Well, but after all he may have pretensions to our notice, and if we do not receive his revelation, we may be shutting our eyes to our own happiness, and the means of our welfare. Then let me ask, Upon what are those pretensions founded? Truths, which are propounded, sometimes gain attention from the character and well-known ability of the persons that propound them. Thus great names often obtain currency for sentiments which otherwise would not receive a moment’s attention. Then, perhaps, Mr. Owen is to eclipse and throw into the shade all other minds that have preceded him. That is (to say nothing of Isaiah, and Paul, and Daniel, and many other scriptural worthies) Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton, and John Locke, and Francis Bacon, and John Milton, and a host more of such great and mighty minds, are nothing before Mr. Owen!!! Does he himself pretend this? Let us give him credit for so much modesty as not to put forth such pretensions.
Then if he be not superior to those stars in intellect, to those giants in mind which have preceded him, and all of whom expressed their admiration of the Bible, and bore their strongest testimony to its Divinity and authority, perhaps his opportunities of coming at the truth, in reference to the principles upon which the New Moral World is to be founded, have given him the advantage, and enabled him, though inferior, to succeed, while others, very greatly his superiors, have failed. Then what advantages does he profess to have enjoyed? He himself shall tell us: “It is a system the result of much reading, observation, and reflection, combined with extensive practical experience, and confidential communication with official public characters in various countries, and with leading minds among all classes; a system founded on the eternal laws of nature, and derived from facts and experience only.” (Preface to the Book of the New Moral World, p. x.) And thus, without even pretending that he has spent his time, or devoted his energies, to an examination and careful investigation of the book which professes to be Divine, and of the truths and doctrines which it contains, he calls upon us to reject and renounce it, while these great minds have spent, not only hours but years upon its study, and as the result of their investigations have expressed their highest admiration of its contents, and have employed their talents and influence to recommend it to others. And here I might adduce testimonies to its excellence were it necessary; but that is a work of supererogation. Then I appeal to every wise, to every reflecting mind. Can those persons be acting the part of rational beings, who in a matter of such infinite moment as a revelation from Heaven, with its momentous contents, refuse to receive it, although supported by the strongest arguments, and confirmed by the most invincible testimonies,—testimonies from miracles, from prophecies, from history, from men of the greatest learning, and the most powerful minds, and even from enemies; and that, too, as the result of the closest investigation, and also personal experience, of its truths, merely because Mr. Owen says that it ought not to be received, and that it must be rejected before his system can be established? Matters have indeed come to a fearful pass, when Mr. Owen ventures, not only to set himself against, but wants to claim superiority over the wisest and the greatest men of all ages, and of all countries; over prophets, and apostles, and evangelists; over Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and even over God himself!
But, suppose we throw away that book which we have been accustomed to hold sacred,—suppose we consent to regard Mr. Owen as the wisest of men, and to receive his principles as the standard of unerring truth, and to adopt them; surely we may not only expect, but we shall certainly find, emanating from him nothing but the truth; and we may venture implicitly to follow him, when he commands us so to do. But to show how far he is a safe guide, I need do no more than refer to his own statements at different times. Thus, in 1823, Mr. Owen developed the principles of his system in a series of letters, published in the “Glasgow Chronicle,” contained in twelve propositions, preceded by one general proposition, as the foundation of the whole. But, since then, his twelve propositions have dwindled down to five fundamental facts; only, to make up for the loss in fundamental principles, we have now twenty supplemental laws. But, if in 1823, Mr. Owen had discovered and revealed the laws of nature, and those laws he expressly declares to be immutable, how comes it to pass that in 1838 they have so greatly altered, not only in their number and form, but also in their very nature, as given in the “New Moral World?”
If alterations so many, and so fundamental, can take place in the immutable laws of nature; if in 1823, Mr. Owen can require credence and implicit confidence in his principles as infallible truth; and then again in 1838, can demand credence and implicit confidence in a new and quite different set of principles, and declare that they also are infallible truth, may he not in 1848, if Providence should spare his life so long, have discovered some new laws, and found out some fresh principles? If it should be replied, No, he has now got the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; we answer, So he said in 1823. And yet he has changed his principles, call it improved them, if you like, but they are different, and they may yet change again. How, then, can we be certain that we have now got the truth? If not, would it be wise to throw away the volume of inspiration, the word of unerring truth, before we are certain that we have something better to supply its place?
But if we admit, for the sake of argument, that the principles of the “New Moral World,” are now fixed, and will no more be changed; let us see how far they recommend themselves from their own intrinsic nature, and internal excellence.
And to begin with his first fact, which tells us that “man is a compound being,” and his first law, which declares that “human nature, in the aggregate, is a compound, consisting of animal propensities, intellectual faculties, and moral qualities.” Pray how does Mr. Owen come to know any thing about man or human nature? And from what source did he obtain those views of his constitution which he promulgates to the world as the unerring principles of truth: and especially, as he tells us that man is “made by a power unknown to himself, and without his knowledge or consent.” Now, upon Mr. Owen’s own principle, man knows nothing of himself, then how does Mr. Owen know any thing about him?
If he does not know, and has not perfect knowledge on the subject on which he takes upon himself to speak with the most unbounded confidence, he certainly is very unfit for the office to which he aspires, of teaching others; but if he has knowledge, where did he obtain it? for, according to his own principles, all the thoughts of the human mind are not the voluntary acts of the mind, but entirely the result of circumstances, and are communicated to him; and consequently man knows nothing but what he is taught. Mr. Owen’s knowledge, then must have been imparted to him. Now then, who communicated it to him? He must have received it from some man, or he must have derived it from inspiration. If he received it from a human teacher, it is very disingenuous in him to take to himself the merit of discoveries which belong to another; but, if he obtained his knowledge by inspiration, it certainly would only be candid for him to let us know when he was inspired, and also let us judge of the evidence of his inspiration; for unless he does that, as this is the ground on which the Christian Scriptures rest, and they do give us many strong and unequivocal proofs of their Divine origin, I and many more prefer taking what we know to be from God, to the unsupported testimony or revelation of Robert Owen. But, Mr. Owen may say that he has not received what he undertakes to teach, either from man or God: then he himself overturns his own system; for he expressly says that man can know nothing but what he is taught. From the very first position, therefore, which Mr. Owen takes, it will be seen how ill qualified he is to be the great teacher of the world.
Nor is the next attempt which he makes at imparting knowledge much better, if any, than the first. It is that man, who did not make himself, but was made by a power unknown to himself, is the creature of circumstances, over which he has no control, and in fact, is nothing but what he is made: or in other words, that he is a mere machine. Some, perhaps, may be a little startled at the deduction which I profess to draw from Mr. Owen’s principles, and think that he is not quite so bad as that: but I can tell them it is not a deduction of mine; it is one of the fundamental principles, nay, the corner-stone of Mr. Owen’s system, the admission and belief of which is essential to his success. Nay, in one of his works, “Essays on the formation of the human character,” he expressly says that men are “living machines,” p. 28. Whether even the followers of Mr. Owen may be flattered at being accounted only machines, and may be willing that he should mould and use them as he pleases, in working out his results, I know not: but I do think that men in general will not thank him for the compliment, nor be inclined to become his tools. It is too great a fall from the dignity of high, intelligent, rational, and accountable beings, to be treated as “living machines;” especially when every man, whatever may be his circumstances, has only need to appeal to his own consciousness for the evidences of the fact, that he is not a machine.
But Mr. Owen tells us, “Men are nothing but what they are made, and they are made to be what they are by their organization, and the external circumstances which act upon and influence it,” namely, that organization. “None are, or can be bad by nature; their education,” which makes them bad, “is always the business or work of society, and not of the individual. The individual is thus, evidently, a material of nature, finished and fashioned by the society in which it lives, according to the ignorance, or the intelligence, or the knowledge of human nature, which that society has been made to possess, and by the influence of other external circumstances, with which the individual may be surrounded.” (Book of the New Moral World, p. 54.) But, if this statement be true, that the nature of man is good, and he would never be bad if he were not taught to be so, we now shall want all Mr. Owen’s wisdom to explain to us how, upon his system, evil and sin first came into the world. That they are in the world, he cannot but admit; indeed, he tells us that it is the object of his system to drive them out of it. Well, then, will he have the goodness to tell us how, upon his system, they first came into the world? Man could not do wrong without his being taught to do wrong? then who first taught him? And whence did he receive it? According to Mr. Owen’s theory, man could not receive it from himself; whence, then, did he get it? It must have been from some sinful being who was in the world before sin itself, which is a palpable contradiction! But, if the natural effect of Mr. Owen’s system be to lead to this absurdity, it requires nothing more to show that it is not, and cannot be, according to truth.
But, if Mr. Owen’s principles be true, and the nature of man is inherently good, according to his own showing, his system is altogether unnecessary. For, if man would not be bad were he not taught to be so, surely the simplest and the easiest plan would be to take the human race in infancy, before they have been contaminated, or rather, “made to receive an unfavourable character,” and let the germs of goodness which they have within them develope themselves, and come to perfection. Should we, then, have a paradise without sin? Ah! Mr. Owen knows that there is not a single spot on this earth which has not been contaminated with sin; and instead of human nature being in a state the nearest approaching to perfection where there has been least contact with the truths and doctrines of the Bible, which he regards as the source of all the errors and all the evils which there are in the world, (see p. 60, Book of the New Moral World,) it is the testimony of universal history and fact, that there it is the most depraved.