T is a mistake to suppose that religious freedom is the result of civil liberty. The reverse of this is true, that civil liberty springs from religious freedom. Such republics as those of Greece and Rome were possible under a religious system that conceded universal toleration, and where every one was permitted freely to worship, after his own fashion, his own divinity; but could have no existence under the religious despotism of the Persian fire-worship or that of the Egyptian Osiris. When the gospel was first introduced, its refusal to tolerate any species of idolatry became, therefore, among the Greeks and Romans, its chief offence. They could not endure the exclusive claim of a religious autocracy which seemed but the harbinger of civil bondage, and were unwilling to exchange the outward license of polytheism for the spiritual freedom which Christ offered to bestow. They had but little conception, indeed, of that freedom of the soul from ignorance and sinful bondage, and that liberation of the conscience from a sense of guilt, which the gospel afforded, and had failed, as yet, to comprehend that glorious liberty which, like that of the sparkling waters of the streamlet or the motions of the "viewless air," can be enjoyed only in a strict conformity to the laws [513] of God. It was not until Christianity had sufficiently proved its tendency to make men gentle and obedient; patient and forbearing; willing to concede to all their just rights, and employing in behalf of their cause no influence but persuasion, that it became acceptable and prevalent throughout the Roman empire. It was not long, however, until, through the ambition and envy of rival bishops, there arose a contest for precedence and power. Shackles were imposed upon men's minds by decrees of councils; the rights of private judgment were refused, and what there was of civil liberty perished when civil government became at length the subservient instrument of spiritual tyranny.

      Amidst the increasing gloom which gradually enveloped the nations, there was soon revealed, according to prophecy, that bold and undisguised form of religious absolutism, termed the Papacy. It was said of the Romans, as Tacitus relates, that in subduing the nations "they made a desolation and called it peace." Thus, in like manner, the Papal power, in endeavoring to extirpate its opposers as heretics; in denying to the people all liberty of thought, and in obliterating every landmark of the mind's own possessions, created, wherever it moved, that fatal and mortuary peace that springs from moral and spiritual desolation. In this respect Catholicism has, indeed, ever been truly ROMAN. Nor is the analogy less striking as to the extent of its empire and the efforts it has made to crush out every struggle for civil liberty, except in the few and doubtful instances where policy demanded a certain degree of concession to surrounding circumstances. The history of the world proves that the same spirit prevails, more or less, in every religious national establishment, and in every religious representative assembly, and that it [514] will inevitably display itself when any one of them is allowed to exercise power in political affairs, Propositions to remove civil disabilities, or to enlarge the precincts within which the masses are confined, never proceed from the bishops of England or from the clergy in any land where they are permitted to have a voice in civil affairs. On the contrary, they are found ever to resist reforms, and, from an instinctive antipathy, to detest liberal ideas. Hence it was that Great Britain never truly possessed herself of the great principles of civil liberty until the hierarchical powers were overthrown, and the Independents, under Cromwell, learned from their religious freedom the lesson of universal emancipation. Hence, too, as it was the Independent and former Puritan, Roger Williams, who first secured the constitutional grant of liberty of conscience, so it was this inestimable boon which ultimately gave to this favored land the truest and noblest conception and enjoyment of the rights of man. In all cases it will be found that "soul-freedom," as Roger Williams used to term religious liberty, preceded and gave origin, form and character to every effort for the attainment of civil freedom; and as the latter is speedily lost when the rights of conscience and of private judgment are denied, it behooves all lovers of liberty to watch, with jealous eye, the movements of religious bodies which claim the right to dictate articles of faith, and to repel with promptitude their attempts to acquire political influence or to obtain control of legal power. Such attempts have been made more than once already, even in this country, and it is of these that the course of the narrative now renders it necessary to speak.

      It has been already mentioned that Presbyterianism had almost entire control of the population in Western [515] Pennsylvania, and especially in Washington county. It was naturally to be expected, therefore, that the spirit of the prevailing religion would find expression more or less in the local laws and regulations, and that these in turn would reveal the character and real tendency of this religion. Too inattentive to the probability of this latter result, and too confident in the possession of power, the adherents of the dominant party in Washington county had commenced, in 1815, a system of espionage and of arbitrary coercion, with respect to the people, which seemed to revive the spirit of the old Puritan codes,¹ and which at the present day no Western community would for a moment endure. This system it was attempted to establish through the agency of what were called "moral societies," organized for the reputable purpose of "suppressing vice and immorality," which seemed, in the estimation of the founders of these societies, to form two different categories. But the nature of these organizations, and the plausibility of the reasons by which it was attempted to justify them, will be best seen from their own records. Thus, it is related that on the 4th day of April, 1815--

      "At a meeting of a number of the citizens of the borough of Washington, to take into consideration the expediency of forming an Association for the suppression of vice and immorality, James Brice was called to the chair and Obadiah Jennings was appointed secretary. Whereupon it was resolved to form an Association for the suppression of [516] immorality." Certain rules were then adopted as the constitution of the "Washington Moral Society." In this constitution, it is made the duty of every member "actively to promote the objects of the Association by giving information against any one known to be guilty of profane swearing, Sabbath-breaking, intoxication, unlawful gaming, keeping a disorderly public house, or any other active immorality punished by the Commonwealth." It was further enjoined upon each member to "assist and encourage his fellow-members in their duty." Regular meetings were also to be held on the first Monday of May, August, November and February at the Presbyterian meeting-house in the borough of Washington, six members forming a quorum. It is recommended also that "similar associations be formed in the different parts of the county." After the constitution, an "Address" was adopted, which, after setting forth, at length, the evils of "intemperance, Sabbath-breaking, swearing," etc., proceeds as follows:

      "The Society are desirous of calling the attention of their fellow-citizens more particularly to the aforesaid vices, not only because they are deemed amongst the most criminal and destructive, but also because they are more generally permitted to pass with impunity than many others of a less malignant character. At the same time, it is confidently believed that there is a sufficient amount of moral influence in the community, if combined and vigorously directed, to afford an effectual corrective. We would suggest the importance of forming similar associations in every part of our country. Some have recently been formed in this county, and the good effects are already visible. Can any one doubt the right or question the propriety of such associations? Is it not the indispensable duty of every member of society to promote its welfare, and prevent, according to his ability, everything which would be destructive of its interests and prosperity?"

      It then goes on to speak of the increase of [517] immorality, and among other things mentions the fact that while in 1802 there were only fifty-five taverns in Washington county, there were then one hundred and fifteen, a ratio of increase much greater than that of population.

      Under the influence of these moral societies, established throughout the county, a strict watch was at once set over the behavior of every individual; local laws were passed in reference to the vices named, and the magistrates were stimulated to a rigid enforcement of them. The societies were, indeed, in their inception, simply organized bands of informers, though, emboldened by the submission of the people, their members soon began to make arrests without civil process or legal authority. As they pursued their vocation with enterprising zeal, many violations of the laws were detected and exposed, and every member of the community soon found himself to be under a sort of inquisitorial scrutiny that was as strict as it was novel, and as distasteful to the feelings of many true friends of morality as it was incompatible with the spirit of republican freedom. For a considerable time, however, the moral societies had everything their own way. Murmurs and complaints, indeed, there were, but no one had the hardihood to oppose, publicly, proceedings which were professedly in the interest of morality, and which, in many instances, no doubt secured the outward observance of its rules. No one that had the least regard for his popularity would venture to oppose the strict enforcement of the laws; and although many were sensible that there was certainly an undue exercise of power, or some false principle involved in such proceedings, there seemed to be no one capable of detecting it, or willing to bring down upon himself the [518] odium of the clergy and of the dominant religious party. Nevertheless, the burden imposed upon the people seemed to grow heavier the longer it was borne, and a good deal of discontent began to manifest itself. Those who had been fined through the moral societies, began to scrutinize more closely the conduct of the members composing them, and, in many cases, soon found that these self-constituted custodians of the public morals were themselves guilty of offences similar to those which they condemned in others. The nature and operation of these societies, as well as the piety and consistency of their members, will, however, be better understood by a recital of actual occurrences.

      On one occasion, a Mr. Martin, near Washington, had employed a teamster to convey some produce for him to Pittsburg. Returning on Saturday, they were unable to make the whole distance, and were obliged to put up for the night within a short distance of Canonsburg. Setting out early next morning, on their way homeward, on entering the borough of Canonsburg, they were at once stopped and informed that they would not be permitted to travel on the "Sabbath." At once acquiescing, they put up the horses, and remained at the hotel until the next morning after breakfast, when they again set out. After leaving the village, they were overtaken by the constable, who demanded of the wagoner the fine for traveling on the "Sabbath." This the wagoner refused to pay, and, after some altercation, it appeared that the constable had not with him any writ to enable him to make an arrest. He then said he would go back to town for it, and would overtake him before he got to Washington. As soon as he was gone, the wagoner got a friend on the way to drive the wagon for him, and disappeared. [519] When the constable overtook the team at Washington, he was greatly enraged at being thus baffled, and making considerable noise, a crowd collected and began to dispute with him as to his ability to collect the fine under the circumstances. He insisted that he could and would collect it; and as he became more and more excited, one of the bystanders said to another privately, "Suppose you banter the constable to bet ten dollars on the collection of this fine. I will then go and inform upon you both, and you will both be fined, and as half the fine goes to the informer, I will receive the full amount of your fine, which I will hand over to you, so that you will lose nothing, and we shall have some sport." His friend, agreeing to this, immediately proposed to bet with the constable, who, in the excitement of the moment, at once accepted the offer. "Now," said the originator of the plot to him, "you have violated the law yourself, which is against betting as well as against Sabbath-breaking; and it will be my duty to go and inform upon you both." At this, the constable, finding he was caught, became quite crest-fallen, and knowing that he would lose his office and his popularity if the matter were made known, besought all present to say nothing about it, and promising if they would consent to this and come into the-tavern, he would "treat them all round," and give up prosecuting the case against the wagoner; all which was agreed to amidst great merriment.

      On another occasion, one of the members of the Moral Society at West Middletown, David M--------, returning from meeting on the "Sabbath day," noticed at Wilson's tavern, two and a half miles from the town, a bucket belonging to him which his teamster had forgotten there the day before. Taking up the bucket, he [520] concluded to carry it home with him, and on the way was reminded by one of his friends that he was violating the law by carrying a burden on the "Sabbath day." Upon his return home, the circumstance naturally gave rise to serious reflection on his part, and, amongst his pious "Sabbath" musings, he considered how he should extricate himself from the dilemma in which he had become involved, and which was likely to bring reproach upon his character as an orthodox and orderly member of the church. At length, the happy thought occurred to him that if he would go and inform upon himself, such an instance of self-sacrifice, disinterested zeal and respect for principle, would not only clear his escutcheon from every stain, but elevate him even higher than ever in the esteem of the faithful. This bright idea was accompanied--or, as some might be so uncharitable as to think, preceded--by another reflection of uncommon weight, which was, that as half the fine went to the informer, he would save two dollars by informing upon himself. Accordingly, he at once resolved to do it, and going next morning to the magistrate at an early hour, lest any one should anticipate him in the performance of what he felt was his peculiar duty, gave the information in due form and tendered half the fine, as a full and efficient expiation for the offence he had committed. The magistrate, however, could not see the matter in that light, not being able to discover that the law had made any provision for so extraordinary a case; and so, reminding the pious culprit that the money went to the support of preachers, compelled him to pay the whole fine. From such facts (and similar cases were not unfrequent) the moral tendencies of these societies will be sufficiently evident. It will be also seen that they had not for their object to repress or [521] punish crimes which men commit to the injury of others, and to which the attention of the civil magistrate had been heretofore confined; but that they took under their especial care those vices which affect individuals themselves, and of which the civil authority had not previously been accustomed to take cognizance, unless when, as sometimes in the case of drunkenness, they caused a disturbance of the public peace. It will be further noticed that they attempted to engraft upon the civil code their peculiar religious views in regard to the "Sabbath," and to compel by law the whole community to submit to the Judaizing opinions which they had themselves imbibed from their religious teachers.

      As Mr. Campbell frequently visited his mother and the family, now living near Middletown, he soon became well acquainted with the facts and principles developed during the operation of these "Moral Societies," but, though indignant at such invasions of personal and public freedom, he, for some time, forbore to notice them, as he lived in an adjoining State, where such things had no existence. As matters grew worse, however, and no one in Washington county seemed willing or able to undertake the matter, he determined at length to interfere, and on the 27th of April, 1820, he published an article, under the signature of Candidus, in which he criticised an address previously issued by the "Moral Society of Middletown." In this piece he first satirized, in his peculiar way, the moral state of Middletown, which was thought to demand such remedies, and then exposed the conduct of some leading members of the Moral Society, who were themselves guilty of raffling, taking part in "shooting matches" for gain, etc. He then attacks the principle on which [522] the societies acted, viz.: that fining men for their vices would make them moral.

      "When they pay dear for their sins," says he, "they will, from principles of avarice, become morally correct!   *     *     *     *   And what becomes of the fines? Oh! they are given to some pious clergyman to be applied to the education of young men for the ministry. Go on, therefore, in your misdeeds, ye profane, for the more you sin the more preachers we shall have."   *     *     *     *  

      As may be readily supposed, this article created quite a sensation. The Society at Middletown immediately appointed a committee to make a reply to it, which was published in the Reporter, and which, instead of defending the principles of the Society, raised against Candidus the cry of "a friend to immorality," etc., and attempted to browbeat and intimidate him. To this effusion, however, the latter very promptly replied, disavowing the improper motives attributed to him, and fully admitting and asserting the claims of morality. He boldly claims the right, however, to "animadvert on those who, unsolicited, mount the judgment-seat and presume to deal rash judgment round the land on every one they suppose able to pay for his transgressions." He then goes on to show that such moral societies are "anti-evangelical, anti-constitutional and anti-rational," and says he has as good a right to sit in judgment on them as they have on their fellow-citizens. His first position, that they are anti-evangelical, he then goes on to prove by showing that the Bible gives no authority whatever for them. In another article, on the 5th of June, he continues the argument, showing that moral societies are anti-evangelical, because "Christians are not at liberty to interfere with men of the world in [523] anything pertaining to God and conscience." He takes the ground, also, that if all members of society anywhere are Christians, they must go by the discipline given in the New Testament.

      These assaults brought out a host of writers on behalf of the societies, and the paper was for some time crowded with articles, mostly of very poor quality, and filled with invectives against "Candidus." By way of variety, an essay then appears in defence of "Candidus," signed "V. A. Flint," corroborating the statements of "Candidus" in regard to the practical operations of the societies. In doing this, he details the case of a poor old Revolutionary soldier, who, at an election in Taylorstown, indulged too freely in liquor, and was consequently fined by the Society-members. The old man, being exasperated at having to pay the fine, began to swear, and continued thus to vent his passion for a considerable time, during which the custodes morum in attendance coolly kept an exact account of the aggregate number of oaths. As there was a fine for every oath, the aggregate amount finally became so great that, in order to pay it, the old man had to part with the entire store of corn on which his family depended for subsistence during the winter. On the 12th of June, there appears a weak piece against Candidus, and in the same paper another article by V. A. Flint in his defence. On the 19th, Candidus continues his exposition of principles. He shows that "the only system of pure morality is that of the Bible, especially of the New Testament, and that it must point out the only sure and efficient means of promoting it." Reaching down to the great basis on which all morality rests, the will of the Divine Law-giver, he shows that a violation of this will in any one point is the violation [524] of the whole law, as it is a rejection of the authority on which the whole rests. He quotes the declaration of James: "He that said Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not steal;" and, "if a man keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." He then remarks that the law enforced by the societies "values the profanation of the 'Sabbath' at four dollars; profanation of the Divine name at less than one dollar; drunkenness at so much, etc.," and asks why, in view of the true principles of morality, is each sin valued at a different price, and why any of them are valued at a fixed price, etc. At this juncture, a letter appears from Mr. Finley, attributing the authorship of Candidus to Mr. Campbell, and endeavoring to cast aspersions upon his character. In the next paper, is a letter from Mr. Campbell, over his own signature, addressed to Mr. Finley, demanding the proof of his assertions, to which Mr. F. made no reply.

      It was just at this time that Mr. Campbell became engaged in an oral debate on baptism with Mr. John Walker, a minister of the Secession, and which was held at Mount Pleasant on the 19th and 20th of June. This debate, and the subsequent preparation of it for the press by Mr. Campbell, interrupted for a time, on his part, the discussion in regard to the Moral Societies. Returning to the charge, however, in the latter part of July, he resumes the train of argument he had introduced, which, in order to avoid breaking the connection, will be here pursued to the close. In his article on the 31st August, Candidus argues the unconstitutionality of the proceedings of the Moral Societies, because the Constitution gave the right to all to worship God according to their consciences, expressly declaring that "no one can be compelled to erect, attend, or [525] support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent," and that the observance of the Sabbath, or of any other day, is purely a right of conscience. In subsequent essays, he takes the ground that "officers of the church have no right to interfere with the execution of the law, or to supercede civil officers, legally appointed, as, in presuming to do so, they assume that the civil officers are insufficient. It is, however, made the duty of the magistrates to be vigilant in enforcing the law, as they are appointed for the very purpose of maintaining the good order of society, being ordained of God for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of those who do well." Continuing his essays during the winter, Candidus criticises Judge Rush's charge upon the institution of the "Sabbath," in Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, and shows that there is no law in the New Testament prescribing the first day of the week as the "Sabbath."

      Hitherto the writers against Candidus had displayed so little ability that they had not offered even a plausible refutation of one of his arguments, and the cause of the Moral Societies seemed to be in quite a hopeless state. But on the 12th February, there appeared against "Candidus" a new writer of a different stamp, who signed himself "Timothy," and whose articles were written in much superior style. They were clear and argumentative, entering into the merits of the question and discussing the matters involved, with a manliness and vigor, which formed quite a contrast with the feebleness which had heretofore characterized the writers upon that side. In these essays, Timothy referred to Candidus as "Mr. C.," and continued them for several weeks without any reply from the latter. The impression hence became general that, feeling himself unable [526] to meet the reasoning of "Timothy," "Candidus" had abandoned the discussion; and it was then whispered round that "Timothy" was none other than Rev. Andrew Wylie, D. D., who had some time before become President of Washington College.²

      At length, upon the 16th April, Candidus reappears, reviewing the progress of the discussion up to that time. To this Timothy replies, admitting that the previous opponents of Candidus had injured their cause. In the same paper, another article appears from Candidus, who appears to be conscious that he has now an opponent worthy of regard, and therefore takes hold of Timothy's arguments with more than usual power. In subsequent numbers he ably exposes the plausible sophisms of "Timothy," and sustains the positions he had himself taken, while the replies of Timothy become feeble and are at last discontinued. Candidus, accordingly, on the 6th August, 1821, sums up the controversy, and, supposing that Timothy had retired, challenges him to debate the whole question from the beginning, either orally or in the Reporter. To this, on the 20th, Timothy replies, saying he had not retired, but would continue to write as long as Mr. C. advanced anything worthy of notice, and endeavors then to show that Mr. C.'s reasoning was fallacious. This he followed up in two long articles, which were devoted to invective rather than argument, and treated side-issues [527] rather than the main question. Resuming the subject on the 17th of September, Candidus addresses the public through the Reporter, apologizing for the discursive style of the previous discussion, during which he had been induced to follow his opponents into matters irrelevant. He charges Timothy with having pursued an improper course in his articles, and with having written a scurrilous poem which had appeared in the Reporter. He further says that he has made an arrangement with his friend Mr. Sample to have the controversy conducted thenceforth in a proper style, and that he will now furnish a column regularly, as a new series of articles. The first of these accompanies this address, and states the argument (which, at this time was confined to the "Sabbath" question) as follows:

      "The whole of the precepts or commands of the Christian religion are contained in the New Testament.

      "But there is no precept or command in the New Testament to compel by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, any more than to any other day.

      "Therefore to compel a man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, is without authority in the Christian religion."

      The statement of his second argument is as follows:

      "The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in the Son of God. 'Whatever is not of faith is sin.'

      "But to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding duty to be performed without faith in God.

      "Therefore, to command unbelievers or natural men to observe, in any sense, the Lord's day, is anti-evangelical or contrary to the gospel." [528]

      In subsequent papers, Candidus now proceeds regularly, in a clear and cogent manner, to refute Timothy's arguments and sustain his own, paying no attention to scurrilous pieces which occasionally appeared against him. On the 29th of October, Timothy announces that he will not reply regularly, but will review the whole when Candidus is done. In November, Candidus continues the subject in able articles, and in January, 1822, Timothy reviews his pieces at some length and with considerable ingenuity. Candidus appears again in an able refutation on the 28th of January, and finally on the 25th of February, as no further articles appeared from Timothy, who had evidently exhausted his resources, and whose arguments had been clearly overthrown, Candidus closes the discussion with an apology for any inadvertent expressions, and with kind expressions in reference to his ingenious opponent, thus remaining the acknowledged victor in the controversy which had now continued during nearly two years.

      The effect of these essays upon the public mind was great. Men, whose minds had been previously bewildered and confused upon the subject, now perceived clearly the nature of the questions at issue, and though the "Moral Societies" continued their operations with even more than usual zeal, there were many who only waited for a favorable opportunity in order to put their authority to the test. This was not long wanting. A man named Isaac Jones, a citizen of Wellsburg, had been attending to some business at the court in Washington, which detained him until it was too late on Saturday evening to reach home that day. As his wife was in delicate health, he thought it necessary to set out early next morning. But on approaching West Middletown he was met, near Davis' tavern, by five [529] men, who demanded to know where he was going. He told them he was going home to Wellsburg, and asked in turn where they were going. They replied that they were going to meeting, and as he was violating the law against "Sabbath-breaking" by traveling on that day, he must go back with them to Washington. This Mr. Jones found himself compelled to do, though, as may be well supposed, not in a very devotional frame of mind. Upon coming up to the steps of the hotel at Washington, they found standing there several of the lawyers who had been in attendance upon the court, as James Ross of Pittsburg, Philip Doddridge of Wellsburg, and with them, Judge Baird of Washington, who was a warm friend of Mr. Jones. Mr. Ross, surprised to see him back, inquired the reason, and when informed of his arrest, became very indignant, and told the men that they should pay dearly for their conduct. As James Ross was a lawyer of great eminence, they became alarmed and were about to go away, when they were informed that they must not depart until their names and residences were duly taken down. Suit was at once brought against them for unlawful arrest, and the matter being adjourned from time to time in the court at Washington, was at length transferred to Pittsburg, where it was finally decided against the persons making the arrest, who were adjudged to pay considerable damages. These Mr. Jones refused to accept; but so great had been the costs and expenses of the suit that the convicted persons became quite impoverished in their circumstances, and the questions at issue being now legally determined, the operations of the "Moral Societies" totally ceased from that time, so that these organizations were heard of no more.

      That Mr. Campbell's exposure of the spirit and [530] purposes of these societies, and of the unscriptural and anti-republican character of their principles, had largely contributed to this result there could be no question. The same desire of being serviceable to society, which led him, in the essays of Clarinda, to attempt the correction of the social evils he found existing upon his first arrival at Washington, or, in those of Bonus Homo, to subserve the interests of collegiate education, had now induced him to attempt the rescue of the community from the civil tyranny which bigoted religionists had been seeking to establish in the name of morality. Such was his nature, that he was ever ready to enter the lists in defence of truth and right, and sought ever to instruct, liberate and elevate society in spite of all the obloquy, calumny and reproach constantly heaped upon him. In the uncalculating and unselfish spirit of a true reformer, he sought for truth alone, and in its defence he feared no opposition. Though, in common with noble minds, he was not insensible to fame, as an advocate of right he was indifferent to censure. Though lenient to the mistakes and frailties of men, his feelings revolted against deliberate schemes to acquire arbitrary power; and though ever ready to grant the largest liberty of opinion in matters of indifference or mere expediency, in those of morality and religion he would admit no standard but the Bible. With him, personal considerations were of little moment compared with the great issues affecting the welfare of mankind, and having no partisan religious interests to subserve, he was free from that narrow-minded bigotry which claims for its opinions a sort of infallibility, and will never consent to change. Hence he was never ashamed to acknowledge errors, but, in his progress toward clearer views, openly acknowledged them in renouncing the prejudices [531] of his religious education, and publicly professing a truer faith. Hence, too, it was that every honorable opponent he met in his numerous discussions soon learned to regard him with respect, and, notwithstanding the severity of his logic and the keenness of his sarcasm, to entertain for him, after the contest was over, the most friendly personal feelings.

      Of this, President Wylie affords a marked example, for, after the discussion about the "Moral Societies," he became a warm friend of Mr. Campbell; and when, some years after, he removed to the West, where Mr. Campbell had by this time acquired great influence, he received from the latter introductory and commendatory letters which contributed to place him at once in the position for which he was fitted by his learning and abilities. He soon became President of the State University of Indiana, and during the remainder of his life kept up a familiar and friendly correspondence with Mr. Campbell, who always retained a high regard for him, and often spoke in terms of high praise of his scholarship and talents. And it is worthy of remark, also, that such impressions had been made upon the mind of Mr. Wylie that, after the discussion with Mr. Campbell, he ceased to advocate the claims of any religious sect, and gradually made such advances that after his removal to the West, he began to oppose partyism altogether, and reached pretty nearly the stand-point of the Christian Association, becoming a strong advocate of Christian union, and even leaving the Presbyterians and attending the worship of the Episcopal Church as more liberal in its spirit.

      With regard to the questions involved in the debate about the "Moral Societies," it seemed not a little strange, as was shown by Candidus, that a people [532] professing Christianity should betray such ignorance of its principles as to think of making men moral by legal enactments. Unlike Judaism, which demanded only an external conformity, Christianity addresses itself to the heart, the fountain of human motives and actions, and seeks to make "the tree good" in order that "its fruit may be good," since an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." But the miscalled "Moral Societies" sought not to cherish or strengthen any moral principle, but rather to repress the indulgence of one evil passion by bringing into exercise another, that was perhaps worse; as when they wished to correct intemperance or profanity by an appeal to the love of money. True morality must proceed from principle, not from law; and it is here the power of conscience that is to be invoked, instead of that of the magistrate.

      It became evident, however, during the progress of affairs, that it was the leading object of these societies to establish by law their views of the "Sabbath," and it was this point which occupied, therefore, the larger share of the discussion. This effort to replace republican liberty by religious thraldom, would appear not less strange than to attempt to inspire men with moral principles by means of fines, were it not a familiar fact in history that representative religious bodies, as formerly remarked, have an inherent tendency to exercise arbitrary power and to trample under foot the dearest privileges of mankind. In the case under consideration, the so-called "Moral Societies" of Washington county could by no means plead ignorance of the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania as an apology for their proceedings; for, in the United States, nothing could be more clearly drawn than the line separating Church and State, and it was but a short time before [533] the establishment of these "Societies" that a case had come up in the Washington court, which brought this particular subject prominently before the minds of the people.

      It happened that a suit for slander had been brought against an individual who was charged with having circulated, to the injury of a political candidate, that the latter, in contempt for religion, had "administered the sacrament to a dog." This brought up the question whether or not such words were actionable, and Lawyer Mountain, in his speech upon the occasion, which was published in the Washington Reporter, after referring to opinions given by Lord Chief justice De Grey in a similar case in England (Onslow against Horn, 3 Wilson, 178), went on to lay down the law of Pennsylvania in regard to this class of alleged offences:

      "Could a man," he said, "be indicted under the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania for this shameful abuse of this most sacred ordinance? The counsel for the plaintiff allege that Christianity is part of the common law, and in this they are supported by a maxim of law and by opinions of the judges of England. But what has the common law of England, in this respect, to do with the common law of Pennsylvania? Does the Christian religion derive any support from our Constitution or our laws? No. It is left to its own native and intrinsic excellence, uncontaminated by the constitutions and laws of man, with whose constitution error seems to have been interwoven by an immutable law. Religion requires not the aid of legislatures and judges. Like our globe, librata ponderibus suis, poised by its own weight, it rises above the ruins of empires, and, like the lightning of heaven, pursues the direction of its eternal Founder. Religion loves its own chaste simplicity. Bind it to the State, and you bind the living to the dead; it becomes an engine in the hands of fools and of knaves, and leads to the temporal degradation [534] of every man of candor and of honesty. History shows this important truth. Many of us have seen the effects of this unnatural union in Europe, and we have all seen the happy effects of their separation in Pennsylvania--may that separation be perpetual!

      "Could a man be indicted in Pennsylvania who would declare himself in favor of a plurality of gods, and who would worship them in his own way? Could a man be indicted in this State who would deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and publish a book in opposition to the same? Thomas Paine was indicted in England for his Age of Reason; could he have been indicted in Pennsylvania? A statute passed in the first year of the reign of Edward VI., repealed in the first year of the reign of Mary, and revived in the first of the reign of Elizabeth, enacts that whosoever shall deprave, despise or contemn the most blessed sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous word or words of depraving, despising or reviling; or shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise or revile the same, contrary to the effects and declarations aforesaid, shall suffer imprisonment and make fine and ransom at the king's pleasure. Is this statute in force in Pennsylvania? No. It and all similar statutes are swept away like cobwebs by the Constitution of the State. The man, then, who would commit this act, this impious act, could not be indicted, but would remain a monument of his own folly, of his own indiscretion and impiety, and of our unexampled separation of Church and State, of things human and divine."

      Notwithstanding the failure of the Presbyterians to establish by law in Washington county their views of the "Sabbath," as above related, another and more general effort was made, a few years later, to get these notions of the proper observance of the "Sabbath" sanctioned and established. For this purpose, in the year 1829, Congress was suddenly overwhelmed with [535] numerous petitions, coming in from all parts of the country, and from various ecclesiastical bodies, praying that the public mails might all be stopped upon the Sabbath day; and every possible influence was brought to bear upon the National Legislature in order to obtain the passage of an act to this effect. The matter assumed so important a phase that it was referred to a committee, and its chairman, Richard M. Johnson, after some time made a report which was regarded at the time as a very remarkable document, and excited so much interest, and received so much applause, that it was published throughout the country, and largely distributed also in the form of handbills, which were framed and hung up in dwellings, like a new Declaration of Independence.

      As it was perfectly well known that Richard M. Johnson possessed neither the education nor the ability to write such a document, a great desire was manifested by the people to discover its real author; public sentiment was not long in deciding that it could be no one else than Alexander Campbell. Those best acquainted with him recognized it at once by its style, as well as by the character of the arguments urged against granting the petition. It was known that Mr. Campbell was on terms of friendly acquaintance with the chairman of the committee, and in intimate religious fellowship with his brother, John T. Johnson; so that nothing appeared more natural than that Mr. Campbell should have been privately requested to prepare such a document upon a subject to which it was well known he had already devoted great attention. If this was the case, it was, of course, a matter entirely confidential; and Mr. Campbell was too honorable ever to acknowledge himself the author. It [536] is proper to say, however, also, that when the authorship was charged upon him, as it often was, by his intimate friends, he was not known in any case positively to deny it, but always evaded giving a direct reply. These being the facts in the case, the document in question, will be placed in the Appendix, in order that the reader may judge for himself, especially as it is itself worthy of preservation, and is closely related to the subject of the present chapter. (See Appendix B.)

      It is not to be supposed that the failure of the efforts above spoken of, to impose religious observances upon the people by law, has at all changed the principles or purposes of any religious party concerned in such movements; and it is doubtless an important safeguard to freedom that no one denomination possesses sufficient strength and unity to control the councils of the nation. No party of religionists, who have already yielded up the citadel of the soul to spiritual tyranny, are fit to legislate for a free people. Hence, there was nothing that Mr. Campbell feared more, as to its probable effect upon public liberty, than the preponderance of a religious sect, and especially that of the Roman Catholic Church. He therefore constantly sought to weaken the power of existing hierarchies, to expose the schemes of priestly ambition, and to support all just claims of freedom both in Church and State. [537]

[MAC1 513-537]