nothing against them, for we believe they are doing good in some measure. Some whom we esteem as friends and brethren, approve them and join with them. We have indeed passed upon them the highest praise by saying, as we have said, that they are designed to do a part of the Saviour's great work of holiness, redemption and love. More we cannot say in their praise, for their invention of names and sanctions for their work and organizations seems to us to run in opposition to the name of Christ, and to confine them to only a part of the work, of which he enjoined the whole. The Christian name is enough, and if another name is substituted for it, part of the Christian work will be omitted. For observe now, how this multiplication of Societies, each with its fancy title and designed for partial Christian works, affects the great institution and the great work which bear the name of Christ with authority from the Father. A minister may spend his best strength, his zeal, and his prayers in endeavoring to impress upon his hearers the obligations and duties of a Christian life. He tells them of Christ who went about doing good, and holds him forth as their example; he reads to them that striking chapter in the gospel of Matthew, where Jesus Christ assumes the condition of the sick, the naked, the stranger and the prisoner; he teaches them in the name of Christ, that all men are their brethren and have a claim on every service they can pay; he shows how every sacred hope, and every holy duty, and every work of purity and mercy is embraced in a Christian life; and then the minister urges his hearers to take upon them the Christian name, and go forth and be faithful to it in life. His appeals fall coldly But some of those

year after year upon many persons. who will not take upon them the name of Christ and go forth in that name, will take upon them the name of some Society, and with that name will own each other as brethren. Not as Christians, then, but as members of one or another Order, we find them leagued together, visiting a fellow-member in his suffering, addressing him as "worthy Brother," supplying all his wants with the tenderest solicitude, watching by him in the closest friendship, and hailing his return again to the weekly or monthly meeting of the Order. All this is of the very essence of Christianity. It would not have been done without Christianity. Why

1846].

Partial Organizations.

89

not then call it Christianity? Why give to it a fancy name? Why dissever from any Christian work, or league, or union, that venerable and sacred name which all generations of men are to bless? If Christianity prompts the work of mercy, let Christianity have the credit of it before the whole world. Let not the minds of a rising generation be perplexed and deceived, by finding the work of redemption which Christ has inspired going on by portions here and there, under titles which would better become a nursery for children than the wide, open world of serious and suffering men.

-

We have hinted that when Christian works are undertaken without the constant guidance and the attending name of Jesus Christ, those works may be but partially performed. Is there not danger of this? We know what answer Jesus gave to the question, who is my neighbor? That answer was founded on his idea of the universal brotherhood of man, on the equal claim of every brother man to our sympathy in his necessities. Is there not danger lest the members of our fancy Societies put in the names of the brethren of their Orders, as the first and the best, if not the only answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?" We would not imply, that the members of these fraternities restrict their good deeds to their several circles. We know indeed that this charge would be unjust, and that these fraternities have even bestowed aid in their united capacity simply as charity, without reference to the claims of its recipients. But Christendom has for ages acknowledged the beautiful moral of the parable of the good Samaritan to be, that in any work of mercy the claim of humanity goes forth with equal eloquence and with equal demand from every sufferer, and that there can be no "preferred debts" to be recognised by Christian charity. We are pained to see the sublime moral of that parable brought under any risk of forgetfulness, or any diminution of authority, by the recognition of a principle which says that patronage and relief shall regard any associate claims, save those of domestic relationship or of the wide brotherhood of the race.

Besides, the more popular and the more pretending these partial organizations may be, the greater is the expense of supporting them with appropriate paraphernalia,

and with outlays of time and money which go not at all to the relief of suffering, nor to the education of mind or heart. The philosophic Hallam sums up much wisdom and experience in the assertion, that "mankind has generally required some ceremonial follies to keep alive the wholesome spirit of association." This is true, and it is equally true, that the ceremonies, decorations and paraphernalia of associations will generally be an index of the measure of truth, practical wisdom and utility which such associations may claim for their grounds and ends. The baptismal water and the sacramental cup are the simple and sole elements of mere ceremony which were associated from the beginning with our Christian faith, and even these, though full of expression and meaning, have been found objectionable to some of the purest Christians that the world has known. The moment when the ceremonial of the Church began to increase, was the moment when the truth which it had dispensed began to decrease. Throughout all the associations of the middle and subsequent centuries, from the Church down to the pettiest guild or craft of the pettiest village, "ceremonial follies" were invariably the indices of greater or less degrees of utility, of truth and of practical wisdom in those associations.

That we may not be misunderstood, let us again state distinctly the objection we urge against several of our modern associations. It is not that they do not aim at, or accomplish any good. We admit that they do a measure of good. The social meetings of their members may tend to cultivate social feelings, their acts of charity must greatly relieve suffering. Nor do we object now to these Societies, that they have secret bonds of union, nor that the members might be disposed to favor one another in courts of justice, in political elections, and in private dealings. Neither do we object to these Societies, that they offer inducements to the unworthy to seek admittance to them from unworthy motives. Nor lastly, do we urge the general objection applicable to any place or occasion, be it a dram-shop, a reading-room, or a club, which takes men regularly from their families, and offers them a more attractive place than their homes for finding interest and enjoyment after the labors of the day. We object to these Societies solely on Christian grounds. They give up the name of Christ for

1846.]

Modern Orders.

91

a fanciful, if not a silly name of their own. They make charity an obligation peculiarly due to fellow-members, instead of extending it equally and irrespectively to all sufferers, without any favor or distinction, according to the parable of the good Samaritan. They take out the very life from the rule proposed in that parable, and substitute for it the ancient method of Spartan hospitality.

Is there not some little deception too, in thus putting away the name of Christ, and in trying to do without his sanction, and by an improved method, the very work which he proposed and consecrated, and of which he gave the all-sufficient and the only sufficient rule? For see what would be the result in a few years, if the tendencies which have been to such a degree developed were still to strengthen themselves. The next generation coming on to the stage of life would find the Christian Church a deserted and lifeless, or merely a lingering and ineffective institution, clung to only by a few women who are denied admission to our modern Societies, while some really Christian works, and the very work which the Christian Church set in motion, would be going on here and there, by portions, in the community under sham or fictitious titles, and some other Christian works would be neglected altogether, because the name and sanction of the Master had fallen into disrepute. We are well aware, that some may meet these objections by alleging that the Church does not fulfil the purpose of its Founder, by laboring as a great benevolent institution and performing its work of mercy independently of all human distinctions. To this plea we are content to reply, that it therefore becomes every Christian believer to give all his zeal and labor towards turning the Church back to its true work and purpose, instead of aiding in its perversion by forsaking its one great tent for some petty encampment which would set up rival claims.

But it may be asked, if the objection which we have urged against some of these modern Societies, would not apply equally to all charitable associations, such as the "Howard Benevolent Society," "the Fatherless and Widows' Society," etc. We answer, No. These last Societies take names only to designate the particular objects of their Christian charity, and to define the specific form and kind of suffering which they would relieve. They are

not bounded by oaths of fellowship or membership. They have no expensive paraphernalia, no childish devices, no wordy titles, no absurd mummeries. Their organization and their occasional appearance before the public are associated with Christian faith and Christian sanctions, with Christian appeals in Christian churches.

If any one should further ask, whether the objections thus urged against some modern Orders, do not arise from professional jealousy; we answer, Yes! They spring entirely from professional jealousy, and they justify themselves entirely on the grounds of professional jealousy; that profession being a Christian profession, and that jealousy being a desire that Jesus Christ should have the credit of his own work in this world, and that that work should be wholly, not partially, performed. We confess that professional jealousy has dictated our objections, and we have not the least anxiety to disguise, but would prefer to declare it.

In view of all these fraternities leagued in amity to regard their own members as first and chiefly brethren, we might indeed say with St. Paul, "notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice." Let all these good works be done, but let them be done in the name of Christ. The inspiring purpose, the kindling spirit, the guiding law, the promised blessing is his. If it be only the least gift mentioned by himself, the giving of "a cup of cold water," or the visiting of the sick, "whatsoever ye do, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

We have felt justified in making this reference to the various Societies for doing Christian works, which have put aside the Christian name for less worthy names of their own. Our purpose has not been to heap offence or reproach upon them; we have aimed at something better. We have been solicited to join several of them, and as professed Christians we have made that profession a ground of refusal. We will join none of them, because we have already joined one that is greater and better than them all, and which includes what is good in them all. On the same principle we have purchased an Encyclopedia of established reputation, and embracing the whole circle of