.

As much as Calvinism claims to be orthodox, its doctrines are utterly opposed to the doctrines of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine, and they have more in common with the heretical teachings of the Gnostics and Manicheans.

               See the article, “Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?“

Sadly, many Calvinist groups function as a cult today, claiming exclusively that Calvinism is Christianity, that their doctrine of T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel itself, and that anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is a “heretic,” “false teacher,” or “false convert.” They are quick to break fellowship with, and falsely accuse, any Christian that contradicts their own theology.

I have always found it interesting that these groups will hail John Calvin as a hero, but will label Charles Finney a heretic. Charles Finney was America’s greatest revivalist, who lead a quarter of a million people to the Lord. The vast majority of his converts stayed in the faith until their dying day, unlike other evangelists like D. L. Moody or Billy Graham, who’s converts mostly fell away. John Calvin on the other hand had excommunicated and even killed countless individuals. Calvinists overlook this and often seek to justify it, while they are quick to condemn Finney because he used “altar calls.” I can supply story after story of Finney winning sinners to Christ, but Calvinists have been unable to provide for me even a single story of John Calvin ever personally leading a sinner to Jesus. There are plenty of stories of John Calvin burning sinners at the stake, but not a single one of him leading souls to Christ like Charles Finney did. Yet, they exalt Calvin as a hero and criticize Finney for calling sinners to repentance at the altar.

See also the article, “The Secret of Success In The Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Gordon C. Olson“

Tony Miano is a modern day Calvinist. He is a very staunch Calvinist whom history has shown to be quick to call other Christians heretics or false converts if they contradict his theology of Calvinism. Over the past few years, Tony Miano has called myself (Jesse Morrell), and Kerrigan Skelly “heretics” on various websites. For years he has been attacking us publicly, when he has never even attempted to have a private conversation with us about doctrine. Even recently, a woman told me, “Tony called me a heretic back when I was enjoying hearing from him.”[27] I am sure that there are many other stories of people out there of Christians who Tony Miano has accused of heresy for contradicting Calvinism.

Many Calvinists, like Tony Miano, will quote this from Charles Spurgeon, ““And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”[28]

Many Calvinists argue that Calvinism is the gospel itself, so if you don’t believe in Calvinism then you do not believe in the gospel. The logical conclusion of this view is that only Calvinists are Christians. Anyone who contradicts Calvinism is a heretic. This is certainly what happened at the Synod of Dort, when the Arminians were on trial and condemned when their doctrines didn’t line up with Calvinism. Hugo Grotius for example was imprisoned after the Synod of Dort and with the help of his wife, escaped from prison and fled from the persecution of Calvinists against Arminians.

The reason that I am writing this article against Tony Miano, and in defense of my fellow Christians like Mark Cahill and Kerrigan Skelly, is because “we must stand in opposition to those who cause division in the Body of Christ (Titus 3:10-11) and who bear false witness against fellow Christians” as Tony Miano himself has said.

Mark Cahill is a man of God who has been sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ on the streets for many many years. Mark believes what th Bible says, that God is loving and wants everyone to be saved. I have been personally blessed by Mark Cahill. He is the author of popular book, “One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven” which has helped to equip tens of thousands of Christians for sharing the gospel. I remember once, when I ordered some materials from Way of the Master, they sent me a copy of Mark Cahill’s book with the order. Ray Comfort even said that Mark Cahill is one of the only people that makes him feel lukewarm. Mark always had a good relationship with Way of the Master, until Tony Miano came along. Tony Miano started teaching and spreading Calvinist doctrine, which Mark Cahill has rightly recognized as false teaching. The consequence is that Tony Miano ruined the good relationship that Mark Cahill had with Way of the Master.

Tony Miano was recently fired from his job at The Way of the Master, for financial reasons. And it appears that he is now trying to get attention by publicly criticizing other well known ministers of the gospel like Mark Cahill.  It seems to be a strategy of some people to draw more attention to themselves by attacking others who are more well known than themselves. Calvinists typically try to advance their own doctrine, by opposing everyone else’s, which is a reason why many Calvinists like to have “apologetic” ministries, where they label every other group a cult and every other doctrine heresy.

TONY MIANO’S & CARM’S SLANDEROUS ATTACK ON CHRISTIANS

Just recently, Tony Miano wrote an attacking article against Mark Cahill, with the help of Matt Slick, which was posted on the CARM website. CARM stands for Christian Apologetic Research Ministries, but in reality it is a Calvinism Apologetic Research Ministries. CARM is a website publicly known for its relatively poor scholarship in critiquing opposing theologies.

For example, Matt Slick of CARM wrote that “Pelagianism…. taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God.  In other words, a person’s free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention.”[29] This is an example, not of Pelagian heresy, but of Pelagian hearsay.

I would suspect that Matt Slick learned about Pelagianism from its opponents, and not from actually reading the writings of the Pelagians. This is a common practice for Calvinists, but what if that is how their doctrine was treated? What if someone stated what Calvinism teaches, by stating the opponents? Augustine accused Pelagius of denying the grace of God, but this was an accusation not a fact.

Had Matt Slick actually read some of the few writings that still exist today from the original Pelagians, he would have read in the Pelagian Statement of Faith submitted to the Pope: “We [Pelagians] maintain that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil.”[30]

Pelagius himself said, “I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ is not necessary not only for ever hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to dis-annul it deserve everlasting punishment.”[31]

Pelagius said, “This grace we do not allow to consist only in the law but also in the help of God. God helps us through His teaching and revelation by opening the eyes of our heart, by pointing out to us the future so that we may not be preoccupied with the present, by uncovering the snares of the devil, by enlightening us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace.”[32]

Pelagius said, “God always aids by the help of his grace. God aids us by his doctrine and revelation, while he opens the eyes of our heart; while he shows us the future, that we may not be engrossed with the present; while he discloses the snares of the devil; while he illuminates us by the multiform and ineffable gift of heavenly grace. Does he who says this, appear to you to deny grace? Or does he appear to confess both divine grace and the freewill of man?”[33]

Pelagius said in a letter to Innocent, “Behold, before your blessedness, this epistle clears me, in which we directly and simply say, that we have entire freewill to sin and not to sin, which, in all good works, is always assisted by divine aid. Let them read the letter which we wrote to that holy man, bishop Paulinus, nearly twelve years ago, which perhaps in three hundred lines supports nothing else but the grace and aid of God, and that we can do nothing at all of good without God. Let them also read the one we wrote to that sacred virgin of Christ, Demetrias, in the east, and they will find us so praising the nature of man, as that we may always add the aid of God’s grace. Let them likewise read my recent tract which we were lately compelled to put forth on freewill, and they will see how unjustly they glory in defaming us for denial of grace, who, through nearly the whole text of that work, perfectly and entirely profess both free will and grace.”[34]

Pelagius taught that the freedom of the human will was not lost by the original sin of Adam, but that grace was necessary for man to rightly use his free will. He also taught that free will itself was a gracious gift given to us at Creation. He did not deny grace as necessary or as an aid for free will. The only grace he denied was Augustinian grace, which said that free will was lost by original sin and therefore man’s ability to obey needed to be restored by grace. However, one of the best Greek-English Lexicons, Thayer’s, defined grace as “divine influence upon the heart” which is precisely how Pelagius viewed grace in contradiction to Augustine.

It was Augustine’s view of grace that was inconsistent with free will, not Pelagius’. As Augustine said, “I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed.”[35] Pelagius affirmed both the freedom of the will and the necessity for the grace of God, while Augustine denied the freedom of the will because of His mistaken view of grace.

Matt Slick’s article on CARM about Pelagianism would be accurate if he changed the word “without” to the word “with.” It should read, ‘Pelagianism…. taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will with the grace of God.  In other words, a person’s free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad with the aid of Divine intervention.”

This is why John Wesley said, “I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.’”[36] And also “Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man.”[37]

John Wesley said, “Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.”[38]

On the issue of the freedom of the will, Pelagius was in perfect agreement with the Early Church while Augustine was in agreement with the heretical Gnostics:

Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[39]

Episcopius said, “What is plainer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal and external necessity!”[40]

Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[41]

Calvin said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will.”[42]

Calvin said, “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[43]

Calvin also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[44]

Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[45]

Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[46]

Asa Mahan said that free will “was the doctrine of the primitive church for the first four or five centuries after the Bible was written, the church which received the ‘lively oracles’ directly from the hands of some of those by whom they were written, to wit: the writers of the New Testament. It should be borne in mind here, that at the time the sacred canon was completed, the doctrine of Necessity was held by the leading sects in the Jewish Church. It was also the fundamental article of the creed of all the sects in philosophy throughout the world, as well as of all the forms of heathenism then extant. If the doctrine of Necessity, as its advocates maintain, is the doctrine taught the church by inspired apostles and the writers of the New Testament, we should not fail to find, under such circumstances, the churches planted by them, rooted and grounded in this doctrine.”[47]

Beausobre said, “…those ancient writers, in general, say that Manichaeans denied free-will. The reason is, that the Fathers believed, and maintained, against the Manichaeans, that whatever state man is in he has the command over his own actions, and has equally power to do good or evil.”[48]

W. F. Hook said, “The Manichaeans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning.”[49]

Lyman Beecher said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church… natural inability was to that of the pagan philosophers, the Gnostic’s, and the Manichaeans.”[50]

Other articles by Matt Slick on CARM on other topics are also examples of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, such as his articles on Open Theism, Moral Government Theology, Moral Government Atonement, etc. It seems to be a common practice of Calvinists to misrepresent the views of those that they oppose by creating a straw-man, as they often do with the theology of Charles Finney. This leads me to believe that they cannot refute the actual position of their theological opponents.

THE HYPOCRICY OF TONY MIANO

In his article, Tony complains of “Mark Cahill’s Mistreatment of Christians”[51] for calling Calvinism heresy and for breaking fellowship with Calvinists, (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:11; Tit. 3:10).  Yet that is precisely how Tony has treated others Christians who disagree with his own theology. In fact, in the very same article he called Pastor Kerrigan Skelly a heretic, by stating that Kerrigan is a “Pelagian” which is “heresy.”[52] He wrote that Mark Cahill “Affiliates and/or associates with at least one known heretic (Kerrigan Skelly), as well as with at least one group (Jesus Crew) that is vehemently anti-Calvinism.”[53]

Tony Miano complains that Mark Cahill calls “Christians” that believe in Calvinism as “heretics” but then goes and himself labels a Christian like Pastor Kerrigan Skelly a heretic! He even criticizes Mark Cahill for associating with a group that is “anti-Calvinism” as if it is wrong for him to associate with any group that is not pro-Calvinism. “Jesus Crew” is a group of Christians that has been spreading the biblical gospel for years, yet Tony Miano criticizes them for not being pro-Calvinist.

And what is the theology of Mark Cahill that Tony Miano criticizes? Tony quotes Mark’s book, “The Watchmen” as saying, “You see, the wicked do have the ability to turn from their sinful ways. As a matter of fact, they are required to do so by God. How can God judge people that had no ability to repent and believe in Him? It is preposterous to think that.”[54]

               If Tony Miano is going to criticize Mark Cahill for believing this orthodox truth, then he is criticizing the entire Early Church for holding to the same truth!

Clement of Rome (whom Paul endorsed in Philippians 4:3) said, “For  no  other  reason  does  God  punish  the  sinner  either  in  the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner  was able  to  conquer  but  neglected  to  gain  the victory.”[55]

Justin Martyr said, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whatever they may be … for neither would a man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”[56]

Theodorite said, “For how can He punish [with endless torments] a nature which had no power to do good, but was bound in the hands of wickedness?”[57]

Irenaeus said, “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not worked good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.”[58]

Tertullian said, “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”[59]

Will Tony Miano be so bold as to label all of the Christians in the Early Church before Augustine as “heretical Pelagians” for teaching and believing the Christian doctrine of free will in opposition to Calvinism? Was the Early Church full of nothing but “false converts” for the first 300 years of its existence, between Paul and Augustine?

               Consider also how Arminians have also held to the free agency of man:

John Fletcher said, “As to the moral agency of man, Mr. Wesley thinks it cannot be denied upon the principles of common sense and civil government; much less upon those of natural and revealed religion; as nothing would be more absurd than to bind us by laws of a civil or spiritual nature; nothing more foolish than to propose to us punishments and rewards; and nothing more capricious than to inflict the one or bestow the other upon us; if we were not moral agents.”[60]

Adam Clarke commented on Deuteronomy 11:26 and said, “If God had not put it in the power of this people either to obey or disobey; if they had not had a free will, over which they had complete authority, to use it either in the way of willing or nilling; could God, with any propriety, have given such precepts as these, sanctioned with such promises and threatenings? If they were not free agents, they could not be punished for disobedience, nor could they, in any sense of the word, have been rewardable for obedience. A Stone is not rewardable because, in obedience to the laws of gravitation, it always tends to the center; nor is it punishable be cause, in being removed from that center, in its tending or falling towards it again it takes away the life of a man. That God has given man a free, self-determining Will, which cannot be forced by any power but that which is omnipotent, and which God himself never will force, is declared in the most formal manner through the whole of the sacred writings. No argument can affect this, while the Bible is considered as a Divine revelation; no sophistry can explain away its evidence, as long as the accountableness of man for his conduct is admitted, and as long as the eternal bounds of moral good and evil remain, and the essential distinctions between vice and virtue exist.”[61]

               As a matter of fact, even teachers of “New School Calvinism” taught the freedom of the will, like Albert Barnes and Lyman Beecher. 

Albert Barnes said, “Christianity does not charge on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgression of Adam, or of any other man; or that God has given a law which man has no power to obey. Such a charge, and such a requirement, would be most clearly unjust.”[62]

Albert Barnes said, “What was it that made the government of Pharaoh tyrannical, but laying tasks on the Israelites which they had no power in any sense to obey, commanding them to make bricks without straw?… A man without limbs cannot be required to walk; without eyes cannot be required to see; without hands cannot be required to labor.”[63]

Lyman Beecher said, “The implications of the Bible teach the free agency of man including a natural ability to obey, as the qualification for moral government, and the foundation of accountability. The directory precepts, the commands and prohibitions, the rewards and punishments, the exhortations, warnings, entreaties and expostulations, of the Bible, teach this; the oath of God’s preference that fallen man should obey rather than disobey, and the regrets andthe wonder of heaven at his obstinacy and unbelief, teach the same; and the punishment, executed not only for what he did do that was wrongm but because in place of this he did not do what was right,-because he did not turn, did not repent, did not believe,-all imply ability. That such implications are multiplied throughout the Bible, wil not be denied; that they do strongly imply capacity of right or of wrong choice, and are based on that supposition, is equally plain. But what would be thought of a human government that should address such language to stocks and stones, or to animals, or to machines moved by steam or water power? And why should they be addressed to man, if he has no more power to obey than these?”[64]

Lyman Beecher said that “capacity, as the ground and measure of obligation, is expressly recognized as a fundamental principle of the government of God.  The law itself recognizes it, in demanding love with all the heart, soul, mind and strength.   The Gospel recognizes it, in the bestowment of talents upon every man according to his several ability, and the award of punishment for ability neglected; and by repelling as a slander the implication that God demands the performance of impossible service, reaping where he had not sowed, &c. Obligation is expressly graduated according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not,-much of him to whom mq.ch is given, and little of him to whom little is given. Accordingly, evangelical obedience is ever enjoined as a reasonable service, for  which, as   to  natural  power, every  man  is thoroughly furnished, and for the neglect of which he has no -excuse.”[65]

Lyman Beecher said, “Whatever has been the wreck and ruin produced by the fall, the free agency originally conferred upon man, has not been knocked away… the righteous Governor of the world, has done no violence to these powers and faculties of man, on which His government rests…”[66]

And let it be clear that a Reformed Synod and Calvinistic denomination declared Lyman Beecher’s views, stated above, as orthodox against the charge of heresy in 1835. If Calvinists and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy?

Will Tony Miano criticize his own Calvinist brethren as “heretical Pelagians” as well? It seems that labeling as “heresy” anything that contradicts their Calvinist doctrine is an intimidation tactic that they use to try to convert people to their views, or to scare people from contradicting Calvinist doctrine. In the days of Augustine and John Calvin, they would try to convert people to their theology with torture. They took literally Jesus word’s, “compel them to come in.” In our day, since torture is illegal, they use intimidation tactics like calling you a heretic. They especially resort to this type of name calling when they are unable to address and refute your arguments. I have been in countless discussions with Calvinists over the years. I calmly and rationally argue my point from the Scriptures, and time and time again when these Calvinists are unable to refute my arguments with reason and scripture, they simply resort to harsh and critical name calling. I am sure that many others can testify of this as well.

Clearly, there is a definite double standard being used here. Calvinists want to be able to label others as heretics when others contradict their theology, but when someone labels Calvinism as heresy the Calvinists call for unity and claim unbiblical and unloving treatment toward Christians. One person just commented online saying, “What I think is unfair and hypocritical is the attack on Cahill for his anti-Calvinistic comments, yet not one word about MacArthur and Piper (both of whom I like) who have had very strong words against Arminianism.” That is a very good point. There are many well-known Calvinist teachers out there who have very harsh words for Arminians, but that is acceptable to men like Tony Miano and Matt Slick. It is only when Arminians have harsh words for Calvinism that they claim “unbiblical treatment of Christians.”

Tony will even quote Charles Spurgeon, who said that Arminians were heretics and Calvinism was the gospel. Where is Tony Miano’s criticism and harsh words for Spurgeon, like he has for Mark Cahill?

Tony Miano claims that Calvinism does not deny any of the essential Christian doctrines. Then he claims that Mark Cahill is making essentials out of non-essentials, when that is precisely what he has done in his own article.

Tony Miano said that Mark Cahill, “Mistreats Christians in the following ways: Confuses non-essentials of the faith with essentials and thus brings wrong judgment against fellow believers.”[67] Tony said his goal “is to encourage Christian unity in the essentials and have charity for one another in those areas where we disagree.”[68] Tony claims that we should not divide over Calvinism and Arminianism, but then states Calvinist doctrines as essentials which many Arminians do not believe in.

Tony Miano said, “The theological positions known as Calvinism and Arminianism are “mutually exclusive” in that the two systems oppose each other in debatable issues, but not in the essentials.”[69] Tony believes that we should not divide over Calvinism and Arminianism, that both are orthodox and both agree on the essentials. However, in his article he condemns a Christian Pastor like Kerrigan Skelly for holding to doctrines which Calvinists and Arminians have held to, and for denying doctrines which Calvinists and Arminians have also denied. It is my intention to prove this, by providing quotes from Calvinists and Arminians on those issues. I will show that Calvinists and Arminians have agreed, at times, on the issues that Tony Miano accuses us of heresy for.

Tony Miano said, “Pelagianism is a 5th Century heresy condemned by all church councils, that denies Original Sin, the Imputed righteousness of Christ, and the federal headship of Adam.”[70] He also said, “Kerrigan Skelly is well known as one who denies the doctrine of Original Sin, the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, and the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.”[71] And that Kerrigan Skelly is a “known heretic.”[72]

So Tony has made original sin, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the federal headship of Adam, and even the Penal theory of the atonement as essential doctrines, and claimed that Kerrigan Skelly is a heretic for denying them. Yet, we are about to see that the Early Church did not teach the doctrine of original sin, many Arminians do not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, and even Calvinists have not historically believed in the Federal Headship of Adam! Nobody in the Early Church, not even Augustine, held to the Penal theory of the atonement. In fact, there have been Calvinists and Arminians throughout Church history that have denied the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement and have agreed on the Governmental Substitution theory. Even Augustine did not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ. If these doctrines are essential and the denial of them are heretical, than Tony Miano has labeled the Early Church, Arminians, and his own Calvinists brethren as heretical! Even the “great Saint” Augustine falls under the category of heretic according to Tony Miano, who made his own personal doctrine an “essential.” Furthermore, Tony Miano claims to be “Reformed” and “Solo Scriptura” and yet he has appealed to the authority of Catholic councils! Let’s examine these issues one step at a time.

ORIGINAL SIN

The doctrine of original sin has taken many different forms and has many different interpretations to different groups. In the Augustinian and Calvinistic theology, original sin is the doctrine that when Adam sinned, free will was lost and his nature became sinful, and all of his descendents inherit from him a sinful nature. For possessing this sinful nature, they are born sinful and under the wrath of God. Since free will was lost by original sin, men are born incapable of doing anything good and incapable of repenting of their sins and believing the gospel, until the natures of the elect is regenerated by the grace of God. Augustinianism also taught that sexual desire was a result of original sin and was not part of God’s original design, so that sexual desires are part of the corruption of our now sinful natures. Babies are born sinful because they are conceived through sex, whereas Christ was not sinful because no sex was involved in His conception. Furthermore, it teaches that because of Adam’s original sin, men are born dead in sin.

Kerrigan Skelly and myself certainly do not deny that Adam was a real person, that he committed an original sin, and that Adam’s sin has negatively affected all mankind. Genesis gives a list of many effects and consequences of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:14-24). In this sense, we do not deny original sin at all. We admit that Adam committed an original sin that has affected us all. We only deny the false notions that are commonly attached to the doctrine of “original sin,” like the idea that free will was lost, human nature became sinful, babies are born under God’s wrath, we existed in the loins of Adam, God holds us accountable for a sin we didn’t commit, etc.

The Bible explicitly teaches that men are sinners “from their youth” (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 22:21; 32:30), The Hebrew word here means juvenile, not infancy, according to one of the most credible Hebrew-English Lexicons.[73] This should forever settle the question as to whether or not men are sinners from birth or from the age of accountability. The Bible declares that infants do not yet know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), that they have not yet done any sin (Eze. 18:19-20; Rom. 9:11), and that they are morally “innocent” (2 Kin. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3). Since infants are without moral knowledge, they are without sin (Jn. 9:41; Rom. 9:11; Jas. 4:17), they have an excuse for their conduct (Rom. 1:20), and they are exempt from the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18). Moral obligation and accountability is proportionate to the moral knowledge a moral agent has (Matt. 10:15; Lk. 12:48). The Bible declares that all men, at the age of accountable, have chosen to be sinners (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12). Adam has had some contribution to our choice to becoming sinners, that is, his sin has effected us somehow and has had some connection to our own personal choice to become sinners (Rom. 5:12, 14; 19), though Paul never stated what that connection was. We ought not to add our own personal theories to the Scriptures when they are silent on that matter, as two of the greatest exegetical scripture expositors, Moses Stuart and Albert Barnes, said. Nevertheless, Paul explicitly taught that men choose to sin contrary to their nature, because sin is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26) and that it is our nature to do good because the law of God is part of our nature (Rom. 2:14). This is because God is the author of our natures, since He forms us in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Deut. 32:18; Isa. 27:11; 43:1; 43:7; 44:2; 44:24; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 26:10; 95:6; 127:3; 139:13-14, 16; Prov. 20:12; 26:10; Ecc. 7:29; 31:15; 35:10; Mal. 2:10; Acts 17:29; Rom. 9:20; Eph. 3:9; 4:6; Col. 1:16; Jn. 1:3).

See also the article, “Are Babies Sinful or Innocent?” and “Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?” for a good biblical response to this Augustinian doctrine.

This doctrine, as it’s been stated, has been denied by the Christians of the Early Church, Arminians, and even certain Calvinists.

               Quotes from the Early Church against original sin as its been stated:

Irenaeus said, “God has always preserved freedom and the power of self-government in man.”[74]

Irenaeus said, “…man is possessed of free will from the beginning.”[75]

Origen said, “…the faculty of free will is never taken away…”[76]

Ignatius said, “If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.”[77]

Origen said, “The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.”[78]

Tatian said that because of “freedom of choice… the bad man can be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault.”[79]

Clement of Alexandria said about sinners, “…their estrangement is the result of free choice.”[80]

Theodore of Mopsuestia denied the concept “that men sin by nature, not by choice.”[81]

Gregory of Nyssa said, “For that any one should become wicked, depends solely upon choice.”[82]

Methodius said, “…the Divine Being is not by nature implicated in evils. Therefore our birth is not the cause of these things…”[83]

Methodius  that men are “possessing free will, and not by nature evil…”[84]

Methodius said, “…there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will… and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience…”[85]

Eusebius said, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God is has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature!”[86]

Will Tony Miano and CARM be consistent and label these leaders in the Early Church as heretics?

               Quotes from Christians authors in the Church of England against the original sin view of human nature, as it’s been stated:

C. S. Lewis said, “Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong the Law of Nature, they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as falling stones are governed by the law of gravitation and chemicals by chemical laws, so the creature called man also had his law – with this great difference, that the stone couldn’t choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. They called it Law of Nature because they thought that every one knew it by nature… First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it…They know the Law of Nature; they break it.”[87]

Joseph Butler said, “vice is contrary to the nature and reason of things… it is a violation or breaking in upon our own nature… virtue consists in following, and vice in deviating from it… man is born to virtue, that it consists in following nature, and that vice is more contrary to this nature than tortures or death…”[88]

Joseph Butler said in regards to the “frame of man,” “Appetites, passions, affections, and the principles of reflection, considered merely as the several parts of our inward nature, do not at all give us an idea of the system of constitution of this nature; because the constitution is formed by somewhat not yet taken into consideration, namely by the relation, which these several parts have to each other; the chief of which is the authority of reflection or conscience. It is from considering the relations which the several appetites and passions in the inward frame hae to each other, and above all the supremacy of reflection or conscience, that we get the idea of the system or constitution of human nature; and from the idea itself it will as fully appear, that this our nature, i.e. constitution, is adapted to virtue…”[89]

Joseph Butler said, “A machine is inanimate and passive, but we are agents. Our constitution is put in our own power; we are charged with it, and therefore are accountable for any disorder or violation of it. Thus nothing can possibly be more contrary to nature than vice; meaning by nature, not only the several parts of our internal frame, but also the constitution of it… vice was contrary to the higher and better part of our nature… virtue consisted in following nature…”[90]

Joseph Butler said, “virtue consists in following man’s nature, and vice in deviating from it… From man’s nature or constitution, as thus explained, it is shown that virtue is following nature; i.e., it is obedience to the principles of action which that nature is composed in due subjection to the laws which subsist among them… There is in man a conscience or reflex sense, whereby we survey ourselves and pass sentence on our acts.”[91]

Joseph Butler said, “There is a principle of reflection in men, by which they distinguish between, approve and disapprove their own actions. We are plainly constituted such sort of creatures… This principle in men, by which he approves or disapproves his heart, temper, and actions, is conscience… And that this faculty tends to restrain men from dong mischief to each other, and leads them to do good, is too manifest to need being insisted upon… It cannot possibly be denied that there is this principle of reflection or conscience in human nature.”[92]

Joseph Butler said, “Morality, or the course God intends men to take, may be known from our nature… Ancient writers and Scripture concur nevertheless in affirming a ‘natural law,’ and in describing vice as deviation from that law… This law of nature is conscience, with the prerogative of supremacy over other principles… The constitution of human nature, thus explained, gives rules of virtue, and creates an obligation to obey them… A constitution is violated, not only by removing parts but by giving to the lower the supremacy; hence the saying that injustice is contrary to nature… Whence man, having in his make parts lower and supreme, is a law to himself.”[93]

Joseph Butler said, “If the real nature of any creature leads him and is adopted to such and such purposes only, or more than to any other; this is a reason to believe the Author of that nature intended it for those purposes… A man can as little doubt whether his eyes were given him to see with, as he can doubt of the truth of the science of optics deduced from ocular experiments. And allowing the inward felling, shame; a man can as little doubt wheather it was given him to prevent his doing shameful actions, as he can doubt whether his eyes were given him to guide his steps.”[94]

Joseph Butler said, “The Apostle asserts, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law… it is spoken of as good, as that by which they acted, or might have acted virtuously. What that is in man by which he is naturally a law to himself, is explained in the following words: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another… there is a superior principle of reflection or conscience in every man, which distinguishes between the internal principles of his heart, as well as his external actions; which passes judgment upon himself and them; pronounces determinately some actions to be in themselves just, right, good; others to be in themselves evil, wrong, unjust. Which, without being consulted, without being advised with, magisterially exerts itself, and approves or condemns him the doer of them accordingly… It is by this faculty, natural to man, that he is a moral agent, that he is a law to himself; but this faculty, I say, not to be considered merely as a principle in his heart, which is to have some influence as well as others; but considered as a faculty in kind and in nature supremely over all others, and which bears its own authority of being so… This gives us a further view of the nature of man; shows us what course of life we were made for… that this faculty was placed within to be our proper governor; to direct and regular all under principles, passions, and motives of action. This is its right and office: thus sacred is its authority. And how often soever men violate and rebelliously refuse to submit to it…”[95]

               Quotes from Arminians against original sin, as it’s been stated:

Leonard Ravenhill said, “God will not penalize me for Adam’s sin. God will not penalize Adam for my sin; but He will penalize each of us for our own sin.”[96]

L. D. McCabe said, “The Scriptures nowhere teach that we are guilty of the sin of Adam, or that we are punished therefore.”[97]

Paris Reidhead said, “Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way – they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing themselves as the end of their being. That is sin.”[98]

A. W. Tozer said, “…men are not lost because of what someone did thousands of years ago; they are lost because they sin individually and in person. We will never be judged for Adam’s sin, but for our own. For our own sins we are and must remain fully responsible.”[99]

John Fletcher said, “All our damnation is of ourselves, through our avoidable unfaithfulness . . . everyone shall die for his own avoidable iniquity.”[100]

Asa Mahan said, “The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.”[101]

Will Tony Miano and CARM be consistent and label these Arminians as heretics?

               Quotes from New School Calvinists against original sin, as it’s been stated:

Dr. Nathanael Emmons said, “Nor can we suppose that Adam made men sinners by conveying to them a morally corrupt nature. Moral corruption is essentially different from natural corruption. The latter belongs to the body, but the former belongs to the mind. Adam undoubtedly conveyed to his posterity a corrupt body, or a body subject to wounds, bruises and putrefying sores. But such a body could not corrupt the mind, or render it morally depraved. There is no morally corrupt nature distinct from free, voluntary, sinful exercises. Adam had no such nature, and consequently could convey no such nature to his posterity. But even supposing he had a morally corrupt nature, distinct from his free, voluntary, sinful exercises, it must have belonged to his soul, and not to his body. And if it belonged to his soul, he could not convey it to his posterity, who derive their souls immediately from the fountain of being. God is the father of our spirits. The soul is not transmitted from father to son by natural generation. The soul is spiritual; and what is spiritual is indivisible, is incapable of propagation. Adam could not convey any part of his soul to his next immediate offspring, without conveying the whole. It is, therefore, as contrary to reason as to Scripture, to suppose that Adam’s posterity derived their souls from him. And if they did not derive their souls from him, they could not derive from him a morally corrupt nature, if he really possessed such a nature himself.”[102]

Albert Barnes said, “This is the great, and just, and glorious principle of the divine administration; a principle stated expressly in opposition to the charge that the innocent are punished for the crimes of the guilty; and designed forever to free the divine administration from that accusation. It would be impossible in stronger language to state the principle.”[103]

Albert Barnes said, “…men are not to be represented as to blame, or as ill-deserving, for a sin committed long before they were born, and that they are not to be called on to repent of it”[104]

Will Tony Miano and CARM be willing to call their own Calvinist brethren “heretics” for these statements regarding the original sin of Adam? And let it be known that Albert Barnes and New School Theology was declared orthodox by a Calvinist council and a Calvinistic denomination for stating these views, against the charge of heresy.[105]

There have been Calvinists and Arminians who have both agreed that men become sinners at the age of accountability by their own free choice. If the Early Church, Calvinists, and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy?

THE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST

The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ teaches that when Christ obeyed the law, he obeyed it for us. He fulfilled our moral obligations on our behalf, or vicariously, so that we do not have to fulfill them ourselves. It teaches that the atonement of Jesus Christ was not enough for our justification, but Christ’s works of the law must be added to the atonement. It denies that we can be justified purely by grace and teaches that we must have a perfect or flawless record of sinless obedience in order to be justified. It teaches justification purely in the legal sense, as opposed to the gracious sense. Furthermore, it teaches that when God looks upon believers that sin, God doesn’t see their sin, instead He see’s the perfect imputed righteousness instead. This is contrary to many passages in the Bible (Ps. 33:13-15; Prov. 15:3; Eze. 8:12; 9:9; Jer. 32:19; Job 34:21; Mal. 2:17; Rom. 3:24; 4:6-8; Heb. 4:13; Rev 2:2, 2:9; 2:13; 2:19; 3:1; 3:8; 3:15).

               The Early Church did not teach the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ:

There is not even a hint of evidence to believe that the Early Church believed in the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, not even Augustine. If Tony Miano is going to make the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ an “essential doctrine” than he has denied that the Early Church and even Augustine himself is a Christian. How can the doctrine of imputed righteousness of Christ be an “essential” to the faith, according to Calvinists like Tony Miano, when their own theological hero Augustine did not believe it? I challenge anyone to find a person teaching the doctrine of the “imputed righteousness of Christ” before Martin Luther. Tony says that Mark Cahill should not call those who hold to Reformed Theology heretics, when he himself in effect is calling one of the founders of Reformed Theology a heretic.

               Calvinists who have denied the imputed righteousness of Christ:

Albert Barnes said, “It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God’s plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead… But if the doctrine of the Scripture was, that the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly?… the whole scope and design of the Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who is forgiven, and those sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man.”[106]

               Arminians who have denied the imputed righteousness of Christ:

John Wesley said, “We do not find it expressly affirmed in Scripture, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any…”[107]

John Wesley said, “The Righteousness of Christ is an expression which I do not find in the Bible… The righteousness of God is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, first, The Mercy of God… I believe this expression means, secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners…”[108]

Regarding the phrase, “The imputed righteousness of Christ” Wesley said, “I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than I: and I wish he would show me where it is.”[109]

John Wesley said, “It is nowhere stated in Scripture that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to us. Not a text can be found which contains any enunciation of the doctrine.”[110]

John Wesley said that the Calvinist doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is “a blow to the root, the root of all holiness, all true religion…Hereby Christ is stabbed in the house of his friends, of those who make the largest professions of loving Him; the whole design of His death, namely, to destroy the work of the devil, being overthrown at a stroke. For wherever this doctrine is cordially received, it makes no place for holiness.”[111]

Asbury Lowrey said, “This passage [Rom. 4:5-8] deserves special attention, as it explains all those text that seem to favor, and have been construed to support the theory of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness to the sinner. Here it is manifest that justification, imputation of righteousness, forgiving iniquities, covering sins, and the non-imputation of sin, are phrases substantially of the same import, and decide positively that the Scripture view of the great doctrine under consideration, is an actual deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin: from which it follows, that the phrases so often occurring in the writings of Paul – the righteousness of God and of Christ – must mean God’s righteous method of justifying the ungodly, through the atonement and by the instrumentality of faith – a method that upholds the rectitude of the Divine character, at the same time that it offers a full and free pardon to the sinner.”[112]

Charles Finney said, “The doctrine of a literal imputation of Christ’s obedience or righteousness is supported by those who hold it, by such passages as the following: Rom. iv. 5-8.—”But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” But here justification is represented only as consisting in forgiveness of sin, or in pardon and acceptance. Again, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Here again the apostle is teaching only his much-loved doctrine of justification by faith, in the sense that upon condition or in consideration of the death and mediatorial interference and work of Christ, penitent believers in Christ are forgiven and rewarded as if they were righteous.”[113]

William Booth said, “Another mistaken view of the benefits flowing out of the sacrifice of Christ, although it does not directly refer to the Savior’s death, is closely connected with it; this is known as the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” Jesus Christ, this notion says, by voluntarily placing Himself under the Law to which man was subject, rendering a perfect obedience to that Law, and sealing that obedience with His own Blood, thereby not only did purchase the forgiveness of sin for those whom He redeemed, but merited for us through His obedience a perfect righteousness; clothed in this His people will appear at the Judgment Bar, and it will constitute not only a preparation for Heaven but a right of entrance there. This doctrine declares that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who believe on His name, not only to make up for their own unrighteousness, but to create a righteousness which should be regarded as their own.  Though they have not obeyed the Law, Christ has obeyed it for them, and therefore they are entitled to just the same blessings as though they had obeyed it themselves. This, I need hardly say, is a mistaken notion, seeing that one being cannot, in this sense, obey the Law for another.  Every creature in Heaven and on earth is placed under that Law of Benevolence which claims all the love and service he is able to render, according to the capacity of his nature – whether it be that of an Angel, of a man, or of a little child. In becoming a man Jesus Christ voluntarily placed Himself on the same level, in this respect, as Peter and John; that is to say, the Law required from Him, as truly and really as it did from them, all the love and service which His powers enabled Him to render.  The extent of the Savior’s capacity determined the extent of His obligation.  Having an infinite capacity He was under obligation to love and serve in an infinite degree.”[114]

Will Tony Miano or Matt Slick with CARM be so bold as to accuse men like John Wesley and William Booth as heretics? Will they go as far as to claim that the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army are not true “Christian” organizations? If they make the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ “essential” then they have to conclude that.

If the Early Church, some Calvinists, and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy? Again, let it be known that Albert Barnes was declared orthodox by a Reformed council and a Calvinistic denomination for stating his views on this matter, against the charge of heresy.

THE FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM

The doctrine of the Federal Headship of Adam is a type of original sin doctrine, which states that Adam acted as our represented and therefore His sin is imputed to us. As our represented, he acted on our behalf and therefore we are guilty of his original sin. This doctrine states that the sin of the guilty is imputed to the innocent, and thereby they become guilty. It does not teach that we existed or acted in Adam, and therefore His sin is imputed to us, but that His sin is imputed to us even though we had no involvement and gave no consent to Adam’s sin.

I find it strange that Tony Miano would make this doctrine which, in contrasted with the age of Christianity, is a relatively young doctrine. None of the Early Church believed this doctrine, in fact, none of the Early Reformers believed this doctrine. The doctrine of John Calvin himself was not that Adam was our federal head who acted as our representative, whose sin is imputed to all of his posterity. Calvin’s doctrine was that we actually existed in Adam, in his loins or genitals, and therefore his sin was our sin. He expressly denied that the sin of another was imputed to us, but stated that Adam’s sin is our sin because we had a personal identity or actual existence in Him. This was also the doctrine of Augustine, that we literally “sinned in Adam” because we literally existed in Him. This was also the doctrine of the Westminster Catachism. The Westminster Catachism states that we sinned “in Adam” and not that Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Jonathon Edwards also believed that we sinned in Adam and not that the sin of the guilty is imputed to the innocent.

Albert Barnes was a new school Calvinist who was accused of heresy for denying the “federal and representative character of Adam.” He was acquitted of heresy charges and declared orthodox by a Reformed council and a Calvinistic denomination. He was accused of heresy for saying, “Christianity does not charge on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgression of Adam, or of any other man.” In his defense he said, “It is not denied that this language varies from the statements which are often made on the subject, and from the opinion which has been entertained by many men; and it is admitted that it does not accord with that used on the same subject in the Confession of Faith, and in other standards of doctrine. The main difference is, that it is difficult to affix any clear and definite meaning to the expression, ‘We sinned in him, and fell with him.’ It is manifest, so far as it is capable of interpretation, that it is intended to convey the idea, not that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, or set over to our account; but that there was a personal identity constituted between Adam and his posterity, so that it was really our act, and ours only, after all, that was chargeable to us. This was the idea of Edwards. The notion of imputing sin is an invention of modern times.”[115]

For example, a Calvinist like Lord Coke said, “…no one is punished for the sin of another…”[116] That is why the Westminster Catachism says, “we sinned in him, and fell with him.”[117] Traditional Calvinism, or the original doctrine of Reformed Theology, said that we are punished for Adam’s sin because Adam’s sin is our sin, since we were his sperm, not that the sin of another is imputed to us.

Augustine, who did not know Greek, read Jerome’s Latin translation of the New Testament which added “in Adam” to Romans 5:12. That mistranslation read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned in Adam.” The Latin version that Augustine read added “in Adam” which was not in the Greek. Consequently, Augustine taught that we existed and acted in Adam and John Calvin, who got his theology from Augustine, taught this doctrine.

John Calvin said, “And this liableness to punishment,” says he, “arises not from the delinquency of another, neque est alieni delicti— for when it is said that the sin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to be understood as if we, though innocent, were undeservedly loaded with the guilt of his sin. Wherefore Augustine, though he frequently calls it the sin of another, the more carefully to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet at the same time he also asserts it properly to belong to each individual, proprium unicuique.”[118]

John Calvin who said, “we all sinned before we were born…”[119]

John Calvin said, “Even before we see the light of day, we are in God’s sight impure and sinful…”[120]

John Calvin said, “And therefore,” he continues, “infants themselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfulness of another, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti.”[121]

“Adam’s sin is imputed to us because it is ours. For God doth not reckon a thing to be ours, which is not so; for God’s justice doth not punish men for a sin which is in no way theirs. As if a person that has the plague infects others, they die by their own plague, and not by that of another.”[122]

Jonathon Edwards said “The sin of the apostasy is not theirs merely because God imputes it to them, but it is truly and properly theirs, and on that ground God imputes it to them.”[123]

Jonathon Edwards said, “God in every step of his proceeding with Adam, looked on his posterity as being one with him. This will naturally follow on the supposition of there being a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and his posterity in the affair.”[124]

Albert Barnes comments, “Edwards is supposed, therefore, to have held the notion that there was a constituted identity between Adam and us; in such a way that we are held answerable for the original guilt as being ours; that it was not made ours by imputation, but being ours by the identity; or being properly ours, in the same sense as the guilt of A. B. in childhood, is the guilt of A. B. in manhood, it is justly chargeable on us; and this is what is meant by imputation. This is believed to have been the original structure of Calvinism—this the doctrine of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.”[125]

It should be evident why Calvinism has changed his theology over the years on this issue. If we literally existed in Adam and therefore sinned with Him because we were “in his loins,” than we would be guilty of all the sins of all our ancestors, not just Adam’s. It would make up praiseworthy for the righteousness of Noah, since we would have existed in his loins as well. And all of this would be contrary to the explicit word of God in Ezekiel 18, that says the son does not bear the iniquity of the father but the soul that sinneth it shall die.

Gordon C. Olson said that “the Federal Headship theory” was “developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all. This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam’s sin advanced by Augustine (354-430).”[126]

How strange it for Tony Miano to make the doctrine of the imputed sin of Adam, or Adam’s Federal Headship, an “essential” Christian doctrine! By doing so, he had unknowingly accused the entire Early Church, Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, and even the Westminster Catechism with heresy! Classic Calvinists did not teach that the sin of the guilty was imputed to the innocent, or that Adam’s sin was imputed to anyone, but rather that we actually existed in the genitals of Adam or in his loins and consequently participated with Adam in original sin. It would have been good for Tony Miano to learn the history of Calvinism better and to learn the theological distinction between Federal Headship and Seminal Identity, before he went around trying to teach “essential” doctrines of Calvinism or Christianity.

THE PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT

The Penal Substitution theory of the atonement originated with a Catholic theology named St. Anselm (1033-1109). It was further developed by Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-11530, Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564). This doctrine states that our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ on the cross and he consequently bore the punishment that those sins deserve. Those for whom Christ died and therefore saved by justice, as it would be unjust for God to punish the same sins twice. Consequently this doctrine inevitably leads to the false doctrines of universalism or limited atonement. Martin Luther went as far as to teach that Christ became an actual sinner on the cross, when our sins were imputed to Him. And this theory of the atonement often says the cliché’ of, “Jesus paid our debt.”

This atonement theory is contrary to the Scriptures which represent our punishment as eternal damnation (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9), and the atonement as a means through which our penalty can be justly remitted (Matt. 26;28; Rom. 3:24-25; Heb. 9:22). The Scriptures explicitly teach that Jesus died for all (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1), which could not be true if Jesus was punished for their sins. The Scriptures also explicitly teach that Jesus’ character never changed but that He was without spot or blemish (Heb. 9:14; 13:8). And the Bible declares that God forgives us our debt, which cannot be true if our debt has been paid (Matt. 6:12; Lk. 7:42).

See also the article, “Man’s Repentance and Christ’s Atonement” and also, “William Booth on the Doctrine of the Governmental Atonement“

               The Early Church denied the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement:

Even the Reformers hero Augustine did not believe in penal substitution, but rather taught that the atonement was a ransom paid to Satan. As a matter of fact, the CARM website has an article on the Ransom theory of the atonement which states, “This theory was developed by Origen (a.d. 185-254), and it advocated that Satan held people captive as a victor in war. This theory, which was also held by Augustine, advocated that because Satan held people captive, a ransom had to be paid, not to God, but to Satan.”[127] This CARM article, which states that Augustine did not believe in penal substitution but in the ransom theory, said “The ransom theory of the atonement is false.”[128]

Calvinism hails Augustine as a great hero of their faith, but if penal substitution is an “essential” as Tony Miano claims, than Tony Miano has labeled Augustine as a heretic. It stands to reason that if Kerrigan Skelly is a “known heretic” because he “denies…. the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ,” than Augustine must be a heretic as well for not believing in this so-called “essential.” Will Tony Miano be consistent and say that Augustine was a heretic, or will he change his mind about Penal Substitution being an “essential” and the heretical status of Kerrigan for denying it?

It should also be added that while nobody in the Early Church held to the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the atonement, not everyone in the EarlyChurch held to the Ransom Theory of the atonement, or a ransom being paid to Satan. Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390) for example, taught that the atonement was necessary because of the moral government of God. He said, “Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?”[129]

This brings us to the next point:

               Arminians who denied the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement:

Since Arminianism teaches that the atonement was made for everyone, but not everyone is saved by the atonement but even those whom Christ died for can perish, the penal substitution theory of the atonement has been rejected by many Arminians throughout church history because of its inevitable and logical conclusion is either universalism or limited atonement. One well known Arminian and disciple of Arminius, Hugo Grotius, systematized the Governmental Theory of the atonement, which has been a common atonement view throughout Arminianism.

John Miley said, “The soteriology of Wesleyan Arminianism, taken as a whole, excludes the Satisfaction theory, and requires the Governmental as the only theory consistent with its doctrines.”[130]

John Miley said, “If, in the obligation of an absolute retributive justice the Father must inflict merited punishment upon sin and if in the atonement he inflicted such punishment upon his Son as the substitute for sinners-then he does not remit the penalty. No dialectics can identify such an infliction with remission. And where there is no remission of penalty there can be no grace of forgiveness. Hence, the doctrine of Satisfaction does not admit the grace of the Father in forgiveness; which fact of grace, however, is clearly given in the Scriptures.”[131]

Asbury Lowrey said, “The atonement does not signify the payment of a debt, in the sense that would represent the world, in their unredeemed condition, as insolvent debtors, and God as a creditor. This view destroys the gracious character of salvation, and reduces it to a transaction of sheer justice. If the sinner simply owed a debt to Heaven, which Christ fully discharged for him, then his release from all liability to punishment and his introduction into heaven might be demanded on the ground of equitable and inalienable right…”[132]

William Booth said, “The Scriptures teach that Christ on the Cross, in virtue of the dignity of His person, the voluntariness of His offering, and the greatness of His sufferings did make and present, on behalf of poor sinners, a sacrifice of infinite value. And that this sacrifice, by showing all worlds the terrible evil of the sin humanity had committed, and the importance of the law humanity had broken, did make it possible for the love and pity of God to flow out to humanity by forgiving all those who repent and return in confidence to Him, enabling Him to be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”[133]

William Booth said, “You will sometimes hear people talk about the finished work of Christ. What is meant by it?… That Christ, when He died on the Cross, put Himself in the place of the sinner and bore the exact amount of punishment which he deserved, thus actually paying the debt that the sinner owed to Divine justice. And that if the sinner will only believe this, he is for ever free from the claims of the law, and can never be brought into condemnation either here or hereafter…Is this so?… We think not…. If it were so, if Christ did literally pay the sinner’s debt, in this sense, God cannot justly demand payment twice and consequently no one will be sent to Hell, and all will be saved… If a debt is paid, it is paid, and the sinner’s unbelief does not in any way affect the fact. If I owe a woman £5, and some one pays it for me, my creditors cannot sue me for the sum. I am all right, seeing the debt is paid, whether I believe it or no… Any one can see that if all the sinner’s debt has been paid, all the sin of unbelief must have been paid also, otherwise how can his past unbelief be forgiven, and if all his unbelief has been atoned or paid for, how can he be sent to hell for that, any more than any other sin?”[134]

William Booth said, “Now, God’s heart yearned over man in his transgression, prompting Him to desire man’s deliverance from the consequences of that transgression. How was this deliverance to be effected? Something must be done which would make a similar impression upon the mind of man as to the importance of keeping the Law and the evil of breaking it as the infliction of the penalty due would have done; and which would at the same time awaken in him a sense of the shame and guilt of his transgression, and a desire to cease from his disobedience. This was done by the life and death of Jesus Christ, so that now every sinner who will, on God’s terms, accept the deliverance provided for him, may go free. ”[135]

William Booth said, “The Atonement was not necessary to create compassion in the bosom of God for sin stricken man; it was the compassion of God that generated the Atonement.  The Sacrifice on the Cross was not offered to appease the angry wrath of the Father; it was in the compassionate bosom of the Father that the sacrifice of the Cross was born. Christ’s sacrifice was devised to maintain the dignity of the Law man had broken, and at the same time to rescue man from the penalty he had incurred.  So far, therefore, from the Atonement being a reflection on the justice and benevolence of God, it is perhaps the greatest evidence we possess both of His unswerving justice and of His boundless love.”[136]

Catherine Booth said, “The Christ of God offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of man. The Divine law had been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore its penalty must be endured by the transgressor, or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as rendered it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.”[137]

Catherine Booth said, “His sacrifice is never represented in the Bible as having purchased or begotten the love of the Father, but only as having opened up a channel through which the love could flow out to His rebellious and prodigal children. The doctrine of the New Testament on this point is not that ‘God so hated the world that His own Son was compelled to die in order to appease His vengeance,’ as we fear has been too often represented, but that ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.”[138]

A. W. Tozer said, “Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual.”[139]

A. W. Tozer said, “If atonement was made for all men, why are not all saved? The answer is that before redemption becomes effective toward the individual man there is an act which that man must do. That act is not one of merit, but of condition.”[140]

Adam Clarke said, “a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.”[141]

Will Tony Miano and CARM be so bold and consistent as to declare that Arminianism, Methodism, Wesleyanism, and the Salvation Army is heretical for denying their Calvinistic doctrine of a limited and penal atonement? Will they be consistent and label John Wesley, William Booth, A. W. Tozer, and Adam Clarke as heretics?

               New School Calvinists who denied the Penal Substitution view of the atonement:

New England Theology was a theological reformation within Calvinism. It was also called New Haven Theology, New School Theology, New Divinity, New School Calvinism, New School Presbyterianism, etc. It rejected the theory of a limited and penal atonement, and held to a general governmental atonement.

Albert Barnes said, “Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy.”[142]

Albert Barnes said, “His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured. There are some things in the penalty of the Law, which the Lord Jesus did not endure, and which a substitute or a vicarious victim could not endure. Remorse of conscience is a part of the inflicted penalty of the Law, and will be a vital part of the sufferings of the sinner in hell – but the Lord Jesus did not endure that. Eternity of sufferings is an essential part of the penalty of the Law – but the Lord Jesus did not suffer forever. Thus, there are numerous sorrows connected with the consciousness of personal guilt, which the Lord Jesus did not and cannot endure.”[143]

Albert Barnes said, “When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.”[144]

Charles Finney said, “The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.”[145]

Charles Finney said, “That if, as their substitute, Christ suffered for them the full amount deserved by them, then justice has no claim upon them, since their debt is fully paid by the surety, and of course the principal is, in justice, discharged. And since it is undeniable that the atonement was made for the whole posterity of Adam, it must follow that the salvation of all men is secured upon the ground of ‘exact justice.”[146]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. Said, “God could not have been just in justifying the believer, had not Christ been made a propitiation…If his death were not necessary, he died in vain…if it had been possible that the designs of God in the salvation of sinners should be accomplished without the death of Christ, Christ’s prayer, in this instance, would have been answered, and he would have been exempted from death. And since he was not exempted, we have clear evidence that his death was a matter of absolute necessity…Why is an atonement necessary in order to pardon the sinner? I answer, it is necessary on the same ground, and for the same reasons, as punishment would have been necessary, if there had been no atonement made. The ground of both is the same. The question then comes to this: Why would it have been necessary, if no atonement had been made, that punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of the divine law? This, I suppose, would have been necessary, to maintain the authority of the divine law. If that be not maintained, but the law fall into contempt, the contempt will fall equally on the legislator himself; his authority will be despised and his government weakened. And as the contempt shall increase, which may be expected to increase, in proportion to the neglect of executing the law, the divine government will approach nearer and nearer dissolution, till at length it will be totally annihilated.”[147]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon. In any such case, God can be just and yet the justifier of the sinner.”[148]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “The very idea of atonement is something done, which, to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse…a less degree or duration of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner.”[149]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “Retributive justice, therefore, is not at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But the general justice to the Deity and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which supports the authority of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory of God, and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner.”[150]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If a third person pay a debt, there would be no grace exercised by the creditor in the discharging of the debtor; yet when a third person atones for a crime, by suffering in the stead of a criminal, there is entire grace in the discharge of the criminal, and retributive justice still allows him to be punished in his own person.”[151]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If our forgiveness be purchased, and the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt, and not of grace.”[152]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If the atonement of Christ be considered as the payment of a debt, the release of the sinner seems not to be an act of grace, although the payment be made by Christ, and not by the sinner personally. Suppose any one of you, my auditors, owes a certain sum; he goes and pays the full sum himself personally. Doubtless all will agree, that the creditor, in this case, when he gives up the obligation, performs a mere act of justice, in which there is no grace at all….this…places the whole grace of the gospel in providing the Savior, not in the pardon of sin.”[153]

Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If Christ have, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt which we owed to God, whether by a delegation from us or not; there can be no more grace in our discharge, than if we had paid it ourselves. But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us…Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…Grace is ever so opposed to justice, that they mutually limit each other. Wherever grace begins, justice ends; and wherever justice begins, grace ends.”[154]

Caleb Burge said, “that as to the release of the debtor, it makes no difference who pays the debt. Whoever may make the payment, if the debt is paid, it can never be forgiven. If a creditor has received payment of his demand, he is under obligation to discharge his debtor, whether he paid the debt himself or some other person paid it for him. This must be evident to every candid mind. No creditor can refuse to give up an obligation after it is fully paid, without the most manifest injustice. But an act of grace is what no being can be under obligation to him who receives it to perform. If a being is under obligation to another to perform an act in his favor, that act must be an act of justice, and not of grace. Hence there can be no grace in giving up a demand which is fully satisfied.”[155]

If there has been an agreement on the governmental atonement view, between Arminians and Calvinists, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy? And let it be known that a Reformed council and Calvinistic denomination declared Albert Barnes as orthodox for holding to the governmental theory of the atonement.

Will Tony Miano, CARM, or Matt Slick accuse their Calvinist brethren like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr. of being heretics for not holding to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement view, which Tony Miano claims is essential?

In fact, Matt Slick wrote an article on CARM called, “The error of the Moral Government view of the atonement”[156] where he terribly misrepresented and misunderstood this atonement view. He didn’t even quote from one single theologian who taught the Moral Government Atonement view, like Albert Barnes or Jonathon Edwards Jr., in order to state what the view actually teaches. This reflects a lack of scholarly and poor study on his part. In the conclusion of this article, which in my opinion was very poorly done, Matt Slick concludes that the Moral Government view of the atonement is “heretical.” While I would agree that his misrepresentation of the view is utterly false, if he is confident enough in his understanding of the doctrine to call is heretical, than he has just declared a vast majority of Arminianism and even some of his own Calvinist brethren like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr, as heretical! And they complain that Mark Cahill is divisive for calling Calvinism heresy??

According to Matt Slick and CARM, the governmental theory of atonement is “heretical” and that would make Arminians like Hugo Grotius, William and Catherine Booth, and John Miley heretics. But it would also make New School Calvinists like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr. heretics as well! Yet they claim that we should not divide over Calvinism vs. Arminianism, that Arminians should not call Calvinists heretics, and then they go and call Arminians heretics and even some of their own Calvinists heretical! What a contradiction!

CHURCH COUNCILS AGAINST PELAGIUS

On Tony Miano’s “Preacher’s Profile” he accuses myself, Kerrigan, and others of being heretical “Pelagian” open air preachers.[157] Calvinists have historically accused others of being “Pelagians” for teaching free will. John Wesley, John Fletcher, and Charles Finney have also been accused of being “Pelagians” by Calvinists. However, not everyone who believes in free will is necessary a Pelagian just because the Pelagians taught free will. All of the Early Church taught free will long before Pelagius was even born! The Pelagians also taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but that does not make every believer in the Trinity a “Pelagian.” Though Calvinists have accused me of being a “Pelagian,” I have never called myself one. There are things which the Pelagians taught that I agree with and things which they supposedly taught which I disagree with. I have never called myself anything other than a Christian, because I am a follower of Jesus Christ and His Word and not the traditions of any man. I do not follow Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, or Finney and certainly do not name myself after them, by calling myself an Augustinian, Pelagian, Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, or Finneyite. There are some things which all of these men taught which I can agree with, which I see from the Scriptures, but on other points I have Scriptural disagreements with them all. So while I have been called a “Pelagian” many times, I have always taken this as an accusation and a slander. Often in Calvinist circles, if you label someone a “Pelagian” this ends the debate. They do this when they can no longer refute or address your arguments.

In his article on CARM, Tony Miano said, “Pelagianism is a 5th Century heresy condemned by all church councils.”[158] I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. Tony Miano is not very reformed if he appeals to Rome, and he is not sola scriptura if he appeals to councils.

There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?

In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.

If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?

In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well. Tony Miano essential condemns his own theology by appealing to church councils and assuming their authority.

On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.

And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote. Clearly, neither the Arminian camp nor the Calvinist camp should appeal to church councils when debating theology, since each has had councils that has condemned their own theology.

There has not been a general consensus that Pelagius was really the heretic that he was accused of being, by his theological opponents. As we saw earlier, there was a councils and a Pope that declared Pelagius orthodox, and even John Wesley believed Pelagius to be a holy man that was being slandered by Augustine.

John Wesley said, “I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.’”[159]

John Wesley said, “Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man.”[160]

John Wesley said, “Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.”[161]

Besides, the same Catholic councils that condemned Pelagianism would also condemn anyone as a heretic who denies infant damnation, infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration. Does Tony Miano or Matt Slick deny any of these three? If so, the same councils that condemned Pelagius as a heretic would equally condemn Tony Miano and Matt Slick as heretics! By giving authority to these councils, they would be condemning themselves.

SINLESS PERFECTION

On Tony Miano’s “Preacher’s Profile” he accuses myself, Kerrigan, and others of being heretical street preachers.[162] Besides the doctrines already mentioned above, he adds to the list, “teaching of sinless perfectionism.”[163] In Tony Miano’s criticism of Mark Cahill, he criticizes Kerrigan Skelly saying, “Kerrigan Skelly, who ascribes to Sinless Perfectionism, the error that a Christian can stop sinning”. However, we have never used this term “Sinless Perfection” to express what we believe. Often the term “sinless perfection” refers to the teaching that it is impossible for a Christian to sin, or that a person claims that they have never sinned. Certainly, neither of those positions are biblical and therefore we never used the term “sinless perfection” because those ideas are associated with it.

A term that I have used is “Christian perfection” or the idea that a believer can have a loving and pure motive of heart. The scriptures teach that sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4), the law of God is love (Matt. 23:37; Mk. 12:30-31), and therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; Jas 2:8). Love is a perfect motive. There is no sin in love. Therefore, if a person loves God supremely and loves their neighbor equally, they have what the Bible calls a “perfect heart.” It is possible to have a perfect heart in this life, as the scriptures say that David was perfect in heart (1 Kings 15:3), and God Himself that Job was a perfect man (Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3). Jesus Christ came to make us holy (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 1:21; Jn. 1:29; Acts 3:26; Rom. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:15; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25-27; Col 1:21-23; Titus 2:11-12, 14; Heb. 9:26; 10:10; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 1:7; 3:5; 3:8; 4:19), so to deny that we can live free from sin is to undermine His precious work and make His cross of none effect. Grace itself teaches us and influences us to live a holy life free from sin “in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). We have the promise that we will never be tempted above what we are able to bear, so that we never have to sin (1 Cor. 10:13). The Scriptures tell us, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). This verse teaches that it is possible for Christians not to sin, and that it is possible for Christians to sin. That is what I teach regarding sinning and not sinning, that we are capable of obedience and capable of disobedience.

When I am preaching in the open air and a sinner asks me, “Well, don’t you sin?” My answer is always, “Not usually. Sin is not my lifestyle. Through Jesus I live a life of habitual obedience. If I sin, it is the exception and not the rule. That’s a result of the grace of God in my life. To my shame I have sinned in the past though I didn’t have to sin, and I am capable of sinning in the future, but I am not disobeying God right now. And my plan is to go the rest of my life without sinning. I have no plans to disobey God in the future.”

Many Calvinists, like Tony Miano’s friend Lane Chaplin, say things about themselves like, “Just a sinner saved by God’s grace.”[164] How insulting this must be to the grace of God, to teach that grace doesn’t change your life or transform your character! How insulting this must be to the grace of God, to reduce it to nothing more than a license to sin! This type of “grace” that keeps people as sinners is not biblical grace. Paul said, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2). “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.” (Tit. 2:11). We are to live holy by grace, not to remain sinful and be covered by grace. If we are saved by grace, we will stop sinning. If we haven’t been delivered from sin, we haven’t yet been “saved by grace.”

Instead of saying, “I’m a sinner saved by grace,” we ought to say, “I’m a saint that’s been changed by grace.” The Bible says that Christians are not sinners (Ps. 66:18; Jn. 9:31; Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 6:14; 1 Tim. 1:9; Jas. 5:16; 1 Pet. 3:12; 4:18; 1 Jn. 3:22) unless they backslide (Jas. 4:8; 5:19-20). In fact, the Bible calls Christians “Saints” (Acts 9:13; 9:32; 9:41; 26:10; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-16; 15:26; 15:31; 16:2; 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1-2; 14:33; 16:1; 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 9:12; 13:13; Eph. 1:1; 1:15; 1:18; 2:19; 3:8; 3:18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18; Php. 1:1; 4:22; Col. 1:2; 1:4; 1:12; 1:26; 1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:10; Phm. 1:5; 1:7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jud. 1:3; 1:14; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:7; 13:10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; 20:9). As saints, the Bible says that Christians are sanctified (Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 2:11; 10:10; 10:14; Gal. 5:24; Jud. 1:1).

God told Abraham to be perfect (Gen. 17:1), God commanded Israel to have a perfect heart (1 Kings 8:61; 2 Chron. 19:9); God said David had a perfect heart for a majority of his life (1 Kings 15:3); Hezekiah had a perfect heart before God (2 Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:3); Asa had a perfect heart all his days (2 Chron. 15:17); the prophets told Israel to turn from all their sins (Eze. 18;30), the parents of John the Baptist were righteous, blameless, and walked in all of the commandments (Lk. 1:6); Jesus told men to be perfect (Matt. 5:48), Jesus told men to stop sinning (Jn. 5:14; 8:11); the Apostle Paul told men to stop sinning (1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 4:26; 1 Pet. 1:15); and Paul had a conscience void of offence, or which was unaware of any sin in his life (Acts 23:1; 24;16); we are commanded to be blameless (1 Cor. 1:8; Php. 2;15; 1 Thes. 5:23; 1 Tim. 3:2, 10; 5:7; Tit. 1:6-7; 2 Pet. 3:14); etc. If it were not possible to choose to stop sinning, or to choose to be perfect, it would not be commanded of us all throughout the Scriptures. The Bible classifies true Christians as those who “keep His commandments” (1 Jn. 2:3; 1 Jn. 3:22), while false converts are those who do not (1 Jn. 2:4). The commandments of Christ are not impossible for us to keep (1 Jn. 5:3).

Charles Finney said, “…entire obedience to God’s law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this is to deny that man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Deut 6:5). Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification is nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability.”[165]

Leonard Ravenhill said, “I am not saying that it is impossible for us to sin. I am saying that it is possible for us not to sin.”[166]

Duncan Campbell said, “You will never get to the place in your life where it is impossible for you to sin. But thanks be to God that you are in a position where it is possible for you not to.”[167]

George Fox was an open air street preacher who founded the Quakers. He preached the possibility of living a holy and perfect life and said that the Calvinists in his day opposed him for it. George Fox said,“…the professors were in a rage, all pleading for sin and imperfection, and could not endure to hear talk of perfection, and of a holy and sinless life.”[168]

These Calvinists would use the Bible to justify their unholy lives, just like we see them doing today. George Fox said, “I bade them give over babbling about the Scriptures, which were holy men’s words, whilst they pleaded for unholiness.”[169]

Throughout Church history, many of that the possibility of not sinning. Certainly, the teaching of the Early Church Fathers explicitly taught that we are capable of obedience or disobedience. Men of God like John Wesley even wrote books called, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” The MoravianChurch taught that true Christians live holy lives, as the Apostle Paul said “free from sin” (Rom. 6:18, 22). William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army taught the possibility of being free from sin through Jesus Christ. Samuel Brengle of the Salvation Army wrote many books on their doctrine of holiness.

Will Tony Miano accuse the Early Church, John Wesley, the Methodist Church, the Moravian Church, William and Catherine Booth, Samuel Brengle, and the Salvation Army as heretical? Will they claim that Duncan Campbell, whom God used to hae a “sovereign and supernatural” revival in a Calvinist church, was a heretic? Whatever happened to Tony Miano’s desire to create unity within the body of believers and not to separate from other Christians? Why is he dividing himself from so many men of God and Christian groups?

Besides, as someone recently said about this issue, “If Tony believes we all have to sin everyday, then why attack Mark? Why not just write off any disagreement as one of Mark’s necessary sins for the day? Why blame Mark for what he is predestined to do, according to Calvinism?”[170]

OPEN THEISM

In an article about traveling street preachers, Tony Miano said that many “have moved or are moving away from biblical Christianity and are ascribing to heretical doctrines such as Pelagianism, Open Theism, and others. I believe when Christians make the move toward nomadism and begin the doctrinal slide from orthodoxy to heresy.” Again, we see how Tony Miano accuses Christians of being heretics. L. D. McCabe was an Arminian Methodist Professor, and he wrote two very important works on the open view of the future.[171]Open theism has found acceptance by many Arminians in the Arminian camp. That is because Open Theism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of free will. I personally know many Christian churches and Pastors across the country that hold to the essentials of the Christian faith, who believe from Scripture there is openness to the future.

The open view of the future teaches that there are alternative choices which we can make, or different options to choose from, relating to the course of the future. The future does not consist entirely in fixed certainties but has open possibilities. The future is partially settled because of predeterminations, but it is not eternally or exhaustively fixed.

The Scriptural support for the open view is extensive. For example, (Gen. 6:5-7; Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; 16:4; 18:19; 22;12; 32:10-14; Ex. 33:2; 16:4; 34:24; Num. 11:1-2; 14:12-20; 16:16:20-35; 23:19; Deut. 8:2; 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 13:3; 30:19; 32:36; Jos. 24:15; Judges 2:18; 2:20-22; 3:4; 1 Chron. 21:11-12; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; 32:31; 1 Sam. 15:10-11, 15:29, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Isa. 5:1-5; 63:10; Jer. 2:30; 3:6-7; 3:19-20; 4:28, 15:6, 18:1-10, 18:10, 20:16, 21:8; 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 12:13; 22:29-31; 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; 2:12-13; Ps. 145:13; Prov. 10:27; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14; Matt. 24:20, 22; 26:53; Mk. 13:18, 20; Acts 7:51; Php. 1:22-23.) This is just to name a few verses.

There is obviously more scriptural support for Open Theism than for the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination, so it is strange for anyone to reject the former but hold to the latter.

Nevertheless, Tony Miano accuses Arminians like L. D. McCabe of being heretics, when he said himself that we should not divide over Arminianism and Calvinism and that we should not call each other heretics. This just goes to show more hypocrisy on his part and a clear double standard.

TONY MIANO IS DIVISIVE AND IS HURTING THE BODY OF CHRIST

When Tony Miano was the director of The Ambassadors Academy, the training program for Way of the Master, he specifically outlined in the training application that if you believed in moral government theology, open theism, or Christian perfection, then you were not welcome to participate – you are excluded from fellowship.[172] He associated these beliefs with “Oneness Pentecostals” and “Jehovah witnesses.” By that divisive and exclusive standard, men of God like John Wesley, Charles Finney, William and Catherine Booth, Duncan Campbell, A. W. Tozer, Paris Reidhead, Winkie Pratney, and Leonard Ravenhill could not participate. These Christians believed in moral government doctrines like repentance, holiness, conditional security, free will, governmental and unlimited atonement, etc. This just goes to show just how divisive a Calvinist like Tony Miano is. I thought it was strange for this to be in an application for a Way of the Master training program, since Ray Comfort himself is personal friends with Winkie Pratney and even had Leonard Ravenhill endorse his book, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret.”

It appears Tony Miano is guilty of exactly what he accuses Mark Cahill of. Tony complained that Mark, “Shows a lack of love for his Christian brethren by breaking fellowship with Calvinists and refuses to call them brothers or sisters in Christ.” Tony Miano is upset that Mark Cahill will not call Calvinists Christians, yet at the same time Tony says that Cahill might be a false convert! Tony wrote, “Is Cahill a false convert? We do not know.”[173] He then references 1 John 3:15 in reference to Cahill, accusing him of being a hateful murderer that does not have eternal life! The original title of Tony’s article was, “Why I Fear For Mark Cahill’s Soul.”

Tony Miano said that Mark Cahill should not call Calvinists heretics, when Tony’s own charge of heresy against Christians for not believing certain doctrines in effect charges certain Calvinists with heresy. So Tony Miano himself, essentially, calls certain Calvinists heretics! Tony Miano said that Calvinists and Arminians agree on the essentials and should be able to fellowship and not call each other heretics, but then Tony quotes in agreement with Spurgeon who called Arminians heretics, and Tony says certain doctrines are essential and heretical to deny, which Arminians have not believed in. This just goes to show that Tony Miano has not fully thought out what he says and is confused.

In conclusion, it is apparent that it is Tony Miano and not Mark Cahill who is creating controversy, being divisive, and treats Christians in an unbiblical fashion. It is Tony Miano, not Mark Cahill, who is taking his own personal doctrine and trying to turn non-essentials into essentials, and calling Christians heretics for non-essentials. Tony Miano is simply being treated by Mark Cahill the same way that Tony Miano has treated other Christians. Miano has labeled many Christians as “heretics” for believing doctrines that he disagrees with, and he has divided and separated from them. Mark Cahill has simply done the same to Tony Miano. Tony is simply receiving what he has been giving – reaping what he’s been sowing.

Let’s all pray for Tony Miano.

               (And for the record, since Calvinism teaches that everything is eternally decreed by God and man cannot, therefore, act differently than he does, everything in this article was predestined before the foundations of the world and I had no free will in writing it. Therefore, do not get upset with me for what I have written. It was the Sovereign and irresistible will of God that it be so.)

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Free Masonry by Charles Finney

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

THE CHARACTER, CLAIMS AND PRACTICAL WORKINGS OF FREEMASONRY

1869

By Rev. C. G. FINNEY

Late President of Oberlin College, Ohio

 

Author’s Preface
Chapter 1: Intro
Chapter 2: Scrap of History
Chapter 3: How Known
Chapter 4: Credibility of the Books Revealing Freemasonry Chapter 5: Examination of the Books Revealing Freemasonry
Chapter 6: Masters Degree
Chapter 7: Royal Arch Degree
Chapter 8: Sworn to Persecute
Chapter 9: Awful Profanity of Masonic Oaths
Chapter 10: Perverse and Profane Use of The Holy Bible Chapter 11: Freemasonry Imposes on the Ignorant
Chapter 12: Masonry Susceptible of Change Only By Additions
Chapter 13: The Claim of Freemasonry To Great Antiquity Is False
Chapter 14: The Boasted Benevolence Of Masons A Sham Chapter 15: Freemasonry is a False Religion
Chapter 16: The Argument That Great and Good Men Have Been and Are Freemasons, Examined
Chapter 17: Masonic Oaths Are Unlawful and Void Chapter 18: Why Freemasons Resort To Threats and Refuse To Discuss Their Principles
Chapter 19: Relations of Masonry to The Church of Christ Chapter 20: Conclusion

PREFACE

IN few words I wish to state what are not and what are my reasons for writing this book.

1. It is not that I have any quarrel or controversy with any member of the Masonic Order. No one of them can justly accuse me of any personal ill-will or unkindness.

2. It is not because I am fond of controversy–I am not. Although I have been compelled to engage in much discussion, still I have always dreaded and endeavored to avoid the spirit and even the form of controversy.

3. It is not because I disregard the sensibility of Freemasons upon the question of their pet institution, and am quite willing to arouse their enmity by exposing it. I value the good opinion and good wishes of Freemasons as I do those of other men, and have no disposition to capriciously or wantonly assail what they regard with so much favor.

4. It is not because I am willing, if I can dutifully avoid it, to render any member of the Fraternity odious. But my reasons are:

1. I wish, if possible, to arrest the spread of this great evil, by giving the public, at least, so much information upon this subject as to induce them to examine and understand the true character and tendency of the institution.

2. I wish, if possible, to arouse the young men who are Freemasons, to consider the inevitable consequences of such a horrible trifling with the most solemn oaths, as is constantly practiced by Freemasons. Such a course must, and does, as a matter of fact, grieve the Holy Spirit, sear the conscience, and harden the heart.

3. I wish to induce the young men who are not Freemasons “to look before they leap,” and not be deceived and committed, as thousands have been, before they were at all aware of the true nature of the institution of Freemasonry.

4. I, with the many, have been remiss in suffering a new generation to grow up in ignorance of the character of Freemasonry, as it was fully revealed to us who are now old. We have greatly erred in not preserving and handing down to the rising generation the literature upon this subject, with which we were made familiar forty years ago. For one, I must not continue this remissness.

5. Because I know that nothing but correct information is wanting to banish this institution from wholesome society. This has been abundantly proven. As soon as Freemasons saw that their secrets were made public, they abandoned their lodges for very shame. With such oaths upon their souls, they could not face the frown of an indignant public, already aware of their true position.

6. Freemasons exhort each other to maintain a dignified silence and are exhorted not to enter into controversy with opposers of Freemasonry. The reasons are obvious to those who are informed. We know why they are silent if they are so, and why they will not enter the field of controversy and attempt to justify their institution. Let anyone examine the question and he will see why they make no attempt to justify Freemasonry as it is revealed in the books from which I have quoted. I greatly desire to have the public, and especially the church of Christ, understand what Freemasonry is. Then let them act as duty requires.

7. Should I be asked why I have not spoken out upon this subject before, I reply that until the question was sprung upon us in this place a year ago, I was not at all aware that Freemasonry had been disinterred and was alive, and stalking abroad over the face of the whole land.

8. This book contains the numbers published in the Independent last year. These are revised, enlarged and rearranged. To these are added eight numbers not heretofore published.

9. I have said in the body of the work, and say also in this preface, that I have no pecuniary intent in the sale of this work. I have not written for money, nor for fame. I shall get neither for my pains. I desire only to do good. C.G. FINNEY.

INTRODUCTION

IT is high time that the Church of Christ was awake to the character and tendency of Freemasonry.

Forty years ago, we supposed that it was dead, and had no idea that it could ever revive. But, strange to tell, while we were busy in getting rid of slavery, Freemasonry has revived, and extended its bounds most alarmingly.

I propose to write a series of articles, giving my views of the character and tendency of the institution.

I know something about it, for I have been a Freemason myself. Soon after I was twenty- one years of age, and while in Connecticut at school, an old uncle of mine persuaded me to join the Freemasons, representing that, as I was from home and much among strangers, it would be of service to me, because if a Freemason I should find friends everywhere. The lodge in that place was but a Master’s lodge. I therefore took three degrees, or as far as what they call “the sublime degree of Master Mason.” When I returned to the State of New York, to enter upon the study of law, I found at Adams, where I resided, a Masonic lodge, and united with them. I soon became secretary of the lodge, and met regularly with the lodge. When I took especially the Master’s degree I was struck with one part of the obligation, or oath, as not being sound either in a political or moral point of view.

However, I had been brought up with very few religious privileges, and had but slight knowledge on moral subjects; and I was not, therefore, greatly shocked, at the time, with the immorality of anything through which I passed. The lodge where I took my degrees was composed, I believe, mostly of professed Christians. But when I came to join the lodge at Adams I found that the Master of the lodge was a deist. At this distance of time I can not be certain whether the deist to whom I refer, Eliphalet Edmunds, was Master of the lodge when I first joined. My best recollection is that Captain Goodell was Master when I first joined the lodge at Adams, and that Judge Edmunds was Master at the time of my conversion to Christ. I am certain that deism was no objection to any man becoming a member or a master of the lodge. There were in that lodge some as thoroughly irreligious men as I have ever associated with anywhere, and men with whom I never would have associated had they not been Freemasons. I do not recollect that any Christian men belonged to that lodge at the time I joined it. There were some very profane men who belonged to it, and some men of very intemperate habits.

As I paid the strictest attention to what they called their lectures and teachings, I became what they call “a bright Mason;” that is, as far as I went, I committed to memory their oral teachings–for they had no other.

The oaths, or obligations, were familiar to me, as was everything else that belonged to those three degrees that I had taken.

I had belonged to the lodge in Adams nearly four years when I was converted to Christ. During the struggle of conviction of sin through which I passed I do not recollect that the question of Freemasonry ever occurred to my mind. The season that I called properly my conviction of sin was short. My exercises were pungent, and I very soon obtained hope in Christ.

Soon after my conversion the evening came for attendance upon the lodge. I went. They, of course, were aware that I had become a Christian, and the Master of the lodge called on me to open the lodge with prayer. I did so, and poured out my heart to the Lord for blessing upon the lodge. I observed that it created a considerable excitement. The evening passed away, and at the close of the lodge I was requested to pray again. I did so, and retired, but much depressed in spirit. I soon found that I was completely converted from Freemasonry to Christ, and that I could have no fellowship with any of the proceedings of the lodge, Its oaths appeared to me to be monstrously profane and barbarous.

At that time I did not know how much I had been imposed upon by many of the pretensions of Masonry. But upon reflection and examination, and after a severe struggle and earnest prayer, I found that I could not consistently remain with them. My new life instinctively and irresistibly recoiled from any fellowship with what I then regarded as “the unfruitful works of darkness.”

Without consulting any person, I finally went to the lodge and requested my discharge. After manifesting considerable reluctance they granted my request. My mind was made up. Withdraw from them I must; with their consent if I might, without their consent if I must. Of this I said nothing; but some way it came to be known that I had withdrawn from them. This created some little feeling amongst them. They, therefore, planned a Masonic celebration or festival. I do not recollect exactly what it was. But they sent a committee to me, requesting me to deliver an oration on the occasion. I quietly declined to do so; informing the committee that I could not conscientiously in anywise do what would manifest my approval of the institution, or sympathy with it. However, at that time, and for years afterward, I remained silent and said nothing against the institution; for I had not then so well considered the matter as to regard my Masonic oaths as utterly null and void. But from that time I never allowed myself to be recognized as a Freemason anywhere. This was a few years before the revelations of Freemasonry, by William Morgan, were published. When that book was published, I was asked if it were a true revelation of Freemasonry. I replied that it was, as far as I knew anything about it; and that, as nearly as I could recollect, it was a verbatim revelation of the first three degrees as I had myself taken them. I replied in this way because I saw, of course, that as the thing was published, and no longer a secret, I could not be under any obligation to keep it a secret, unless I could be under an obligation to lie, and to lie, perpetually, by denying that that which had been published was truly Freemasonry.

I knew that I could be under no obligations to be guilty of a perpetual falsehood, and that I really made no revelation of any secret when I frankly acknowledged that that which had been published was a true account of the institution, and a true expose of their oaths, principles, and proceedings.

Afterward I considered it more thoroughly, and was most perfectly convinced that I had no right to adhere to the institution, or to appear to do so; and that I was bound, whenever the occasion arose, to speak my mind freely in regard to it, and to renounce the horrid oaths that I had taken.

On reflection and examination I found that I had been grossly deceived and imposed upon. I had been led to suppose that there were some very important secrets to be communicated to me. But in this respect I found myself entirely disappointed.

Indeed, I came to the deliberate conclusion, and could not avoid doing so, that my oaths had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the institution was in no respect what I had been previously informed that it was.

And, as I have had the means of examining it more thoroughly, it has become more and more irresistibly plain to my convictions that the institution is highly dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ.

This I expect to show in detail should I be spared to finish the articles which I contemplate writing. But in my next it will be in place to inquire, How are the public to know what Freemasonry really is?

After this inquiry is settled, we shall be prepared to enter upon an examination of its claims, its principles, and its tendency.

CHAPTER II
SCRAP OF HISTORY

IN number I must remind readers of some facts that occurred about forty years ago; which, as matters of history, though then well-known to thousands, are probably now unknown to the great majority of our citizens. Elderly men and women, especially in the Northern States, will almost universally remember the murder of William Morgan by Freemasons, and many facts connected with that terrible tragedy. But, as much pains have been taken by Freemasons to rid the world of the books and pamphlets, and every vestige of writing relating to that subject, by far the larger number of young people seem to be entirely ignorant that such facts ever occurred. I will state them as briefly as possible.

About forty year ago, an estimable man by the name of William Morgan, then residing in Batavia, N.Y., being a Freemason, after much reflection, made up his mind that it was his duty to publish Freemasonry to the world. He regarded it as highly injurious to the cause of Christ, and as eminently dangerous to the government of our country, and I suppose was aware, as Masons generally were at that time, that nearly all the civil offices in the country were in the hands of Freemasons; and that the press was completely under their control, and almost altogether in their hands. Masons at that time boasted that all the civil offices in the country were in their hands. I believe that all the civil offices in the county where I resided while I belonged to them, were in their hands. I do not recollect a magistrate, or a constable, or sheriff in that county that was not at that time a Freemason.

A publisher by the name of Miller, also residing in Batavia, agreed to publish what Mr. Morgan would write. This, coming to be known to Freemasons, led them to conspire for his destruction. This, as we shall see, was only in accordance with their oaths. By their oaths they were bound to seek his destruction, and to execute upon him the penalty of those oaths.

They kidnapped Morgan and for a time concealed him in the magazine of the United States Fort–Fort Niagara, at the mouth of Niagara River, where it empties into Lake Ontario. They kept him there until they could arrange to dispatch him. In the meantime, the greatest efforts were made to discover his whereabouts, and what the Masons had done with him. Strong suspicions came finally to be entertained that he was confined in that fort; and the Masons, finding that those suspicions were abroad, hastened his death. Two or three have since, upon their death-bed, confessed their part in the transaction. They drowned him in the Niagara River. The account of the manner in which this was will be found in a book published by EIder Stearns, a Baptist elder. The book is entitled “Stearns on Masonry.” It contains the deathbed confession of one of the murderers of William Morgan. On page 311, of that work, you will find that confession. But as many of my readers have not access to that work, I take the liberty to quote it entire, as follows:

“CONFESSION.

“THE MURDER OF WILLIAM MORGAN, CONFESSED BY THE MAN WHO, WITH HIS OWN HANDS, PUSHED HIM OUT OF THE BOAT INTO NIAGARA RIVER!

“The following account of that tragical scene is taken from a pamphlet entitled, ‘Confession of the murder of William Morgan, as taken down by Dr. John L. Emery, of Racine County, Wisconsin, in the summer of 1848, and now (1849) first given to the public:’

“This ‘Confession’ was taken down as related by Henry L. Valance, who acknowledges himself to have been one of the three who were selected to make a final disposition of the ill-fated victim of masonic vengeance. This confession it seems was made to his physicians, and in view of his approaching dissolution, and published after his decease.

“After committing that horrid deed he was as might well be expected, an unhappy man, by day and by night. He was much like Cain–‘a fugitive and a vagabond.’ To use his own words, ‘Go where I would, or do what I would, it was impossible for me to throw off the consciousness of crime. If the mark of Cain was not upon me, the curse of the first murderer was–the blood-stain was upon my hands and could not be washed out.

‘He therefore commences his confession thus:–‘My last hour is approaching; and as the things of this world fade from my mental sight, I feel the necessity of making, as far as in my power lies, that atonement which every violator of the great law of right owes to his fellow men’ In this violation of law, he says, ‘I allude to the abduction and murder of the ill-fated William Morgan.’

“He proceeds with an interesting narrative of the proceedings of the fraternity in reference to Morgan, while he was incarcerated in the magazine of Fort Niagara. I have room for a few extracts only, showing the final disposition of their alleged criminal. Many consultations were held, ‘many plans proposed and discussed, and rejected.’ At length being driven to the necessity of doing something immediately for fear of being exposed, it was resolved in a council of eight, that he must die: must be consigned to a ‘confinement from which there is no possibility of escape–THE GRAVE.’ Three of their number were to be selected by ballot to execute the deed. ‘Eight pieces of paper were procured, five of which were to remain blank, while the letter D was written on the others. These pieces of paper were placed in a large box, from which each man was to draw one at the same moment. After drawing we were all to separate, without looking at the paper that each held in his hand. So soon as we had arrived at certain distances from

the place of rendezvous, the tickets were to be examined, and those who held blanks. were to return instantly to their homes; and those who should hold marked tickets were to proceed to the fort at midnight, and there put Morgan to death, in such a manner as should seem to themselves most fitting.’ Mr. Yalance was one of the three who drew the ballots on which was the signal letter. He returned to the fort, where he was joined by his two companions, who had drawn the death tickets. Arrangements were made immediately for executing the sentence passed upon their prisoner, which was to sink him in the river with weights; in hope, says Mr. Valance, ‘that he and our crime alike would thus be buried beneath the waves.’ His part was to proceed to the magazine where Morgan was confined, and announce to him his fate–theirs was to procure a boat and weights with which to sink him. Morgan, on being informed of their proceedings against him, demanded by what authority they had condemned him, and who were his judges. ‘He commenced wringing his hands, and talking of his wife and children, the recollections of whom, in that awful hour, terribly affected him. His wife, he said, was young and inexperienced, and his children were but infants; what would become of them were he cut off; and they even ignorant of his fate?’ What husband and father would not be ‘terribly affected’ under such circumstances–to be cut off from among the living in this inhuman manner?

“Mr. V.’s comrades returned. and informed him that they had procured the boat and weights, and that all things were in readiness on their part. Morgan was told that all his remonstrances were idle, that die he must, and that soon, even before the morning light. The feelings of the husband and father were still strong within him, and he continued to plead on behalf of his family. They gave him one half hour to prepare for his ‘inevitable fate.’ They retired from the magazine and left him. “How Morgan passed that time,’ says Mr. Valance, ‘I cannot tell, but everything was quiet as the tomb within.’ At the expiration of the allotted time, they entered the magazine, laid hold of their victim, ‘bound his hands behind him, and placed a gag in his mouth.’ They then led him forth to execution. ‘A short time,’ says this murderer, ‘brought us to the boat, and we all entered it–Morgan being placed in the bow with myself, along side of him. My comrades took the oars, and the boat was rapidly forced out into the river. The night was pitch dark, we could scarcely see a yard before us and therefore was the time admirably adapted to our hellish purpose.’ Having reached a proper distance from the shore, the oarsmen ceased their labors. The weights were all secured together by a strong cord, and another cord of equal strength, and of several yards in length, proceeded from that. ‘This cord,’ says Mr. V., ‘I took in my hand [did not that hand tremble ?] and fastened it around the body of Morgan, just above his hips, using all my skill to make it fast, so that it would hold. Then, in a whisper, I bade the unhappy man to stand up, and after a momentary hesitation he complied with my order. He stood close to the head of the boat, and there was just length enough of rope from his person to the weights to prevent any strain, while he was standing. I then requested one of my associates to assist me in lifting the weights from the bottom to the side of the boat, while the others steadied her from the stern. This was done, and, as Morgan was standing with his back toward me, I approached him, and gave him a strong push with both my hands, which were placed on the middle of his back. He fell forward, carrying the weights with him, and the waters closed over the mass. We remained quiet

for two or three minutes, when my companions, without saying a word, resumed their places, and rowed the boat to the place from which they had taken it.'”

They also kidnapped Mr. Miller, the publisher; but the citizens of Batavia, finding it out, pursued the kidnappers, and finally rescued him.

The courts of justice found themselves entirely unable to make any headway against the wide-spread conspiracy that was formed among Masons in respect to this matter.

These are matters of record. It was found that they could do nothing with the courts, with the sheriffs, with the witnesses, or with the jurors; and all their efforts were for a time entirely impotent Indeed, they never were able to prove the murder of Morgan, and bring it home to the individuals who perpetrated it.

But Mr. Morgan had published Freemasonry to the world. The greatest pains were taken by Masons to cover up the transaction, and as far as possible to deceive the public in regard to the fact that Mr. Morgan had published Masonry as it really is.

Masons themselves, as is affirmed by the very best authority, published two spurious editions of Morgan’s book, and circulated them as the true edition which Morgan had published. These editions were designed to deceive Masons who had never seen Morgan’s edition, and thus to enable them to say that it was not a true revelation of Masonry.

In consequence of the publication of Morgan’s book, and the revelations that were made in regard to the kidnapping and murdering of Mr. Morgan, great numbers of Masons were led to consider the subject more fully than they had done; and the conscientious among them almost universally renounced Masonry altogether. I believe that about two thousand lodges, as a consequence of these revelations, were suspended.

The ex-president of a Western college, who is himself a Freemason, has recently published some very important information on the subject though he justifies Masonry. He says that, out of a little more than fifty thousand Masons in the United States at that time, forty-five thousand turned their backs upon the lodge to enter the lodge no more. Conventions were called of Masons that were disposed to renounce it. One was held at Leroy, another at Philadelphia, and others at other places, I do not now remember where. The men composing these conventions made public confession of their relation to the institution, and publicly renounced it. At one of these large conventions they appointed a committee to superintend the publication of Masonry in all its degrees. This committee was composed of men of first-rate character, and men quite generally known to the public. Elder Bernard, a Baptist elder in good standing, was one of this committee; and he, with the assistance of his brethren who had been appointed to this work, obtained an accurate version of some forty eight degrees. He published also the proceedings of those conventions, and much concerning the efforts that were made by the courts to search the matter to the bottom, and also several speeches that were made by prominent men in the State of New York. This work was entitled “Light on Masonry.” In this work any person

who is disposed may get a very correct view of what Freemasonry really is. This and sundry other reliable works on Freemasonry may be had at Godrich’s, and Fitch & Fairchild’s bookstores, in Oberlin. In saying this, it is proper to add that I have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the sale of those or of any book on Freemasonry whatever, nor shall I have in the sale of this which I am now preparing for the press. Freemasons shall not with truth accuse me of self-interest in exposing their institution.

Before the publication of “Bernard’s Light on Masonry,” great pains were taken to secure the most accurate knowledge of the degrees published by the committee, as the reader of that work will see, if he reads the book through. An account of all these matters will be found in “Light on Masonry,” to which I have referred. In the Northern or non- slaveholding States Masonry was almost universally renounced at that time. But it was found that it had taken so deep a root that in all New England there was scarcely a newspaper in which the death of William Morgan, and the circumstances connected therewith, could be published. This was so generally true throughout all the North that newspapers had to be everywhere established for the purpose of making the disclosures that were necessary in regard to its true character and tendency. The same game is being played over again at the present day. The “Cynosure,” the new anti-masonic paper published at Chicago, is constantly intercepted on its way to subscribers. Four of its first six numbers failed to reach me, and now in December, 1868, I have received no number later than the sixth. The editor informs me that the numbers are constantly intercepted. The public will be forced to learn what a lawless and hideous institution Freemasonry is. But at present I refrain from saying more on this point.

It was found that Masonry so completely baffled the courts of law, and obstructed the course of justice, that it was forced into politics; and for a time the anti-masonic sentiment of the Northern States carried all before it. Almost all Masons became ashamed of it, felt themselves disgraced by having any connection with it, and publicly renounced it. If they did not publish any renunciation, they suspended their lodges, had no more to do with it, and did not pretend to deny that Masonry had been published.

Now these facts were so notorious, so universally known and confessed, that those of us who were acquainted with them at the time had no idea that Masonry would have the impudence ever again to claim any public respect. I should just as soon expect slavery to be re-established in this country, and become more popular than ever before–to take possession of the Government and of all the civil offices, and to grow bold, impudent, and defiant–as I should have expected that Masonry would achieve what it has. When the subject of Freemasonry was first forced upon our churches in Oberlin, for discussion and action, I can not express the astonishment, grief and indignation that I felt on hearing professed Christian Freemasons deny either expressly or by irresistible implication that Morgan and others had truly revealed the secrets of Freemasonry. But a few years ago such denial would have ruined the character of any intelligent man, not to say of a professed Christian.

But I must say, also, that Masonry itself has its literature. Many bombastic and spread- eagle books have been published in its favor. They never attempt to justify it as it is

revealed in “Light on Masonry,” nor reply by argument to the attacks that have been so successfully made upon it; neither have they pretended to reveal its secret. But they have eulogized it in a manner that is utterly nauseating to those that understand what it really is. But these books have been circulated among the young, and have no doubt led thousands and scores of thousands of young men into the Masonic ranks, who, but for these miserable productions, would never have thought of taking such a step.

CHAPTER III. HOW KNOWN.

WE are prepared in this number to take up the question, How are the public to know what Freemasonry really is? This we may answer.

1. Negatively. (1.) Masonry cannot be known from a perusal of the eulogistic books which adhering Masons have written. Of course they are under oath in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of Masonry. But it is their secrets that the public are concerned to know. Now their eulogistic books, as any one may know who will examine them, are silly, and for the most part little better than twaddle. If we read their orations and sermons that have been published in support of Masonry, and the books that they have written, we shall find much that is silly, much that is false, and a great deal more that is mere bombast and rho domontade. I do not say this rashly. Any person who will examine the subject for himself must admit that this language is strictly true. But I shall have occasion hereafter when we come to examine the character of the institution, to show more clearly the utter ignorance or dishonesty of the men who have eulogized it.

Let it be understood, then, that adhering Masons do not profess to publish their secrets. And that which the country and the church are particularly interested to understand they never publish–their oaths, for example; and, therefore, we cannot tell from what they write what they are under oath to do.

(2.) We cannot learn what Masonry is from the oral testimony of adhering Masons.

Let it be pondered well that every one of them is under oath to conceal and in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of the order. This Freemasons do not deny. Hence, if they are asked if the books in which Masonry has been published are true, they will either evade the question or else they will lie; and they are under oath to do so.

Observe, adhering Masons are the men who still acknowledge the binding obligation of their oaths. Now, if they are asked if those books truly reveal Masonry, they consider themselves under an obligation to deny it, if they say anything about it. And, as they are well aware that to refuse to say anything about it is a virtual acknowledgment that the books are true, and would therefore be an indirect revelation of Masonry; they will almost universally deny that the books are true. Some of them are ashamed to say anything more than that there is some truth and a great deal of falsehood in them.

(3.) As they are under oath to conceal the secrets of Masonry, and in no wise whatever to reveal any part of them, their testimony in regard to the truthfulness or untruthfulness of those books is of no value whatever. It is mere madness to receive the testimony of men who are under oath, and under the most horrid oaths that can be taken–oaths sustained by the most terrific penalties that can be named to conceal their secrets and to deny that they

have been published, and that those books contain them–I say it is downright madness to receive the testimony of such men, it matters not who they are. Masons have no right to expect an intelligent person to believe their denials that these books have truly revealed Masonry. Nor have they a right to complain if we reject their testimony. What would they have us do? Shall we believe the testimony of men who admit that they are under oath to conceal and never in any way reveal the secrets of their order, when they deny that their secrets are revealed in certain books, and shall we ignore the testimony of thousands who have conscientiously renounced those horrid oaths, at the hazard of their lives, and declared with one accord, and many of them under the sanction of judicial oaths lawfully administered, that Morgan, Bernard and others have truly revealed the secrets of Freemasonry? There are at this day thousands of most conscientious men who are ready to testify on oath that those books contain a substantially correct exposition of Freemasonry as it was and is. I say again that Freemasons have no right to expect us to believe their denials; for while they adhere to Masonry they are under oath to “conceal and never reveal” any part of its secrets and of course they must expressly or impliedly deny every revelation of its secrets that can be made. Would they have us stultify ourselves by receiving their testimony ?

2. Positively. How, then, are we to know what Masonry is? I answer: (1.) From the published and oral testimony of those who have taken the degrees; and afterward, from conscientious motives, have confessed their error, and have publicly renounced Masonry. But it has been said that these are perjured men, and therefore not at all to be believed. But let it be remarked that this very accusation is an admission that they have published the truth; for, unless they have published the secrets of Masonry truly, they have violated no Masonic oath. Therefore, when Masons accuse them of being perjured, the very objection which they make to the testimony of these witnesses is an acknowledgment on the part of Masons themselves that they have truly published their secrets.

But again. If to reveal the secrets of Masonry be perjury, it follows that to accuse the revealers of Masonry of perjury, is itself perjury; because by their accusation they tacitly admit that that which has been published is truly a revelation of Masonry, and therefore their accusation is a violation of their oath of secresy. Let it then be understood that the very objection to these witnesses, that they have committed perjury, is itself an acknowledgment that the witnesses are entirely credible, and have revealed Masonry as it is. And not only so–but in bringing forward the objection, they commit perjury themselves, if it be perjury to reveal their secrets, because, as I have said, in accusing the witnesses of perjury, they add their testimony to the fact that these witnesses have published Masonry as it is. So that by their own testimony, in bringing this charge of perjury, they themselves swell the number of witnesses to the truthfulness of these revelations.

(2.) Renouncing Masons are the best possible witnesses by whom to prove what Masonry really is. (a.) They are competent witnesses. They testify from their own personal knowledge of what it is. (5.) They are in the highest degree credible witnesses. First, because they testify against themselves. They confess their own wrong in having taken those terrible oaths, and in having had any part in sustaining the institution. Secondly,

their testimony is given with the certainty of incurring a most unrelenting persecution. Adhering Freemasons are under oath to persecute them, to destroy their characters, and to seek to bring them to condign punishment. This we shall see when we come to examine the books.

Adhering Masons have persecuted, and still persecute, those that reveal their secrets, just as far as they dare. They are in the highest degree intolerant., and this every Mason knows. In a recent number of their great Masonic organ, published in New York, they advise the Masons in Oberlin in no way to patronize those who oppose them. Those who renounce Masonry are well aware of their danger. But, notwithstanding, they are constrained by their consciences, by the fear and love of God, and by regard to the interests of their country, to renounce and expose it. Now, surely, witnesses that testify under such circumstances are entitled to credit; especially as they could have had no conceivable motive for deceiving the public. Their testimony was wrung from them by conscience. And the authors of the books that I have named, together with several others- -such as Richardson, Stearns, and Mr. Allyn, and I know not how many others–are sustained by the testimony of forty-five thousand who publicly renounced Masonry, out of a little more than fifty thousand that composed the whole number of Freemasons then in the United States. Now, it should be well remembered that the five thousand who still adhered belonged almost altogether to the slaveholding States, and had peculiar reasons for still adhering to the institution of Masonry. And, further, let it be distinctly observed that, as they adhered to Masonry, their testimony is null, because they still regarded themselves as under oath in no wise to reveal their secrets; consequently, they would, of course, deny that these books had truly revealed Masonry. I say again, it is mere madness to receive their testimony.

CHAPTER IV
CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOKS REVEALING FREEMASONRY

I FURTHER observe: (3) The credibility of these books in which Masonry is revealed is evident from the following considerations: (a.) The murder of Morgan by Freemasons was an emphatic acknowledgment that he had revealed their secrets. For, if he had not, he had not incurred the penalty of Masonic obligations. They murdered him because he had truly revealed their secrets; and they could have had no motive whatever for murdering him if he had not done so. (b.) The credibility of these books is further sustained by the fact that adhering Masons did then, and have always, justified the murder of Morgan as that which their oaths obliged them to do. They have said that he deserved and that he had taken upon him the obligation consenting to suffer the penalty if he violated it. In the two small volumes published by Elder Stearns, letters will be found from the most respectable and reliable Christian men, that fully sustain this statement, that the adhering fraternity, with very few exceptions, at that time, justified the murder of Morgan. In thus justifying that murder they, of course, admit that he violated his oath, and had truly published Freemasonry. I would quote these testimonies; but, as they can be read from the books themselves. I will not cumber these pages by copying them.

(c.) The credibility of these books is sustained by the express testimony of the seceding Mason, who, after hearing them read, ordered them printed.

(d.) The testimony of these books is further sustained by the report of a committee appointed at that time by the legislature of Rhode Island. That body appointed a committee, and gave them authority to arrest and examine Freemasons to ascertain whether the oaths published in these books were truly the oaths of Freemasons. This committee succeeded in bringing before them men that had taken the first ten degrees of Freemasonry. They put them on oath under the pains and penalties of perjury. In these circumstances they did not dare to deny it; but owned to the committee that they were the oaths taken by Freemasons. I said that they did not dare to deny it, because they were well aware that of seceding Masons hundreds and thousands might be obtained who would confront them and prove them guilty of perjury if they denied

I should have said that these Masons that were arrested, and that testified before this committee, were not seceding, but adhering, Masons. So that here for the first ten degrees of Freemasonry we have the admission on oath of adhering Masons that these books truly published their oaths. These facts may be learned from the records of the legislature, or from John Quincy Adams’ letters to Mr. Livingston, who was at the head of the Masonic institution in the State of New York at that time.

(e.) The credibility of these books is further sustained by the implied admission of the two thousand lodges that suspended because their secrets were revealed, and because they were ashamed any longer to be known as sustaining the institution. These lodges, as

I have before said, contained some forty-five thousand members. Now it should be particularly noted that, of all the seceding Masons in the United States, not one of them has ever, to my knowledge, denied that these books had truly revealed Masonry; while it is true that the five thousand who did not secede would never acknowledge that these books were credible. A worthy minister, who used to reside in this place, who has himself taken a great many degrees in Masonry, wrote to one of our citizens, a few months since, denouncing the institution in strong terms. He is a man who has traveled much among Freemasons for many years in various parts of the United States; and in that letter he affirmed that he had never known but one adhering Mason who would not deny, to those who did not know better, that those books had truly revealed Masonry. This is what might be expected.

(f.) The credibility of these books is further sustained by the published individual testimony of a great many men of unquestionable veracity–men standing high in the Christian ministry, and in church and state.

The books to which I have alluded contain very much of this kind of testimony.

But to all this testimony adhering Masons have objected. First, that the movement against Freemasonry was a political one. Answer: I have already said that by its having seized upon all the civil offices, and totally obstructing the course of justice, it was forced into politics by Masons themselves.

It was found that there was no other way than for the people to rise up and take the offices out of their hands by political action. At first there was no thought on the part of any one, so far as I could learn, that it would ever become a political question. But it was soon found that there was no other alternative.

But, again, it is said, Why should we receive the testimony of those men who have passed away, rather than the testimony of the living, thousands of whom now affirm that those books did not truly reveal Masonry ?

To this I answer that these men are every one of them sworn to lie about it–expressly, or virtually. Observe, they must conceal as well as never reveal these secrets; therefore, as refusing to deny would be regarded as a virtual admission, they are sworn to make an impression amounting, morally, to a denial. At a recent conference of ministers and delegates from churches, a report was read by a committee previously appointed for that purpose, representing the true character of Freemasonry. I was not present, but am informed, by unquestionable authority, that after the report was read, a minister who was a Freemason represented the report as setting up a “man of straw” thereby intending to make the impression that the report was not true. But it was replied that the report may have exhibited “a man of straw,” for such Freemasonry may be, but he was asked, is not the report true? To this question he refused to answer. Was this Christian honesty? At recess another minister, also a Freemason, in conversation spoke of the report as trash, but in being pressed with the question, “Is it not true?” he refused to answer. These cases illustrate their manner of disposing of this question. Many of them dare not expressly

deny the truthfulness of those revelations, but they will so express themselves as to amount to a denial. They have numerous methods of doing this. They intend to deceive; manifestly for selfish reasons, and are therefore guilty of lying, and so they will find it held at the solemn judgment. If they adhere to their oaths, they are sworn to deny that these books truly reveal Masonry; and, therefore, their testimony is not to be received at all. But thousands of the seceding masons still survive, and universally adhere to their testimony that those books did truly reveal Masonry.

But it is said that Masonry is reformed, and is not now what it was at that time.

Answer: First, this, then, is a virtual acknowledgment that at that time it was truly revealed. This is contradicting themselves.

As long as they can, they deny that these books truly reveal it. But when forty-five thousand witnesses are summoned, among whom are a great many of the most valuable citizens of the United States, insomuch that they can have no face to deny that Masonry was revealed, as it then was, then we are told, “Oh! it is reformed; it is not what it was.”

But, again if they have reformed, the burden of proof is upon them. It is for them to show whether they have reformed out of it those things that rendered it so odious in a moral point of view, and so dangerous in a political point of view, as those books revealed it to be.

Again, their authorities do not pretend that it has been reformed. Their most recently published books take exactly the opposite ground, claiming that it is one and identical with what it was in the beginning; and that it neither has been nor can be changed in any of its essential principles or usages. They expressly require of their candidates to conform to all the ancient principles and usages of the institution. In another number I shall endeavor to set this question of reform at rest. It were premature to do so before we have examined the books in which it is revealed

I might sustain these assertions by copious extracts from their works, if it would not too much encumber this article. Let those who wish to know, get their books, and read them for themselves. If anything can be established by human testimony, it is forever beyond a doubt that Mr. Morgan, EIder Bernard, Mr. Richardson, and others that published Masonry, have published it substantially as it was and is.

I have already said that their secrets are never written by themselves. All their secrets are communicated orally. They take a great deal of pains to secure entire uniformity in regard to every word and sentiment which they teach. Each State has its lecturers, who go from lodge to lodge to teach and secure a uniformity as nearly perfect as possible.

And then there is a United States lecturer, who goes from State to State, to see that the grand lodges are all consistent with each other.

In spite, however, of all this painstaking and expense, slight verbal differences will exist among them. But these differences are only in words. The ideas are retained; but in some few instances they are expressed by different words, as we shall see when we come to examine the books themselves.

The fact is, that the great mass of young men who have joined them have been grossly deceived. Having been imposed upon, as I was imposed upon, they have been made to believe that the institution is a very different matter from what it really is.

We shall see hereafter how this imposition could be practiced upon them, and how it has been practiced upon them.

I would not be understood as denouncing the individuals composing the whole fraternity; for I am perfect]y well persuaded that the great mass of young men who belong to the institution are laboring under a great delusion in regard to its real object, character, and tendency.

Lastly, it is inquired why we go to the enemies of Freemasonry for a knowledge of what it is, instead of getting our information from friends. “Why not,” they say, “allow us to speak for ourselves! We know what it is, and we can inform the public what it is; and why should you go to our enemies?” But what do Freemasons mean by asking such questions? Do they consider us idiots? Do they want to insult our intelligence by asking us why we don’t get their secrets from themselves? Of course, as they well know, we cannot learn what the secrets of Masonry are from its friends and adherents, because they are under oath to give us no information about them. We are, therefore, under the necessity, if we would know what it is, of taking the testimony of those who know what it is by having taken its degrees, and have, from conscientious motives, renounced the institution. If they are its enemies, it is only in the sense that they regard the institution as not only unworthy of patronage, but as so wicked in a moral point of view, and so dangerous in a political point of view, that they feel constrained to reveal its secrets, and publicly to renounce it. These are the only men from whom we can possibly get any information of what Freemasonry is. It is absurd for adhering Masons to ask us why we do not allow them to teach us what it is; for we know, and they know, that they can do no such thing without violating their oaths and these oaths they still acknowledge to be binding upon them. Under this head I take the liberty to subjoin–

1. The testimony of the Albany Evening Journal Extra, of October 27, 1831. This article, as its date demonstrates, was written at the time of the investigation of the Morgan murder, and refers to facts too notorious to be denied:

“Since the public attention in this quarter has been roused by recent events to the practical evils of Freemasonry, numerous inquiries are made for the means of information respecting the ridiculous ceremonies, the unlawful oaths, the dangerous obligations, and the blasphemous mockeries of this order. Although these have been from year to year, for the last five years, spread before the public, yet as our citizens here were indifferent to the subject, they avoided reading what was so profusely laid before them; and the

consequence is, that now, when they begin to feel and think on this momentous matter, they find themselves in want of that information necessary to enable them to understand it. It shall be my purpose to supply the deficiency to some extent, by pointing out the sources of full and extensive knowledge, and by presenting as briefly as possible, the prominent features in the character of Freemasonry. It has become a question of such engrossing interest, that every man should desire to be informed, and every citizen who is called upon to act in reference to it in his capacity as AN ELECTOR, is bound by the highest duties of patriotism to act understandingly.

“The first revelation of Masonry in this country was made by William Morgan. In 1826, he published a pamphlet, entitled ‘Illustrations in Masonry,’ in which the ceremonies of initiation and the obligations of the three first degrees were disclosed. For this publication he was kidnapped and forcibly carried away from a wife and two children, and was murdered by being drowned in the Niagara River. This was done by Freemasons. Thus he has sealed the truth of his revelations by sacrificing his own life, and the Freemasons established their accuracy incontrovertibly by the punishment they inflicted on him. For according to their own bloody code, he could not have incurred the penalty of death, if he had not revealed their secrets. In February, 1828, a convention of seceding Masons was held at LeRoy, in the County of Genesee, composed of some thirty or forty of the most respectable citizens. They published a declaration to the world under their signatures, in which they declared the revelations of William Morgan to be strictly true and perfectly accurate. Under the same responsibility they also published the oaths and obligations of the higher orders. In the course of the same year, EIder Bernard, a Baptist clergyman of good character, and who was a distinguished Mason, published a work, entitled ‘Light on Masonry,’ in which the ceremonies, oaths and mummeries of the order are given at full length. In 1829, on the trial of Elihu Mather, in Orleans County, the obligations of the three first degrees and of a Royal Arch Mason, were proved, at a Circuit Court held by Judge Gardiner, by the testimony of three seceding Masons and one adhering Mason. In obedience to a resolution of the Senate of New York, Judge Gardiner reported this evidence, and it was printed by order of the Senate. In 1830, on a trial in Rhode Island, the same obligations were proved in open court, and the trial was published at large in the newspapers. In 1831, on the trial of H.C. Witherell, at New Berlin, in Chenango County, the same obligations were proved by the oaths of three adhering Masons, among whom was General WeIch, the sheriff of the county. In the year 1830, Avery Allyn, a regular Knight Templar, published a book, called the ‘Ritual of Freemasonry’ in which the ceremonies of initiation, the lectures, oaths and mummeries of thirty-one degrees are fully exhibited. Thousands of Masons individually have, under their names in the public papers, declared these publications of Bernard and Allyn to be strictly accurate. These books may be found in our bookstores.”

2. I next subjoin a tract, made up of “The Petition to the Legislature of Connecticut,” against extra-judicial oaths, with an abstract of the evidence, and the report of the Committee to whom the subject was referred. Published in 1834:

To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, to be holden at Hartford, on the first Wednesday of May, A.D. 1833:

The Petitioners, inhabitants of said State, respectfully request the attention of your Honorable body to the expediency of some legal provision to prevent the administration of oaths in all cases not authorized by law. It may justly be required of the Petitioners, before a compliance can be expected with this request, that a case should be made out requiring such Legislative provision; and your Petitioners confidently trust that satisfactory grounds for this application will be found to exist in the oaths which are administered in Masonic Lodges.

The disclosures which have been recently made by the seceding Masons of the secret proceedings of those Lodges fully prove that the Institution of Freemasonry consists of numerous degrees which may be increased to an unlimited extent, and that an oath of an extraordinary character is administered at the entrance of every degree. Your Petitioners would not trespass upon the principles of decorum by an unnecessary recital of all these horrid imprecations, but justice to the cause they have espoused compels them to exhibit the following specimens, which are selected from the oaths administered in the different degrees: The Entered Apprentice Mason swears, “I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secrets, arts, and mysteries of Ancient Freemasonry which I have received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in;” “without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion of mind in me whatever, binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea.” The Master Mason swears, “I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens, given, handed, sent, or thrown to me from the hand of a brother Master Mason;” “a Master Mason’s secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election.” The Royal Arch Mason swears, “I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty; and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong.” “A Companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, without exception.” The following obligations are contained in the oath of the Holy Thrice Illustrious order of the Cross, Knights, or Kadosh, etc.: “I swear to put confidence unlimited in every illustrious brother of the Cross as a true and worthy follower of the blessed Jesus;” “I swear to look on his enemies as my enemies, his friends as my friends, and to stand forth to mete out tender kindness or vengeance accordingly.” “I solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will revenge the assassination of our worthy Master Hiram Abiff, not only on his murderers, but also on all who may betray the secrets of this degree.” “I swear to take revenge on the traitors of Masonry.”

It can not be necessary for your Petitioners to enter upon a formal argument in order to satisfy this enlightened Assembly that oaths like the foregoing ought not to be administered. The guarded and redundant language in which they are expressed, and the barbarous and abhorrent penalties annexed to them, were evidently designed to impose upon the mind of the candidate the necessity of entire and universal obedience to their requirements. They purport to be the injunctions of supreme power, and claim supremacy

over every obligation, human or divine. In this light they were regarded and acted upon by Masons of high standing and character who were concerned in the late Masonic murder committed in the State of New York, or connected with the trials which sprang from it, and in this construction these Masons were justified and upheld by the Grand Chapter and Grand Lodge of that State. Such obligations are obviously inconsistent with our allegiance to the States and the obedience which is required by our Maker, and with those fundamental principles which constitute the basis and the cement of civil and of religious communities. The Masonic oaths lead directly to the sacrifice of duties and the commission of crimes; they cherish a feeling of selfishness and of savage revenge, instead of the spirit of the Gospel, and are the ground-work of an insidious attempt to effect the entire overthrow of our holy religion.

It is for these reasons that your Petitioners respectfully request your Honors, by a suitable legal provision, to prohibit the administration of oaths not authorized by law; and they, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

The foregoing was the petition of about fourteen hundred citizens of the State of Connecticut, and was presented to the Legislature at their session in May, 1833. By the House of Representatives it was referred to a select committee, who, having given notice of the time and place of their meeting, entered into an investigation of the subject. The sittings of the committee were open to the public, and every person who wished to hear the proceedings could attend, if he chose. Three witnesses were presented by the Petitioners, viz.: Mr. Hanks, of New York, and Messrs. Welch and Hatch, of this State, by whom they expected to substantiate the facts as set forth in the petition. In giving his testimony, Mr. Hanks read the several oaths, etc., as published in Allyn’s Ritual, beginning with that of the Entered Apprentice, and pointing out, as he proceeded, any discrepancies or variations which he had practiced or known. He had taken, administered, or seen administered, the oaths, etc., in four different States of the Union viz.: New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio–had taken, himself, many degrees, and testified from personal knowledge. The testimony of Mr. Hanks was full, explicit, and particular of the first seven degrees of Masonry, and his statements were supported by those of Messrs. Welch and Hatch, as far as their experience extended.

Among the facts proved by the testimony were the following, viz.: that Freemasonry, with its oaths and penalties, is substantially the same everywhere–that the variations are slight, and, in most instances, merely verbal, and such as have resulted from unwritten or traditionary communication–that the oaths and penalties of the first seven degrees are revealed to the world and correctly published by Mr. Allyn in his Ritual, and by others– that they are so administered in the lodges, and are to be understood according to the plain, literal import of the terms in which they are expressed, and as they have been explained by seceding Masons generally–that the declaration of the Massachusetts and Connecticut adhering Masons can not be made, or signed understandingly, in consistence with truth–that in the Royal Arch oath the terms “murder and treason not excepted” are sometimes used; sometimes the expression “in all cases whatsoever,” or “in all cases without exception.” Some other verbal alterations were noticed, which need not be detailed here. It appeared, also, from the statements of the witnesses, that the proportion

of funds disposed of for charitable purposes is extremely small, while the lodges are scenes of extravagant mirth and bacchanalian revelry, and the admission, passing, and raising of candidates occasions of much indecent sport and ridiculous merriment, accompanied with mock murders, feigned discoveries, and profane and blasphemous ceremonies and representations.

From the evidence before them the committee came to the conclusions expressed in the following

REPORT.

To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Connecticut now in Session:

The committee to whom was referred the petition of Gaius Lyman and others beg leave respectfully to report that we have had the same under consideration, and inquired, by legal evidence, into the truth of the matters therein set forth, and are of the opinion that the same have been substantially proved, and are true. The committee, at the commencement of the investigation, adopted the rule, and made known the same to the petitioners, that we should attend to no evidence except such as, in our opinion, would be admissible in a court of law. The petitioners accordingly summoned before us sundry witnesses who, for aught we knew or could discover to the contrary, were men of respectability and intelligence, and upon their testimony, and upon that alone, have we come to our present result. It was proved by these witnesses that oaths similar in character (and some of them identical in phraseology) to those set forth in the petition had been, in their presence and within their hearing, repeatedly administered in this State. The committee believe the administration of such oaths to be highly improper, and that the same should be prohibited by legal enactment. Our reasons for this opinion are:

1. Because they are unauthorized by law.

2. Because they bind the person to whom they are administered to disregard and violate the law.

3. Because they are, in their natural tendency, subversive of public morals and blasphemous.

4. Because the penalties attached to the breach of them are such as are entirely unknown to our law, and are forbidden both by the Constitution of the United States and by the Constitution of this State.

First, then, these oaths are not authorized by law. In our code of statute law we have an act which points out the cases in which oaths shall or may be administered, and prescribes their several forms. In this act we find no such oaths. Indeed, we find, upon examination of this code, that although extrajudicial oaths are nowhere expressly prohibited, their unlawfulness is throughout clearly implied. And the implication is no less clear, that no persons, except those expressly authorized by law, may rightfully

administer oaths. The committee would barely refer to a number of those acts in which particular persons are, on particular occasions and for particular purposes, authorized to administer oaths. In the act relative to insolvency, the commissioners are expressly authorized to administer an oath to the insolvent debtor. In the act relative to surveyors, the surveyors are authorized to administer an oath to the chairmen. In the act relating to oaths, passed in 1822, Clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the Chairmen of Committees are, during the session of the Legislature, authorized to administer oaths. There are other acts of the same nature, to which it can not be necessary particularly to refer. The inference, as we think, plainly deducible from these acts, is, that all persons have not the right to administer oaths; and that those oaths only which the law prescribes may be lawfully administered. And we need only ask this Honorable Body whether the public sense of propriety would not be shocked at witnessing, in open daylight, the administration of an oath by a person not by law authorized, and in a case not by law provided for. For instance, suppose a clergy man, upon the admission of a member into his church, should require him to kneel down, place his hand upon the Bible, and then solemnly swear that he would observe all the rules and regulations of that church, upon no less penalty than to have his throat cut across, his tongue torn out by the roots, and his body buried in the rough sands of the sea; would not an involuntary shudder pervade the whole community at such a horrid exhibition; and would not our first impression be that this clergyman had violated the law, and that he ought forthwith to be prosecuted? And yet we may search our statute book in vain for any penal enactment that would reach this case. Again, suppose that any one of the charitable and benevolent societies of the present day should, on the admission of a member, compel him to swear by the ever-living God that he would obey all the laws of the society “upon no less penalty than to have his left breast torn open, his heart and vitals taken therefrom, thrown over his left shoulder, and carried into the valley of Jehoshaphat, there to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field and the vultures of the air.” And, moreover, suppose this oath to be administered by some one not by law authorized to administer any oath. We need scarcely ask whether an insulted community would not, under a sense that their laws had been wantonly trampled upon, call aloud, and with earnestness, upon the ministers of justice to punish such awful and disgusting profanity. And yet the ministers of justice could afford them no aid, inasmuch as the law has not, on this subject, clothed them with any authority.

Secondly. We object to the administration of oaths like those set forth in the petition, because they bind the person receiving them to disregard and violate the law. In one of the oaths, for instance, the person receiving it swears that he will assist a companion of a certain degree, so far as to extricate him from difficulty, whether he be right or wrong. He also swears that he will keep the secrets of a companion of a certain degree without exception, or as the witnesses testified they had heard it administered, “murder and treason not excepted.” Now, the committee believe it to be morally wrong, as well as inconsistent with our allegiance to the government under which we live, and a direct violation of the law, to keep secret the commission of any great and flagrant offense against the government. He who conceals treason is himself guilty of misprision of treason. He who conceals murder is himself (in some cases at least) a murderer.

Thirdly. We consider the administration of extra-judicial oaths, especially such as are set forth in said petition, improper, because in their tendency they are opposed to sound morals and are blasphemous. The obligation to assist another so far as to extricate him from difficulty, whether he be right or wrong and to conceal another’s secrets, even though those secrets should involve the highest and most enormous crimes, is most assuredly opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, and to the pure system of morality therein inculcated. And to call upon the great and awful name of Jehovah to give sanction to such obligations is, in our opinion, the height of blasphemy.

Fourthly. We believe such oaths to be improper, because the penalties attached to them are such as are unknown to our law, and are opposed both to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of this State. If the breach of those oaths constitute the crime of perjury, then, in our opinion, such breach should be punished as perjury in other cases is punished. By our law every person who shall commit perjury, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall suffer imprisonment in the Connecticut State Prison not less than two nor more than five years; and this is the extent of the pains and penalties which the humanity of our law will suffer to be inflicted upon him. But to the violation of the oaths above referred to is annexed a great variety of most cruel and inhuman punishments, such as are not known in the criminal codes of any civilized nation on the earth. Among them are the tearing out of the tongue, or splitting it from tip to roots–the cutting of the throat across from ear to ear–the tearing out of the heart and vitals, and exposing them to be destroyed by wild beasts and birds of prey, etc. These penalties we believe to be forbidden by the tenth article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the infliction of all cruel and unusual punishments; and by the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of this State, which declares that “No person shall be arrested, detained, or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.” For these and for various other reasons which must be obvious to the good sense of this Honorable Body, we are of the opinion that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted, and we would, therefore, recommend the passage of the accompanying Bill for a public Act. All of which is respectfully submitted. Signed per order,

THOMAS BACKUS, Chairman.

3. I introduce the published renunciation of Freemasonry by Jarvis F. Hanks, of New York, 1829, and of Calvin Hatch, published 1831. Also, the published renunciation of Henry Fish, Edwin Chapman, and Bliss Welch, 1830. These are found on the cover of the tract, and are only specimens of a multitude of similar renunciations published in various books and journals.

RENUNCIA TION.
“To the Editor of the Anti-Masonic Beacon:

“Sir: The time has come when I feel constrained, from a sense of duty to God, my neighbor, and myself, to make void my allegiance to the Masonic Institution. In thus taking leave of Freemasonry, I am not sensible of the least hostility to Masons; but act under a solemn conviction that Masonry is a wicked imposture, a refuge of lies, a substitute for the Gospel of Christ; that it is contrary to the laws of God and our country, and superior to either, in the estimation of its disciples; and lastly, that it is the most powerful and successful engine ever employed by the devil to destroy the souls of men.

“I was initiated into Masonry in 1821, and have taken eighteen degrees. My motives were curiosity and the expectation of personal advantage, while, at the same time, I was dishonest enough to profess that disinterested benevolence to my fellow-men was my object. I have been intrusted with the highest offices in the gift of a Lodge and Chapter, viz.: Worshipful Master and Most Excellent High Priest, which I acknowledge, at that time, I considered very flattering distinctions. I approved of the abduction of William Morgan as a just act of Masonry, and had I been called upon to assist, should, under the opinions I then held, have felt bound to attend the summons and obey it. I remained in favor of the Institution several months after the abduction of Morgan.

“I was convinced of the evil and folly of Masonry from an inquiry instituted in my own mind, which I was determined should be conducted privately, candidly, impartially, and, if possible, without prejudice. Under the scrutiny of the investigation I brought the Law of God contained in the Old and New Testaments, the laws of our country, the Masonic oaths (so many as I have taken) Masonic professions, and Masonic practice. I then resolved not to be influenced by the fear or favor of man, who can only ‘kill the body, and after that has no more that he can do, but by the fear of God, ‘who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell.’ (Luke iix.4,5.) I feel assured that any Mason, or any man, taking the same course, must arrive at the same conclusion. Yours, JARVIS F. HANKS.

“NEW YORK, February 13, 1829.”

CALVIN HATCH’S RENUNCIATION OF FREEMASONRY.

“To the Church of Christ in Farmington:

“BRETHREN: Impressed with a sense of duty, I would solicit your attention, while I make the following statement of facts: Soon after I arrived at the age of twenty-one years I was induced (principally from curiosity) to become a Freemason; and before I was twenty-two, I advanced to the third, and soon after to the fourth degree of the then hidden mysteries of that Institution, and remained a tolerably regular attendant upon its stated meetings, until February, 1819; since which I have never attended any of its meetings, though often requested.

“Hoodwinked to the principles of the Institution, I felt that, as a professed follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, it was not profitable to spend my time in the lodge-room.

“Another fact I wish to notice: that for three years I was accustomed to hear prayers offered at the lodge by a man who was considered an infidel; which, to my mind, was utterly revolting.

“Within about a year my attention has been particularly called to this subject. At first, I felt that the Institution could not be bad, except by being in the hands of bad men. I satisfied myself that my withdrawment from the lodge, while Masonry was in good repute, spoke a language which could not be misunderstood; and still, I confess I felt some veneration for the institution, on account of its beneficence in relieving its afflicted members.

“Early last spring I became satisfied that one of our citizens had fallen a sacrifice to Masonic vengeance; yet, whether the institution could be charged with it, was with me a question. I found that it was thus charged by those opposed to the institution, and I hastily and rashly resolved to read no more upon the subject, because I considered the charge unjust. In the course of the last summer I had many misgivings for this decision, which closed every avenue to information. Knowing that many of my Christian brethren were grieved that any professor of the religion of Christ should remain even a nominal member of a society, the principles of which they believed were anti-christian, and opposed to the best interests of our country.

“Feeling that some deference was due to their judgment, I, early in the fall, with prayerfulness, divesting myself of all prejudice, took up the subject for investigating the principles, and sought information through the press, and soon became satisfied that I had a duty to perform which I had long neglected; and in December last, without consulting anyone, came to the conclusion that nothing short of absolving myself from all connection with the Masonic Fraternity, and from all its obligations, would be answerable to my duty as a citizen and a member of the church of Christ. Since that time I have read the proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, disclosing facts before unknown to me, and am of the opinion that it is the bounden duty of every professor of religion who feels bound in the least by Masonic obligations to read the doings of that convention, with prayerfuless and without prejudice, before he decides upon the path of duty.

“I feel that some acknowledgments are due from me to those brethren who have been grieved by my dilatoriness upon a subject so plain and a duty so clear. And if I have thus offended any of my brethren, I pray them to forgive; and however great my sin has been, I trust I have forgiveness of my God.

“I can not dismiss the subject without beseeching my Christian brethren who remain as I have done, to examine and decide, as in the presence of God, without delay; for what we do must be done quickly. CALVIN HATCH.

“FARMINGTON, February 3, 1831.”

COPY OF MY RENUNCIATION SENT BY MAIL TO NEW MILFORD, FEBRUARY 3, 1831.

“To the Officers of St. Peter’s Lodge, New Milford, State of Connecticut:

“GENTLEMEN: For more than twenty years I have been a member of your lodge; and now, from a conviction that it is my duty as a citizen and a professed follower of our blessed Savior no longer to remain, even as I have been for the last twelve years, a nominal member of a society whose principles are opposed to the best interests of our country, and whose rites are, many of them, not only immoral, but a profanation of Scripture, and, consequently, opposed to the religion of the Gospel, I do, therefore, absolve myself from all its obligations whatever. CALVIN HATCH.

“FARMINGTON, December 25, 1830.”

RENUNCIA TION.

“Having been initiated some years since in the mysteries of Freemasonry, but without finding any of those advantages which were so bountifully promised by the Fraternity, and now being fully convinced that the Institution is corrupt to the very core, and used to promote ends tending to subvert our free institutions, we deem it our duty publicly to renounce all obligations to the ‘Craft,’ believing ourselves to be freed from its oaths, inasmuch as no man can bind himself to do anything contrary to the allegiance he owes to his country, or the duties he owes to his Maker.

“HENRY FISH, Salisbury, Master Mason. “EDWIN CHAPMAN, Windsor, M. Mason. “BLISS WELCH, Chatham, Royal Arch.

“Dated at HARTFORD, Feb. 4 1830.”

CHAPTER V
EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS REVEALING FREEMASONRY

HAVING established the fact that Bernard in his “light on Masonry,” William Morgan, Allyn, Richardson, and others, all of whom substantially agree, have truly revealed Freemasonry as it was at that time, I will now enter upon an examination of some of these books, assuming as I must, or abandon all idea that any thing can ever be proved by human testimony, that they contain a veritable revelation of Freemasonry.

After I have examined these books, and learned and shown what Freemasonry was at their date, I shall consider the question of its having undergone any material change since that date, and also whether it can be so changed as to be an innocent institution and still retain the distinguishing characteristics of Freemasonry.

That I may do no injustice to any one, I shall not hold Masons responsible for oaths and degrees which are above and beyond them and which they have not taken and of which they have no knowledge. The question of their moral and responsible relation to the institution, as a whole, will receive notice in another place. At present I shall hold Masons responsible for those oaths, principles, teachings and degrees of which they have knowledge.

In these numbers I need only to notice a few points in the oaths of Masons, and I recommend all persons to obtain the books in which their oaths, ceremonies, and secrets are fully revealed. The first of their oaths is that of an Entered Apprentice. These oaths are administered in the following manner: The candidate stands on his knees, with his hands on the Holy Bible. The Worshipful Master pronounces the oath in short sentences, and the candidate repeats after him. The oath of the Entered Apprentice is as follows: “I, A.B., of my own free will and accord, in presence of Almighty God and this worshipful lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, dedicated to God and held forth to the holy order of St. John, do hereby and hereon most sincerely promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secrets, arts, and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry, which I have received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in, to any person or persons in the known world, except it be a true and lawful brother Mason, or within the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such; and not unto him or unto them whom I shall hear so to be, but unto him and them only whom I shall find so to be after strict trial and due examination, or lawful information.

“Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not write, print, stamp, stain, hew, cut, carve, indent, paint, or engrave it on anything movable or immovable under the whole canopy of Heaven, whereby or whereon the least letter, figure, character, mark, stain, shadow, or resemblance may become legible or intelligible to myself or to any other person in the known world, whereby the secrets of Masonry may be unlawfully obtained

through my unworthiness. To all of which I do most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self-evasion of mind in me whatever; binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.”–Light on Masonry, 8th edition, page 27.

Upon this oath I remark:

1. That the administration and taking of it are in direct violation of both the law and gospel of God. Jesus prohibits the taking of oaths. Mat. V. 34. “But I say unto you swear not at all.” It is generally conceded that He intended only to forbid the taking of extra judicial oaths. That He did formally and positively forbid the taking, and of course the administering, of all oaths not regularly administered for judicial and governmental purposes, is, I believe, universally admitted. Here then we find that in the first step in Freemasonry the express command of Christ is set at nought.

2. The administration and taking of this oath is a taking of the name of God in vain and is therefore an awful profanity. Exod. xx: 7: “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.” Professing Christian Freemasons, do you hear and remember this, and are you aware that in taking or administering this oath you take the name of God in vain and that He will not hoId you guiltless? Do you also remember that whenever you are present aiding, abetting, and consenting to the administering, and taking of this or any other Masonic oath you are guilty of violating the express command of Christ above quoted, and also the express prohibition of the lawgiver at Sinai? And yet you can see nothing unchristian in Freemasonry.

3. This oath pledges the candidate to keep whatever secrets they may communicate to him. But, for aught he knows, it may be unlawful to keep them. This oath is a snare to his soul. It must be wicked to thus commit himself on oath. The spirit of God’s word forbids it.

4. The administrator of this oath had just assured the candidate that there was nothing in it inconsistent with his duty to God or to man. How is it, professed Christian, that you did not remember that you had no right to take an oath at all under such circumstances and for such reasons. Why did you not inquire of the Master by what authority he was about to administer an oath, and by what authority he expected and required you to take it? Why did you not ask him if God would hold him guiltless if he administered an oath in His name, and you guiltless if you took the oath. And when you have seen this or any other Masonic oath administered why have you not rebuked the violation of God’s law and left the lodge?

5. Why did the Master assure the candidate that there was nothing in the oath contrary to his obligations to God or man, and then instantly proceed to violate the laws of both God and man and to require of the candidate the same violation of law, human and divine?

6. The penalty for violating this oath is monstrous, barbarous, savage, and is utterly repugnant to all laws of morality, religion or decency. Binding myself “under no less a penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark, etc.” Now, has any man a right to incur such a penalty as this?

I say again” such a penalty is savage, barbarous, unchristian, inhuman, abominable. It should be here remarked that in this oath is really found the virus of all that follows in Freemasonry. The candidate is sworn to keep secret everything that is to revealed to him in Freemasonry of which as yet he knows absolutely nothing. This is frequently repeated in the obligations that follow.

It will be observed that the candidate says, “to all of which I do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self-evasion of mind in me, whatever.” Richardson, who published the Freemason’s Monitor in 1860, on the 4th page of his preface, says of Masonry: :The oaths and obligations were then undoubtedly binding (that is when Freemasonry was first established), not only for the protection of the members but for the preservation of the very imperfect arts and sciences of that period. To suppose these oaths mean anything now is simply absurd.” What! How is this compatible with what is said in this first oath of Masonry, and hence binding through every degree of Masonry. “ALL THIS, I MOST SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY PROMISE AND SWEAR, WITHOUT THE LEAST EQUIVOCATION, MENTAL RESERVATION, OR SELF-EVASION OF MIND IN ME WHATEVER.” And now we are told by one of the highest Masonic authorities, that, to suppose that Masonic oaths mean anything in these days, is simply absurd. THEN, SURELY THEY ARE BLASPHEMY.

CHAPTER VI MASTER’S DEGREE

PASS over the second degree of Masonry, the oath of which, in substance, is similar to that in the first, and in this number will consider the oath, or obligation of a Master Mason. I do not notice the ridiculous manner in which the candidate for the different degrees, is dressed and conducted into the lodge. The scenes through which they pass, are most humiliating and ridiculous, and cannot fail to be so regarded by all who will read the books in which they are described. I quote from the eighth edition of “Light on Masonry,” by EIder David Bernard, published by W.J. Shuey, Dayton, Ohio. The obligation of the Master’s degree will be found on the seventy-third and seventy-fourth pages of this work, and is as follows: “I, A.B., of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God, and this worshipful Lodge of Master Masons, erected to God, and dedicated to the holy order of St. John, do hereby and hereon, most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, in addition to my former obligations, that I will not give the degree of Master Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any one in the known world, except it be to a true and lawful brother or brethren Master Mason, or within the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such; and not unto him nor unto them whom I shall hear so to be, but unto him and them only whom I shall find so to be, after strict trial and due examination, or lawful information received. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not give the Master’s word which I shall hereafter receive neither in the lodge nor out of it, except it be on the five points of fellowship, and then not above my breath. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not give the grand hailing sign of distress, except I am in real distress, or for the benefit of the craft when at work; or should I ever see that sign given, or hear the word accompanying it and the person who gave it, appearing to be in distress, I will fly to his relief at the risk of my life, should there be a greater probability of saving his life than of losing my own. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not wrong this lodge, nor a brother of this degree, to the value of one cent, knowingly, myself, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating, passing, and raising a candidate at one communication, without a regular dispensation from the Grand Lodge for the same. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating, passing, or raising a candidate in a clandestine lodge, I knowing it to be such. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating of an old man in dotage, a young man in nonage, an atheist, irreligious libertine, idiot, madman, hermaphrodite, nor woman. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not speak evil of a brother Master Mason, neither behind his back, nor before his face, but will apprise him of all approaching danger if in my power. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will not violate the chastity of a Master Mason’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent it. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will support the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State of ——– , under which this lodge is held, and conform to all the by-laws, rules and regulations of this, or any other lodge, of which

I may at any time hereafter become a member. Furthermore, .do I promise and swear, that I will obey all regular signs, summons, or tokens, given, handed, sent, or thrown to me, from the hand of another brother Master Mason, or from the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such, provided it be within the length of my cable tow. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that a Master Mason’s secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will go on a Master Mason’s errand whenever required, even should I have to go barefoot and bareheaded, if within the length of my cable tow. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will always remember a brother Master Mason when on my knees, offering up my devotions to Almighty God. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will be aiding and assisting all poor, indigent Master Masons, their wives and orphans, wheresoever disposed around the globe, as far as in my power without injuring myself or family materially. Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that if any part of this solemn oath or obligation be omitted at this time that I will hold myself amenable thereto, whenever informed. To all which I do most solemnly promise and swear, with a fixed and steady purpose of mind in me, to keep and perform the same, binding myself under no less penalty than to have my body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the center and the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that there might not the least track or trace of remembrance remain among men and Masons of so vile and perjured a wretch as I should be, were I ever to prove willfully guilty of violating any part of this my solemn oath or obligation of a Master Mason. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.”

Upon this oath I remark:

1. The first sentence is both profane and false. The Master instructs the kneeling candidate with his hand on God’s Holy Word to affirm, and the candidate does affirm that the lodge in which he is kneeling is erected to God and dedicated to the holy order of St. John. Remember this is said in and of every Master Masons’ lodge. But is this true? No, indeed, it is mere mockery. The words are a mere profane form. Does not every Freemason know this?

2. This, and all the following oaths of Masonry, are administered and taken as additions to all the previous oaths which the candidate has taken. (See the oath.) All that is wicked and profane in the former oaths is indorsed and reaffirmed in this and in every succeeding oath. Thus Freemasons proceed to pile oath upon oath in a manner most shocking and revolting. And is this a Christian institution? Is this obedience to Him who has said “swear not at all?”

3. The grand hailing sign of distress mentioned in this oath, consists in raising both hands to heaven in the attitude of supplication. The words accompanying this sign are, “0 Lord, my God, is there no help for the widow’s son?” The candidate is told by the Master that this attitude was taken and these words were used by Solomon when he was informed of the murder of Hiram Abiff. Of this, “Light on Masonry” will give the reader full

information. This whole story of the murder of Hiram Abiff is a profane falsehood, as I shall more fully show in another place. Hiram Abiff was never murdered. Solomon never gave any such sign, or uttered any such words. The whole story is false; both the grand hailing sign of distress, and the accompanying words, are a profane mockery, and an insult to God. But what is the thing promised in this part of a Master Mason’s oath? Observe, the candidate swears. ‘should I ever see that sign given, or hear the word accompanying it, and the person who gave it, appearing to be in distress, I will fly to his relief at the risk of my life, should there be a greater probability of saving his life than of losing my own” Observe, it matters not what is the cause of the distress in which a Master Mason may be–if he has committed a crime, and is likely to be arrested, or has been arrested; if he is imprisoned, or likely to be imprisoned; if he is on trial in a court of justice and likely to be convicted, and a Master Mason is on the bench as a judge, or on the jury, or called as a witness; or is a Master Mason a sheriff and has the prisoner in custody; or is he a constable, having charge of the jury to whom the case is to be submitted; or is he a prosecuting attorney, appointed by the government to prosecute him for his crime, and secure his conviction–in any of these cases, the prisoner giving the grand hailing sign of distress, binds, by a most solemn oath, the judge, jurymen, sheriff, constable, witness, attorney, if a Master Mason, to seek to release him, at the hazard of his life. All who are acquainted with the practical results of this section of the Master’s oath, as they appeared in the investigations connected with the murder of William Morgan, are aware that Master Masons kept this oath inviolate, when efforts were made to convict the kidnappers and murderers, insomuch that it was found impossible to execute the laws. Cases are reported as having repeatedly occurred in the administration of justice, where this hailing sign of distress has prevailed to rescue the guilty from the hand of justice. In another part of this oath, you will observe, the candidate swears, that he will apprise a brother Master Mason of approaching danger, if within his power. This binds a Master Mason to give a criminal notice, if he understands that he is about to be arrested. If the sheriff has a writ for the arrest of a brother Master Mason, this oath lays him under an obligation not to arrest him, but to give him notice, that if he does not keep out of the way, he shall be obliged to arrest him. If the magistrate who issued the writ is a Master Mason, his oath obliges him to give the criminal Master Mason warning, so that he may evade the execution of the writ. Reader, get and read the Pamphlet Published by Judge Whitney, of Belvidere, Illinois. It can be had, I believe, at the bookstores in this town. This pamphlet will give you an account of the trial of Judge Whitney, who was Master of a lodge, before the Grand Lodge of Illinois. It will show you how completely this oath may prevail to obstruct the whole course of justice, and render the execution of the law impossible. If a Master Mason is suspected of a crime, and his case comes before a justice of the peace who is a Master Mason, or before a grand jury upon which there is a Master Mason, or before a court or petit jury in which are Master Masons, if they keep inviolate their oath, it is impossible to reach the execution of the law. Furthermore, if there be Master Masons in the community, who hear of the guilt and danger of a brother Master Mason, they are sworn to give him warning. It is no doubt for this reason, that Masons try to secure amongst themselves all the Officers connected with the administration of justice. At the time of the murder of Morgan, it was found that to such an extent were these offices in the hands of Freemasons that the courts were entirely impotent. I quote the following from “Stearns’ Letters on Freemasonry.” page 127: “In

speaking of the murder of William Morgan, of the justice of it, and of the impossibility of punishing his murderers, a justice of the peace in Middlebury, a sober, respectable man, and a Mason, said, ‘that a man had a right to pledge his life,’ and then observed: ‘What can you do? What can a rat do with a lion? Who are your judges? who are your sheriffs? and who will be your jurymen?'” It is perfectly plain that if Freemasons mean anything by this oath, as they have given frequent evidence that they do, this obligation must be an effectual bar to the administration of justice wherever Freemasons are numerous. No wonder, therefore, that dishonest men among them are very anxious greatly to multiply their numbers. In the days of William Morgan, they had so multiplied their numbers that it was found impossible, and in these days Freemasons have become so numerous, that in many places it will be found impossible to execute the criminal laws. Even in commercial transactions where Freemasons are parties to a suit, it will be found impossible to secure the ends of justice. Let not Freemasons complain of this assertion

4. You will observe that in this oath the candidate also swears, that “a Master Mason’s secrets, given to me in charge as such,” * * “shall remain as secure and inviolate in my breast as in his own, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own election.” Now, this section of the oath is very broad and may be understood to cover secrets of every description. But to put it beyond all doubt whether crimes are to be kept secret, murder and treason are excepted, showing that the oath has respect particularly to concealing the crimes of a Master Mason. He may commit Theft, Robbery, Arson, Adultery, Rape, or any crime whatever, Murder and Treason excepted, and however well the commission of these crimes may be known to a Master Mason, if a Master Mason has committed them, he is under oath to conceal them. Now, is this right? Is this consistent with duty, either to God or man? Must not this often prove a fatal bar to the detection of crime, and the administration of justice? Certainly it must, or Freemasons must very frequently violate their solemn oath. If Freemasons deny this, in the denial they maintain that Masons care nothing for their oaths. It is self-evident that this Master’s oath is either a conspiracy against the execution of law, or Master Masons care nothing for the solemnity of an oath. Gentlemen, take which horn of the dilemma you please! If these oaths are kept inviolate the course of justice must be effectually obstructed. If they are not kept, Master Masons are guilty of false swearing, and that continually. Which shall we believe to be true? Do Master Masons continually treat this solemn oath with contempt, or, do they respect their oaths, conceal the crimes of Master Masons, and fly to their rescue if they are detected and likely to be punished? Let not Master Masons, or any body else, exclaim: “Oh! these oaths are very innocent things! Crimes will be detected, criminals will be punished, for Masons care nothing for their oaths.” Indeed! And does this excuse them? It is only by being guilty of false swearing that they can fail to thoroughly obstruct the course of justice. They are certainly under the most solemn oath to do that, in case of crime committed by a Master Mason, which will effectually defeat the execution of law. Let it be then particularly observed, that in every community where there are Master Masons, they either compose a class of conspirators against the administration of criminal law, and the execution of justice; or, they are a class of false swearers who care nothing for the solemnity of an oath. Let this not be regarded as a light thing. It is a most serious and important matter, and that which I have stated is neither false nor extravagant. It is a literal and solemn truth. Let it be well pondered. There is the

oath; read it for yourself; mark its different points and promises, and you will see there is no escape from these conclusions.

5. The candidate in this oath swears, “I will not wrong this lodge, nor a brother of this degree to the value of one cent, knowingly myself, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent.” Now observe, he makes this promise “under no less penalty, than to have my body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the center, and scattered before the four winds of heaven, that there might not the least track or trace of remembrance remain among men or Masons of so vile or perjured a wretch as I should be, were I ever to prove willfully guilty of violating any part of this my solemn oath or obligation as Master Mason. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.” Now, observe, one part of this Master’s obligation is that which I have just quoted, that he will not wrong the lodge, nor a brother of this degree to the value of one cent. For doing this, he solemnly agrees to incur the awful penalty just above written. Is this just, as between man and man? Has any man a right to take such an oath under such penalties? Christian Freemason, can you see nothing wrong in this? Is not this profane, abominable, monstrous?

6. Observe, upon the same penalty, the candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating, passing, and raising a candidate at one communication without a regular dispensation from the Grand Lodge for the same.” Observe, then, to do this is so great a crime among Masons as to incur this awful penalty. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not be at the initiating of an old man in his dotage, a young man in his nonage, an atheist, irreligious libertine, idiot, madman, hermaphrodite, nor woman.” To do this, observe, is so great a crime among Masons as to incur the awful penalty attached to this oath. And this is Masonic benevolence! It professes to be a saving institution, and excludes the greater part of mankind from its benefits! The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not speak evil of a brother Master Mason, neither behind his back, nor before His face.” Now, observe again, to do this is to incur this awful penalty, for this is one part of the oath. But who does not know that Freemasons violate this part of the oath, as well as that which relates to wronging each other, almost continually? The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not violate the chastity of a Master Mason’s wife, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent.” But why not promise this in respect to all women? If this oath had included all women., it would have the appearance of justice and benevolence, but as it is, it is only an odious partiality, and does not imply even the semblance of virtue. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will support the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State of——–, under which this lodge is held, and conform to all the by-laws, rules, and regulations of this or any other lodge of which I may, at any time hereafter, become a member? Observe that to violate this part of the obligation is to incur the awful penalty attached to this oath. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens given, handed, sent, or thrown to me from the hand of a brother Master Mason, or from the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of such,

provided it be within the length of my cable tow.” This, indeed, puts a rope around the neck of every offending brother. He is under oath to answer any sign or summons given him from a brother Master Mason, or from a lodge. If he refuses or neglects to respond to the summons, he incurs the penalty, and is liable to have it executed upon him. The cable tow is literally a rope of several yards in length, but in a Master’s Iodge is understood to represent three miles. In the degrees of Knighthood the distance is reckoned to be forty miles. This is fearful, and the responding to such summonses has, doubtless, cost many a man his life, by placing him in the hands of an exasperated lodge. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will go on a Master Mason’s errand, whenever required, even should I have to go barefoot and bareheaded, if within the length of my cable tow.” Now, failure to do this incurs the awful penalty of this obligation. A Master Mason’s errand! What errand? From the words it would seem any errand, however trivial it may be; every errand, however frequently, a Master Mason might wish to send another on an errand. If it does not mean this, what does it mean? But whatever it means a failure incurs the whole penalty. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will always remember a brother Master Mason when on my knees offering up my devotions to Almighty God.” But do Masons do this? In secret, family, public, social prayer, do they do this? Professed Christian Mason, do you do it? If not, you are guilty of false swearing every time you omit it. What! on your knees offering up your devotions to Almighty God, and guilty, at that very moment, of violating a solemn oath, by neglecting to pray for Master Masons! Remember, to fail in this respect incurs the awful penalty attached to this obligation. Now comes that part of the obligation upon which they lay so much stress as proving Masonry to be a benevolent institution: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will be aiding and assisting all poor, indigent Master Masons, their wives and orphans, wherever disposed round the globe, as far as in my power, without injuring myself or family materially.” In another place I shall show that there is no benevolence whatever in doing this, as every candidate pays into the public treasury money to compose a fund for the supply of the wants of the families of indigent Freemasons, simply upon the principle of a mutual insurance company. At present I simply remark that a failure to do this incurs the whole terrible penalty of this obligation. The candidate concludes his promises by saying: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that if any part of this solemn oath and obligation be omitted at this time, I will hold myself amenable thereto, whenever informed.”

Some months since I received a letter from a Master Mason who was manifestly a conscientious man. He informed me that he had been reading my letters in the Independent, on Freemasonry–that his mind was so distressed, in view of his Masonic obligations and relations, that he was wholly unable to attend to business, and that he should become deranged, if he could not escape from these entanglements—-that he must and would renounce Freemasonry at all hazards. When he took the oath of the Master’s degree the clause pledging him to keep a Master Mason’s secrets, murder and treason excepted, was omitted, so that he was not aware of that clause until afterward. This clause, however, that I last quoted, bound him fast. No wonder that this conscientious man was frightened when he came to understand his true position. In administering this long oath to any conscientious man, any part of it that would shock a tender conscience may be omitted, and yet the candidate is pledged to hold himself amenable to that part or

those parts, that have been omitted, whenever informed of the same. This is a trap and a snare into which many a tender conscience has been betrayed. And is this an oath which a Christian man may take, or any other man, without sin? Can any man administer this oath, or take it, or be voluntarily present, aiding and abetting, and be guiltless of awful profanity and blasphemy? I have dwelt the longer upon this oath, because probably two- thirds of the Masons in the United States have gone no further than this degree. Now, is it not perfectly plain that a man who has taken this oath ought not to be intrusted with the office of a magistrate, a sheriff, marshal or constable? That he is not to be credited as a witness where a Master Mason is a party? That he ought not to be allowed a place on a jury where a Master Mason is a party? And, in short, that he can not safely be intrusted with any office of honor or profit, either in Church or State? Is it not plain that a Master’s Lodge, in any community, is a dangerous institution, and that the whole country is interested in the utter suppression of such an institution?

Let not this opinion be regarded as too severe. The fact is that Freemasons intend to fulfill their vows, or they do not. If Master Masons intend to do what they swear to do, is it right to intrust them with the execution of the laws? If they do not intend to fulfill their vows, of what avail will their oath of office be, since they have no regard for the solemnity of an oath? In every view of the subject it is plain that such men ought not to be trusted. Take either horn of the dilemma, it amounts to the same thing. I shall have more to say on this subject hereafter.

CHAPTER VII
ROYAL ARCH DEGREE

The fourth degree of Masonry is that of “Mark Master.” The fifth is that of “Past Master.” The sixth is that of “Most Excellent Master.” In these the same points, in substance, are sworn to as in the Master’s degree. In each succeeding oath the candidate recognizes and reaffirms all of his past obligations. In nearly every obligation the candidates swear implicit allegiance to the Grand Lodge of the United States and to the Grand Lodge of the State under which his lodge holds its charter. The candidate swears, also, that he will never be present at the raising of any person to a higher degree who has not regularly taken each and all of the previous or lower degrees. In the first degree secresy alone is enjoined. After this, additionaI clauses are introduced at every step, until the oaths of some of the higher degrees spread over several pages. They nearly all pledge pecuniary help to poor, indigent, worthy Masons, and their families, as far as they can without material injury to themselves and families. They never promise to deny themselves or families any comfort or luxury for the purpose of helping indigent worthy sons or their families. They never promise in their oaths to give pecuniary aid to any but Masons and their families. These families, by their head, have paid into the Masonic fund the amount that entitles them to aid, in case of pecuniary want, on the principle of mutual insurance against want.

All Masons above the third, or Master’s degree, are sworn to keep inviolate the secrets of a brother, murder and treason excepted, up to the seventh, or Royal Arch degree. In the oath of this degree the candidate, as we shall see, swears to keep all the secrets of companion of this degree, murder and treason not excepted. All Masons of and above this degree are solemnly bound to do this. The same is true of all the points sworn to in this obligation which we proceed to examine.

In reviewing this and the degrees above it, I shall not need to give them in full, as they are substantially and almost verbatim alike, except as new points are added as the candidate goes on from one degree to another. The Royal Arch degree is taken in a lodge called a chapter. A Mason of this degree is called a companion, while in the lower degrees Masons address each other as brothers. After swearing to the same points contained in previously taken oaths, the kneeling candidate, with hands on the Holy Bible, proceeds: “I furthermore promise and swear, that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if within my power, whether he be right or wrong.

Here, then we have a class of men sworn, under most frightful penalties, to espouse the cause of a companion so far as to extricate him from any difficulty, to the extent of their power, whether he is right or wrong. How can such a man be safely intrusted with any office connected with the administration of the law? He means to abide by and perform this solemn oath, or he does not. It he does, will he not inevitably defeat the due

execution of law, if intrusted with office connected with it? Suppose he is a magistrate, a sheriff, marshal, or constable, will he not be able to prevent the execution of justice, if he does all within his power, as he is solemnly sworn to do? If on a jury, if sworn as a witness, how can he be trusted, if he fulfills his Masonic vows?

But suppose he does not intend to abide by and fulfill his vows, but still adheres and does not renounce them; suppose he still recognizes their obligation, but fails to fulfill them, is he a man to be trusted with an office? If he does not respect and fulfill his Masonic oaths, the validity of which he acknowledges by continued adherence, of what avail will be his oath of office? Of what use will it be for him to swear that he will faithfully execute the laws, if he has taken the oath of this degree, and either fulfills or fails to fulfill it? If he fulfills it, he surely will not execute the law upon a companion Royal Arch Mason. If he still adheres to, but fails to fulfill his oath, he does not respect the solemnity of an oath, and ought not to be intrusted with an office. If he publicly, sincerely, and penitently renounces his Masonic oath as unlawful, profane, and not binding, he may be trusted with office, but while he adheres he must violate either his oath of office, or his Masonic oath, whenever the accused is a Royal Arch Mason, and, indeed, whenever such an one is involved in any legal difficulty.

I beseech the public not to think this severe. There is, in fact, no third way. Take either horn of the dilemma and it amounts to the same thing. To treat this lightly, as some are disposed to do, or to get over it under cover of the plea of charity, is worse than nonsense; it is wicked to ignore the truth, and proceed as if there were no great wrong in this case. There is great wrong, great sin, and great danger in this case–danger to both Church and State, danger to the souls of men thus situated. I beseech this class of men to consider this matter, and renounce this position. If they will not, I see neither justice nor safety in allowing such men to hold an office in Church or State.

But what is the moral character of a man who espouses the cause, and does all he can to rescue a criminal from the hands of justice

I answer, he is a partaker of his guilt. He is truly an accessory after the fact. This oath does not contemplate the professional services of an advocate employed to defend an accused person in a court of justice. But even in this case an advocate has no right to defeat the due administration of justice, and turn the criminal loose to prey upon society. When he does this he sins both against God and society. It is his business to see that no injustice is done the accused; to secure for him a fair and impartial trial, but not to rescue him, if guilty. An advocate who would “espouse the cause” of a criminal “so far as to extricate him from his difficulty, whether right or wrong,” would deserve the execration of both God and man.

The candidate in this degree proceeds, as follows: “Also, that I will promote a companion Royal Arch Mason’s political preferment in preference to another of equal qualifications.” Bernard, who has taken this and many other Masonic oaths, says, in his “Light on Masonry,” in a foot-note, that this clause of the oath is, in some chapters, made a distinct point in the obligation, thus: “I furthermore promise and swear, that I will vote for a

companion Royal Arch Mason before any other of equal qualifications,” and in some chapters both are left out of the obligation. Upon this clause I remark:

1. Freemasons deny that Freemasonry has anything to do with any man’s political opinions, or actions, provided he be not the enemy of his country. From this obligation, or oath, he can judge of the truth or falsehood of this profession. Again, who does not know that thousands of the Southern rebels were and are accepted Freemasons. How does this fact comport with the pretense that a Freemason must be loyal to the government under which he lives. In the higher degrees they swear to be loyal and true to their government, but are the Southern Masons so?

2. We see why such efforts are made to increase the number of Royal Arch Masons, and the reasons held out to induce political aspirants to become Royal Arch Masons. It is said, I suppose truly, that Royal Arch Masons are multiplying by scores of thousands in this country. It is, beyond doubt, the design of their leaders to control the elections and secure the offices throughout the country. From letters received from reliable parties I learn that in some localities Masons avow this design. But whether they avow or deny it, this oath unmistakably reveals their design. Why is this clause found in this oath? It is presumption and foolhardiness to ignore this plain revelation of their design to control the government, secure the offices, and have everything their own way. If the public can not be aroused to look this conspiracy in the face, and rise up and put it down in time, they will surely find, too late, that their hands are tied, and that virtual slavery or a bloody revolution awaits us. Our children and grandchildren will reap the bitter fruits of our own folly and credulity. What do Freemasons mean by this oath? They either intend to keep it, or not to keep it. If they mean to do as they have promised under the most solemn oath to do, then Freemasonry, at least Freemasonry of this and all the higher degrees, is a political conspiracy to secure the offices and the control of the government. I say Freemasonry of this and of all the higher degrees, for be it remembered that all Masons of and above this degree have taken the oath of this degree. I quote the following from an able editorial in the Albany Evening Journal Extra, October 27, 1831: “An addition was made to the Master’s oath, in the northern part of this State, a few years since, by Gov. Pitcher, who introduced it from Vermont.

It was to the effect that, in voting for officers, preference should be given to a Mason over another candidate of equal qualifications. Very respectable testimony of the fact was published very generally in the newspapers, about two years since, and has never, to the knowledge of the writer, been contradicted or questioned. It is admitted that this obligation, in terms, has not generally been administered (that is, in a Master’s Lodge), but it is insisted that if the principle be once admitted that men in our country may band together in secret conclave, for any purpose not known to the laws, and may bind themselves under obligations involving the penalty of death for their transgressions, they may as well pledge themselves to any new object, or purpose, as to those for which they have already associated. There is no limit to the extent of such associations, if they are allowed at all. The principle itself is radically wrong. But independent of any positive obligation, the very creation of such artificial ties of brotherhood, the strength which they acquire by frequent repetition and by the associations of the fraternity, necessarily

produce a clannish attachment which will ordinarily exhibit itself in the most important concerns of life in bestowing business and patronage on a brother, and in elevating him to office and rank which will reflect back honor upon the order to which he belongs. The inevitable result, therefore, of such institutions is to give one class of citizens unequal and unjust advantages over those who are not of the favored order. And when we find this natural result hastened and strengthened by obligations, under the most awful penalties, to fly to the relief of a brother, to espouse his cause, whether right or wrong, and to conceal his crimes, have not the rest of the community a right to say to these exclusives, these privileged orders, “we will not submit to your usurpations, and until you restore your fellowcitizens to equal rights and privileges with you, we will not give you our votes or trust you with public office.” To these remarks I fully subscribe. But I return to another clause of this oath. The candidate proceeds: “Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted.” Bernard says, in a foot-note, “In some chapters this is administered, ‘All the secrets of a companion, without exception.'” Upon this clause I remark:

1. That Freemasonry waxes worse and worse as you ascend from the lower to the higher degrees. It will be remembered that in the Master’s oath murder and treason were excepted in the oath of secresy. In this degree murder and treason are not excepted. Now, as all Masons who take the degrees above this have also taken this oath, it follows that all that army of Freemasons, composed of Royal Arch Masons, and all who have taken the degrees above this are under the most solemn oath to conceal each other’s crimes, without exception. And what an institution is this, to be allowed existence under any government, especially under a republican form of government? Is it safe to have such a set of men scattered broadcast over all the United States? Let us look this thing squarely in the face. It can not be honestly denied that Royal Arch Masons take this oath. But a short time since a minister of the Gospel of my acquaintance was confronted with this oath, and he did not deny having taken it. Now, if all that vast army of Masons who have taken this oath intend to do as they swear to do, what must be the result? Scores and hundreds of thousands of men, scattered broadcast over the whole land, are pledged by the most solemn oath, and under the penalty of death, to conceal each other’s crimes, without exception. Are such men to be safely intrusted with office, either in Church or State? And must not a government be on the verge of ruin when such a conspiracy is allowed to multiply its numbers at such a frightful rate as it is doing, at this time, in this country? Will the people of the United States have the foolhardiness to ignore the crime and danger of this conspiracy against their liberty? Or will they good-naturedly assume that Freemasons mean no such thing? Why, then, is this oath? Will they, under the cover of mock charity, assume that these men will not cover up each other’s crimes? What kind of charity is this? Is it charity to believe that a set of men will lie, under oath, as all Freemasons above the degree of Fellow Craft must do, if they do not conceal each other’s crimes? Again, what right have Freemasons, themselves, to complain of a want of charity in those who regard them as conspirators against good government? Why, what shall we do? If they do not repent of, and renounce, these oaths, we must either regard them as conspirators against government, or as men who will lie, under the solemnity of a most

awful oath. The gentlemen must choose which horn of the dilemma they will take. On the one hand, they are sworn conspirators against the execution of the criminal laws; on the other, they are a class of men that do not regard the solemnity of an oath. This is the exact truth, and it is folly and madness to ignore it. Freemasons, therefore, have no right to complain of us, if we take them at their word, and believe that they mean to do what they have sworn they will do. They demand charity of us. Is it not charitable to believe that they intend to fulfill such solemn vows, made, and often repeated, under such terrible sanctions ? The candidate of this degree concludes by saying: “Binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my skull smote off, and my brains exposed to the scorching rays of the sun, should I ever, knowingly, or willfully, violate or transgress any part of this, my solemn oath or obligation as a Royal Arch Mason. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast in the performance of the same.” Now, upon this awful sanction, the candidate swears that he will not wrong the chapter, or a companion of this degree, out of anything, or suffer it to be done by others, if in his power to prevent it. Men in certain business partnerships and relations, whose partners have been Royal Arch Masons, have been influenced to take this degree to prevent their being wronged by their Masonic partners. On the best authority, I have been informed of one case of this kind, recently, and it turned out that while the one who was thus induced to take this degree was in the army, fighting the battles of his country, his Royal Arch partner deliberately cheated him out of several thousand dollars. What shall we say to, what shall we do with, these men who swarm in every part of this country, and who are thus banded together to espouse each other’s cause and to extricate each other from any difficulty, whether they are right or wrong, to conceal each other’s crimes, to vote each other into office, and the like? Can wholesome society continue to exist under the influence of such an institution as this?

CHAPTER VIII
SWORN TO PERSECUTE

Masons are sworn to “persecute unto the death anyone who violates Masonic obligation. In the oath of The THRICE ILLUSTRIOUS ORDER of the CROSS the candidate swears, as follows, “Light on Masonry,” eighth edition, page 199: “You further swear, that should you know another to violate any essential point of this obligation, you will use your most decided endeavors, by the blessing of God, to bring such person to the strictest and most condign punishment, agreeably to the rules and usages of our ancient fraternity; and this, by pointing him out to the world as an unworthy vagabond, by opposing his interest, by deranging his business by transferring his character after him wherever he may go, and by exposing him to the contempt of the whole fraternity and of the world, during his whole natural life.” The penalty of this obligation is as follows: “To all and every part thereof we then bind you, and by ancient usage you bind yourself, under the no less infamous penalty than dying the death of a traitor, by having a spear, or other sharp instrument, like our Divine Master, thrust into your left side, bearing testimony, even in death, to the power and justice of the mark of the Holy Cross.” Upon this obligation I remark:

1. Here we have an explanation of the notorious fact that Freemasons try, in every way, to ruin the reputation of all who renounce Masonry. The air has almost been darkened by the immense number of falsehoods that have been circulated, by Freemasons, to destroy the reputation of every man who has renounced Freemasonry, and published it to the world, or has written against it. No pains have been spared to destroy all confidence in the testimony of such men. Does not this oath render it impossible for us to believe what Freemasons say of the character of those who violate their obligations? Who of us that lived forty years ago does not remember how Freemasons endeavored to destroy the reputation of William Morgan, of Elder Bernard, of EIder Stearns, and also of Mr. Allyn, and who that is at all acquainted with facts does not know that the utmost pains are taken to destroy the reputation of every man that dares to take his pen and expose their institution. When I had occasion to quote Elder Bernard’s book, in preaching on the subject of Freemasonry a few months ago, I was told in the streets, before I got home, that he was a man of bad character. I knew better, and knew well how to understand such representations, for this is the way in which the testimony of all such men is sought to be disposed of by Freemasons. Will this be denied? What, then, is the meaning of this oath? Are not Masons under oath to do this? Indeed they are. A few months since I received the following letter. For reasons which will be appreciated, I omit name and date. The writer says: “About a week since, a man calling himself Professor W.E. Moore, the great South American explorer, came to this place, lecturing on Freemasonry. He is a Mason, and has given private lectures to the lodges here, and has lectured once before the public. He claims to have been at Oberlin, recently, and that while there he had an interview with you, and that he tested you sufficiently to satisfy himself that you had never been a Mason; and further, he says that the conversation he had with you resulted to his great

satisfaction, and to your great discomfiture.” At nearly the same date of this letter, I received, from the same place, a letter from a Freemason of my acquaintance, giving substantially the same account of this Professor Moore. In this letter, however, it is added that his conversation with me compelled me to confess that I never had been a Mason, and to say I would publish no more against Masonry. This last letter I have mislaid, so that I can not lay my hand upon it. From the first I quote verbatim et literatim. I replied to these letters, as I now assert, that every word of what this man says of me is false. That I never saw or heard of this man, to my knowledge, until I received those letters. But this is nothing new or strange. Such false representations are just what we are to expect, if Freemasons of this and the higher degrees fulfill their vows. Why should they be believed, and how can they complain of us for not believing what they say of men who have renounced Masonry and oppose it? It is mere folly and madness to believe them. It is not difficult, if Freemasons desire it, to produce almost any amount of testimony to prove that every manner and degree of falsehood is resorted to to destroy the testimony of men who witness against them. Any man who will renounce these horrid oaths, and expose their profanity to the public, should make up his mind beforehand to endure any amount of slander and persecution which the ingenuity of Freemasons can invent.

In the degree of Knights Adepts of the Eagle or Sun, “Light on Masonry,” eighth edition, page 269, we have the following: “The man peeping. By the man you saw peeping, and who was discovered, and seized, and conducted to death, is an emblem of those who come to be initiated into our sacred mysteries through a motive of curiosity; and if so indiscreet as to divulge their obligations, WE ARE BOUND TO CAUSE THEIR DEATH, AND TAKE VENGEANCE ON THE TREASON BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TRAITORS!!!” Here we find that Freemasons of this and the higher degrees are solemnly pledged to destroy the lives of those who violate their obligations. Deacon William A. Bartlett, of Pella, Iowa, in his public renunciation of Freemasonry, says– “Letters on Masonry,” ‘by EIder John G. Stearns, page 169–“During the winter or spring following my initiation, a resolution was offered in the lodge for adoption, and to be published outside the lodge, condemning the abduction of Morgan. After much discussion, the Worshipful Master called another to the chair, and said, ‘Brethren, what do you mean by offering such a resolution as this? Had we been at Batavia, we would have done just what those brethren have done, and taken the life of Morgan, because the oaths of Masonry demand it at our hands. And will you condemn brethren for doing what you would have done had you been there? I trust not.’ When the vote to condemn them was taken, but three voted in favor of the resolution.” There is abundant proof that Freemasons generally, at first, denied the murder of Morgan, and when they could no longer have courage to deny it, they justified it, until public indignation was so much aroused as to make them ashamed to justify it. Let those who wish for proof on the question of their justifying it read the volume of EIder Stearns, to be had at the bookstores, and he will find evidence enough of the fact.

CHAPTER IX
AWFUL PROFANITY OF MASONIC OATHS

IN the degree of Templar and Knight of Malta, as found in the seventh edition of “Light on Masonry,” page 182, in a lecture in which the candidate is giving an account of what he had passed through, he says: “I then took the cup (the upper part of the human skull) in my hand, and repeated, after the Grand Commander, the following obligation: ‘This pure wine I now take in testimony of my belief in the mortality of the body and the immortality of the soul–and may this libation appear as a witness against me both here and hereafter–and as the sins of the world were laid upon the head of the Savior, so may all the sins committed by the person whose skull this was be heaped upon my head, in addition to my own, should I ever, knowingly or willful]y, violate or transgress any obligation that I have heretofore taken, take at this time, or shall at any future period take, in relation to any degree of Masonry or order of Knighthood. So help me God?'” Now, observe what a horrid imprecation is here. These Knights Templar and Knights of Malta take their oaths sustained by such a horrid penalty as this. They say that they will incur this penalty, not merely if they violate the peculiar obligation of this degree, but “any obligation that I have heretofore taken, take at this time, or shall at any future period take, in relation to any degree of Masonry or order of Knighthood.” This is called “the sealed obligation.” Here, in the most solemn manner, the candidate, drinking wine out of a human skull, takes upon himself this obligation, under the penalty of a double damnation. What can exceed the profanity and wickedness of this?

On the 185th page of the same book, we find a note quoted from the work of Brother Allyn, who renounced Masonry and published on the subject. I will quote the note entire. Mr. Allyn says of the fifth libation, or sealed obligation, it “is referred to by Templars in confidential communications, relative to matters of great importance, when other Masonic obligations seem insufficient to secure secresy, silence, and safety. Such, for instance, was the murder of William Morgan, which was communicated from one Templar to another, under the pledge, and upon this sealed obligation.” He also remarks, in another place: “When I received this degree I objected to drink from the human skull, and to take the profane oath required by the rules of the order. I observed to the Most Eminent that I supposed that that part of the ceremonies would be dispensed with. The Sir Knights charged upon me, and the Most Eminent said: ‘Pilgrim, you here see the swords of your companions drawn to defend you in the discharge of every duty we require of you. They are also drawn to avenge any violation of the rules of our order. We expect you to proceed.’ A clergyman, an acquaintance of mine, came forward, and said: ‘Companion Allyn, this part of the ceremonies is never dispensed with I, and all the Sir Knights, have drank from the cup and taken the fifth libation. It is perfectly proper, and will be qualified to your satisfaction.’ I then drank of the cup of double damnation.”

Now, can any profanity be more horrible than this? And yet there is nothing in Masonry, we are told, that is at all inconsistent with the Christian religion! On the 187th page of the

same volume, the “Knight of the Christian Mark,” at the conclusion of his obligation, says: “All this I promise in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Ho]y Ghost; and if I perform it not, let me be

ANATHEMA MARANATHA! ANATHEMA MARANATHA!!” Anathema Maranatha is understood to mean accursed at the Lord’s coming. Again, the “Knights of the Red Cross” take their obligations upon the following penalty, page 164: “To all of which I do most solemnly promise and swear, binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my house torn down, the timbers thereof set up, and I hanged thereon; and when the last trump shall blow, that I be forever excluded from the society of all true and courteous Knights, should I ever, willfully or knowingly, violate any part of this solemn obligation of Knight of the Red Cross. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast to keep and perform the same.”

The “Knights of the Eagle, and Sovereign Prince of Rose Croix de Heroden,” in receiving this degree, pass through the following, page 253, of Bernard’s eighth edition of “Light on Masonry:” “During this time the brethren in the second department take off their black decorations, and put on the red, and, also uncover the jewels. The candidate knocks on the door, and the Warden, for answer, shuts the door in his face. The Master of Ceremonies says: ‘These marks of indignity are not sufficiently humiliating; you must pass through more rigorous proofs, before you can find it.’ He then takes off the candidate the chasuble and black apron, and puts over him a black cloth, covered with ashes and dust, and says to him: ‘I am going to conduct you into the darkest and most dismal place, from whence the word shall triumphantly come to the glory and advantage of Masonry.’ He then takes him into the third apartment, and takes from him his covering, and makes him go three times around (showing him the representation of the torments of the damned), when he is led to the door of the chapter, and the Master of Ceremonies says to him: ‘The horrors which you have just now seen are but a faint representation of those you shall suffer, if you break through our laws, or infringe the obligation you have taken.'” In a footnote, the editor says: “This certainly caps the climax, and renders the institution of Masonry complete. The torments of the damned, the awful punishment which the Almighty inflicts on the violators of his righteous law is but a faint emblem of the punishment which Masonry here declares shall be inflicted on the violators of Masonic law, or those who are guilty of an infraction of Masonic obligations!” But I get sick of pursuing these loathsome and blasphemous details; and I fear I shall so shock my readers that they will be as wearied as I am myself. In reading over these oaths, it would seem as if a Masonic lodge was a place where men had assembled to commit the utmost blasphemy of which they were capable, to mock and scoff at all that is sacred, and to beget among themselves the utmost contempt for every form of moral obligation. These oaths sound as if the men who were taking and administering them were determined to annihilate their moral sense, and to render themselves incapable of making any moral discriminations, and certainly, if they can see no sin in taking and administering such oaths under such penalties, they have succeeded, whether intentionally or not, in rendering themselves utterly blind, as regards the moral character of their conduct. By repeating their blasphemy they have put out their own eyes. Now these oaths mean something, or they do not. Masons, when they take them, mean to abide by them, or they

do not. If they do not, to take them is blasphemy. If they do mean to abide by them, they are sworn to perform deeds, not only the most injurious to society, to government, and the church of God of any that can well be named, but they swear, in case of the violation of any point of these obligations, to seek to have the penalties inflicted on the violator. In other words, in such a case, they swear to commit murder; and every man who adheres to such obligations is under oath to seek to accomplish the violent death, not only of every man who shall betray the secrets, but, also, of everyone who shall violate any point or part of these obligations. Now, the solemn question arises, are these oaths a mere farce, a mere taking of the name of God in vain, in the most trifling manner, and under the most solemn circumstances? or, are we to understand that the Masonic institution is a conspiracy, its members taking, in all seriousness and good faith, such horrid oaths to do such horrid deeds, upon such horrid penalties? Which are we to understand to be true? If either is true. I ask the church of God, I ask the world, what more abominable institution ever existed than this? And yet we are told that in all this trifling with oaths, or, if not trifling, this horrid conspiracy, there is nothing inconsistent. with the Christian religion! And even ministers of the Gospel are found who can justify it and eulogize it in a manner most profane, and even blasphemous. Now, in charity, I suppose it to be true that the great mass of Masons, who are nominally so, and who have, in a hurry and under great excitement, taken more or less of the degrees, have only a very confused conception of what Masonry really is. Surely, if Masons really understood what Masonry is, as it is delineated in these books, no Christian Mason would think himself at liberty to remain another day a member of the fraternity. The fact is, a great many nominal Masons are not so in reality. It is as plain as possible that a man, knowing what it is, and embracing it in his heart, can not be a Christian man. To say he can is to belie the very nature of Christianity.

But here let me ask, in concluding this article, what is there in Masonry to justify the taking of such oaths, under such penalties? If there is any good in Masonry, why should it be concealed? and why should such oaths be taken to conceal it? If Masonry is an evil thing, and its secrets are evil, of course, to take any oath to conceal the wickedness is utterly unjustifiable. Does Masonry exact these oaths for the sake of concealing from outsiders the miserable falsehoods that they palm off upon their candidates, which everywhere abound in Masonry? But what is there in these stories, if true, that should be concealed? If Hiram Abiff was murdered, as Masons pretend; if the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred contents, was really found in the vault under ground, as Masons pretend, is there any justifiable reason for concealing from the whole world these facts. I have sought in vain for a reason to justify the taking of any oaths at all in Masonry. And it is passing strange that such oaths, under such penalties, should ever have been so much as dreamed of by Masons as being justified by their secrets. The fact is, their stringent secrecy must be designed, in part, to excite the curiosity of men, and draw candidates into the snare. The highest Masonic authority has affirmed that their secrecy is essential to their existence; and that, if their secrets were exposed, the institution could not live. Now, this is no doubt true, and is the great reason, as I conceive, for guarding their secrets with such horrid oaths. But I said, in an early number, that Masonry is swindle. Where are the important secrets which they promise to their candidates? For what do the candidates pay their money but really to be imposed upon? But it may be well asked, why do Masons,

once embarked in Masonry, go on, from one degree to another multiplying their oaths, obligations, and imprecations? When they are once within a lodge to take a degree, they dare not do otherwise than to go forward. I could quote numerous instances from the writings of seceding Masons showing how they have been urged from step to step, and assured, if they would proceed, that everything would be explained to their satisfaction. They have been told, as in the case of Mr. Allyn just noticed, that everything would be qualified and explained to their satisfaction. Upon Mr. Allyn, as we have seen, the Sir Knights drew their swords when he hesitated to go forward; and the Most Eminent informed him that he must. go forward, or their swords would avenge his disobedience.

The fact is, when once within the lodge, they dare not stop short of taking the obligation belonging to the degree; and they are persuaded by those who have taken higher degrees, to go forward from one degree to another.

And the great Masonic argument to keep them steadfast in concealing the imposition that has been practiced upon them, and to persuade them not to renounce and expose what they have passed through, is, that of having their throats cut, their tongues torn out by the roots, their heart and vitals torn out and thrown to the vultures of the air, drowning and murder.

Masons profess not to invite or persuade any to join the lodges; and the candidates, when they come forward for their degrees, are asked if they come forward of their own free will and accord. To this, of course, they answer, yes.

But what has made them willing? They have been persuaded to it. They have been invited to join; –they have been urged to join; motives of self-interest have been set before them in such a light as to gain their consent. They are thus made willing; and, therefore, truthfully say, that they do it of their own free will and accord.

But it is almost, if not quite, the universal testimony of renouncing Masons, that they were persuaded to it. They were made willing to join by such representations as overpersuaded them. I do not believe that one in five hundred of those who join the Masonic lodge, join without being persuaded to do so. But let me say also, that the great mass of Freemasons have never taken more than the first three degrees. They may know nothing about the higher degrees. Now in what sense are they responsible for the wickedness of the institution as revealed in the higher degrees? I answer, they would not be responsible at all, if they neither knew anything of those degrees, nor had any opportunity to know anything of them.

But as these books have been widely circulated, and are secretly kept by Masons, and are better known to Freemasons at present by far than they are to the outward world’,–those who have taken the lower degrees, if they continue to sustain the institution, which is in reality a unit, become morally responsible for the wickedness of the higher degrees. But the obligations in the first three degrees are by no means innocent. They are such obligations as no man has any right to take or to administer. To adhere to the institution is to indorse it. But again, why do not Freemasons now, who have these books, and who

know, or ought to know thoroughly the nature, designs, and tendency of the institution, publicly renounce the whole thing, confess their sin, and proclaim their independence of the order? I answer, first–They have seared their consciences by what they have done, and have, therefore, very little sense of the great sinfulness of remaining a member of such an abominable institution. I must say that I am utterly amazed at the want of conscientiousness among Masons on this subject. As I have said, they have put out the eyes of their moral sense, and do not at all appreciate the awful guilt of their position. And, secondly–They dare not. And if by their oaths they mean anything, it is not to be wondered at that they are afraid to renounce Freemasonry. Why the fraternity are under oath to persecute them, to represent them as perjured vagabonds, to destroy their characters, their business, and their influence, and to follow them from place to place, transferring their character after them during their whole natural life. This surely is enough to deter common men from renouncing their allegiance to the institution. To be sure, this danger does not excuse them; but weak as human nature is, it is not wonderful that it has its influence.

But again, Masons are under oath, if they renounce the order, to seek the destruction of their lives. And they have given terrible proof that their oaths are not a dead letter in this respect, not only in the murder of William Morgan, but of many others who have renounced their allegiance to the brotherhood. In a sermon which lies before me, delivered by Rev. Moses Thacher, a man well known in the Christian world, and who has himself taken many degrees of Masonry, he says: “The institution is dangerous to civil and religious rights. It is stained with blood. I have reliable historical evidence of not less than seven individuals, including Morgan, murdered under Masonic law.” Since this sermon was preached other cases have come to light, and are constantly coming to light, in which persons have been murdered for disclosing Masonic secrets. And if the truth shall ever be known in this world, I believe it will be found that scores of persons, in this and other countries, have been murdered for unfaithfulness to Masonic obligations. Freemasons understand quite well the malignity of the spirit of Freemasonry. They understand that it will not argue, that it will not discuss the reasonableness or unreasonableness, the virtue or the sin of the institution; but that its argument is assassination. I am now daily in the receipt of letters from various parts of the country, expressing the highest satisfaction that anybody can be found who dares write against the institution at this day. The fact is, there are a great many men belonging to the institution, who are heartily sick of it, and would fain be rid of it; but who dare not open their mouths or whisper to any individual in the world their secret abhorrence of the institution. But it is time to speak out. And I do beg my brethren in the ministry, and the whole Christian Church, to examine it for themselves, and not turn away from looking the evil in the face until it is too late.

CHAPTER X
PERVERSE AND PROFANE USE OF THE HOLY BIBLE

In this number I wish to call the attention of my readers to some of the cases in which Freemasons misapply and misrepresent, and most profane]y, if not blasphemously, use the Holy Scriptures.

I will not go far into the sickening details; but far enough, I trust, to lead serious persons to reflect upon the nature of a society that can trifle with such solemn things.

The “Knights of the East and West” take the following oath, and then pass through the following ceremonies:–See pp. 214–220 of the first edition, or eighth edition, 230–240, of Bernard’s Light on Masonry –“I —-, do promise and solemnly swear and declare, in the awful presence of the only One Most Holy, Puissant, Almighty, and Most Merciful Grand Architect of Heaven and Earth, who created the universe and myself through His infinite goodness, and conducts it with wisdom and justice; and in the presence of the Most Excellent and Upright Princes and Knights of the East and West, here present in convocation and grand council, on my sacred word of honor, and under every tie both moral and religious, that I never will reveal to any person whomsoever below me, or to whom the same may not belong by being legally and lawfully initiated, the secrets of this degree which are now about to be communicated to me, under the penalty of not only being dishonored, but to consider my life as the immediate forfeiture, and that to be taken from me with all the tortures and pains to be inflicted in manner as I have consented to in my preceding degrees. I further solemnly promise and swear that I will pay due obedience and submission to all the degrees beyond this, &c. All this I solemnly swear and sincerely promise upon my sacred word of honor, under the penalty of the severe wrath of the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth; and may He have mercy on my soul in the great and awful day of judgment agreeably to my conformity thereto. Amen. Amen. Amen. The All Puissant then takes the ewer filled with perfumed ointment, and anoints his head, eyes, mouth, heart, the tip of his right ear, hand, and foot, and says, “You are now, my dear brother, received a member of our society. You will recollect to live up to the precepts of it; and also remember that those parts of your body which have the greatest power of assisting you in good or evil, have this day been made holy.” The Master of Ceremonies then places the candidate between the two Wardens, with the draft before him. The Senior Warden says to him, “Examine with deliberation and attention everything which the All Puissant is going to show you.” After a short pause, he, the S.W., says, “Is there mortal here worthy to open the book with the seven seals?” All the brethren cast their eyes down and sigh. The Senior Warden hearing their sighs, says to them, “Venerable and respectable brethren, be not afflicted; here is a victim (pointing to the candidate) whose courage will give you content.”

S.W. to the candidate, “Do you know the reason. why the ancients have a long beard?”

CAN. “I do not, but I presume you do.”

S.W. “They are those who came here after passing through great tribulation, and having washed their robes in their own blood: will you purchase your robes at so great a price?”

CAN. “Yes; I am willing.”

The Wardens then conduct him to the basin, and bare both his arms; they place a ligature on each, the same as in performing the operation of blood-letting. Each Warden being armed with a lancet, makes an incision in each of his arms just deep enough to draw a drop of blood, which is wiped on a napkin, and then shown to the brethren. The Senior Warden then says, “See, my brethren, a man who has spilled his blood to acquire a knowledge of your mysteries, and shrunk not from the trial.”

Then the All Puissant opens the FIRST SEAL of the great book, and takes from thence a bone quiver filled with arrows, and a crown, and gives them to one of the Ancients, and says to him, “Depart and continue the conquest.” He opens the SECOND SEAL, and takes out a sword, and gives it to the next aged, and says, “Go and destroy peace among the profane and wicked brethren, that they may never appear in our Council.” He opens the THIRD SEAL, and takes a balance, and gives it to the next aged, and says, “Dispense rigid justice to the profane and wicked brethren.” He opens the FOURTH SEAL, and takes out a skull, and gives it to the next aged, and says, “Go and endeavor to convince the wicked that death is the reward of their guilt.” He opens the FIFTH SEAL, and takes out a cloth stained with blood, and gives it to the next aged, and says, “When is the time. (or the time will arrive) that we shall revenge and punish the profane and wicked, who have destroyed so many of their brethren by false accusations.” He opens the SIXTH SEAL, and that moment the sun is darkened and the moon stained with blood! He opens the SEVENTH SEAL, and takes out incense, which he gives to a brother, and also a vase, with seven trumpets, and gives one to each of the seven aged brethren. After this the four old man in the four corners show their inflated bladders (beeves bladders filled with wind, under their arms), representing the four winds, when the All Puissant says: “Here is seen the fulfillment of a prophecy (Rev. vii. 3); strike not nor punish the profane and wicked of our order until I have selected the true and worthy Masons.” Then the four winds raise their bladders, and one of the trumpets sounds, when the two Wardens cover the candidate’s arms, and take from him his apron and jewels of the last degree. The second trumpet sounds, when the Junior Warden gives the candidate the apron and jewel of this degree. The third trumpet sounds, when the Senior Warden gives him a long beard. The fourth trumpet sounds, and the Junior Warden gives him a crown of gold. The fifth trumpet sounds, and the Senior Warden gives him a girdle of gold. The sixth trumpet sounds, and the Junior Warden gives him the sign, token, and words. The seventh trumpet sounds, on which they all sound together, when the Senior Warden conducts the candidate to the vacant canopy.

[This canopy, it will be recollected, is at the right side of the All Puissant, who represents Jehovah. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the conducting of the candidate to the canopy, is a representation of the end of the world, and the glorification of true Masons at

the right hand of God, having “passed through the trials of Freemasonry,” and “washed their robes in their own blood!” If this is not Antichrist, what is?” –Compiler.]

The editor also adds the following foot-note in explanation of the foregoing:– “Compare the foregoing with the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of Revelation, and the reader will discover that the All Puissant represents Jehovah Seated on the throne of heaven; also, the Lamb of God, opening the seven seals. The Senior Warden represents the strong angel proclaiming: “Who is worthy to open the book,” &c. The aged brethren, and the four old with bladders, the angels of God with power; and Masonry claiming its faithful servants as the servants of God, the 144,000 who were sealed in their foreheads, and of whom it is said, “These are they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb,” &c. See Rev.14th chapter.

The following ceremonies are performed in the “Knights of the Christian Mark,” found in the same book as the preceding, pp. 168–170; or eighth edition, 188–190:

“The Knights come to order; the Senior Knight takes his seat; the candidate continues standing; the conductor brings a white robe, the Senior Knight says: ‘Thus saith the Lord, he that believeth and endureth to the end shall overcome, and I will cause his iniquities to pass from him, and he shall dwell in my presence for ever and ever. Take away his filthy garments from him, and clothe him with a change of raiment. For he that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and his name shall be written in the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father and His holy angels. He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the true believer. Set ye a fair miter upon his head, place a palm in his hand, for he shall go in and out, and minister before me, saith the Lord of hosts; and he shall be a disciple of that rod taken from the branch of the stem of Jesse. For a branch has grown out of His root, and the Spirit of the Lord hath rested upon it, the Spirit of his wisdom and might, and righteousness is the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins; and he stands as an insignia to the people, and him shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious. Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, everyone with the destroying weapon in his hand.’ The six grand ministers come from the north with swords and shields. The first is clothed in white, and has an ink-horn by his side, and stands before the Invincible Knight, who says: ‘Go through the city; run in the midst thereof, and smite; let not thine eye spare, neither have pity; for they have not executed my judgments with clean hands, saith the Lord of hosts.’ The candidate is instructed’ to exclaim: ‘Woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips and my dwelling has been in the tents of Kedar, and among the children of Meshec.’ Then he that has the ink-horn by his side, takes a live coal with the tongs from the altar, and touches the lips of the candidate, and says: ‘If ye believe, thine iniquities shall be taken away, thy sins shall be purged. I will that these be clean with the branch that is given up before me. All thy sins are removed, and thine iniquities blotted out For I have trodden the wine-press alone, and with me was none of my people for behold I come with dyed garments from Bozrah, mighty to save. Refuse not., therefore, to hearken; draw not away thy shoulders; shut not thine ear that thou shouldst not hear.’ The six ministers now proceed as though they were about to commence the slaughter, when the Senior Knight says to him with the ink-horn: ‘Stay thine hand; proceed no further until thou hast set a

mark on those that are faithful in the house of the Lord, and trust in the power of his might. Take ye the signet, and set a mark on the forehead of my people that have passed through great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb, which was slain from the foundation of the world.’ The minister takes the signet and presses it on the candidate’s forehead. He leaves the mark in red letters, ‘King of kings, and Lord of lords.’ [Foot-note: ‘The reader is requested to turn to the following passages:–Isa. vi. 5-7; Ps. cxx. 5; Isa. xliii.15; and lxiii. 1-3. Rev. viii. 2-14; and xix.16; and xv. 3; Zech. iii; 7. Song of Solomon viii. 6,7. The impious perversion of these passages is incapable of defense or excuse.] The Minister opens the scroll, and says: ‘Sir Invincible Knight, the number of the sealed is one hundred and forty-four thousand.’ The Invincible Knight strikes four, and all the knights stand before him. He says: ‘Salvation belongeth to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb.’ All the members fall on their faces, and say: ‘Amen. Blessing, honor, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, and power, mighty majesty, and dominion, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.’ They all cast down crowns and palm branches, and rise up and say: ‘Great and numberless are thy works, thou King of saints. Behold, the star which I laid before Joshua, on which is engraved seven eyes as the engraving of a signet, shall be set as a seal on thine arm, as a seal on thine heart; for love is stronger than death, many waters cannot quench it. If a man would give all the treasures of his house for love, he cannot obtain it; it is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'”

The following is found in the Royal Arch degree, pp. 126, first edition, 137, eighth edition:

“Question.–‘Are you a Royal Arch Mason?’ Answer. –‘I am that I am.'” [Note. “I AM THAT I AM, is one of the peculiar names of the Deity; and to use it as above, is, to say the least, taking the name of God in vain. How must the humble disciple of Jesus feel when constrained thus to answer the question, “Are you a Royal Arch Mason?”] Light on Masonry, seventh edition. On pp. 154, 155, we have a description of a ceremony in the same degree, as follows: “The candidates next receive the obligation, travel the room, attend the prayer, travel again, and are shown a representation of the Lord appearing to Moses from the burning bush. This last is done in various ways. Sometimes an earthen pot is filled with earth, and green bushes set around the edge of it, and a candle in the center; and sometimes a stool is provided with holes about the edge, in which bushes are placed, and a bundle of rags or tow, saturated with oil of turpentine, placed in the center, to which fire is communicated. Sometimes a large bush is suspended from the ceiling, around the stem of which tow is wound wet with the oil of turpentine. In whatever way the bush is prepared, when the words are read, ‘He looked and behold the bush burned with fire,’ etc., the bandage is removed from the eyes of the candidate, and they see the fire in the bush; and at the words, ‘Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes,’ etc., the shoes of the candidate are taken off, and they remain in the same situation while the rest of the passage to the words, ‘And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God,’ is read. The bandage is then replaced and the candidates again travel about the room while the next passage of Scripture is read.”

[Note. “This is frequently represented in this manner: When the person reading comes to that part where it says, ‘God called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said.’ etc., he stops reading, and a person behind the bush calls out, ‘Moses, Moses.’ The conductor answers, ‘Here am I.’ The person behind the bush then says: ‘Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.’ His shoes are then slipped off. ‘Moreover, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ The person first reading then says: ‘And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.’ At these words the bandage is placed over the candidate’s eyes.”] And, if any himself will examine, and read the books through for themselves, in which these revelations are made, they will find that the higher degrees are replete with the same shocking and monstrous perversion of the Scriptures. Many of the most solemn passages in the Bible are selected, read in their lodges, repeated by their candidates, and applied in a manner too shocking to read.

Here you observe the candidate taking the Royal Arch degree, when asked if he is a Royal Arch Mason, replies: “l am that l am;” which is represented in the Bible as being said by Jehovah himself. This answer was given by God to Moses when he inquired after the Divine name. God answered, “I AM THAT I AM.” Just think! a Christian, when inquired of if he is a Royal Arch Mason, affirms of himself “I am that I am,” taking to himself the name of the God of Israel.

Again, in this representation of the burning bush, the candidate is told to take off his shoes from off his feet, for the place on which he stands is holy ground; and then the Master of the lodge claims to be the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now how awfully profane and blasphemous is this!

Again, observe that that most solemn scene, depicted in the ninth chapter of Ezekiel, is misapplied in the most profane manner. Reader, the chapter is short; will you not take your Bible and read it?

So again, in those chapters in Revelation, the opening of the seals by the Son of God is misapplied, and profanely misrepresented. Just think! Four aged men, with bladders filled with wind, are made to represent the four angels that hold the four winds from desolating the earth till the servants of God were sealed in their foreheads. What a shocking misapplication and misrepresentation do we find here! And the cases are numerous in which, as I have said, the most solemn passages in the Word of God are used in their mummeries and childish ceremonies, in so shocking a manner that we can hardly endure to read them. I beg my Christian readers to examine these books for themselves, and then see what they think of the assertions of so many professors of religion, and even of professed Christian ministers, that “there is nothing in Freemasonry inconsistent with the religion of Jesus Christ!” I cannot imagine anything more directly calculated to bring the Word of God into contempt, than such a use of it in Masonic lodges. It is enough to make one’s blood curdle in his veins to think that a Christian minister, or any Christian whatever, should allow himself to pass through such an abominable scene as is frequently represented in the degrees of Masonry:–multiplying their horrid oaths, heaping one imprecation upon another, gathering up from every part of the Divine oracles the most

solemn and awful sayings of Jehovah, and applying them in a manner so revolting, that the scene must make a Christian’s heart tremble, and his whole soul to loathe such proceedings.

In some of my numerous letters I am requested to quote the oaths entire. But this would be to rewrite a great part of the books in which Masonry is revealed. Some of these degrees have several different oaths to sustain them, filling several pages of the work. I can only give parts of these oaths, and must leave the readers to consult the books for themselves which I beseech them to do.

HAPTER XI
FREEMASONRY IMPOSES ON THE IGNORANT

In what is called the “Sublime Degree of Master Masons” there are the following gross misrepresentations worthy of notice:

First, Hiram Abiff is represented as going daily into the Most Holy place for secret prayer; whereas the Bible representation is that no one was allowed to enter the Most Holy place, except the high priest. Neither Solomon nor Hiram were allowed to enter it. And the high priest was allowed to enter it only once a year, and that on the great day of atonement “not without blood, which he offered first for himself and then for the errors of the people.”

Again, this Hiram is represented in Masonry as having been murdered by three ruffians, who demanded of him the Master’s word.

As he refused to give it, they murdered him, and buried him at a distance from Jerusalem, in a grave “six feet deep perpendicular,” where he remained fourteen days.

Then, after a great deal of twaddle and misrepresentation in regard to the supposed circumstances of his murder and burial, Solomon is represented as raising him from this depth in the earth by the Master’s grip, and that “upon the five points of fellowship,” which are, “foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to ear.”

It is no wonder that infidel Masons should ridicule the credulity of professed Christian Masons in crediting such a ridiculous story as this.

Again, Masonry goes on to represent that, after Hiram was thus raised from this grave, six feet deep–“foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to ear.”–he was brought up to Jerusalem, and buried under the Most Holy place in King Solomon’s Temple. I will quote from the lecture of this degree, as found in the seventh edition of Bernard, p. 81; “Question[speaking of the body].–What did they do with the body? Answer.—Raised it in a Masonic form, and carried it up to the temple for more decent interment. Q.–Where was it buried? A.–Under the Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies, over which they erected a marble monument, with this inscription delineated thereon, A virgin weeping over a broken column, with a book open before her; in her right hand a sprig of cassia; in her left, an urn; Time standing behind her, with his hands infolded in the ringlets of her hair.”

Now, observe, this burial was under the Most holy place in King Solomon’s Temple; and the marble monument was erected over it, and consequently must have been in the Most Holy place itself. Does not every careful reader of the Bible know that this is false? We have a minute description in the Bible of everything relating to the Most Holy place–its

form, size, embellishments, and of every article of furniture there was in it. No such statue was ever there, and the whole story is a gross falsehood.

But let me quote a little further from this lecture, continuing on page 81: “Q.–What does a Master’s lodge represent? A.–The Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies of King Solomon’s Temple. Q.–How long was the temple building? A.–Seven years; during which it rained not in the daytime, that the workmen might not be obstructed in their labor.” This is a likely story! Is there anything of this kind in the Bible? And does anyone believe that a miracle of this kind could have been wrought without having been recorded in the Bible? But again: Q.–What supported the temple? A.–Fourteen hundred and fifty- three columns, and two thousand one hundred and six pilasters, all hewn from the finest Parian marble.” Where did they get this? Again: “Q.–What further supported it? A.– Three grand columns or pillars. Q.–What were they called? Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty. Q.–What did they represent? A.–The pillar of Wisdom represented Solomon, King of Israel, whose wisdom contrived the mighty fabric.” But the Bible represents Solomon as having received the whole plan of the temple from David, who received it directly from God. Solomon never contrived the building at all.–1 Chon., xxviii. 11,12,20.

Again, on page 82, we have the following: “Q.–How many constitute a Master’s lodge?– Three Master Masons. Q.–Where did they usually meet? A.–In the sanctum sanctorum, or Holy of holies of King Solomon’s Temple.” Now, this misrepresentation is kept up; and in the work of making a Master Mason they make the lodge represent the Most Holy place in King Solomon’s Temple. A Masonic lodge in the Most Holy place of King Solomon’s Temple! What an absurd, unscriptural, and ridiculous representation is this! And yet this is seriously taught to the candidate whenever a Master Mason is made.

But, again, this whole representation in regard to Hiram Abiff is utterly false. If any one will examine the fourth chapter of 2 Chron. he will see that Hiram Abiff finished the work for which he was employed; and, so far as we can get any light from the Bible, he must have lived till after the temple was finished. Where and when he died we know not, as he, no doubt, returned to Hiram, King of Tyre, who sent him to assist Solomon. But that he died in the manner represented by Freemasons, that he was buried in a grave six feet deep, and raised upon the five points of fellowship, that he was then buried again under the Most Holy place of King Solomon’s Temple, and a marble monument erected in the Most Holy place to his memory, is a glaring falsehood.

Again, Masonry teaches that the Master’s word could only be given by three persons standing in a peculiar attitude, and each one repeating one of its syllables. That this word was known at the time by only three persons, Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff; and that, consequently, when Hiram was killed, the word was lost, as they were under oath never to give it except in that particular manner.

Now, in the Royal Arch degree, Masonry professes to give an account of the manner in which that word was recovered.

Some men, it is said, were employed in digging about the temple, and discovered a stone, which proved to be the key-stone of an arch covering a vault deep under ground, constructed, as it is said, by Hiram Abiff, in which they found the Ark of the Covenant.

On pp. 78, 79, of Richardson’s “Monitor of Freemasonry,” we have their explanation of this pretended discovery as follows. On p. 78: “Principal Sojourner.– Most Excellent, in pursuance of your orders, we repaired to the secret vault and let down one of our companions. The sun at this time was at its meridian height, the rays of which enabled him to discover a small box or chest standing on a pedestal, curiously wrought and overlaid with gold, * * * We have brought this chest up for the examination of the Grand Council. High Priest [looking with surprise at the Ark].–Companion King this is the Ark of the Covenant of God. King [looking at it.]–It is undoubtedly the true Ark of the Covenant, Most Excellent. High Priest [taking the Ark].–Let us open it, and see what valuable treasure it may contain. [Opens the Ark, and takes out a book.] High Priest to the King.–Companion, here is a very ancient looking book. What can it be? Let us read it. [Reads the first three verses of the first chapter of Genesis.]”

After reading several other passages, the High Priest says: “This is a book of the law– long lost, but now found. Holiness to the Lord! [He repeats this twice]. King.–A book of the law–long lost, but now found. Holiness to the Lord! Scribe repeats the same. High Priest to Candidates–You now see that the world is indebted to Masonry for the preservation of this sacred volume. Had it not been for the wisdom and precaution of our ancient brethren, this, the only remaining copy of the law, would have been destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem.” After several further misrepresentations, on p. 79, we have the following: “Looking again into the Ark, the High Priest takes out four pieces of paper, which he examines closely, consults with the king and scribe, and then puts them together so as to show a key to the ineffable characters of this degree. After examining the key, he proceeds to read by the aid of it the characters on the four sides of the Ark. High Priest reading first side: Deposited in the year three thousand. Second side: By Solomon, King of Israel. Third side: Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff. Fourth side: For the good of Masonry generally, but the Jewish nation in particular.” If any one will consult the ceremonies just as they occur, and as they are recorded by Richardson, he will see to what an extent the candidate is misinformed and deceived in this degree. And the same in substance may be learned from “Light on Masonry.” Now, observe, Masonry teaches in this most solemn manner that in Solomon’s time the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred contents, was buried in a vault by Solomon and the two Hirams.

Solomon was only the third king of Israel. And when did he have this Ark buried? Did it not stand in the Most Holy place during his own reign? Was not the Ark of the Covenant, with its sacred contents, in the Most Holy place in the temple after Solomon’s day? What reader of the Bible does not know that this representation of Masonry is false ? Again, the candidate is also falsely taught that the world is indebted to Masonry for preserving the book of the law; that, but for this discovery of the Ark with its contents in that vault, no book of the law would have been preserved, as this was the only copy in existence. But this, again, is utterly false. Masonry teaches that, but for the discovery of this volume, the Bible would have been lost at the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is no truth in this;

for copies had been multiplied before the first, and still further multiplied before the last, destruction of Jerusalem.

The following examples I extract from Professor Morgan’s report: “It is alleged that, in consequence of the murder of Hiram Abiff; a particular keystone failed of its designation; but that Solomon caused search to be made for it, when it was found by means of certain initial letters which Hiram had employed as a mark. These letters were the initials of the English words, Hiram, Tyrian, widow’s son sent to King Solomon. These initial letters are now employed as the mark of the Mark Master’s degree. Masons sometimes wear a seal or trinket with these letters on it. I have seen them exhibited in a picture of a seal or badge in a widely circulated Masonic manual. Here we have Hiram, who never could have known one word of English–the English language not existing till thousands of years after his time–employing the initials of eight English words as his mark. And, in honor of his employing them, Mark Masters display them as their mark, and thus display the ignorance or imposture of their craft.”

Another alleged historic fact is given in Richardson’s “Monitor of Freemasonry,” p. 155– the Gold Plate story. “In the ceremonies connected with the degree of ‘Grand Elect, Perfect, and Sublime Mason,’ the Master says: ‘I will now give you the true pronunciation of the name of the Deity as revealed to Enoch; and he engraved the letters composing it on a triangular plate of gold, which was hidden for many ages in the bowels of the earth, and lost to mankind. The mysterious words which you received in the preceding degrees are all so many corruptions of the true name of God which was engraved on the triangle of Enoch. In this engraving the vowel points are so arranged as to give the pronunciation thus, YOWHO. This word, when thus pronounced, is called the Ineffable word, which cannot be altered as other words are; and the degrees are called, on this account, Ineffable degrees. This word, you will recollect, was not found until after the death of Hiram Abiff; consequently, the word engraved by him on the ark is not the true name of God.’

“Here we have a most ridiculous piece of imposture, more than parallel with the gold plate imposture of Mormonism. Every Hebrew scholar of the most moderate attainments knows that the vowel points, here alleged to have been used by Enoch before the flood, did not even exist till six or eight centuries after the birth of Christ. Besides, the merest smatterer in Hebrew, with very little thought. would know that the name of God could not, by any proper arrangement of vowels, be pronounced in this way.

“The story could impose only on the grossest ignorance, or most careless inconsiderateness.”

To quote all that is scandalously false in its teachings and pretensions would be to quote these books almost entire. We hear professed Christians, and even ministers, claiming that Freemasonry enables them to better understand the Bible. Can it be that they are so ignorant as to believe this? But this is often urged as an inducement to join the lodge. Indeed Masonry claims that, to this day, none but Freemasons know even the true name of God. After Enoch’s day, the Divine name was unknown until recovered by Freemasons in the days of Solomon, and that this true name of God is preserved by them as a Masonic

secret. Of course, all others are worshiping they know not what. So this is Masonic benevolence and piety, to conceal from all but their craft the name of the true God. How wise and benevolent Freemasonry is! I wonder how many ministers of the Gospel are engaged in keeping this secret! They only of all ministers know the true name of God, and have joined a conspiracy to conceal it from all but Masons!

Before I close this number, I wish to ask Freemasons who have taken the degrees above the Fellow craft, or second degree, have you believed the teaching of these degrees, as you have taken them one after another? Have you believed that the lodges, chapters, commanderies, etc., were really erected to God, and consecrated to the holy order of Zerubbabel and St. John? Have you believed what you are taught in the Master’s degree, respecting King Solomon, Hiram, king of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff? Have you believed the teachings of the Royal Arch degree, and of all those degrees in which King Solomon figures so largely? Have you believed that to Masonry the church owes the preservation of the only remaining copy of the law of God ? Have you believed the Gold Plate story, that Enoch lived in the place where the Temple of Solomon was afterward built, that he built, deep in the earth, nine arches, one above the other, in which, on the place where the temple was afterward built, he deposited a golden plate on which was written the true name of God, that this name was written with the Hebrew vowels attached, and that its true pronunciation is YOWHO, as Masonry teaches? Now you have believed these, and other outrageous falsehoods taught in Masonry, or you have not. If you have believed them, you have been greatly imposed upon, you have been grossly deceived. Will you allow yourselves to still give countenance to an institution that teaches such falsehoods as these? Had I space I could fill scores of pages with the palpable falsehoods which Masonry teaches its membership: How can you adhere to an institution so basely false and hypocritical as this? The secrets are all out. Both you and the world are now made aware of the base falsehoods that are palmed off upon its members by Freemasonry. Professed Christian Freemason, how can you hold up your head either in the church or before the world, if you still adhere to this most hypocritical institution? Just think of the Worshipful Masters, the Grand High Priests, in their mitres and priestly robes, the great and pompous dignitaries of Masonry arrayed in their sacerdotal robes, solemnly teaching their members such vile falsehoods as these, claiming that to Freemasons the church owes the preservation of the law of God, and that the true name of God is known only to Freemasons! Shame! But I said you have either been made to believe these things or you have not. If you have never believed them, pray, let me ask you how it is that you have ever given any countenance to this institution when you did not at all believe its teaching? How is it that you have not long since renounced and denounced an institution whose teaching is replete with falsehoods taught under the most solemn circumstances? These falsehoods are taught as Masonic secrets, under the sanction of the most awful and solemn oaths. What shall we say of an institution that binds its members by such oaths, to keep and preserve as truth and secrets, such a tissue of profane falsehood? You see nothing in it inconsistent with Christianity! Why, my dear brother, how amazing it is that you can be so blinded! Are you not afraid that you shall be given over to believe a lie, that you may be damned, because you believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness

CHAPTER XII
MASONRY SUSCEPTIBLE OF CHANGE ONLY BY ADDITIONS

In proof of this, I first appeal to the testimony of Masons themselves. Hear the testimony, given under oath, of Benjamin Russell, once Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. His and other depositions were given in Boston, before a justice of the peace, by request of Masons themselves. Observe, he was an ex-Grand Master of one of the most important lodges in the world. This surely is conclusive Masonic authority. He says: “The Masonic institution has been, and now is, the same in every place. No deviation has been made, or can be made at any time, from its usages, rules and regulations.” Observe, he does not say that no additions can be made, but no deviations. He proceeds: “Such is its nature, that no innovations on its customs can be introduced, or sanctioned, by any person or persons. DeWitt Clinton, the former Governor of New York and Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York and of the United States, also made an affidavit on the same occasion. He says: “The principles of Masonry are essentially the same and uniform in every place” (Powell, p. 40, as quoted by Stearns). In Hardy’s Monitor, a standard Masonic work, we have the following, p. 96: “Masonry stands in no need of improvement; any attempt, therefore, to introduce the least innovation will be reprobated not by one, but by the whole fraternity.” The Grand Lodge of Connecticut asserts: “It is not in the power of man, nor in any body of men, to remove the ancient landmarks of Masonry” (Allyn’s Rituals p. 14). These are the highest Masonic authorities, and to the same effect might be quoted from all their standard works.

Second.–From the nature of the institution it cannot be changed, except by addition. In proof of this I observe

I. That Masonry is extended over the civilized world, at least Masons themselves boast that it includes men of every language, and of every clime. They claim for Masonry that it is a universal language; that men of every country and language can reveal themselves to each other as Freemasons; that by their signs and grips and pass words, etc., they can not only know each other as Masons, but as having taken such and such degrees of the order, that as soon as they reveal themselves to each other as having taken certain degrees of Masonry, they know their obligations, each to the other–what they may demand or expect of each other, and what each is under oath to do for the other. Now this must be true, or of what avail would Masonry be to those who are traveling through different countries, where there are different languages. Unless their methods of knowing each other were uniform, universal, and unchangeable, it is plain that they could not know each other as Masons. It is true in some particular localities there may be an additional pass word or sign, to indicate that they belong to that locality, but in all that is essentially Masonic, it must be universal and unchangeable.

II. The same is true with respect to their oaths. They must all, in every place, be under the same obligations to each other, or it would introduce endless confusion and uncertainty.

Every Mason, of every place, must know that every other Mason, having taken the same degrees, has taken the same oaths that he himself has taken; that he owes the same duties, and can claim the same privileges of any other Mason of the same degree. If this were not so, Masonry would be of no value among strangers. Furthermore, if their obligations were not exactly alike, they would necessarily be betrayed into violating them. If they found that they claimed duties of each other which were not necessarily imposed by the obligations of both, or claimed privileges of each other not conferred by the obligations of both, they would in this way make each other acquainted with their respective obligations which were not in fact alike. Thus each would reveal to the other, secrets which he was sworn to keep.

III. The oaths of every degree, from the lowest to the highest, must be uniform, everywhere the same, and unchangeable. If they were not the same in every country, in every language, and at every time, Masonry would be a perfect babel. Now degrees may be added ad infinitum, but a Mason of any degree must Know that Masons of the same degree in every place, have taken the same oath that he has taken, and have taken all the oaths of the previous degrees, just as he has himself. If this were not true, Masons could not everywhere know with what they might entrust each other. Suppose, for example, that the obligation to conceal each other’s crimes, and to keep each other’s secrets, was not universal and unchangeable, how would they know with what they might trust each other in different places? Suppose the obligation to assist each other in getting out of any difficulty, whether right or wrong, was not uniform and universal, how would they know what they might demand of, or were under obligation to perform for, each other? But can not its objectionable points, it may be asked, be dropped out, and what is valuable preserved? Drop from the obligation, for instance, in any place, the clause that binds them to keep each other’s secrets, murder and treason excepted, or without exception,–to deliver each other from difficulty, whether right or wrong, to give each other precedence in business or politics, to give each other warning of any approaching danger and the like. Now if you drop out any one of these, at any time or place, you introduce confusion, and Masons could not understand each other. Furthermore, drop out the most objectionable features of Masonry, and you have robbed it of its principal value to the membership, you have annihilated the principal reasons for becoming and for remaining a Mason. But the changes are manifestly impossible. There is nowhere any authority for such change; and, as has been stated, the whole fraternity would rebuke any attempt at such innovation. We may rest assured, therefore, that Freemasonry is not, and can not be, essentially changed, except by addition. To this point all their highest authorities bear the fullest testimony. Its very nature forbids essential innovations at any time or in any place. But should Masons affirm that the institution is changed, how are we to know what changes have been made? They are under oath to keep this a profound secret. Suppose they were to affirm that, since the revelations made by Morgan, Bernard, and others, the institution has been greatly improved, this is a virtual admission that those books are true, which they have so often denied. But since they have first denied that those books were true, and now virtually admit their truth, by claiming that Masonry has been improved since those books were written, what reason have we to believe them? I have, in a previous number, shown that it is irrational to believe what Masons themselves say in respect to their secrets. I do not know that any intelligent and respectable Freemason pretends that

Masonry has been improved. But suppose they should, how shall we know in what respects it has been improved, that we may judge for ourselves whether the changes are improvements. If any number of them were now to affirm that Masonry, as it now exists, is divested of all the objectionable features that formerly belonged to it, how shall we know whether this is true? They have always denied that it had any objectionable features; they have always claimed that it needed no improvement, and their highest authorities have many times affirmed that all improvement and innovation were impossible. In view of all the testimony in the case, we have no right to believe that Masonry is at all improved from what it was forty years ago. As late as 1860, Richardson revealed sixty-two degrees of Masonry as it then existed. It was then the same in every essential feature as when Bernard made his revelation in 1829, and when Avery Allyn made his revelation in 1831. We are all, therefore, under the most solemn obligations to believe that Masonry is, in all important particulars, just what is has been since its various degrees have been adopted and promulged. We certainly do greatly err and sin, if, in view of all the facts, we assume, and act upon the assumption, that Freemasonry is divested of its immoral and obnoxious features. Such an assumption is utterly unwarranted, because, on the one hand, there is no evidence of the fact, and, on the other, there is positive and abundant proof that no such change has been made. We are all, therefore, responsible to God and to humanity for the course we shall take respecting the institution. We are bound to judge of it, and to treat it, according to the evidence in the case, which is, that, Freemasonry is necessarily a wicked institution, and incapable of thorough moral reformation.

I have spoken frequently of its having the character, in certain respects, of a mutual aid, or mutual insurance, company. It is inquired, are all these necessarily wicked? I answer, no. The benefits of these institutions may be real and great. For example, an insurance company that insures persons against loss by shipwreck, by fire, or by what we call accident of any kind, may be very beneficial to society. When they help each other in cases of calamity that involve no crime, they are not necessarily wicked, but may be very useful. The benefits of these companies are open to all upon reasonable conditions; and if any do not reap the fruits of them, it is not the fault of the society, but of those who neglect to avail themselves of its benefits. But Freemasonry is by no means a mere insurance or mutual aid society. The moral character of any institution must depend on the end at which it aims; that is, the moral character of any society is found in the end it is intended to secure. Mutual aid and insurance companies, as they exist for business purposes, do not necessarily deprive any one of his rights, and are often highly useful. The members of such societies or companies do not know each other, nor exert over each other any personal influence whatever. They are not bound by any oath to render each other any unlawful assistance, to conceal each other’s crimes, nor “to espouse each other’s cause, whether right or wrong.” There is no clannish spirit engendered by their frequent meeting together, nor by mutual pledges under the most awful oaths and penalties, to treat each other with any favoriteism under any circumstances. But Freemasonry, on the contrary, does pledge its members by the most solemn oaths, to aid each other in a manner that sets aside the rights of others. For example, they are sworn first, in the Master’s degree, to conceal each other’s crimes, “murder and treason only excepted;” second, in the Royal Arch degree, “murder and treason not excepted;” in this same degree

they swear to endeavor to extricate each other, if involved in any difficulty, whether they are right or wrong; third, they also swear to promote each other’s political elevation in preference to any one of equal qualifications who is not a Freemason; fourth, to give each other the preference in business transactions. –See Richardson’s Monitor of Freemasonry, p. 92. Degree of Secret Monitor: “I furthermore promise and swear, that I will caution a brother Secret Monitor by signs, word, or token, whenever I see him doing, or about to do, any thing contrary to his interest in buying or selling. I furthermore promise and swear, that I will assist a brother Secret Monitor in preference to any other person by introducing him to business, by sending him custom, or in any other manner in which I can throw a penny in his way.” They swear “to represent all who violate their Masonic oaths as worthless vagabonds, and to send this character after them to ruin their business and their reputation wherever they may go and be to the end of their lives.” They also swear to seek the condign punishment of all such in the infliction of the penalties of their oaths upon them. They swear to seek their death. They swear to a stringent exclusiveness, excluding from their society all that would most naturally need aid and sympathy, and receiving none who are not “physically perfect.” Old men in dotage, young men in nonage, all women, idiots and other needy classes, are all excluded. Freemasonry has a vast fund of money at its disposal. The fraternity are very numerous. They boast of numbering in this country at the present time six hundred thousand, and that they are multiplying faster than ever. They permeate every community, and their influence is almost omnipresent. Of course, such an aid society as this will everywhere and in every thing ignore and trample on the rights of others to secure advantages for each other. As an illustration of the workings of this society, I make an extract or two from “The American Freemason,” published in Louisville, Kentucky, dated April 8, 5854, that is 1854, and edited by Robert Morris, an eminent Masonic author. From the eighty-fifth page I quote as follows: “Lynn, Indiana.– In hauling a load of pork to the depot a year or two since, I found the rush of wagons so great that the delivery was fully three days behind. This was a serious matter to me, for I could not lose so much time from my business, and was seriously weighing the propriety of going on to Cincinnati with my load, when the freight agent, learning from a casual remark of mine, that I was a Freemason, was kind enough at once to order my errand attended to, and in three hours I was unloaded, and ready, with a light heart, to set my face homeward. Is it not an admirable thing, this Masonic spirit of brotherly love?” To this the editor adds: “Verily it is. We have seen it in many varieties of form, but our kindhearted brother’s is but an every-day experience of Masonic practice, but to the world how inexplicable do such things appear.” Here we have a specimen of Masonic brotherly love. But was this right, to give this preference to this man, and wrong all who were there before him, and had a right to have. their business done before him! He gained three days’ time, and saved the expense of waiting for his turn, whilst others were obliged to lose both the time and expense. And this we are coolly told, by high Masonic authority, is the “constant practice of Freemasons.” What an exquisite brotherly love is this. It is delicious! But this is in entire accordance with the spirit of their oaths. But is it not a trampling on the rights of others! In this same paper we have, in an illustration of the nature of Freemasonry, a tale, the substance of which is, that a criminal, under sentence of death, was set free by Freemasons under the pretense that he was not guilty of the murder for which he was condemned. So they took the case into their own hands, and set aside the judgment of the

court and jury. Observe, this is given as an illustration of the manner in which Freemasons aid each other.

These cases are given as their own boast of specimens of their brotherly love. But is this consistent with right and good government? The fact is, that it is impossible to engage in any business, to travel, to do any thing, to go anywhere, without feeling the influence of this and other secret societies. Wrongs are constantly inflicted upon individuals and upon society, of which the wronged are unaware. We can be wronged any day by a favoritism practiced by these societies, without being aware how or by whom we are wronged. I was informed of late, that in a large manufacturing establishment, poor men, dependent for their daily bread upon their labors in the factory, were turned out to give place to Freemasons who were no better workmen than themselves. Indeed it is inevitable that such a society should act upon such a principle. But it may be asked, can not Masonry be essentially reformed, so that it shall involve no wrong.? I answer, no, unless its very fundamental principle and aim be reversed, and then it would cease to be Freemasonry. In its workings it is a constant wrong inflicted upon society. It is an incessant and wide- spread conspiracy for the concealment of crime, to obstruct the course of justice, and, in many instances, to persecute the innocent and let the wicked go free. To reform it, its ends and its means must both be reformed. It must cease to be exclusive and selfish. It must cease to promise aid in many forms in which it does promise it. I have said that it was more than an innocent mutual aid society. Its members are pledged to aid each other in concealing iniquity, and in many ways that trample upon the rights of others.

And it is because this society promises aid in so many ways, and under so many circumstances, that men unite themselves to it. I have never heard any better reason assigned for belonging to it, than that, in many respects, one might reap a personal advantage from it. Now reform it, and make it a truly benevolent society; reform out of it all unrighteous favoritism, and all those forms of aid which are inconsistent with the universal good, and the highest well-being of society in general, and you have altered its essential nature; it is no longer Freemasonry, or any thing like Freemasonry. To reform it is to destroy it. In this view of Freemasonry, it is easy to see how difficult, if not impossible, it is for a man to be a consistent Freemason and yet a Christian. Just conceive of a Christian constantly receiving the preference over others as good as himself, in traveling, in railroad cars, on steamboats, at hotels, and everywhere, and in business transactions, and in almost all the relations of life, allowing himself to be preferred to others who have equal rights with himself. To be sure, in traveling, he may bless himself because he is so comfortable, and that so much pains are taken to give him the preference in every thing. If at a hotel, he may have the best seat at the table, and the best room in the house, and may find himself everywhere more favored than others.

But can he honestly accept this? Has he any right to accept it? No, indeed, he has not! He is constantly favored at the expense of others. He constantly has more than his right, while others are deprived of their rights. In other words, he is selfish, and that continually. He finds a personal benefit in it. Yes, and that is why he adheres to it. But again, if true to his oath, he is not only thus constantly receiving benefits unjustly, or to the injury of others, but also conferring them.

Whenever he sees a Masonic sign and recognizes a Masonic brother, he, of course, must do by him as a Freemason, as he himself is done by.

How can a man who is a Christian allow himself to be influenced by such motives as are presented in Freemasonry? Now let it be understood that all action is to be judged by its motive. No man has a right to receive or confer favors that interfere with the rights of others. And a man who can travel about the country and make himself known as a Freemason for the purpose of being indulged, and finding the best place in a hotel, or the best seat in a railroad car, or the best state-room in a steamboat, must be a selfish man, and can not be a Christian, –for a selfish man is not a Christian. Let it then be understood that Masonry in its fundamental principle, in which its moral character is found, is not reformed, and can not be reformed without destroying its very nature.

It can not be a part of general benevolence, but stands unalterably opposed to the highest well-being of society in general. The same, let me say, is true to a greater or less extent of all secret societies, whose members are bound by oath or pledge to treat each other with a favoritism that ignores the rights of others. Now, it has been said, and I think truly, that in the late war if a man wished preferment and high rank, he must be a high Mason. Such things were managed so much by high Masons that it was difficult for a man to rise in rank unless he could make himself known as a high Mason. And let the facts become known–and, I hope that measures will be taken to make them know–and I believe it will be found that the great mass of the lucrative offices in the United States are in the hands of the Freemasons.

It is evident that they are aiming to seize upon the government, and to wield it in their own interest. They are fast doing this, and unless the nation awake soon it will be too late. And let the church of God also awake to the fact that many of her ministers and members are uniting with a society so selfish and wicked as this, and are defending it, and are ready to persecute all who will not unite with them in this thing. What Mr. Morris said of the nature of Freemasonry, that is, that it was the constant practice of Freemasons to give each other the preference, as in the case of the man delivering his load, is really what every observant man, especially if he has ever been himself a Mason, knows to be true.

When Freemasons say that it is “a good thing” they mean by this that men reap personal advantage from it. But I am bound to say, that I should feel utterly ashamed to have any one offer to give me a right that belonged to others because I was a Mason.

It has been frequently said, by persons: “If I was going to travel, I would become a Freemason.” A physician in the United States Army in the late war, said to a relative of his: “If I were going into the army again, I would be sure to become a Freemason. There is such a constant favoritism shown by Freemasons to each other, on every occasion, that were I going to take the field again, I would be sure to avail myself of the benefits of that institution.” Now, in opposition to this, I would say, that were I going to travel, or were I going to enlist in the army, I should be ashamed to avail myself of any such benefits at all. It is not right that any such favoritism should exist, and any man ought to reject with indignation the proposal of such favoritism. Any man should blush, if he has entertained

the thought of allowing himself to be placed in such a selfish position. But it is asserted, no doubt with truth, that oftentimes the lives of brother Masons have been spared, simply because of this relation. But shall a man save his life by wrongdoing? He had better remember, that if he attempts this, he ruins his own soul. He that would thus “save his life, shall lose it.” A man can gain nothing in the end by wrong-doing; let him do right, and if, by so doing, he loses his life, he will be sure to save it. With my present knowledge of Freemasonry I would not become a Freemason to save my life a thousand times.

HAPTER XIII
THE CLAIM OF FREEMASONRY TO GREAT ANTIQUITY IS FALSE.

We have seen that Freemasonry has been truly revealed. We have examined its oaths, principles, claims, and teaching, so far as to prepare the way for an examination of its moral character and tendencies, and also its relations to both Church and State. This I now proceed to do. And

1. .Its claims to great antiquity are false. Every one at all acquainted with the claims of Freemasonry knows that it professes to have existed in the days of Solomon; and it is claimed that Solomon himself was a Freemason, and that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were Freemasons. Indeed, the writers frequently trace it back as coeval with the creation itself. Masons have claimed for their institution an antiquity antecedent to human government; and from this they have argued that they have a right to execute the penalties of their oaths, because Masonry is older than government. Now an examination will show that this claim is utterly false. Their own highest authorities now pronounce it to be false; and still these claims are kept up, and their oaths and ceremonies, and the whole structure of the institution profess the greatest antiquity.

Solomon, for instance, figures as a Freemason everywhere in their ceremonies.

Their lodges are dedicated to St. John; and in the third degree there is a scene professed to have been enacted in the temple and at the building of the Temple of Solomon.

Now, all this is utterly fallacious, a false pretense, and a swindle; because it is the obtaining of money from those who join them under false pretenses.

Steinbrenner, a great Masonic historian, after much research, with manifest candor, says that Speculative Freemasonry –which is the only form of Freemasonry now existing– dates no further back than 1717. The article on Freemasonry in the new “American Encyclopedia” agrees with this statement of Steinbrenner. Indeed, all modern research on this subject has resulted in dating the commencement of Freemasonry, as it now exists, not far from the middle of the eighteenth century.

Dr. Dalcho, the compiler of the book of constitutions for South Carolina, says: “Neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Nimrod, nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Solomon, nor Hiram, nor St. John the Baptist, nor St. John the Evangelist, were Freemasons. Hypothesis in history is absurd. There is no record, sacred or profane, to induce us to believe that those holy men were Freemasons; and our traditions do not go back to those days. To assert that they were Freemasons may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise.”

Now, observe, this is a high authority, and should be conclusive with Masons, because it is one of their own leaders who affirms this. But, if this is true, what shall we think of the claims of Freemasonry itself? For every one who reads these revelations of Freemasonry will see that Solomon, and Hiram, and those ancient worthies everywhere figure in these rites and ceremonies; so that, if these men were indeed not Masons, then Freemasonry is a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. What! has it come to this, that this boasted claim of antiquity, which everywhere lies at the foundation of Masonic rites, ceremonies, and pretensions, is now discovered to be false?

Through all the Masonic degrees the pretense is kept up that Masonry has always been one and the same; and that its degrees are ancient, and all its principles and usages of great antiquity. Let any one examine the books in which it is revealed, and he can not help being struck with this. Furthermore, in the orations, sermons, and puffs that are so common with Masons on all occasions on which they show themselves off, they flaunt their very ancient date, their very ancient principles and usages, and they pledge their candidates, from one degree to another, to conform to all the ancient rites, principles, and usages of the order.

But what shall we at the present day say of these pretensions? I have before me the Masonic Monthly for October, 1867, printed in Boston. It will not be denied, I suppose, that this is one of their standard authorities. At any rate, whatever may be said of the editor of this paper, it will not be denied that the authorities quoted in the discussions in this number are high, if not the very highest authorities in the Masonic fraternity. If I had space to quote nearly this entire number, I should be very happy to do so, for it is occupied almost entirely, from beginning to end, with exposing these pretensions to which I have alluded. It appeals to their own standard authorities; and insists that Speculative Freemasonry, in all its higher degrees, is an imposture and a swindle. It quotes their great historian Steinbrenner, of New York–to show that Speculative Freemasonry was first established in London, in 1717; and that at that time Masonry consisted probably, of but one degree. That about 1725 a Mr. Anderson added two degrees; and, as the writer in this number states, began the Christianizing of Freemasonry. There is at this day a great division among Freemasons themselves, the point of disagreement being this: One party maintains that the Christian religion is of no more authority with Masons than any other form of religion; that Masonry proper does not recognize the Bible as of any higher authority than the sacred books of heathen nations, or than the Koran of Mohammed; that Freemasonry proper recognizes all religions as equally valid, and that so far as Masonry is concerned it matters not at all what the religion of its adherents is, provided they be not Atheists. The other party maintains that Masonry is founded upon the Bible, and that it is substantially a Christian institution.

This controversy is assuming extensive proportions, and it is very interesting for outsiders to look into it. I say outsiders–and I might say it is important, and would be very creditable, for the members of the fraternity to understand this matter better than they do; for I doubt if one in twenty of them is posted in regard to the real state of this question among the fraternity themselves. Mr. Evans, who is the editor of this Masonic

Monthly, takes the ground, and I think sustains it fully from their own authorities, that all the upper degrees of Masonry are an imposture.

He goes on to show where and by whom, in several important cases, these upper degrees were manufactured and palmed off on the brotherhood as ancient Freemasonry.

For example, he shows that Mr. Oliver, one of their most prolific authors, asserts that one of the grand lodges in London gave charters, about the middle of the eighteenth century, to the Masonic lodges in France; and that in France they immediately betook themselves to manufacturing degrees and palming them off on the public as of very ancient origin. They proceeded to manufacture a thousand of these degrees in France. Many of them they asserted they had received from Scotland; but the Grand Lodge of Scotland denied ever having known of those degrees.

It is also asserted in this number that the Royal Arch degree was at first but an appendage to a Master’s lodge, and had no separate charter, and for a long time was not recognized at all as any part of Freemasonry. And it informs us when and by whom the Royal Arch degree was manufactured. This number also shows that many of the Masonic degrees have originated in Charleston, South Carolina; and that a man by the name of Webb, in Massachusetts, manufactured the Templars’ degrees. In short, we find here their own standard authorities showing up all the higher degrees of Masonry as having been gotten up and palmed off on the fraternity in order to make money out of them; and is not this a swindle? I wish to call the attention especially of the fraternity to these statements in this number of the Masonic Monthly.

Indeed, it is now common for the highest and best informed Masons to ridicule the pretense that Speculative Freemasonry is an ancient institution, as a humbug and a lie, having no foundation in correct history at all. Now will Freemasons examine this subject for themselves?–for they have been imposed upon.

I am particularly anxious to have professed Christians who are Freemasons thoroughly understand this matter. They have regarded Freemasonry as entirely consistent with the Christian religion, and have professed to see in it nothing with which a Christian can not have fellowship. In the third, or Master’s, degree we find the story of Hiram Abiff introduced into Masonry.

Now this number of the Monthly charges, that this class of Freemasons went on to construct all the subsequent degrees of Freemasonry from the Bible, by ransacking the whole Old and New Testaments for striking passages from which they could construct new degrees, thus leaving the impression that Masonry was a divine institution, and founded upon the Bible.

If professed Christians who are Freemasons will really examine this subject, they will see that a Masonic lodge is no place for a Christian.

But suppose it should be asked, may we not innocently take those degrees that are founded upon the Bible, and that recognize the Christian religion as of divine authority? I answer, Christians cannot be hypocrites. Let it be distinctly understood, that all these higher degrees are shown to be an imposture; and that this Christianizing of Freemasonry has consisted in heaping up a vast mass of falsehood, and of palming it off upon the fraternity as truth and as ancient Freemasonry.

Can Masonic orators be honest in still claiming for Speculative Masonry great antiquity, divine authority, and that it is a saving institution? Masons are themselves now showing that the whole fabric of Speculative Freemasonry is an enormous falsehood. Stone Masonry, doubtless, had its simple degree, and its pass words and signs by which they knew each other. It also had its obligations. But upon that little stem have been engrafted a great number of spurious and hypocritical degrees.

This does seem to be undeniable. Now will Freemasons be frank enough to acknowledge this, and to say frankly that they have been imposed upon? Will they come out from all fellowship with such an imposture and such a swindle?

It has then come at last to this, that the highest authority among Freemasons has taken the ground that the Freemasonry which has been so eulogized throughout the length and breadth of the land, and which has drawn in so many professed Christians and ministers, is nothing less than an enormous cheat. That those behind the curtain, who have manufactured and sold these degrees–those Grand Chapters and Encampments and Commanderies, and all those pompous assemblies–have been engaged in enticing the brotherhood who had taken the lower degrees, to come up into their ranks and pay their money, that they may line their pockets. Now remember that these positions are fully sustained by Masons themselves, as their views are set forth in this number of the Masonic Monthly.

I do most earnestly entreat Freemasons to inform themselves on this subject; and not turn around and tell us that they, being Freemasons, know more about it than we do ourselves. The fact is, my friends, many of you do not. You do not read. I have myself recently conversed with a Freemason who admitted to me that he was entirely ignorant of what was being said in Masonic periodicals on this subject. I do not believe that one in twenty of the Masonic fraternity in this country is aware of the intense hypocrisy with which all the higher degrees of Masonry have been palmed off upon them, and upon the whole fraternity. Can men of honor and of principle allow their names and influence to be used to sustain such an enormous mass of false pretension?

But again, no one can read Bernard on Masonry through, or any of these authors, without perceiving the most unmistakable evidence that most of the degrees in Masonry are of modern date. I do not know why so much stress should be laid upon the antiquity of Masonry by those who embrace and adhere to it. It surely does not prove that it is of any value, or that it is true. Sin is of very ancient date, heathenism is of very ancient date, and most of the abominations that are in the world are of very ancient date; but this is no reason tbr embracing them, or regarding them as of any great importance.

But to certain minds there is a charm in the appearance and profession of antiquity; and young Masons are universally deceived in this respect, and led to believe that it is one of the most ancient of existing institutions, if not the very most so. Now I would not object to Masonry because it is of modern origin; for this would not prove it to be false, if it did not profess to be of ancient origin. I notice this false pretense not because I think its being of recent date would prove it unworthy of notice, or of immoral character or tendency. But observe that its pretensions from first to last are that it is of very ancient date; and it is traced back to the days of inspiration, and is claimed to have been founded and patronized by inspired men.

What would Masonry be if all its claims to antiquity were stricken out, and if those degrees in Masonry, and those ceremonies and usages, were abolished that rest upon the claim that Solomon, that Hiram Abiff, and John the Evangelist, were Freemasons? What would remain of Freemasonry if all those claims found in the very body of the institution were stricken out? Why, their very lodges are dedicated to the holy order of St. John and Zerubbabel, etc. But what had St. John to do with Freemasonry? Manifestly nothing. He never heard or thought of it. Nor did Solomon or Zerubbabel.

And here let me say a word to young men who have been urged to unite with this fraternity, and who have been made to believe that the institution is so very ancient that it was established and patronized by those holy men. My dear young men, you have been deceived. You have been imposed upon as I was imposed upon. You have been made to believe a lie. They have drawn your money from you under false pretenses that some very ancient mysteries were to be revealed to you; and that the institution was one established as far back, at least, as the days of Solomon, and that St. John was the patron of the institution. Now this, rely upon it, is but a pretense, a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. I beg you to believe me; and if you will examine the subject for yourselves, you will find it to be true.

Your own best historian, Steinbrenner, will teach you that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it is now universally known, dates no further back than the eighteenth century. And Dr. Dalcho, who is good authority with the brotherhood, as we have seen, repudiates the idea of its antiquity as that which “may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise.” I know that Masons affirm that the institution in its present form is the descendant of a brotherhood of stone masons, whose history may be traced back for some seven hundred years. But remember that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it now exists, is not at all what it was among those simple artisans. The name is preserved, and some of its symbols, for the purpose of claiming for it great antiquity. But do not be deceived. If you will examine the subject for yourselves, you will find that modern Freemasonry is entirely another thing from that from which it claims to be descended. And when you hear ministers, or orators, on any occasion, claiming for Speculative Freemasonry–which is the only form in which it now exists–a great antiquity, let it be settled, I pray you, in your minds, that such claims are utterly false; and that those who make them are either grossly ignorant or intensely dishonest. King Solomon a stone mason! Hiram a Grand Master of a Grand Lodge of

stone masons! Those men uniting in a lodge with a company of stone masons! Does any one really believe the silly tale?

How long shall the intelligent of this generation be insulted by having this pretended antiquity of Freemasonry paraded before the public? Do not intelligent Freemasons blush to hear their orators on public occasions, and even ministers of the Gospel in their Masonic sermons, flaunt the silly falsehoods of the great antiquity of Freemasonry before the public, and claim that Enoch, Zerubbabel, Solomon, the St. Johns, and all the ancient worthies, were Freemasons?

CHAPTER XIV
THE BOASTED BENEVOLENCE OF MASONS A SHAM

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 deniable. But does Masonry inculcate 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 the 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 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.

It is not pretended that a man may not be a good and worthy Mason who is not a Christian. It is admitted and claimed by Freemasonry that a man’s religion, or religious character, has nothing to do with his being a Mason. If he admits the being of a God this is enough.

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 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 named comprise a vast majority, probably not less than two-thirds of all mankind. Again, they admit no deformed person, and none but those who are physically perfect. In short, they admit none who are likely to become chargeable to the institution.

Some time since the Grand Lodge of the State of New York adopted a series of articles defining certain landmarks and principles of Freemasonry. These articles have been accepted and eulogized by the Masonic press. The first is as follows. I quote it from the American Freemason, edited by “Robert Morris, Knight Templar, and author of various Masonic works,” with his preface and strictures. These articles Mr. Morris regards as high Masonic authority. The number from which I quote is dated at Louisville, Kentucky, 8th of April, 5854, Masonic date, in other words, in 1854, fourteen years ago.

“Our New York brethren are eminent for the matchless ability with which their Grand Lodge documents are prepared. In this department they have set the example for others, and there are yet a few that would do well to look to the East for more light. We copy their ‘Thirty-four Articles’ with some condensation and a few comments of our own, and present them to our readers as a well-digested system of Masonic law and practice.

“‘Article I. It is not proper to initiate into our lodges persons of the negro race; and their exclusion is in accordance with Masonic law, and the ancient charges and regulations. Because of their depressed social condition; their general want of intelligence, which unfits them as a body to work in or adorn the craft; the impropriety of making them our equals in one place, when from their social condition and the circumstances which almost everywhere attach to them, we can not do so in others; their not being, as a general thing, free-born; the impossibility, or at least the difficulty, of ascertaining, if we once commence, their free birth, and where the line of intelligence and social elevation commences and ends, or divides portions of their race; and finally, their not being as a race “persons of good report,” or who can be “well recommended” as subjects for initiation, their very seldom being persons who have any “trade, estate, office, occupation or visible way of acquiring an honest livelihood and working in the craft, as becomes members of this ancient and most honorable fraternity, who ought not only to earn what is sufficient for themselves and families, but likewise something to spare for works of charity and for supporting the ancient grandeur and dignity of the royal craft, eating no man’s bread for naught;” and their general positive deficiency of natural endowments. All which would render it impossible, as a general thing, to conciliate and continue between

them and us good will and private affection or brotherly love, which cements into one united body the members of this ancient fraternity.’

“COMMENT. These arguments can not be successfully controverted. We, in the Southern or slave-holding States, whose experience with the colored race is greater than that of others, affirm the New York doctrine in every particular. However occasional instances may be offered to the contrary, they are but the exceptions to prove the general rule, that the race ought not to amalgamate socially or physically.

“‘ARTICLE II. No person of the negro race shall be examined or admitted as a visitor of any lodge of Masons under this jurisdiction, if made in an African lodge in North America. Because all such lodges are clandestine and without legal authority.'”

Here we have their benevolence unmasked. A depressed social condition is a bar to admission to this benevolent society. What if the Christian church should adopt such an article? Is this Christian benevolence? Is it consistent with Christian morality? Christian ministers, is this the morality you teach and practice? You profess to teach and practice the precepts of Christ, and join and hold fast to a society whose law is to exclude men for being in a depressed social position, whatever their wants, their moral and religious character may be. You boast of your benevolence and exclude the very class who have most need of sympathy and benevolence, and are you a professed disciple, and perhaps a professed minister of Jesus. Shame!

Start here

But is this real 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 lodges, 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; the yearly interest of which, at seven per cent is $787,500, which sum (allowing $100. 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 for the privilege of contributing $1, $5, or $50 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 was 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, 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 frequent]y 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 principle 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 of 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 the blind, the old and the 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 treasure 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 part 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 true 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 anti-Christian, and opposed to both the law and 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 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 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 to 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 any good men who are Freemasons, Freemasonry has not made them so; but Christianity 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 that 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 claims 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. I do not claim that as a mutual insurance company it is necessarily wicked but I do insist that, being at best a mutual insurance company, it is wicked and shameful to flaunt their hypocritical professions of benevolence before the public as they constantly do. How long shall an intelligent people be nauseated with this pretense? How can they expect us to have the least respect for such claims to benevolence? We must regard the putting forth of such claims as an insult to our common sense.

CHAPTER XV
FREEMASONRY IS A FALSE RELIGION

Some Freemasons claim that Freemasonry is a saving institution, and that it is true religion. Others hold a different opinion, claiming that it is the handmaid of religion, a system of refined morality. Others still are free to admit that it is only a mutual aid or mutual insurance society. This discrepancy of views among them is very striking, as every one knows who has been in the habit of reading sermons, lectures, and orations on Masonry published by themselves. in this article I propose to inquire, first, Do their standard authorities claim that Masonry is identical with true religion? secondly, Does Freemasonry itself claim to be true religion? and, thirdly, Are these claims valid?

1. Do their standard authorities claim that Masonry is true religion?

I quote Salem Town. I read his work some forty years ago. The book professes on its title-page to be “A System of Speculative Masonry, exhibited in a course of lectures before the Grand Chapter of the State of New York, at their annual meetings in the City of Albany.” It was reduced to a regular system by their special request, and recommended to the public by them as a system of Freemasonry. It is also recommended by nine grand officers, in whose presence the lectures were delivered; by another who had examined them; and by “the Hon. DeWitt Clinton, General Grand High Priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States of America, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, etc., etc.

The book was extensively patronized and subscribed for by Freemasons throughout the country, and has always been considered by the fraternity as a standard authority. From this author I quote as follows:

“The principles of Freemasonry have the same coeternal and unshaken foundations, contain and inculcate the same truths in substance, and propose the same ultimate end, as the doctrines of Christianity.”–P. 53. Again he says: “The same system of faith and the same practical duties taught by revelation are contained in and required by the Masonic institution.”–P. 174. “Speculative Masonry combines those great and fundamental principles which constitute the very essence of the Christian system.”–P. 37. “It is no secret that there is not a duty enjoined nor a virtue required in the volume of inspiration but what is found in and taught by Speculative Freemasonry.” “The characteristic principles are such as embrace the whole subject-matter of divine economy.” P. 31.

Again he says: “As the Word in the first verse of St. John constitutes both the foundation, the subject-matter, and the great ultimate end of the Christian economy, so does the same Word, in all its relations to man, time, and eternity, constitute the very spirit and essence of Speculative Freemasonry.”–P. 155. Again, referring to the promise of the Messiah, he says: “The same precious promise is the great corner-stone in the edifice of Speculative

Freemasonry.”–P. 171. Again he says: “The Jewish order of priesthood from Aaron to Zacharias, and even till the coming of Messias, was in confirmation of the great event, which issued in the redemption of man. All pointed to the eternal priesthood of the Son of God, who by his own blood made atonement for sin, and consecrated the way to the Holy of holies. This constitutes the great and ultimate point of Masonic research.”–P. 121.

“That a knowledge of the divine Word, or Logos, should have been the object of so much religious research from time immemorial adds not a little to the honor of Speculative Freemasonry.”–P. 151.

Again he says: “It is a great truth, and weighty as eternity, that the present and everlasting well-being of mankind is solely and ultimately intended.” –P. 170. This he says of Freemasonry. But again he says: “Speculative Masonry, according to present acceptation, has an ultimate reference to that spiritual building erected by virtue in the heart, and summarily implies the arrangement and perfection of those holy and sublime principles by which the soul is fitted for a meet temple of God in a world of immortality.” –P. 63. Does not Freemasonry profess to be a saving religion?

Again he says: “In advancing to the fourth degree, the good man is greatly encouraged to persevere in the ways of well-doing even to the end. He has a name which no man knoweth save him that receiveth it. If, therefore, he be rejected and cast forth among the rubbish of the world, he knows full well that the great Master-builder of the universe, having chosen and prepared him a lively stone in that spiritual building in the heavens, will bring him forth in triumph, while shouting grace, grace to the Divine Redeemer. Then the Freemason is assured of his election and final salvation. Hence, opens the fifth degree, where he discovers his election to, and his glorified station in, the kingdom of his Father.” Then again he is assured of his “election and glorified station in the kingdom of his Father.” If this is not claiming for Freemasonry a saving power what is? Salem Town is the great light in Freemasonry, as the title and history of his work imports. Does he not claim that Freemasonry is a saving religion? To be sure he does, or no words can assert such a claim. “With these views, the sixth degree is conferred, where the riches of divine grace are opened in boundless prospect.” “Then he beholds in the eighth degree, that all the heavenly sojourners will be admitted within the veil of God’s presence, where they will become kings and priests before the throne of his glory forever and ever.”–Pp. 79- 81. By the “heavenly sojourners,” he certainly means Freemasons. Observe what he asserts of them: “Then he (the Freemason) beholds in the eighth degree that all the heavenly sojourners will be admitted within the veil of God’s presence, where they will become kings and priests before the throne of his glory forever and ever.” This clenches the claim. The maxims of wisdom are gradually unfolded, till the whole duty of man is clearly. and persuasively exhibited to the mind.”–P. 184.

Again: “Principles and duties which lie at the foundation of the Masonic system,. and are solemnly enjoined upon every brother; whoever, therefore, shall conscientiously discharge them in the fear of God fulfills the whole duty of man.”–P. 48. Then he claims for Freemasonry all that is or can be claimed for the law or Gospel of God.

Again he says: “The Divine Being views no moral character in a man with greater complacency than his who in heart strictly conforms to Masonic requirements.” “The more prominent features of a true Masonic character are literally marked with the highest beauties.”–Pp. 33, 185. Then again he represents Masonry as forming as holy a character in man as the Gospel does or can.

Again he says that “every good Mason is of necessity truly and emphatically a Christian.”–P. 37. Then he represents Freemasonry as identical with Christianity. A true Mason must necessarily be a true Christian. That Masonry professes to conduct its disciples to heaven we find affirmed by Town, in the following language. Of the inducements to practice the precepts of Masonry he says: “They are found in that eternal weight of glory, that crown of joy and rejoicing laid up for the faithful in a future world.”–P. 188.

By the faithful here he means faithful Freemasons. This same writer claims that Solomon organized the institution by inspiration from God. On page 187, he says: “So Masonry was transmitted from Enoch, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and their successors, till Solomon, being inspired of God, established a regular form of administration.”

This will suffice for the purpose of showing what is claimed for Masonry by their standard authorities. The same in substance might be quoted from various other standard writers. I have made these quotations from Elder Stearns’ book, not finding in my library a copy of Town. In another place I shall find it convenient to quote sundry others of their standard writers, who, while they claim it to be a religion, do not consider it the Christian religion.

This conducts us (2) to the second inquiry: What does Freemasonry claim for itself?

And here I might quote from almost any of the Masonic degrees to show that this claim is put forth in almost every part of the whole institution. As Town claims for it, so it claims for itself, a power to conduct its disciples to heaven. Any one who will take pains to read Bernard’s “Light on Masonry” through, will be satisfied that Town claims for the institution no more than it claims for itself.

I beg of all who feel any interest in this subject to get and read Bernard on Masonry; to read it through, and see if Town has not rightly represented the claims of Freemasonry. I deny, observe, that he has rightly represented its principles, and that which it really requires of Masons. That he has misrepresented Masonic law I insist. But in respect to its promises of heaven as a reward for being good Freemasons he has not misrepresented it. It claims to be a saving institution. This certainly will appear to any person who will take the pains to examine its teachings and its claims as revealed in “Light on Masonry.” Mr. Town has grossly misrepresented Masonic Law and morality as we have seen in examining its claims to benevolence, and in scrutinizing their oaths and their profane use of Scripture. But that Mr. Town has not misrepresented the claims of Masonry to be a saving religion has been abundantly shown in these pages by quotations from “Light on Masonry.” I might quote many pages from the body of Masonry where it teaches the

candidates that the observance of Masonic law, principles and usages will secure his salvation. The Gospel professes no more than this, that those who obey it shall be saved. Surely Masonry claims to be a saving religion just as much as the Gospel of Christ does.

Just take the following from the degree of “The Knights of the East and West.” “Light on Masonry,” first edition, p. 217, already quoted in another place.

In explaining the ceremony of sounding the seventh trumpet, and conducting the candidate to the vacant canopy, we find the following: “This canopy it will be recollected is at the right side of the All Puissant who represents JEHOVAH. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the conducting of the candidate to the vacant canopy, is a representation of the end of the world, and the glorification of all true Masons at the right hand of God, having passed through the trials of Freemasonry and washed their robes in their own blood.” If Freemasonry does not claim to be a saving religion how can such a claim be made? The compiler adds: “If this is not Antichrist what is?” But I must beg of the reader to examine the books that reveal Masonry for themselves, since to quote the claims of Masonry on this head further than I have done, would not only be useless and tiresome, but would swell this work too much.

This brings me (3) to the third inquiry: Are the claims that Masonry is a true and saving religion valid?

To this question I reply that it is utterly false; and in this respect Freemasonry is a fatal delusion. From the quotations that I have made from Town, it will be perceived that he represents Freemasonry as identical with Christianity.

Mr. Preston is another of their standard writers. I quote the following note from Stearns on Masonry, p. 28: “Mr. Preston’s book, entitled ‘Illustrations of Masonry,’ has been extensively patronized by the fraternity as a standard work. The copy before me is the first American, from the tenth London edition.” Mr. Preston says in his book, p. 30: “The universal principles of the art unite in one indissoluble bond of affection men of the most opposite tenets, of the most distant countries, and of the most contradictory opinions.” Again, p. 125, he says: “Our celebrated annotator has taken no notice of Masons having the art of working miracles, and foresaying things to come. But this was certainly not the least important of their doctrines. Hence, astrology was admitted as one of the arts which they taught, and the study of it warmly recommended.”

“This study became, in the course of time, a regular science.” . So here we learn that Masons formerly claimed the power of working miracles. I quote again from Bradley, p. 8. He says: “We leave every member to choose and support those principles of religion and those forms of government which appear consistent to his views.” In the work of Preston, p. 51, we have the following: “As a Mason, you are to study the moral law as contained in the sacred code, the Bible; and in countries where that book is not known, whatever is understood to contain the will or law of God.” O, then, in every country Masons are to embrace the prevalent religion, whatever it may be, and accept whatever is claimed in any country where they may reside, to be the law and will of God. But is this

Christianity, or consistent with it? It is well known and admitted that Masonry claims to have descended from the earliest ages, and that the institution has existed in all countries and under all religions; and that the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome, the astrologers and soothsayers, and the great men of all heathen nations have belonged to that fraternity.

It is also well known that at this time there are multitudes of Jews, Mohammedans, and skeptics of every grade belonging to the institution. I do not know that this is denied by any intelligent Mason. Now, if this is so, how can Freemasonry be the true religion, or at all consistent with it? Multitudes of Universalists and Unitarians, and of errorists of every grade, are Freemasons; and yet Freemasonry itself claims to save its disciples, to conduct them to heaven!

The third question proposed for discussion in my last number is: Are the claims of Masonry to be a true and saving institution valid? To this I answer, No. This will appear if we consider, first, that the morality which it inculcates is not the morality of the law and Gospel of God. The law and the Gospel, as I have shown in a former number, lay down the same rule of life. And Christ, in commenting upon the true meaning and spirit of the law, says: “If ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?” He requires us to love our enemies, and to pray for them, as truly as for our friends. In short, he requires universal benevolence; whereas Freemasonry requires no such thing. Its oaths, which are its law, simply require its members to be just to each other. I say just, for their boasted benevolence is simply the payment of a debt.

They do, indeed, promise to assist each other in distress, and to help each other’s families, provided they fall into poverty. But on what condition do they promise this? Why, that a certain amount is to be paid into their treasury as a fund for this purpose. But this, surely, is not benevolence, but the simple payment of a debt, on the principle of mutual insurance.

This I have abundantly shown in a former number. Again, the motives presented in Freemasonry to secure the course of action to which they are pledged are by no means consistent with the law or the Gospel of God. In religion, and in true morality, everything depends on the motive or reason for the performance of an action. God accepts nothing that does not proceed from supreme love to Him and equal love to our fellow-men. Not merely to our brother Masons; but to our neighbor–that is, to all mankind. Whatever does not proceed from love and faith is sin, according to the teachings of the Bible. And by love, I say again, is meant the supreme love of God and the equal love of our neighbor.

But Masonry teaches no such morality as this. The motive urged by Masons is, to honor Masonry, to honor the institution, to honor each other. While they are pledged to assist each other in distress; to keep each other’s secrets, even if they be crimes; and to aid each other whether right or wrong, so far as to extricate them from any difficulty in which they are involved; yet they never present the pure motives of the Gospel. They are pledged not to violate the chastity of a brother Mason’s wife, sister, daughter, or mother; but they are not pledged by Masonry, as the law and Gospel of God require, to abstain from such

conduct with any female whatever. But nothing short of universal benevolence, and universal morality, is acceptable to God.

But again: It has been shown that Masonry claims to be a saving institution; that this is claimed for it by the highest Masonic authorities; and that this claim is one set up by itself as well. But an examination of Freemasonry shows that it promises salvation upon entirely other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel nowhere inculcates the idea that any one can be saved by obedience to the law of God. “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified” is the uniform teaching of the Bible. Much less can any one be saved by conformity to Masonic law, which requires only a partial, and therefore a spurious, morality. The Bible teaches that all unconverted persons are in a state of sin, of total moral depravity, and consequent condemnation by the law of God; and that the conditions of salvation are repentance and a total renunciation of all sin, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Now these are by no means the conditions upon which Freemasonry proposes to save its members. The teachings of Freemasonry upon this subject are summarily this: Obey Masonic law, and live.

Now, surely, whatever promises heaven to men upon other conditions than those proposed in the Gospel of Christ is a fatal delusion. And this Freemasons can not deny, for they profess to accept the Bible as true. Freemasonry lays no stress at all upon conversion to Christ by the Holy Spirit. It presents no means or motives to secure that result. The idea of being turned from sin to holiness, from a self-pleasing spirit to a supreme love of God, by the preaching of the Gospel, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, is not taught in Freemasonry.

It nowhere recognizes men as being justified by faith in Christ, as being sanctified by faith in Christ, and as being saved as the Gospel recognizes men as being saved.

Indeed, it is salvation by Masonry, and not salvation by the Gospel, that Masonry insists upon. It is another gospel, or presents entirely another method of salvation than that presented in the Gospel. How can it be pretended by those who admit that the Gospel is true that men can be saved by Freemasonry at all? If Freemasons are good men, it is not Freemasonry that has made them so; but the Gospel has made them so, in spite of Freemasonry. If they are anything more than self-righteous, it is because of the teachings of the Gospel; for certainly Freemasonry teaches a very different way of salvation from that which the Gospel reveals. But, again, the prayers recorded in Freemasonry, and used by them in their lodges, are not Christian prayers; that is, they are not prayers offered in the name of Christ.

But the Gospel teaches us that it is fundamental to acceptable prayer that it be offered in the name of Christ. Again, as we have seen in a former number, the teachings of Freemasonry are scandalously false; and their ceremonies are a mockery, and truly shocking to Christian feelings.

Again, Freemasonry is a system of gross hypocrisy. It professes to be a saving institution, and promises salvation to those who keep its oaths and conform to its ancient usages. It also professes to be entirely consistent with the Christian religion. And this it does while it embraces as good and acceptable Masons hundreds of thousands who abhor Christianity, and scoff at the Bible and everything that the Bible regards as sacred. In a Christian nation it professes to receive Christianity as a true religion; in Mohammedan countries it receives the Koran as teaching the true religion; in heathen countries it receives their sacred books as of as much authority as that which is claimed in Christian countries for the Bible. In short, Freemasonry in a pagan country is pagan, in a Mohammedan country it is Mohammedan, and in a Christian country it professes to be Christian; but in this profession it is not only grossly inconsistent, but intensely hypocritical.

Notwithstanding all the boasts that are made in its lower degrees of its being a true religion, if you will examine the matter through to the end, you will find that, as you ascend in the scale of degrees, the mask is gradually thrown off, until we come to the “Philosophical Lodge,” in the degree of the “Knights Adepts of the Eagle or Sun;” in which, as will be seen, no concealment is longer attempted. I will make a short quotation from this degree, as any one may find it in “Light on Masonry.”–P. 18.

“Requisitions to make a good Mason.–If you ask me what are the requisite qualities that a Mason must be possessed of to come to the center of truth, I answer you that you must crush the head of the serpent, ignorance. You must shake off the yoke of infant prejudice, concerning the mysteries of the reigning religion, which worship has been imaginary and only founded on the spirit of pride, which envies to command and be distinguished, and to be at the head of the vulgar in affecting an exterior purity, which characterizes a false piety joined to a desire of acquiring that which is not its own, and is always the subject of this exterior pride and unalterable source of many disorders; which, being joined to gluttonness, is the daughter of hypocrisy, and employs every matter to satisfy carnal desires, and raises to these predominant passions altars upon which she maintains without ceasing the light of iniquity, and sacrifices continually offerings to luxury, voluptuousness, hatred, envy, and perjury.

“Behold, my dear brother, what you must fight against and destroy before you can come to the knowledge of the true good and sovereign happiness! Behold this monster which you must conquer–a serpent which we detest as an idol that is adored by the idiot and vulgar under the name of religion!”– See “Light on Masonry,” pp. 270, 271. 8th edition.

Here, then, Masonry stands revealed, after all its previous pretensions to being a true religion, as the unalterable opponent of the reigning or Christian religion. That it claims to be a religion is indisputable; but that it is not the Christian religion is equally evident. Nay, it finally comes out flat-footed, and represents the reigning or Christian religion as a serpent which Masons detest, as an idol which is adored by the idiot and vulgar under the name of religion.

Now let professed Christians who are Freemasons examine this for themselves. Do not turn away from examination of this subject.

And here, before I close this article, I beg to be understood that I have no quarrel with individual Masons. It is with the system that I have to deal. The great mass of the fraternity are utterly deceived, as I was myself. Very few, comparatively, of the fraternity are at all acquainted with what is really taught in the higher degrees as they ascend from one to another. None of them know anything of these degrees any further than they have taken them, unless they have studied them in the books as they are revealed. I can not believe that Christian men will remain connected with this institution, if they will only examine it for themselves and look it through to the end. I know that young Masons, and those who have only taken the lower degrees, will be shocked at what I have just quoted from a higher degree. I was so myself when first I examined the higher degrees. But you will inquire how, and in what sense, are we who have only taken the lower degrees responsible for the oaths and teachings of the higher degrees, which we have not taken. In a future number I shall briefly answer this question. Most Freemasons, and many who have been Masters of lodges of the lower degrees, are really so ignorant of what Masonry as a whole is, that when they are told the simple truth respecting it, they really believe that what you tell them is a lie. I am receiving letters from this class of Freemasons, accusing me of lying and misrepresentation, which accusations I charitably ascribe to ignorance. To such I say, Wait, gentlemen, until you are better informed upon the subject, and you will hold a different opinion.

I have quoted from Salem Town showing that he claims that Solomon established the institution by divine authority–that Town claims for it all that is claimed for Christianity as a saving religion. I might show that others of their standard writers set up the same claim. Now I am unwilling to believe that these writers are hypocrites. It must be that they have been imposed upon as I was. They were ignorant of the origin of Freemasonry. Perhaps this was not strange, especially as regards Mr. Town; for until within the last half century this matter has not been searched to the bottom. But certainly there is now no excuse for the ignorant or dishonest assertions that are so often made by Freemasons. Such pretenses palmed off as they now often are, upon those whose occupation or other causes forbid their examination of the subject, ought to arouse the righteous indignation of every honest citizen. I say it ought to do so; yes, and it must do so, when we see our dear young men lured by false pretenses in crowds into this snare of Satan. They get drawn in and committed, and, as we see, are afraid to be convinced of their error and become uncandid and will not honestly examine the subject. They will shun the light when it is offered. Can men be saved in this state of mind?

CHAPTER XVI

THE ARGUMENT THA T GREA T AND GOOD MEN HA VE 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 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 Illuminate.

“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!

CHAPTER XVII
MASONIC OATHS ARE UNLAWFUL AND VOID

Because, 1st, they are forbidden by Christ. Matt. v. 34-37. Whatever may be said of oaths administered by magistrates for governmental purposes, it can not be reasonably doubted that this teaching prohibits the taking of extrajudicial oaths. But Masonic oaths are extrajudicial.

2. Because they are awfully profane. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Exod. xx. 7. Certainly both the administering and taking of these oaths are taking the name of God in vain.

3. Because they swear to do unlawful things.

1. We have seen that all Masons swear to conceal all the secrets of Masonry that may be communicated to them. This is rash, and contrary to Lev. v. 4, 5: “Or if a soul swear pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing.” The sin must be confessed

2. They swear to conceal each other’s crimes. This we have seen. This is a conspiracy against all good government in Church and State. Is not this wicked ?

3. They swear to deliver a brother Royal Arch Mason out of any difficulty and to espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if in their power, whether he be right or wrong. Is not this wicked? How this oath must lead to the defeat of the execution of law. It has defeated the ends of justice often, as every intelligent Mason may and ought to know.

4. They swear to give political preferment to a Mason, because he is a Mason, over one of equal qualifications, who is not a Mason. This is swearing to be partial. But is it not wicked to be partial? Can an oath to be partial make partiality a virtue? By swearing to do wrong can a man make it his duty, and, therefore, right to do wrong? No indeed.

5. They swear to persecute all who violate Masonic oaths as long as they live–to ruin their reputation, derange their business, and, if they go from place to place, to follow them with representations of being worthless vagabonds. Is not this a promise under oath to do wickedly? Suppose those who violate Masonic oaths are enemies of Masonry, as well they may be, and as they ought to be, is it right to seek, in any way, to ruin them? Is this loving an enemy? Is not such persecution forbidden by every precept of both law and Gospel? This course is, in accordance with the tradition of the elders, strongly denounced by Christ. Matt. v. 33: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,

Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths?” But it is in direct opposition to his requirement. Matt. v 44: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

6. They swear to seek the death or condign punishment of all who violate Masonic oaths. This we have seen! But is not this abominable wickedness? Is it not murder in intention, and, therefore, really murder, whether they succeed or not? To be sure it is.

7. They swear to seek revenge and to take vengeance on those who violate Masonic oaths, and to avenge the treason, as they call it, by the death of the traitor. This, also, we have seen. Now, is not this the perfection of wickedness? Ought not Masons to be put under bonds to keep the peace?

8. They swear to support Freemasonry, an institution, as we have seen, that ought not to exist in any community. These are only some of the reasons for pronouncing the oaths of Freemasonry utterly unlawful.

MASONIC OATHS ARE NULL AND VOID.

1. Because they are obtained by fraud. The candidate for the first degree is assured by the master, in the most solemn manner, when the candidate is on his knees and about to take the oath, there is nothing in it inconsistent with his duty either to God or to man. But he finds, after taking and reflecting upon it, that he has made promises inconsistent with his duty both to God and man. This, of itself, makes the oath null.

2. They are void because they pledge the candidate to sin against God and man. 1st. By swearing to commit a sin, a man can not make it his duty, and, therefore, right to do wrong. He can not make sin holiness, or crime a virtue, by taking an oath to do it. Forty men took an oath that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. Were they under moral obligation, therefore, to kill him? If they were, it was their duty. If it was their duty, their killing him would have been a holy act. Who does not see the absurdity of this? To keep a wicked promise or oath is only adding sin to sin. But it maybe said that we are required to perform our vows. Yes, when we vow to do what is right, but not when we vow to do what is wrong. This is not only the doctrine of the Bible, but, also, of all the able writers on moral philosophy. It is, indeed, a self-evident truth. An oath to do wrong is sin. To perform it is adding sin to sin. All oaths to do wrong, or to refrain from doing right, are null. ‘

ALL FREEMASONS OUGHT TO RENOUNCE THEIR MASONIC OATHS

1. Because they are profane and wicked.
2. Because they ought to repent the taking of them.

3. But repentance .consists in heart-renunciation of them. A man can not repent of, without forsaking them.

4. If not repented of and forsaken, i.e., renounced, the sin can not be forgiven. 5. Heart-renunciation must produce life-renunciation of them.

6. A sin is not repented of while it is concealed and not confessed to those who have been injured by it.

7. A sin against society or against individuals can not be forgiven, when just confession and restitution are withheld.

8. Masonic oaths are a conspiracy against God and man, and are not repented of while adhered to.

9. They are adhered to, while heart-renunciation is withheld.

10. Refusing to renounce is adherence.

11. Adherence makes them partakers of the crimes of Freemasons–“partakers of other men’s sins.” Because, to adhere is to justify their oaths and the keeping and fulfillment of them. But to justify their crimes, the murder of Morgan for example, is to partake of the guilt of his murderers.

12. While a Mason adheres his word can not be credited on questions relating to the secrets of Masonry.

13. Nor can his testimony be believed against one who has violated Masonic oaths, because he is sworn to ruin his reputation, and to represent him as a worthless vagabond.

14. An adhering Mason is a dangerous man in society. If he does as he is sworn to do, is he not a dangerous man? If he does not do what he is sworn to do, and yet does not renounce his oath, he is a dangerous man, because he violates an oath, the obligation of which he acknowledges. Is not he a dangerous man who disregards the solemnity of an oath? But, perhaps, he is convinced that he ought not to do what he has sworn to do, and, therefore, does not do it, but still he adheres in the sense that he will not confess and renounce the sinfulness of the obligation. Is not that a dangerous man who sees the wrong of an oath and will not renounce it.

15. While he adheres to his Masonic oaths, he ought not to be trusted with the office of a magistrate. How should he, if he means to perform his Masonic vows?

16. Nor, while he adheres, should he be trusted with the office of sheriff, marshal, or constable. If he intends to perform his Masonic vows, it is madness to trust him with an office in Church or State.

17. If and while he adheres, he ought not to be received as a witness or juror when a Freemason is a party. This has been ruled as law.

18. Nor should he have power to appoint officers, as he will surely unduly favor Masons.

19. Nor should he have the control of funds and the bestowment of governmental patronage. This he will certainly abuse, if he keeps and performs his vows.

20. Nor should he be intrusted with the pardoning power. I wish it could be known in how many instances Freemasons have been pardoned and turned loose upon the public by governors and presidents who were Freemasons, and who were sworn to deliver them from any difficulty, whether right or wrong.

21. Nor should he be a post-master, as he will surely abuse his office to favor Masonry, and to persecute anti-Masons, if he keeps his vows. Of this we are having abundant proof.

22. While he adheres, his testimony against renouncing Masons ought not to be credited, because he has sworn to ruin their reputation and their business, and, until their death, to represent them to others as worthless vagabonds. Is a man’s testimony against another worthy of credit, when he is thus sworn to hold him up to the world? We have no right to receive such testimony. It is the greatest injustice to credit the testimony of one who has taken and adheres to this oath, if he testifies against a renouncing Mason.

23. Those Masons who have taken and adhere to the vow to thus persecute, and the vow to avenge the treason of violating Masonic oaths by the death of the traitor, should be held to bail to keep the peace. If they intend to perform their vows, they are eminently dangerous persons, and should be imprisoned or held to bail. Let no one say that this is harsh. Indeed, it is not. It is only common sense and common justice. Only remember what they are sworn to do, and that they intend to perform their vows, and then tell me is it safe and just that such men should be at large, and not even be put under bonds not to fulfill their vows. We must take the grounds either that they will not fulfill their vows, or we must hold that they ought not to be at large without adequate bail. I am aware that some will say that this is a harsh and extreme conclusion. But pray let me ask do you not feel and say this because you do not believe that there is real danger of Freemasons doing what they have sworn to do? If they have sworn as Bernard and others represent, and if they really intend to fulfill their vows, and if you admit this, is my conclusion harsh and extreme? When no occasion arises, calling for the fulfillment of their horrid oaths, they appear to be harmless and even good citizens. But let any man read the history of the abduction and murder of Morgan, as found in “Light on Masonry,” and see how many

men were engaged in it. Let him understand how this horrid murder was justified by the Grand Lodge, and by many respectable citizens. Let him ponder the fact that the men engaged in that affair were accounted respectable and good citizens; that a number of them were men high in office and in public confidence, and that the conspiracy extended over a wide territory, and then let him say whether, if an occasion arise demanding their action, they will prove to be law-abiding citizens, or, if they will not, as they have often done before, set at naught any law of God and man, and, if need be, reach their end through the blood of their victim.

But some will say that this is representing Freemasonry as infamous, and holding it up to the disgust, contempt, and indignation of mankind. I reply, I have not misrepresented it, as it is revealed in the books which I have been examining. Remember, it is with Masonry as there revealed that I have to deal. If a truthful representation of it excites the contempt, disgust and indignation of the public toward it–if to rightly represent Freemasonry is to render it infamous, I can not help it. The fault, if any, is not mine. I have revealed nothing. I have only called attention to facts of common concern to all honest citizens. Let the infamy rest where it belongs.

CHAPTER XVIII

WHY FREEMASONS RESORT TO THREATS AND REFUSE TO DISCUSS THEIR PRINCIPLES

There are many aspects of this subject that need to be thoroughly considered by all men. For example, the bearing of this institution upon domestic happiness is of great importance.

The stringent secrecy enjoined and maintained at the hazard of one’s life, is really inconsistent with the spirit of the marriage contract It is really an insult to a wife for a husband to go and pledge himself to conceal from his wife that which he freely communicates to strangers. Suppose that wives should get up lodges, spend their money and their time in secret conclave, absent themselves from home, and swear to keep their proceedings entirely from their husbands; and suppose that such organizations should be made permanent, and extend throughout the length and breadth of the land, would husbands endure this? Would they think it right?

In short, if wives should do what husbands do, would not husbands rebel, think themselves abused, and insist upon such a course being entirely and forever abandoned? Indeed they would! How can a man look his wife in the face after joining a Masonic lodge? I have recently received several letters from the wives of Masons complaining of this:–that their husbands had joined the lodge and paid their money, and were spending their time, and concealing their doings and their principles from their wives. This is utterly unjust. It is shameful; and no honorable man can reflect upon it without feeling that he wrongs his wife.

Of late, partly to appease women, and partly to give the female relatives of Masons certain signs and tokens by which they may make themselves known as the wives or daughters, sisters or mothers of Freemasons, they are conferring certain side degrees upon women. Of this Freemasons themselves–that is the more honorable among them– are complaining as an innovation, and as a thing justly to be complained of by outsiders. And observe that they ask, what if these daughters or sisters of Masons, who are taking these side degrees, should marry men who are not Masons, and who are opposed to the institution,–what would be the consequence of this? You administer, they say, the degrees for the sake of preserving domestic peace; and here, on the other hand, it would produce domestic discord.

But again, it should be considered that Masonry is an institution of vast proportions, and of such a nature that it will not allow its principles to be discussed.

It works in the dark. And instead of standing or falling according to its character and tendencies, when brought to the light, when thoroughly discussed and understood by the public, it closes the door against all discussion, shrouds itself in midnight, and its

argument is assassination. Now, what have we here in a republican government? A set of men under oath to assist each other, and even to conceal each other’s crimes, embracing and acting upon principles that are not to be discussed!

Immediately after the publication of the first number of my articles in the Independent, on the subject of Masonry, I received a threatening letter from the city of New York, virtually threatening me with assassination. I have since received several letters of the most abusive character from Freemasons, simply because I discuss and expose their principles. Now, if their principles can not bear the light, they never should be tolerated. It is an insult to any community for a set of men to band themselves together to keep each other’s secrets, and to aid each other in a great variety of ways, and refuse to have their principles known and discussed, whilst their only argument is a dagger, a bullet, and a bowie knife, instead of truth and reason. Indeed, it is wellknown throughout the length and breadth of the land that Masonry is so determined not to have its principles discussed, that men are afraid to discuss them. They expect from the very nature of Masonry, and from the revelations that it has made of itself, to be persecuted, and perhaps murdered, if they attempt to discuss the principles and usages of that institution. Now, is such a thing as this to be tolerated in a free government? Why how infinitely dangerous and shocking is this!

Everything else may be discussed. All governmental proceedings, the characters of public men, all institutions of learning, all benevolent societies, and indeed everything else in the world may be discussed, and criticised. and held up for public examination; but Masonry, forsooth, must not be touched. It must work in the dark. All the moneys received by charitable institutions must be reported; and the manner in which they dispose of every dollar that they receive must be held up before the public for examination. Every one sees the importance of this, and knows that it is right. But Freemasonry make no report of its funds. They will not tell us what they do with them. They will not allow themselves to be called in question. No, that institution must not be ventilated upon pain of persecution unto death.

Now, it is enough to make a man’s blood boil with indignation that such an institution as this should exist in the land. And what is most astonishing is, that members of the Christian Church, and Christian ministers, should sympathize with, and even unite themselves to, such an institution as this.

Suppose the church should conduct in this manner, and the Christian Church should receive its members in secret, and such oaths should be administered to them. Suppose Christianity would not allow its principles to be discussed, would not allow itself to come to the light, should use threats of assassination, and should actually resort to assassination to establish itself, and should thus create a feeling of terror throughout the whole world so that no man would dare to speak against it, to ventilate it, and show up its principles,– what would be said of Christianity, should it, like Freemasonry, take such a course as this?

The fact is, that Freemasonry is the most anomalous, absurd, and abominable institution that can exist in a Christian country; and is, on the face of it, from the fact that it will not allow its principles to be discussed and divulged, a most dangerous thing in human society. In nearly all the letters that I am receiving on this subject — and they are numerous –astonishment is expressed, and frequently gratitude and praise to God, that a man is found who dares publicly to discuss and expose the principles of the institution. Now, what is this? Have we an institution, the ramifications of which are entwining themselves with every fiber of our government and our institutions, our civil and religious liberties, of which the whole country is so much afraid that they dare not speak the truth concerning it?

What is this, thrust in upon human society and upon Christian communities, that can not be so much as discussed and its principles brought to light without threats of persecution and assassination? What honest man can witness such a state of things as this in our government without feeling his indignation enkindled ?

Everything else may be discussed, may be brought to the light, may be held up to the public for their verdict; but Freemasonry must not be touched. Other institutions must stand or fall in the light of reason and of sound morality. If they are sustained at all they must be sustained by argument, by logic, by standing the test of thorough criticism. But Masonry must stand, not by argument, not by logic, not by sound reason, but must be sustained by persecution and murder. And so universally, as I have already said, is this known and assumed, as to strike men in every part of the land with such terror, that they dare not speak their minds about it.

And now, are we in this country to hold our peace? to hold out our hands and have the shackles put upon them? Is the press to be muzzled, and the whole country to be awed and kept under the feet of this institution, so that no man shall dare to speak his mind? God forbid! “Every plant,” says Christ, “which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” The works of darkness shall be dragged to the light; and the power of this institution must be broken by a thorough expose of its oaths, its principles, its spirit and tendency. Afraid to speak out against such an abomination as this! Remember that he that would save his life by concealing the truth, and refusing to embrace and defend it, shall lose it.

Again, Freemasonry is a most intolerant and intolerable despotism.

Let any one examine their oaths, and see what implicit obedience they pledge to the great dignitaries, and Masters, and High Priests of their lodges, and they will see what an institution this is in a republican government. There is no appeal from the decision of the Master of a lodge. In respect to everything in the lodge, his word is law. In a recent number of the “National and Freemason,” which fell into my hands, the editor asserts that there is no appeal to the lodge from the decision of the Master of the lodge, and that he should allow none. In the ascending scale of their degrees, they swear to render implicit obedience to the grand lodges, and the higher orders above them, and this beforehand. They are not allowed to question the propriety of those decisions at all. They are not

allowed to discuss, or to have any voice or vote in regard to those decrees. There is not in the world a more perfect and frightful despotism than Freemasonry is from beginning to end. Now, think of the great number of Freemasons in this country that are becoming accustomed to yield this implicit obedience to arbitrary power, a one man power, running through every lodge and chapter throughout the whole entangled system. And this institution is penetrating every community, selecting its men, and enforcing their obedience to arbitrary power throughout this whole republican country. And will not the country awake to this great wrong and this great danger? A friend of mine, a minister of the Gospel, writes me that he had been himself a Mason. He was urged to join the institution, as I was myself; but he renounced it many years ago, and supposed that it was dead. But some fifteen years since he found it reviving in the neighborhood where he was living, and he preached a sermon exposing it. That very week they burned him in effigy at his own gate; and that even now he could not preach against it and expose it without being set upon and persecuted he knows not to what extent,.

And this, then, is the way for Masons to meet this question! If allowed to go on they will soon resort to mobs, as the slaveholders and their sympathizers did; and it will be found that Masonry can not be spoken against without mobs arising to disperse any assembly that may meet for the examination of the subject, If fifteen years ago a minister of the Gospel could be burned in effigy before his own gate, for bringing this institution to the light, and if now threats of assassination come from the four winds of heaven if a man speaks or writes the truth concerning it, if let alone how long will it be before it will have its foot upon the neck of the whole nation, so that it will be sure to cost any man his life who dares to rebuke it?

But why do Freemasons take this course? Why do they decline to discuss, and resort to threats of violence? I answer first, for the same reason that slaveholders did the same.

Many years ago John Randolph, with a shake of his long finger, informed the Congress of the United States, that slavery should not be discussed there. At the South they would not allow tracts to be circulated, nor a word to be spoken against the institution. They resorted to every form of violence to prevent it. And who does not know the reason why? Their abominable institution would not bear the light, and they knew it right well. Freemasons know very well that they can not justify their institution before an enlightened public. I mean, those of them who are well-informed know this.

Multitudes of them are so ignorant as to feel quite sure that they are right, and that their institution is what it professes to be. The well-informed among them know better; and those who would naturally be expected to discuss the question, if it were discussed, know that they can not stand their ground. They can not justify their horrid oaths, with their barbarous penalties. They know that they can not establish their false claims to great antiquity.

The ignorant or dishonest among them will vapor, and set forth their ridiculous pretensions to antiquity; and will try to persuade us that God was a Freemason when He created the Universe, and that all the ancient worthies were Freemasons. But the well-

informed among them know perfectly well that there is not the shadow of truth in all this pretension, and that their claim to great antiquity is a lie, and nothing but a lie, from beginning to end. They know also that the claims of the institution to benevolence are false, and can not be sustained, and that there is not a particle of benevolence in their institution;

Again, they know very well that the claim of Masonry to be a saving religion is a false claim; and that its claim to be substantially the Christian religion is without the least foundation. They know also that its professions are false in regard to the truth of history; and that its claim to be a depository of the sciences and arts is without foundation.

They know very well that Masonry has no just claims to be the light of the world in regard to any of its pretensions. They know that the secrecy which it enjoins can not be defended, and that it has no right to exist as a secret, oath-bound institution. They know that this oath-bound secrecy can not be justified before an enlightened public; that there is nothing in Freemasonry to justify their oaths or penalties, and that there is nothing in it that deserves the respect of the public.

They are well aware that they can not justify their pompous titles, their odious ceremonies, their false teachings, their shameful abuses of the Word of God; and they are ashamed to attempt to justify the puerilities on the one hand, or the blasphemies that abound on the other.

Any one who will examine Richardson’s “Masonic Monitor,” will find in it diagrams of the lodges and of many of the ceremonies; and if anybody wishes to see how ridiculous, absurd, and profane many of their ceremonies are, let him examine that work.

The reason of their declining all discussion, and resorting to threats of violence, is manifest enough. It is sagacious in them to keep in the dark, and to awe people, if they can, by threats; because they have no argument, no history, no anything that can justify them in the course they take.

Shame on an institution that resorts to such a defense as this? But it can not live where the press and speech are free; and this its defenders know right well. If freedom of speech is allowed on the subject, and the press is allowed to discuss and thoroughly to ventilate it, they know full well that the institution can not exist. The fact is, that Freemasonry must die, or liberty must die. These two things can not exist together. Freemasons have already sold their liberty, and put themselves under an iron despotism; and there is not one in a thousand of them that dares to speak against the institution, or really to speak his mind.

I have just received a letter from one of them, which reads as follows: “Dear Sir,–I merely write you as a man and professed Christian to say that you are doing God service in your attacks upon the institution of Masonry. I am a Mason, but have long since been convinced that it is a wicked, blasphemous institution, and that the Church of Christ suffers from this source more than from any other. You know that the oaths and scenes of

the lodge are most shamefully wicked; and a Christian man’s character, if he leaves them, is not safe in the community where he lives. You can make what use you please of this; but, perhaps, my name and place of residence had better not be made public, for I fear for my property and my person.” This is the way that multitudes of Freemasons feel. They have sold their liberty, and they dare not speak out. Shall we all sell our liberties, and allow Masonry to stifle all discussion by a resort to violence and assassination? Threats are abundant; and they go as far as they dare do in executing their threats.

In some places, where Freemasons are numerous and less on their guard, I am informed that they do not hesitate to say that they Intend to have a Masonic government, peaceably if they can. That this is the design of many of the leaders in this institution, there can be no rational doubt in the minds of those who are well informed. The press, to a great extent, is already either bribed or afraid to speak the truth on this subject; and, so far as I can learn, there are but few secular or religious papers open to its discussion. Now, what a state of things is this! A few years ago it was as much as a man’s life was worth to write anything against slavery, or to speak against it, in the Southern States. And has come to this, that the North are to be made slaves, and that an institution is to be sustained in our midst that will not allow itself to be ventilated? For one I do not feel willing at present to part with my liberty in this respect –although I am informed that a Mason, not far from here, intimated that I might be waylaid and murdered. It matters not. I will not compromise the liberty of free speech on a question of such importance to save my life. Why should I? I must confess that I have felt amazed and mortified when so many have expressed astonishment that I dared to speak plainly on this subject, and write my thoughts and views.

Among all the letters that I have received on this subject, I do not recollect one in which the writer does not admonish me not to publish his name. And this in republican America! A man’s life, property and character not safe if he speaks the truth in regard to an institution which is aiming to overshadow the whole land, and to have everything its own way! as the writer of the letter from which I have just made an extract says, that a man’s character is not safe if he speaks the truth concerning Freemasonry. Is not this abominable?

So well do I understand that Masons are sworn to persecute, and to represent every one who abandons their institution as a vile vagabond, and to say all manner of evil against him, that I do not pretend to believe what they say of that class of men.

When the question of Freemasonry was first forced upon us in our church, and I was obliged to preach upon the subject and read from Bernard’s “Light on Masonry,” I found before I got home that EIder Bernard had been so misrepresented and slandered that people were saying, “He is not a man to be trusted.” Who does not know that whoever has dared to renounce that institution, and publish its secrets to the world, has either been murdered, or slandered and followed with persecution in a most unrelenting manner?

CHAPTER XIX
RELATIONS OF MASONRY TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

We are now prepared to consider the question of the relation of Freemasonry to the Church of Christ. On this question I remark:

lst. God holds the church and every branch of it, responsible for its opinion and action in accordance with the best light, which, in his providence, is afforded them. This, indeed, is law universal, equally applicable to all moral agents, at all times and in all places. But at present I consider its application to the Church of God. If any particular. branch of the church has better means of information, and therefore more light on moral questions, than another branch, its responsibility is greater, in proportion to its greater means of information. Such a branch of the church is bound to take a higher and more advanced position in Christian life and duty, to bear a fuller and higher testimony against every form of iniquity, than that required by less favored and less informed branches of the church. They are not to wait till other branches of the church have received their light, before they bear a testimony and pursue a course in accordance with their own degree of information.

2d. While Masonry was a secret, the church had no light, and no responsibility respecting it. Although individual members of the church, were Freemasons, as a body, she knew nothing of Masonry; therefore she could say nothing of it, except as its results appeared to be revealed in the lives of individuals; and, in judging from this source of evidence, the church could not decide, if the lives of the members were good or bad, whether it was Freemasonry that made them so; because, of its nature, designs, principles, oaths, doctrines, secret practices, she knew nothing. Hence God did not require the church to bear any testimony on the subject as long as Masonry was a secret. The world did not expect the church to take any action, or to bear any testimony on the subject, as long as Masonry was a thing unknown, except to the initiated. In those circumstances the unconverted world did not expect any testimony from the church, and they had no right to expect it. The well-known fact, that many professed Christians were Freemasons, was then no disgrace to the Church of God, because the character of Freemasonry was not known.

3d. But the state of the case is now greatly changed. Freemasonry is now revealed. It is no longer a secret to any who wish to be informed. Its nature, character, aims, oaths, principles, doctrines, usages, are in print, and the books in which they are revealed are scattered broadcast over the land. As long ago as 1826, Wm. Morgan published verbatim the first three degrees of Masonry. That these degrees were faithfully published as they were known, and taken in the lodges, no man can truthfully deny. Two, or more spurious editions of this work have been published, for the sake of deceiving the public. To obtain a correct edition of this work is at present difficult. Just previous to the publication of this work, EIder Stearns, a Baptist minister, and a high Mason, one who had taken many

Masonic degrees, a man of good character who is still living, had published a volume entitled “An inquiry into the nature and tendency of Speculative Freemasonry.” In 1860 the same author published a volume entitled “Letters on Freemasonry, addressed chiefly to the Fraternity,” with an appendix. He has recently published another volume entitled “A new chapter on Freemasonry.” Soon after the publication of Morgan’s book, already referred to, a body of seceding Masons, appointed a committee of sixteen, if I do not mistake the number, upon which committee were several ministers of Christ, to prepare and publish a correct version of forty-eight degrees of Freemasonry. Elder Bernard had taken a large number of degrees, I know not exactly how many. The degrees ordered to be published by this committee were carefully collected and arranged and published under the following title, “‘Light on Masonry;’ A collection of all the most important documents on the subject of Speculative Masonry, embracing the reports of the western committees in relation to the abduction of Wm. Morgan, proceedings of conventions, orations, essays, etc., etc., with all the degrees of the order conferred in a Master’s lodge as written by Capt. Wm. Morgan, all the degrees conferred in the Royal Arch Chapter, and Grand Encampment of Knights Templar, with the appendant orders as published by the convention of seceding Masons, held at Leroy, July 4th and 5th, 1828. Also, a revelation of all the degrees conferred in the Lodge of Perfection and fifteen degrees of a still higher order, with seven French degrees, making forty-eight degrees of Freemasonry, with notes and critical remarks by Elder David Bernard, of Warsaw, Genesee County, New York, once an intimate Secretary of the Lodge of Perfection. This book soon passed through seven editions. An eighth, but an abridged edition, has been recently published in Dayton, Ohio.” Since the publication of Bernard’s book, a volume has been published, entitled “Richardson’s Monitor of Freemasonry;” being a practical guide to the ceremonies in all the degrees conferred in Masonic Lodges, Chapters, Encampments, etc., explaining the signs, tokens and grips, and giving all the words, passwords, sacred words, oaths, and hieroglyphics used by Masons. The ineffable and historical degrees are also given in full. By Jabez Richardson, A.M. In this book are published sixty-two Masonic degrees, with diagrams of lodges, and drawings representing their signs and ceremonies. Brother Avery Allyn has also published a large number of Masonic degrees. The question of the reliability of these works, I have discussed in a previous number. I am a little more particular in naming them in this place, for the information of those who have not seen the books. The substantial accord of all these authors, and their reliability, seems to be established beyond all reasonable question. Now, since these revelations are made, and both the church and the world are aware of what Masonry really is, God demands, and the world has a right to expect, that the church will take due action and bear a truthful testimony in respect to this institution. She can not now innocently hold her peace. The light has come. Fidelity to God, and to the souls of men, require that the church, which is the light of the world, should speak out, and should take such action as will plainly reveal her views of the compatibility or incompatibility of Freemasonry with the Christian religion. As God’s witnesses, as the pillar and ground of the truth, the church is bound to give the trumpet no uncertain sound, upon this question, that all men may know, whether, in her judgment, an intelligent embracing and determinate adhering to Freemasonry are compatible with a truthful profession of religion.

4th. The Church of Christ knows Masonry through these books. This is the best and most reliable source of information that we can have, or can reasonably ask. We have seen in a former number, that Freemasons do not pretend that Freemasonry has been substantially altered since the publication of these books, that we have the most satisfactory evidence that it has not been, and can not be substantially changed. Let it therefore be distinctly understood, that the action and testimony of the church respects Freemasonry as it is revealed in these books, and not as individuals may affirm of it, pro or con. By these books we know it. By these books we judge it, and let it be understood that whatever action we take upon it, or whatever we say of it, we both act and speak of Masonry as it is here revealed, and of no other Masonry or thing, whatever. To this course, neither Masons nor any one else can justly take exceptions. From all the testimony in the case, we are shut up to this course. Let not Freemasons complain of this. These books certainly reveal Masonry as it was forty years ago. If it has been changed, the burden of proof is on them, and inasmuch as they make no pretense that Masonry has been reformed, and in view of the fact, that they still maintain that they embrace all the principles and usages of ancient Freemasonry, we are bound to speak our minds of Freemasonry as these books reveal

5th. Judging then, from these revelations, how can we fail to pronounce Freemasonry an anti-Christian institution? For example, 1st. We have seen that its morality is unchristian. 2d. Its oath-bound secrecy is unchristian. 3d. The administration and taking of its oaths are unchristian, and a violation of a positive command of Christ. 4th. Masonic oaths pledge its members to commit most unlawful and unchristian deeds. a. To conceal each others crimes. b. To deliver each other from difficulty whether right or wrong. c. To unduly favor Masonry in political actions and in business transactions. d. Its members are sworn to retaliate, and persecute unto death, the violators of Masonic obligation. e. Freemasonry knows no mercy, but swears its candidates to avenge violations of Masonic obligation even unto death. f. Its oaths are profane, the taking of the name of God in vain. g. The penalties of these oaths are barbarous and even savage. h. Its teachings are false and profane. i. Its design is partial and selfish. j. Its ceremonies are a mixture of puerility and profanity. k. Its religion is Deistic. l. It is a false religion, and professes to save men upon other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ. m. It is an enormous falsehood. n. It is a swindle, and obtains money from its membership under false pretenses. o. It refuses all examination, and veils itself under a mantle of oath-bound secrecy. p. It is a virtual conspiracy against both Church and State. No one, therefore, has ever undertaken, and for the plainest reasons none will undertake, to defend Freemasonry as it is revealed in these books. Their arguments are threats, calumny, persecution, assassination. Freemasons do not pretend that Freemasonry, as revealed in these books, is compatible with Christianity. I have not yet known the first Freemason who would affirm that an intelligent adherence to Freemasonry, as revealed in these books, is consistent with a profession of the Christian religion. But we know, if we can know anything from testimony, that these books do truly reveal Freemasonry. We have, then, the implied testimony of Freemasons themselves, that the Christian Church ought to have no fellowship with Freemasonry as thus revealed, and that those who adhere intelligently and determinately to such an institution have no fight to be in the Christian Church. In

our judgment we are forced to the same conclusion, we can not escape from it, we wish it were otherwise, we therefore sorrowfully, but solemnly, pronounce this judgment.

6th. Every local branch of the Church of Christ is bound to examine this subject, and pronounce upon this institution, according to the best light they can get. God does not allow individuals, or churches, to withhold action, and the expression of their opinion, until other churches are as enlightened as themselves. We are bound to act up to our own light, and to go as far in advance of others as we have better means of information than they. We have no right to say to God that we will act according to our own convictions, when others become so enlightened that our action will be popular and meet their approval.

Again: Those individuals and churches, who have had the best means of information, owe it to other branches of the church, and to the whole world, to take action and to pronounce upon the unchristian character of Freemasonry, as the most influential means within their reach of arousing the whole church and the world to an examination of the character and claims of Freemasonry. If churches who are known to have examined the subject withhold their testimony; if they continue to receive persistent and intelligent Freemasons; if they leave the public to infer that they see nothing in Freemasonry inconsistent with a creditable profession of the Christian religion, it will be justly inferred by other branches of the church, and by the world, that there is nothing in it so bad, so dangerous and unchristian as to call for their examination, action, or testimony. Before the publishing of Morgan’s book, the Baptist denomination, especially, in that part of the country, had been greatly carried away by Freemasonry. A large proportion of its eldership and membership were Freemasons. A considerable number of ministers and members of other branches of the Christian Church had also fallen into the snare. The murder of Wm. Morgan, and the publication of Masonry consequent thereupon in the books I have named, broke upon the churches–fast asleep on this subject–like a clap of thunder from a clear sky. The facts were such, the revelations were so clear, that the Baptist denomination backed down, and took the lead in renouncing and denouncing the institution. Their elders and associated churches, almost universally, passed resolutions disfellowshiping adhering Masons. The denomination, to a considerable extent, took the same course. Throughout the Northern States, at that time, I believe it was almost universally conceded, that persistent Freemasons, who continued to adhere and co- operate with them, ought not to be admitted to Christian churches. Now, it is worthy of all consideration and remembrance, that God set the seal of His approbation upon the action taken by those churches at that time, by pouring out His Spirit upon them.

Great revivals immediately followed over that whole region. The discussion of the subject, and the action of the churches took place in 1827-‘8 and ‘9, and in 1830 the greatest revival spread over this region that had ever been known in this or any other country. They knew Masonry, as we know it, by an examination of those books in which it had been revealed. We have the same means of knowing Freemasonry, if we will use them, that those churches and ecclesiastical bodies had. We have the highest evidence that the nature of the case will admit, that God approved of their decision and action. In the brief outline that I have given in the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show

truthfully, so far as my space would allow, what Freemasonry really is, and if it is what these books represent it to be, it seems to me clear as noonday, that it is an anti-Christian institution. And should the question be asked, “What shall be done with the great number of professed Christians who are Freemasons?” I answer, Let them have no more to do with it. Again, let Christian men labor with them, plead with them, and endeavor to make them see it to be their duty to abandon it. These oaths should be distinctly read to them, and they should be asked whether they acknowledge the obligation of these oaths, and whether they intend to do the things that they have sworn to do. Let it be distinctly pressed upon their consciences, that all Masons above the first two degrees have solemnly sworn to conceal each other’s crimes, murder and treason alone excepted, and all above the sixth degree have sworn to conceal each other’s crimes, without an exception. All above the sixth degree have sworn to espouse each other’s cause and to deliver them from any difficulty, whether they are right or wrong. If they have taken those degrees where they swear to persecute unto death those who violate their obligations, let them be asked whether they intend to do any such thing. Let them be distinctly asked whether they intend still to aid and abet the administration and taking of these oaths, if they still intend to countenance the false and hypocritical teachings of Masonry, if they mean to countenance the profanity of their ceremonies, and practice the partiality they have sworn to practiced. If so, surely they should not be allowed their places in the church.

CHAPTER XX CONCLUSION

In concluding these pages I appeal to Freemasons themselves. Gentlemen, I beg you to believe that I have no personal ill-will toward any member of your fraternity. Many of them are amongst my personal acquaintances, and some of them nearly related to me.

I have written of Masonry, I pray you to remember, as revealed by Wm. Morgan, also Avery Allyn, Elders Bernard and Stearns, and Mr. Richardson. That these authors truly reveal Masonry I am certain, so far as I have personal knowledge of it. That they truly reveal the higher degrees I have as good reasons for believing, as of any fact to be established by human testimony. You can not justly expect me to doubt the truthfulness of these revelations. You must be aware that God will hold me responsible and demand that I should, in view of the testimony, yield my full assent to the credibility of these authors. You must know that God requires me to treat this subject in accordance with this revelation. Now, gentlemen, no one of your number has attempted to show that these books are not substantially reliable and true. No one of you has appeared to publicly justify Masonry as revealed by these authors. You must be aware that no man can justify it. No respectable author amongst you has attempted to show that Freemasonry has undergone any essential improvement, or modification, since these revelations were made; but on the contrary the most recently published Masonic authorities assert or assume that Masonry has not been changed, and that it is still what it ever has been, and that it is insusceptible of change, as I have proved it to be. Now, my dear sirs, what ought you to expect of me? To hold my peace and let the evil overrun the country until it is too late to speak? Believing, as I most assuredly do, that these works truly reveal Masonry, could I be an honest man, a faithful minister of Christ, and hold my peace in view of the alarming progress that this institution is making in these days. In your hearts you would condemn and despise me if, with my convictions, I suffered any earthly considerations to prevent my sounding the trumpet of alarm to both Church and State. Would you have me stultify my intelligence by refusing to believe these authors; or, believing them, would you have me cower before this enormousIy extended conspiracy? Or would you have me sear my conscience by shunning the cross, and keeping silence in the midst of the periIs of both Church and State? And, gentlemen, can you escape from the conclusions at which I have arrived. Granting these works to be true, and remember I am bound to assume their truthfulness, can any of you face the public and assert that men who have intelligently taken and who adhere to the horrid oaths, with their horrid penalties, as revealed in these books, can safely be trusted with any office in Church or State? Can a man who has taken, and still adheres to the Master’s oath to conceal any secret crime of a brother of that degree, murder and treason excepted, be a safe man with whom to entrust an office? Can he be trusted as a witness, a juror, or with any office connected with the administration of justice? Can a man who has taken and still adheres to the oath of the Royal Arch degree be trusted in office? He swears to espouse the cause of a companion of this degree when involved in any difficulty, so far as to extricate him from the same,

whether he be right or wrong. He swears to conceal his crimes, murder and treason not excepted. He swears to give a companion of this degree timely notice of any approaching danger that may be known to him: Now is a man bound fast by such an oath to be entrusted with office? Ought he to be accepted as a witness, a juror–when a Freemason is a party in any case–a sheriff; constable, or marshal; ought he to be trusted with the office of judge or justice of the peace? Gentlemen, you know he ought not, and you would despise me should I not be faithful in warning the public against entrusting such men with office. But further: Take the large class of men who have sworn, under the most awful penalties, to take vengeance on all who violate Masonic obligations; to seek their condign punishment; to kill them; to persecute them, and to ruin them by representing them wherever they go as worthless vagabonds. Now, gentlemen, I appeal to you, is a man who is under a most solemn oath to kill or seek the death of any man who shall violate any part of the Masonic oaths a fit person to be at large amongst men? Why, who does not know that Freemasons are in the habit of violating various points and parts of their Masonic oaths, and are not Freemason bound by oaths to kill them, or seek their death? There are many seceding Masons throughout the land. Adhering Masons are under oath to seek to procure their death. Now if they adhere to their oaths and thereby affirm that they design to fulfill their vows, if an opportunity occurs, ought they not to be imprisoned or put under the heaviest bonds to keep the peace? No one can face the public and deny this, admitting as he must that their oaths are truly recorded in these books. No one can think this conclusion harsh unless he assumes contrary to all evidence, either that no such oaths have been taken, or if they have, and are still adhered to there is no danger that these vows will be fulfilled. Take these books and say wherein have I dealt harshly or uncharitably with Freemasonry as herein revealed? Ought a Freemason of this stamp to be fellowshiped by a Christian Church? Ought not such an one to be regarded as an unscrupulous and dangerous man? I appeal to your conscience in the sight of God, and I know that your moral sense must respond amen to the conclusions at which I have arrived. Be not offended with my telling you the truth in love. We must all soon meet at the solemn judgment. Let us not be angry, but honest.

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Charles Finney on the Heresy of Universalism

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Finney on Universalism*

By Charles G. Finney

7. Universalism is another refuge of lies. This system varies in some of its minor points, but in one great leading feature it remains ever the same–it always denies the justice of endless punishment. However much the advocates of Universalism may differ from each other in the less important points, they all agree that all men will ultimately be saved; that sin does not deserve an endless punishment; and that it would therefore be unjust in God to inflict it. Hence, whatever modification this system may put on, it will practically make sin out to be a mere trifle. For example, they will tell you that men are fully punished for all their sin as they go along–that the evil necessarily incidental to sinning in this life is all the punishment it deserves. The slight compunction of conscience, more or less, that wicked men feel for sin, together with possibly some providential evils, is all that God can justly inflict upon them as a punishment! Think of this! Look at it! What sort of religion is this? To say that all the punishment which sin deserves is a little compunction of conscience, and perhaps some providential trials in this life!–a little trouble which some men have as they go along in consequence of sinning! I want to know if this is not blaspheming God in the worst possible manner! It lifts up its brazen front before heaven and tells God–“Thou great Jehovah–sin against Thee is a small matter–Thy laws are a mean affair–if I trample on them and roll them in the dust, and grind my heel upon them, what is that to Thee? Who art Thou that Thou shouldst take in hand to punish such things in Thy creatures with any positive inflictions of suffering? Dost Thou not know that the sinner’s troubles in this life are full as much punishment as his sin deserves?”

Now see in this what Universalism is. See how it spits at God! Hear it proclaim, “Who art Thou that sin against Thee should be a thing of any account?” And what is this but an attempt to dethrone Jehovah? It would fain make sin the merest trifle in the universe. And shall not the hail sweep away this refuge of lies? If it does not, then God will have forgotten to sustain His own honor and His own glorious throne. But you say that you don’t deserve any other punishment than the natural compunctions of your conscience, and the attendant troubles of sinning in this life! Indeed! all the time receiving good from the hand of God, cradled from your birth in His very arms–fed from His own table– every want supplied from His exhaustless bounty–and yet, though you scorn to remember God with gratitude, and though you trample His law in the dust, yet you don’t deserve any other punishment for your sin than you get from your conscience and from providence, as you go along! O what outrageous abuse of God! And what a shameless perversion of human reason! I know not how to express the indignation I feel at such insults offered to God. O, to think how they are contemning their own most gracious Father! He is fattening them on the bounties of His providence, and yet they deserve, they say, no punishment for sin–no hell after death! What a ridiculous delusion is this! Was there ever a more striking proof afforded of the degree to which sin can stultify the human intelligence!

 

This doctrine of Universalism of course rejects salvation by Christ. Its advocates may sometimes talk about being saved by Christ; but they mean nothing by it, for they hold that men are punished all they deserve in this world as they go along. Of course if punished all they deserve in this world they are not pardoned at all. But salvation by Christ is pardon; if it mean anything it must include the idea of forgiveness, or pardon, so that the sinner saved by Christ is not punished, but pardoned. But Universalism punishes the sinner all he deserves, and yet pardons him too! It makes him suffer the full and utmost penalty of God’s law, and at the same time saves him by Christ., so that he shall be pardoned, and not punished at all! What superb nonsense is this! And again, what curious ideas of law and government are these which make the penalty of sin only the slight evils endured here from an uneasy conscience, and from a disciplinary providence. Here, in this world, is the sinner’s hell–here, where sinners are in the main happy in all their sins, and yet are suffering the full penalty of God’s law! Ah, what notions of God’s law must Universalists have!

This system strangely confounds justice with mercy. It punishes men to chasten and reform them, and this strange process is identical with forgiveness! Inflicting the penalty of law on principles of strict justice is with them the same thing as forgiveness and mercy! For here, in this world, on every sinner, precisely this development takes place– God punishes him all he deserves, in His justice; and yet pardons him most freely through Christ, in His mercy! Surely this is mixing up and confounding together justice and mercy–very much as if men had no just idea of either. Again, Universalists confound the benevolence of God with mere good nature. God is in their view so good-natured that He will make no discrimination as to character. O He loves all men most comprehensively and altogether alike! So pure good-natured is He!

The favorite term with them to designate their opponents is “partialists,” assuming that it would be partial in God to save one and not another. This can appear plausible only to the most short-sighted intelligence. For, consider–Is a ruler impartial who treats the righteous and the wicked alike? Is this impartiality? Can justice treat men of opposite character and opposite merits, just alike? There is the case of Abraham’s prayer for Sodom, “O Lord,” he says, “wilt Thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?” Would that be right? That the righteous should be treated as the wicked are–“be this far from Thee, O Lord!” “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Now here, with the best good sense and reason, Abraham assumes that God would be partial and unjust if He were to treat the righteous and the wicked all alike, and he pleads as if he felt most sure that the Judge of all the earth would do no such thing. Abraham was no Universalist. Impartiality implies dealing with men according to their deserts. Therefore if God saves all men, be they righteous or wicked, He cannot be impartial, but must be partial. Again, persons who hold this delusion must count Paul a madman. Hear him: “I say the truth in Christ; I lie not; my conscience bears me witness that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for my brethren;” and why? He tells us, moreover, that in one city, “by the space of three years he ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears.”

 

But why is all this? If Paul really believed that all men will certainly be saved, what is he warning them against? And why those tears, and that continual heaviness and agony of spirit? Is he warning them to flee from the wrath to come? O no–no; but he trembles lest they should not all become Universalists. He finds that some of them are skeptical upon this doctrine, and hence are afraid of being finally lost, and he cannot endure that their minds should be disturbed by such fears for the few days of the mortal life. O he is in the greatest agony lest he shall not convert all his Jewish brethren and all the Gentiles of Ephesus to the belief of universal salvation!! He is in dreadful agony of soul lest they should be troubled with fears of being lost! Alas, lest they should never become Universalists! And this is the Universalist’s version of the character of the great apostle of the Gentiles!

But what does Paul say of himself? Does he tell us that in his view of the matter, Christ saves all? Aye, he says, that for himself, “he becomes all things to all men if by any means he might save some.” And this is the extent of his Universalism!

Again, this doctrine represents Christ as either full of deceit or void of sense. Hear its explanation of Christ’s words: Christ says, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Now look at the exposition put on this language by the Universalists. “Hell,” he says, “means nothing but the grave. There is no other hell but the grave.” Of course he makes Jesus Christ say this in the passage just cited–“Fear not the assassin or the executioner, who can only kill you; but I will forewarn you whom you should fear: fear him,” who after you are dead can throw your soul and body into–the grave–aye, yes, fear the sexton!! Ah, consider–he has power to bury you after you are dead–I say unto you, fear him! Now if Universalism makes no other hell but the grave, then Universalism makes Christ either a consummately deceitful man, or a man sadly deficient of intellect!

I might pursue the follies and absurdities of this delusion much farther; but time forbids, and I must therefore forbear.

* Taken from his sermon Refuges of Lies, Published in the Oberlin Evangelist, 1848

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books