Secret Societies by Edward Beecher;Jonathan Blanchard;David MacDill
page 44 of 60 (73%)
page 44 of 60 (73%)
|
_First. Charity_ has no need of them. They are not truly charitable institutions. "Mutual insurance societies" they may be, though of an inferior sort, as we have seen; but that does not elevate them into _charitable_ institutions. To bestow on your widow and orphans, your sickness, and funeral some pittance, or the whole of what you paid during health and life, is not _benevolence_. But, further, it is well to ask, in determining how greatly _charity_ depends on them, how broadly they go forth among the poor outside their membership. During the anti-masonic excitement of 1826-1830 some two thousand lodges suspended. The resultant suffering was less, perhaps, than what would follow the suspension of a single soup association, any winter, in some city. Blot out the whole, and how small the injury to the charities of the country! The Church of Christ is commanded to "do good unto _all_ men"--"to remember the poor." It is engaged in this work. It blows no trumpet--it does not parade its charities; but it shrinks from comparison with no one of these orders, nor with all of them combined. _Christians_ need not to go into them to preserve _charity_ alive, or to find the best ways of exercising their own. _Secondly. Morality_ does not depend on them. We need say nothing of "what is done of them in secret." But, looking at what is open to all, we ask, What _work_ are they doing worthy of so much organization, and expense, and time to reclaim the fallen, to banish vice, and to save its victim? We have heard them refusing him admission or cutting him off, but we have not heard of any considerable aid which they have given to public or private morality. And, further, do we not find them |
|