THE REPORTER.
"'TIS PLEASANT, THROUGH THE LOOP-HOLES OF RETREAT, TO PEEP AT SUCH A WORLD-- TO SEE THE STIR OF THE GREAT BABEL, AND NOT FEEL THE CROWD."
VOL. II. NO. 10.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JULY 31st, 1820.	WHOLE NO. 62.

MR. EDITOR,

      SIR--The impartiality which has distinguished your conduct, in giving to the public the opportunity of hearing with both ears, the pro and the con, on the subject of the moral societies, has been such as should distinguish every republican editor. It is not enough that one side should be fully exhibited, and no man whose cause is good, can fear to see the whole stated that can be presented against it. I have sometimes been convinced, and I have known others convinced that a cause was bad, by the efforts of those who laboured to support it. I believe it may be satisfactorily demonstrated, that those convictions which are produced contrary to the design of the writer or controversialist; are the clearest, the deepest and the most durable. Hence it is that I have heard some say, they were more fully convinced, of the immoral tendency of moral societies so called, by the efforts of those writers who have attempted to vindicate them than by my attempts to expose them. The specimens of morality, of literature and of a polite and elegant taste which these gentlemen have exhibited are no mean embellishments of their cause, they afford no triffling evidences of the purity and excellence of it. As I am now about to view the subject in a new light I think it may not be improper to advert for a moment to the specimens of morality and literature, to say nothing of the taste, exhibited against my honest and well meant efforts. In reading with considerable apathy the writings of my opponents I have been struck with, the frequent allusions made to the enlightened and improved state of the world in this 19th century. I believe, sir, this is mere matter of course declamation. I observe that the people of every century pride themselves in the comparative view of their superior intelligence: Hence it is that in reading the writings of the enemies of reformation in the days of John Huss and Jerome of Prague in the 14th century, and the efforts of the Romanists against Luther and Calvin in the beginning of the 16th century we hear those enemies of reformation extolling the literature, the intelligence, the superior taste of their own times--"What" says a Roman Cardinal "can this obscure monk (Luther) oppose the pope in this age of science and holiness!!" For 3000 years back, I presume, the people of every century supposed themselves the most intelligent that ever lived, and that they had nearly approximated to perfection--The 19th century is doubtless more enlightened than the 18th, and I am also confident the 20th will be more enlightened than the 19th--In the language of the poet--

      In this 19th century, then, we are an enlightened people, & what morality, literature and taste appears in the rare productions of this century!! While reflecting on this last sentence, my fancy began to roam--and in my musings I supposed myself living some fifty years hence--when a newscarrier delivered me a newspaper published in those enlightened times--an extract from which I fancied as follows.

      This being the 94 years of American Independence, I was reflecting on the many scenes and changes through which our fathers and we have passed during now nearly one century. From a pile of old Reporters some of which were published in this city when it was only a borough in the year 1820, I discovered that in politics and economy but more especially in religion and morality we have undergone great and mighty changes. In the summer of 1820, and for some time, I know not how long before, there were some zealous but misguided men who formed some curious associations called moral societies of which we know but little for they never published their constitution--It appears from their opponents and particularly from one Candidus who in those days opposed them that their object was to suppress vice and immorality, to make men moral and good, by means of fines and imprisonments. That sometimes men were stopped upon the road on a Sabbath day when travelling peaceably along and carried 10 or 12 miles to a jail on the same day, to prevent Sabbath breaking--Considerable revenues were obtained from the impiety and immoralities of the citizens, which seems, it was said, were applied to the good of the church, in bible society establishments, and in training students for the ministry which of course would make some students great advocates for them. There were many who wrote on both sides, but it would appear that the friends of these moral societies defeated their own cause. For while they opposed Candidus they plainly shewed what kind of morality they advocated. Instead of refuting Candidus by reasoning they endeavoured to exasperate and abuse him by calling him "a son of mischief, a child of Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, morality and religion." One of them even threatened to stab him under the fifth rib if he did not desist from opposing them--To say nothing of the charges Candidus advanced against them, who would not have seen that their regard for morality was no way remarkable when they could resort to such means only, to support their cause.

      As to the literature of those times if we are to judge from the writers opposing Candidus, who claimed no small share of it, it does not appear to have been very eminent--From one of the best of those writers named "Civis"¹ I will make a few extracts which may serve as a specimen of the logical attainments of those times. This Civis was the first that attempted any thing like reasoning; and I believe he thought himself pretty clever but should any person amongst us reason, as he has done we would suppose him rather as burlesquing reason than attempting to reason. But let this venerable Civis speak for himself--Lest the people of this age should doubt that any man half a century ago, could reason as Civis, I will transcribe one or two of his syllogisms literatim et punctuatim.

      To prove moral societies anti-christian Candidus says, "a moral association is an unincorporated, unchartered, heterogeneous, self created and impotent association of men for the professed object of suppressing vice and immorality." Compare this, "says Civis," with what follows in the same number, "he says" "anti-christ crowns kings, sanctifies and disannuls leagues, punishes and remits sins, and claims the highest honors to itself."--Civis' conclusion is--But a moral association is anti-christ, therefore an impotent association of men for the professed object of suppressing vice and immorality crowns kings, sanctifies leagues, punishes and remits sins, &c.--This conclusion he adds is unavoidable, for if moral associations are anti-christ and if anti-christ has all power, and does every thing, so has moral associations"--It appears then that in the year 1820, they did not know the difference betwixt a substantive and an adjactive--Candidus had in one of his Nos. said that moral societies were anti-christian--To prove this he defined anti-christ, that a degree of resemblance might be traced, but Mr. Civis proceeds upon the supposition that, anti-christ and anti-christian are the same, that whatever is anti-christian is anti-christ--That is a Platonist is Plato, an Aristotelian is Aristotle, a Pythagorean is Pythagoras. What an enlightened logician was this redoubtable Civis who flourished in the year 1820.

      Candidus had in order to place the subject in clearer light not only reasoned on the above definition of a moral society; but supposed it to be of better materials and better organized, for the sake of shewing that in its best possible form it was a moral evil--This, which is the strongest way of reasoning against anything, Mr. Civis calls reasoning upo suppositions, thereby meaning that Candidus had no other ground of attack than mere supposition. What an admirable critic!--

      But now for another syllogism--When Civis had said many other things of a piece with those mentioned he exhibits some exquisite logic--Candidus had said "that it is as immoral to take that from a fellow creature to which we have no right, as it is for him to sin against the Divine law--and he that pockets the 4 dollars is as great a sinner as he who breaks the Sabbath." The plain meaning of all this "says Civis is that it is as immoral to commit robbery, as it is to break the Sabbath--both crimes are here placed on the same footing but agreeable to his reasoning we have no right to punish Sabbath breaking consequently we have no right to punish robbery."

      It appears that in the year 1820 they did not understand any difference betwixt religion and morality--nor any difference betwixt one man being as great a sinner as another; and one man's sin being of the same kind with those of another. This was to place crimes on the same footing!! Then look at the conclusion--we have no right to punish robbery if we don't punish sabbath breaking--That is in the logic of 1820, if we punish one sin we must to be consistent, punish every sin of thought, word, and deed-- Consequently if we don't punish all sins, we should punish none--What a mysterious reasoner!!

      But the grand secret that explains Mr. Civis, is, that he assumed this ground--that fines and imprisonments were the proper means of enforcing the obligations of morality-- his words are, when censuring Candidus for opposing this system--"What a pity, after all that has been said both by religion and philosophy, for the improvement of society in morality that we should yet remain ignorant of the proper method of enforcing its obligations"--Now Candidus considered fines and imprisonment an improper method, but this enlightened Civis considered fines and imprisonment as the way pointed out by religion and philosophy, to enforce the obligations of morality.

      What a blessing that we live in the year 1870, and not in the year 1820. What an astonishing revolution has taken place in the public mind within the last 50 years.

MILLENIUS.      

[The Reporter, 31 July 1820, p. 1.]