ART. V. VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES.

By ENOCH POND, D. D.

It is something less than half a century since Christians of modern times began to feel, in any considerable degree, their obligations relative to the conversion of the world to Christ, and began to labour, and make sacrifices, for this great object. There had been efforts in behalf of particular portions of the heathen world, at an earlier date. Indeed, during the whole history of the Christian Church, such efforts were never, for a long time, suspended. But from the second or third century, to near the close of the eighteenth, there seem to have been no digested plans and efforts to fulfil, to the letter, the last injunction of the Saviour, and bring the entire world into subjection to his feet.

The more recent efforts of Christians for enlightening and evangelizing the nations commenced, and have in general been continued, on the plan of voluntary associations. Individuals began to think of this great subject, and to feel their personal obligations in regard to it. They conferred with others of a kindred spirit, and these again with others, and thus the flame was communicated from heart to heart. As the work to be accomplished was obviously too great for individual exertion, the projectors of modern missions to the heathen found it necessary to form associations, and combine their efforts. An association once formed, others were induced to connect themselves with it, and then others, and in this way originated most of the great benevolent societies of the day.

During by far the greater portion of their existence, these benevolent Societies have been permitted to pursue their career of usefulness undisturbed, except by occasional thrusts from the ungodly. But within a few of the last years, a powerful opposition has been excited against them, within the bosom of the Church itself. A party in the American Presbyterian Church has held and taught, that "the evangelizing of the world should be conducted by the church, in its distinctive character, and not be left to the 51

VOL. IV.

management of voluntary associations." Accordingly, Boards of Missions and of Education have been organized in the Presbyterian church, and a strong opposition has been made to the movements of the national voluntary societies for the promotion of the same objects. Episcopalians have, to a considerable extent, participated in the same views; and recent developments evince, that they are cherished by some, at least, in the Congregational churches. A writer in a late number of the Literary and Theological Review, who is understood to be a Congregationalist of New-England, has come out decidedly against voluntary associations, urging that whatever important objects belong properly to the Church should be assigned to the Church in its distinctive, organized capacity, and that all other objects should be left to the state.

It is my design, in the following paper, to remark particularly on the statements and reasonings of this writer, not confining myself, however, so exclusively to him, as to forbid a wider consideration of the subject, whenever this may seem to be necessary.

Let it be observed, too, that I design to call attention chiefly to those voluntary societies which have been instituted for religious purposes. Some of those, whose objects are of a merely moral or political character, I have been accustomed to regard as of great importance. With reference to others, I have had, at times, more fears than hopes. But none of this general class of associations will come under consideration here. If I mistake not, it will tend to simplify the discussion, and render it more clear and satisfactory, to confine attention to those societies which are of a religious character, and which fall more appropriately under the supervision of the Church.

It has occurred to me, in my reading on this subject, that the precise questions at issue, with reference to voluntary associations for religious purposes, may not have been generally understood. At least, they do not seem to have been kept steadily before the mind. It need not be made a question, for instance, whether a church, in its organized. capacity, or whether an associated body of churches, has a right to promote important religious objects in a charitable way. We admit, and insist, that they have such a right. There is not indeed, so far as I recollect, any positive injunction requiring it; but certainly there is none forbid

ding it. We are under obligations to do all the good we can, both as individuals, and as organized members of churches; and if a church, in its distinctive capacity, or if an associated body of churches, can successfully prosecute any work of faith or labour of love, we know of no principle of the gospel to restrain them. They have not only a right, but it is incumbent on them, to do all the good in their

power.

But the question of right, as now presented to us, is this: Have Christians a right to associate, otherwise than in their corporate church state, for the promotion of important religious objects? Have they a right to form voluntary associa tions and to continue them, with a view to circulate the Bible and religious tracts, and educate pious youth for the ministry, and send out Missionaries to the heathen?

To these questions, the writer of the article before us gives us his decided negative. The following are his own words: "Is it orderly and safe to keep in operation other institutions, not established by the church of God, to attend to concerns which it is confessedly the duty of the church to provide for, according to scriptural command ? We unhesitatingly answer, No. And to make good our position, we maintain, that the opposite ground is totally at war with the spirit and letter of the gospel. It assumes that man has within him some treasures of goodness and wisdom, which enable him, without the Divine counsel and aid, to put successful means in operation for advancing the human race from sin to holiness. It assumes, moreover, that such institutions as God has been pleased to appoint are defective in material points, and unfurnished with the proper instruments for effecting their own purposes; or that they are not intended or adapted to accomplish more than a single item in the work; that supplementary institutions must be devised by man's wisdom, and established by his authority; that every man is at liberty to judge where the institutions of God are wanting, and to set in motion such projects for supplying the deficiency, as he may see fit," p. 97. Again; "the word of God knows but one public association of men for scriptural purposes. That association is the Church of the living God." And "all means and institutions for man's recovery set on foot, except in reverent fulfilment of the directions of the Divine word" (i. e. all voluntary associations for religious purposes) "must be alike presumptuous

and dangerous." "So far as any thing is added to the Divine constitutions, or relied on to accomplish what devolves on them, it necessarily vitiates them, and usurps the honour due to God." pp, 100. 101. "If, in addition to this body of Christ, self-created and independent bodies may arise at discretion, to oversee particular interests of a moral and spiritual nature, what but anarchy and confusion can be the result? Will not their claims and requirements conflict with each other, and with God's word? p. 110.

The question before us, so far as it is a question of right, is here fully exhibited. We do not deny the right of a church, or of confederated churches, in their distinctive capacity, to do all the good they can. But the writer before us (and in this he agrees with those who have preceded him on the same side of the question) denies the right of christians to form, and continue in operation, voluntary associations for religious purposes. All such associations are “presumptuous and dangerous," an "usurpation of the honour due to God," and "totally at war with the spirit and letter of the gospel."

I have said, that I have no question as to the right of churches, in their organized capacity, to engage in works of Christian benevolence. I will now go farther and say, that in particular circumstances it may be expedient for them to engage in such enterprises. It may be their obvious and bounden duty. Circumstances may arise, in which a particular church, or a confederate body of churches, may see that they can better promote some great and good object, by undertaking it in their organized capacity, than in any other way. In such circumstances, let them undertake it. It is right they should. It is their duty.-But on the other side of the question it is urged, it must be, unless we are to be told that, in certain circumstances, it is expedient to do wrong that it can never be expedient to form and continue voluntary associations for religious purposes. As we have no right thus to encroach upon the appropriate business of the Church, and "usurp the honour due to God," it can, under no circumstances, be expedient to do it.

Again, it is no part of the present question, whether the voluntary principle is liable to abuse; or whether, in some instances, it has been abused. The affirmative of both these questions may be admitted. Voluntary societies may have been formed for unimportant or improper objects. Or

they may have been conducted, in some instances, in an improper way. The agents of these societies are men of like infirmities and passions with their brethren. They may have erred in particular cases, through ignorance or misguided zeal, and exposed themselves to deserved rebuke. The best things are liable to perversion and abuse, and the friends of voluntary societies have no reason to claim for them an exemption from this common liability. But our brethren on the other side are not satisfied with these concessions. They cannot regard the alleged mischiefs of voluntary societies in the mere light of abuses. These societies, they tell us, are wrong in principle-"totally at war with the spirit and letter of the gospel ;"-of course, their tendencies must be uniformly and essentially mischievous. They must tend to evil, and only evil, and that continually. And so they are represented in the article before us. They tend "directly and inevitably to anarchy and insubordination;" they multiply "strifes and discords;" they "widen the door for the inroads of heresy;" they are prejudicial to piety; they give law to the Church.

The great questions relative to the subject before us, which seem to me to require discussion, and which I shall undertake to examine in the following pages, are these:

I. Are voluntary societies for religious purposes unscriptural and wrong?

II. If they are not wrong, then may they not be, at least in particular circumstances, expedient? And may it not be the duty of the friends of religion to form and sustain them?

I. Åre voluntary societies for religious purposes unscriptural and wrong? The writer before us, insists that they are; and the mode of reasoning by which he endeavours to sustain this position, has been already exhibited. "The word of God knows but one public association of men for scriptural purposes. That association is the Church of the living God." And "is it orderly and safe to keep in operation other institutions, not established by the Church," and "separate from it," "to attend to concerns for which it is confessedly the duty of the Church to provide? We unhesitatingly answer, no. And, to make good our position, we maintain that the opposite ground is totally at war with the spirit and letter of the gospel." pp. 97, 101.

The seeming force of this objection to voluntary societies, rests entirely on the assumption that they are "not