binations, I should look with jealousy. In this remark, I do not intend to pronounce any judgment upon uieir particular objects. I might approve of them; but I should be on that account none the less jealous of their tendency, when successful, to narrow and enslave the minds of individuals. Then, again, there are other associations, whose object is charity, or to do some good work; such as Bible, Tract, Missionary, and Relief Societies of various sorts. With regard to these, it appears to me, that a different judgment is to be entertained. Their object being simply charitable, is so far unexceptionable, let it be carried as far as it will. But this I should say, that while their success is no ground for apprehension, while their success, to almost any assignable extent, is to be desired, their coercive influence upon individual minds is no less to be guarded against.

In fine, I do not say that societies, as societies, are to be opposed.Were it even desirable, it is certainly impossible, in this country at least, by any such weak means or- arguments, to check or discourage the spirit of association. It is in the very air about us, ready to come at every call, and to take some new form every day; and no power at our command can exorcise it. This is all, then, that I say, and this is the ground I take: that all societies ought to beware how they unduly press their influence upon individual minds, and that every individual is to be exhorted to guard his freedom against them: to be exhorted, not, indeed, to withhold his countenance and aid, but to limit them exactly to his independent convictions. He is to be warned, I say, not against liberality, but against bondage, and societies are to be warned against imposing it.

Some of the cases in which this injury is both done and suffered, it shall now be my business to point out; and then I shall proceed to consider their general influence upon the intellect and virtue of society.

Thus with regard to the cases-when a political party says to its members, "You shall support everything, and oppose nothing, that is done among us, or else expect no favour or office at our hands," what is this but an enactment in a code of slavery? And what can its legitimate effect be, but to make slaves? Doubtless, a man may honestly and honourably attach himself to some particular doctrine in politics; and on that basis, a party may be formed; and if the party confined itself to the support of that or similar, or associated doctrines, or of any doctrines in fact, all might be well. There would not necessarily be any bondage in such an adherence to party. But the evil is, that the little circle of individual and independent opinions, which at first was calmly gathering and slowly revolving about its proper centre, soon increases to a whirlwind, and raises a cloud of dust, and takes up straws and rubbish in its course, and sweeps everything in its train. A man finds himself, ere long, mixed up with the agitated and irregular action of many things altogether irrelevant to the original questions. If it were only a certain measure, or set of measures, that he was pledged to support, he might be free; therein he might act upon his own independent opinion: but he soon finds that other questions and interests are thrust into the case; that he must help to compass party ends; and, hardest of all, that he must support party leaders. Folly must beccrue wisdom to him, if it is found in the party idol; every political vice, a virtue; incapacity, honest, homely sense, unpractised in the tricks of office;

intrigue, prudence; sycophancy to the multitude, the love of the people; the most tortuous policy, straight-forward integrity. Let it not be thought that I overdraw the picture. If any man will think to be independent of these considerations, let him try it. Let him dare to say, what, if he has any sense or candour, it is probable that he honestly thinks; let him say, that, although he approves the general object of his party, there are some of its measures that he cannot approve, and some of its men that he will not support. Let him do this, and he will find that the batteries of a hundred presses are immediately opened upon him. He is denounced as a false friend, a spy in the camp; he could hardly be a worse man, if he meditated treason to his party, or to his country; and the end of this experiment on party toleration is, that he is flung off, and left to struggle alone, in the wake of the great ship that has borne his friends to their haven.

With regard to those great associations denominated religious sects, I fear that the case involves no less peril to the mental independence of our people. I allow, that the multiplicity of sects in this country is some bond for their mutual forbearance and freedom: but the strength and repose of a great establishment are, in some respects, more favourable to private liberty. If less favour is shown to those without, there is usually more liberality to those within it. It is in the protected soil of great establishments, that the germs of every great reform in the church have quietly taken root. For myself, if I were ever to permit my liberty to be compromised by such considerations, I would rather take my chance in the bosom of a great national religion, than amidst the jealous eyes of small and contending sects. And I think it will be found, that a more liberal and catholic theology has always pervaded establishments, than the bodies of dissenters from them. Nay, I much doubt, whether intolerance itself, in such countries-in England and Germany for instance has ever gone to the length of Jewish and Samaritan exclusion that has sometimes been witnessed among us.

In saying this, I am not the enemy of dissent; nor do I deny that it is often the offspring of freedom. It certainly is the usual condition of progress. But this, I say, that dissent sometimes binds stronger chains than it broke. And this is especially apt to be the case for a time, when several rival and contending sects spring from the general freedom. Then the parent principle is often devoured by its own children.

But there are other associations to be noticed in this connection.The great benevolent societies of the day, however much good they may propose, and may actually do, are liable to do this evil-to give, that is to say, a form to public opinion, which shall make it press too hard upon individual freedom.

This may be less felt in cities. Individuals there are lost in the crowd, and possess a certain freedom in their comparative insignificance. The many and conflicting claims to public attention in cities, also make each particular claim to be less distinct and imposing; and the heterogeneous mass of mind collected in them, enables every dissentient or opposing opinion to draw forth strength and courage for its support.Hence, I believe, it will be found, that all great reforms, political, religious, or social, have commenced in cities. Hence it is, that cities have ever been the strongholds of freedom; and, if I should add, its corrupters also, I should only point out an extension of the same principle;

that is, freedom becomes licentiousness. And thus it is, at this moment, in our American cities, that we have at once more freedom of mind, and more licentiousness of opinion, than there is in the country. Still, amidst all this, there is, no doubt, enough and too much of bondage among us.

But if you would know how great associations may invade the freedom of individuals, go with one of their agents to some retired village or township in the country. His object is to form a Missionary, Tract, or Temperance Society. He first approaches the clergyman, and finds him, perhaps, a convert already to the project: but if not, he is but too likely to find in him an instance of timid and pitiable vacillation; a person unwilling to express that decided opinion, or that decided doubt about the plan, that becomes his place. Next, the agent, with or without the support of the pastor, applies himself to the church and the people. And here, of course, there will be a certain amount of objection. There will be those who think that they cannot afford the money required, or who prefer some other plan, or who dislike pledges. How are these feelings of objection treated? Does the applicant for aid respect them? Is he anxious that every man should act freely, upon his own individual and unbiassed conviction? Does he remember, that "God loveth a cheerful giver," and no other? How much more likely is he to bring the whole weight of public opinion to bear upon the case; to content himself, if he can wring forth reluctant assent! His own reputation is, in a measure, involved. A society of ten or twenty will not satisfy him. It is very likely that these are the only numbers, which, on any new proposition, would justly express the state of the public mind; but these will not content him. He wants a hundred members. He would fain press men into the cause. Even if this were not the case, if he were ever so scrupulous about the motives he employed, yet the bare fact, that he comes backed by the example of a thousand villages, of almost the entire country in fact, will be likely enough to leave little enough freedom among the people he addresses. Shall they stand up against the whole world? Shall all be darkness and death among them, while all is life and brightness around them? What a sad report to go forth among the churches, that no Missionary Society, no Tract Society, no Temperance Society, could be formed there? What will people think of that congregation, or of its pastor? What can they think, but that they are all sunk in spiritual death, or else are opposed to all truth and righteousness? This will not do; there must be a society; they cannot go on without one. I am not denying, of course, that better feelings have their share in the result; but I wish to show you, how liable these bad, unworthy, and slavish feelings, are to have place in it.

But I need not confine myself, in this survey, to any locality. Every one must be aware, that with regard to several of the great moral enterprises of the day, there is, in this country, a considerable mass of dissent. Take, for instance, the Temperance Reform. I have no doubt that I might express the opinion of a multitude of sober and reflecting men in the country, in terms like these: "that there was, indeed, great and crying need of this reform; that the evil was one of tremendous magnitude; that it was meet the whole country should be aroused to its danger; that a pledge of abstinence might have been

advisable as a temporary expedient to give form and force to that strong protest, which was rising in the public mind; but that the pledge, as it has actually been framed, is based upon a false principle; that what the temperance reformers say, when they assert that it is a sin per se to take any substance or liquid in which alcohol is mingled, is not true; that it is altogether an unwarrantable and mischievous refining upon the case, so to state the doctrine of temperance; that there is alcohol in everything, as there is an exciting quality in everything, even in the simplest food; that gluttony is as bad as intemperance, though not so common, but that it does not follow that men should not eat; that the proscription of wine, and the sacrilegious and most gratuitous disputes about the use of that element in the Lord's supper, are really as legitimate as they are hurtful inferences from a false principle; because, if alcohol may not be drank, then wine may not be drank; and if it is a sin to drink wine, then it ought not to be used in the Communion; and, finally, that no good is ultimately to be expected, but only a sad reaction from the propagation of any error. Warn the public mind," they would say; "alarm it as much as possible; but do this by legitimate considerations; none other are needed, and none other can do any eventual good.' There are many, I say, who entertain these views: but where, I had almost said, is the speech, sermon, or newspaper, that has ever given one single solitary expression to them? And the consequence has been, that the Temperance Reform has gone on without that open and frank opposition to keep it judicious and right, which is necessary to all human action, to every government, to every mind in fact, and therefore, especially, to every heterogeneous and irresponsible association.

Every great association, if it were wise, would welcome an honest, intellectual, argumentative opposition. This is precisely what it wants to preserve it from that extravagance, to which the fervour and confidence of united action are ever apt to lead. But the evil is, that every such association, in proportion as it grows strong, silences remonstrance. It is not here as in politics, where interest insures an opposition. Men feel no immediate interest in resisting any enterprise of a moral nature; and, therefore, they are apt to content themselves with expressing their objections in private, and they leave the multitude to rush on without control. But I predict that the day will come, when reflecting men will find, if they would preserve any personal influence or independence, that they have a duty to perform, widely at variance with their present supine indifference or shrinking timidity. Nay, to some, has not the time already come? Have you never known a man in the country, of somewhat conspicuous standing, of unexceptionable morals and many virtues, but who gave nothing to missionary societies, nothing to tract societies, nothing to education societies, and who would sign no pledges to temperance associations, or to associations for promoting the observance of the Sabbath? What is the position of that man in his neighbourhood? Why, he is "a great opposer;"-brief, but significant and comprehensive phrase, which none but they who have observed its effect can understand. It draws a mysterious circle around its object; the very children of the neighbourhood come to regard him as a strange and bad man-they know not why; he is cut off from the sympathies of the world around him; kept aloof (and well if he is not made a

Q

misanthrope), mentioned to strangers with disparagement, prayed for in meetings, and sent to his grave, unblessed, lonely, and perhaps sad at heart. His very family, it may be, and especially the female members of it, who are more susceptible to the influence of public opinion, are brought over to the side of distrust and suspicion. Stand up for him, fair ministers, at the altar of domestic love, and sacrifice him not on that altar! I am not now saying, that the principles he has adopted with regard to societies is right; but this I do say, that for public sentiment to visit upon him such calamities for his dissent, is an insufferable presumption, and ought to bring the power of associations under the most jealous watch of a free people.

But here are other dangers, besides that of producing individual suffering and bondage, which should lead us carefully to guard against the uncontrolled influence and tendency of associations.

And here I must desire you to observe, that it is not against associations as such, that I am directing these observations, nor against them altogether. It is with no hostility to societies, that I am pointing out some of their incidental effects upon the public mind. The best things are liable, by abuse, or by an oversight of their injurious tendencies, to become the worst; and this because they are the best; because they win unbounded confidence. Moral associations are such good things they are so humane and benevolent, they engage such pious and excellent people in their measures-that it is scarcely possible to think any evil of them. So, also, is public opinion a good thing. An enlightened public opinion is to do more, perhaps, than any other agent, except truth itself, to reform the world. But still it is obvious, that this same power may, in certain circumstances, become an instrument of bondage. That it is liable to be such in this country, I think, will scarcely be denied. I say, then, that it is not against associations as such, but against associations, as auxiliaries of a public opinion already too strong, that I would put you on your guard. I have said that public opinion is like the atmosphere, surrounding and pressing upon every man in the country. Associations may be compared to the atmosphere put in motion; they sweep across a country like the tradewinds or monsoons. Nay, and it may be the sun of truth, pouring its rays upon a certain portion of the firmament, that sets in motion those trade-winds of society, associations. It is the sun of truth, I think, that has set in motion the moral elements of the abolition societies; and yet they may rise and swell, till they bring wreck and ruin upon the dearest interests of the country. I say it was the sun of truth, and I will explain my meaning. The abolition societies began, I believe, in a just and generous impulse. It is true that human beings ought not to be bought, or sold, or held in bondage. The only question is, about a practicable and wise measure of relief, from the evil and wrong that is done. But not only have abolitionists failed, in my opinion, to offer any such measure; but what it particularly falls in with my design to observe is, that the excitement, if it increases, threatens to be one of the most alarming character. You perceive, already, how fearfully it is mixing itself up with the politics of the country.

Indeed, this is one of the general dangers which I was about to notice. Every association among us, and especially every one that is designed to operate upon public opinion, is liable to take on a political