CONTENTS OF NO. XVII. ART. I.-REPLY TO PROFESSOR POND'S ARTICLE ON VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS. By Rev. NATHANIEL HEWITT, D. D., Bridgeport, Conn. THE observations and experience of three years at the head of a Voluntary Society, first led me to suspect the soundness of the voluntary principle. The course of events of the subsequent seven years, together with careful and thorough investigation, have confirmed all of my former apprehensions, and brought me to the full belief that, in secular as well as in sacred concerns, it is fraught with mischief. It assumes the independence of man, and invests him with self-sovereignty. Traced to its source, it originates in Pelagianism in religion, and the worst forms of Jacobinism in politics. It promises union, but it is the mother of discord. It pretends to love and good-will; but, as it is the offspring of pride, it generates ambition, and ends in despotism. Whenever it has had amongst ourselves full scope, and time sufficient to develope itself fully, we can trace its progress by the wreck of laws and usages, and principles which have proceeded from the wisdom of ages, and the authority of God. When, therefore, the author of the " Inquiry respecting Voluntary Societies," which appeared in this work in the No. VOL. V. 1 for March last, submitted his papers to my inspection, before they went to press, I was prepared to appreciate the importance of the subject, and to enter into his views, and feel the power of his reasonings, and to justify its main positions; and to advise its publication. It is therefore a matter of course, that I should bear with him the burden, which his opinions and the avowal of them, imposes on his shoulders. Of these, the animadversions of Dr. Pond in the last number of this work, are the most onerous which have as yet been laid upon him; and these are "grievous to be borne," not so much on account of their intrinsic weight, as in consideration of the person from whom they proceeded, and some of the qualities by which they are distinguished. The spirit and manner of his piece, afford ample evidence, that the "voluntary principle," whatever else it may do towards human perfectability, does not dispose and enable its warmest admirers and abettors to " give a reason of the hope that is in them in meekness and fear;" and that, however tolerant it renders its disciples to all denominations of men, it will not patiently endure dissent from its own supremacy and infallibility. Dr. Pond's article purports to be a reply to our author's; but it is so only in part. The voluntary principle, and not this or that voluntary society, is the subject treated by our author, and Dr. Pond undertakes to answer him and explode his doctrines, by a defence of a select few religious voluntary societies, and that not so much on the ground of the principles of their construction, as on that of the benefits resulting from their practical operation. The voluntary principle works well, in these societies, and therefore it is a good and safe principle, is about the amount of Dr. Pond's reply. If one were to defend universal suffrage, by showing that the right of voting worked well in the landed proprietors and farmers of New-England, he would pretty closely imitate Dr. Pond's proceeding in the present case. I do not say that he has precisely and exclusively followed this method, but that he has done so mainly. As, however, Dr. Pond has chosen his own ground, whereon to contend for the voluntary principle, I am prepared to follow him; although our author himself is under no obligation to do it. He discussed a general principle, and showed that as a principle of universal application, and as developed in various societies, it is unsound and dangerous. If Dr. Pond had met him fairly, he should have espoused the opposite side "for better or for worse." The great principle for which we contend, and in so far as the subject relates to the Church of Christ, and which Dr. Pond has in various ways impugned, is-that ecclesiastical works ought to be performed in an ecclesiastical way. The truth of this proposition is so obvious, and the reasonableness and propriety of its universal observance in all the affairs of the church so indisputable, that Dr. Pond is constrained to admit it, although in doing so he gives up the main position which he labours to support. Thus, on pp. 399, 400, he says: "The grand objection to the right of forming voluntary societies for religious purposes, is grounded on a false assumption. It takes for granted that the societies are separate from the church, and independent of it; whereas their connexion with it is most intimate, and their dependence entire. They cannot move, but as the church moves them; nor farther or faster than she moves them. Their acts are virtually the acts of the Church. They are the organization, the instrument, through which, for the sake of efficiency, the Church chooses to act in accomplishing the work which has been given her to do. No consistent advocate of voluntary societies insists upon the right to set up institutions out of the Church, and independent of it, with which to accomplish the Church's work." If these declarations of Dr. Pond, and many others of similar import which will readily occur to our attentive readers, are to be taken in their plain and obvious meaning, it is most evident that we have no controversy with him as to the great principle which it was the aim of our former article to state and defend, and we wonder that he should have any with us. Before passing to the question of fact in this case, we will for a moment inquire of Dr. Pond, why those societies which, as he affirms, are connected most intimately with the Church, and dependent on it entirely, should not in a formal manner be subject to the oversight and direction of the Church? If they are virtually in the Church, and dependent on it, as he insists they are, why should they not be formally so? If a woman is virtually the wife of a man, "most intimately connected with him, dependant on him, and subject to him," is it not "orderly and best" that she should be |
