UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Class 33 5 A Book Volume AS A RELIGIOUS THEORY", IRRATIONAL AND ABSURD. * THE FIRST OF THREE LECTURES ON SOCIALISM, (AS PROPOUNDED BY ROBERT OWEN AND OTHERS,) DELIVERED IN THE m BAPTIST CHAPEL SOUTH-PARADE, LEEDS, SEPTEMBER 23 , 1838 . BY /• JOHN EUSTACE GILES, MINISTER. LONDON: t SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO., WARD & CO., G. WIGHTMAN; JOHN HEATON, LEEDS. MDCCCXXXVI1I. K XimV • I *•_ * , l\ k *' ' • J 4 : ? ' ' ' *’• ■ ; ,;: f ' < • jr. ? % - uyiu ./* .j-rt m ’•M! -* - >*-*-•' ,. i it . r‘ * , N * * » v * r»rS ■H- < C 1 Ci cr*5 lu'u^eum Vk «4oft r> v. O 1 PREFACE. The following is the first of a series of three lectures delivered by the writer, at his own place of worship, under circumstances which he trusts will be deemed a sufficient apology for his presenting himself, in so prominent a manner, to public notice. In a sermon to young men, having incidently alluded to some of the errors of Socialism, as he had seen them exhibited in one or two public journals, he received, shortly after, a communication from the Committee of Socialists in this town, en¬ closing tickets for free admission to a course of lectures by Mr. Owen, and request¬ ing him to offer publicly such remarks, at the close of each, as he might think pro¬ per. Such a communication he could regard in no other light than a challenge to public discussion, for which he had neither time nor inclination; but as it Avas couched in respectful terms, and confirmed by a note equally polite from Mr. Owen himself, with the extreme wickedness of Avhose sentiments he was then unacquainted, he deemed it his duty to attend one of the lectures, in which there was little, com¬ paratively speaking, objectionable; and at the close, after thanking the Socialists for their civility, informed them that, though he could not sanction the practice of com¬ mitting subjects infinitely important to the mercy of extemporaneous thought and the passions of a personal debate, he would willingly, if furnished Avith a statement of their sentiments, give them a serious examination, and, if lie thought they re¬ quired it, refute them in print. Accordingly, he Avas soon after gratuitously fur- -1 nished with some of Mr. Owen’s publications, Avhich he proceeded to read Avith as little delay as his numerous engagements, during the summer, would alloAv, and Avith the prepossession in their favour that they were the productions of a mind someAvhat sceptical and visionary, yet incapable of a malignant hatred to religion, and by no means unfriendly to good morals. The perusal soon convinced him of his mistake; and unfolded so many impious and licentious principles; so many hypo¬ critical pretences, notwithstanding, to virtue and philanthropy; so many apologies for crime; so much inveterate hatred to civil government; so many artful contri¬ vances to ensnare the superficial by crude metaphysical subtleties, the indolent by promises of luxury without labour, and the sensual by a perpetual eulogy of the animal appetites, and the prospect of a Mahomedan Paradise, as awakened in his mind a detestation of the system to Avhich he was previously a stranger. With these altered impressions the writer, after a little further delay elseAvhere explained, felt bound to caution the public against the folly, wickedness, and mischievous ten¬ dency of a system, Avhich he saw propagated with an industry worthy of a better 2 in a simple dogma/’ which with another afterwards explained, “ is the evil genius of the world—the Devil of the Christians, and the real and sole cause of all lies and hypocrisy.”* “ Religions,” he observes in another place, “founded under the name of Jewish, Budhu, Jehovah, God or Christ, Mahomet or any other, are all composed of human laws in opposition to nature’s eternal laws; and when these laws are analysed they amount only to three absurdities, three gross impositions upon the ignorance or inex¬ perience of mankind.”t To which I may add, that in a publication yet more recent, he not only repeats the same sentiments, but hoping, at a blow, to destroy both virtue and religion, denounces the Christian law of marriage as “a Satanic institution,” “an accursed thing;” and, deliberately proposing that men, like other animals, should be left to the inclinations of nature, proceeds to ask, “Do they,” that is, the inferior tribes, ‘Thus act wisely or viciously in their sexual intercourse? Most wisely; and if they were to act otherwise, their conduct would soon become as unwise, and as vicious* and immoral as the past and present conduct of the human race has been.”^ From these passages and others too numerous and disgusting to be quoted, it is evident, you perceive, that we shall have chiefly to reproach ourselves, if we suffer the advocates of such a system any longer to deceive us with their professions of philanthropy or religion. Under whatever name he may attempt to hide away his sentiments from public indignation, the So¬ cialist is a self-convicted infidel; not only an infidel, but a libertine; not only a libertine, but a scoffer; a scoffer too of the worst description, who avows for his object the sweeping away of all existing laws, religions, and institutions from the world; that, upon the broad, blank, and desolate plat¬ form, he may plant a “new creation;” in which shall dwell, not “righteous¬ ness,” but myriads of “rational” beings, who are to render themselves supremely happy by joining the blasphemy of the atheist to the sensuality of the brute. As to the liberal, enlightened, and much-boasted union of “all sects and parties” which men of such principles would promote, let no one be deceived. It could only be such a union as, happily, can never exist out of the infernal world: a union of all parties, but the lovers of virtue: and of all sects, but the worshippers of God. With little to distinguish it from the exploded dogmas of sceptics and “free-thinkers” of past ages, or from those reptile blasphemies which are incessantly spawned over the surface of low life from the more corrupt and degraded portions of the press. Socialism presents no novelty of sentiment to create either sorrow or surprise. But the audacity of those, who are not ashamed to exhibit themselves as the public advocates of such a system, may well occasion both. Hoping that, in the silence of Taylor * Book of New Moral World, chap. vii. sec. xi. p. 38, 39. t Ibid, chap. x. p. 68. X Marriage System of New Moral World, Lect. viii. p. 68. 3 and Garble, the voice of infidel declamation had been hushed, we scarcely suspected that there existed in the country, men so utterly lost to virtue as to set their mouth against the Heavens , or to insult the common sense of a British audience, by the open and habitual maintenance of principles, which few only of those who practise them are sufficiently abandoned to defend. If, with a harlot for their idol and a brothel for their temple, they had chosen, regardless of all consequences, to copy for themselves the atheism of France, we expected that they would at least pay to public decency, the compliment of concealing the object of their worship. But evil men and seducers max worse and morse. Filthy dreamers, not satisfied with the pollution of their own imaginations, are attempting to corrupt the public mind by telling the world their dreams; and, persuading our youth that those who warn them against impiety are to be despised as raving maniacs or designing hypocrites, call upon them to cast away, as antiquated preju¬ dices, the restraints of religion and conscience; assuring them that they may live in sin without remorse, and be happy without hope and without God in the world. Vicious as, upon examination, I found this system to be, I resolved at first to leave it unnoticed, though planted at the very doors of this place of worship. In the shameless wickedness stamped upon its pages, it appeared, to me to carry the brand of infamy upon its brow; while its extravagant and ridiculous assertions, palpable fallacies and contradictions, led me to believe that its absurdity would prove an effectual antidote to its poison. In this, it seems, I was mistaken. The youth of this town, at least some hundreds of them, have shewn themselves less intelligent than I supposed them; and, sabbath after sabbath, may be seen, walking in the counsel of the ungodly, standing in the way of sinners, and sitting in the seat of the scornful, instead of fnding their delight in the law of the Lord. I feel it therefore to be my duty to use the best efforts, which my time will allow, to warn them from their wickedness, lest they should die in their iniquity, and their blood be required at my hands. Towards the Socialists, personally considered, I cherish no other feeling, they may rest assured, than that of genuine compassion. I sincerely hope that many of them are better than their principles, and, notwithstanding their enmity to the ministers of religion as a body, feel happy in acknow¬ ledging the courtesy which, as an individual, I have generally received at their hands. In proportion, however, to my concern for the men, I feel bound to expose the evils of their system, which, as it is evidently the off- spring of folly and sin, must ultimately prove the parent of destruction. For this purpose it would be useless, however devout, to appeal to the word of God. The great Apostle and High Priest of our profession brought, it is true, from the recesses of the heavenly temple, such tokens of divinity as the profoundest minds, in all subsequent ages, have pronounced b 2 4 indisputable: and the author of “the New Moral World,” if honestly in search of truth, ought at least to have examined the evidences of Chris¬ tianity, before he attempted to establish another system in its place. This, however, if we are to judge from his writings, he deems it prudent to decline; and, modestly supposing his assertion sufficient to shew the falsehood of religion, both natural and revealed, he treats the reasoning of a Howe and a Cudworth, a Butler, a Sir Isaac Newton, a Lardner, and a Locke, as unworthy of his notice; not deigning to waste the music of his arguments on any less dignified a purpose, than to demand universal worship for the image which he has set up. Since, then, he will not venture into our field of controversy, we must follow him into his own. However reluctant he may be to face the argu¬ ments for Christianity, we have no objection to grapple with those of the Socialist. Let him, therefore, produce his cause , and bring forth his strong reasons. Darting forward on the wing of prophecy into the future, let him shew us things to come hereafter, that we may know that he is a god. Yea, let him by some supernatural display of power, do good or do evil, that we may be dismayed and behold it together! To such tests he very naturally declines to submit his cause; and, affecting to treat the evidence of prophecy and miracles with contempt, boasts of having made his appeal to reason alone. “Hast thou,” then we would say in return, “appealed unto reason? unto reason shalt thou go.” At your own tribunal we under¬ take to shew, as far as religion is concerned, the absurdity of your system. I. The religion op the Socialist is irrational in its Foun¬ dation. In “the Book of the New Moral World, by Robert Owen,” and bearing for its motto, “Sacred to truth, without mystery, mixture of error, or fear of man,” the foundation of the system is stated as follows,— “The Five Fundamental Facts, and Twenty Facts and Laws of Human Nature, on which the Rational System is founded .” In another production entitled, “Outline of the Rational System,” &c. the Five facts are announced without the Twenty, as “the fundamental facts on which the Rational System of Society is founded while the Twenty are in no way spoken of as fundamental to the system, but denominated “The Constitution and Laws of Human Nature, or Moral Science of Man.” In these two announcements, made in the same year, 1837, the Founder of Socialism, though he proclaims himself to the world as the wisest of men, and an infallible guide to happiness, has fallen, you perceive, into flat contradiction, on a point of no less importance than the foundation of his system. For while in the former statement he mentions at least “ Twenty Facts and Laws of Human Nature,” as fundamental to his 5 theory, in the latter he describes them as constituting, not the basis of his system, but the system itself, which he manages to found upon the five facts only. And whether he would have us adopt the first or the second of these statements, or, putting up with a little inconsistency, blend them both together; whether we are to regard his five facts as* the foundation of the system, to the exclusion of the twenty, or the twenty to the exclusion of the five; and why in the former case the twenty ar£ described as funda¬ mental, or the five in the latter; whether we are to regard them all as equally fundamental, and why, if such be his meaning, the whole might not have been announced as the Five-and-tmenty facts on which the Rational System is founded; or whether, finally, we are to consider the five funda¬ mental to the twenty, as the twenty, in turn, are fundamental to the system; and, upon this supposition, by what process, excepting that of multiplying by four, he has contrived from his five facts to produce twenty, it is impos¬ sible, either from the announcements themselves, or the explanation given of them, to determine. Nor is there any way of accounting for statements so perplexing, at the very beginning of a work “sacred to truth, without mystery, or mixture of error,” (how evidently so ever written without “fear of man,”) unless we conclude either that the author, in imitation of ancient philosophers, designed to be unintelligible, or, in laying the foundation of his system, had dug so deep beneath the level of common sense, as to get lost in darkness. One thing, however, you perceive is certain, that the sole basis on which he pretends to found his opinions, is his knowledge of “human nature :” which may be shewn to be not only imperfect, but, though ever so perfect, insufficient for his purpose. 1. The Socialist’s religion, then, is irrational in its basis, because founded upon an imperfect knowledge of human nature. Though it will be easy to evince, when necessary, that his boasted “facts and laws” are, many of them, nothing but unproved and worthless assertions, it will be sufficient for the general argument which we are now maintaining, to shew that his knowledge of man falls short of perfection. Professing to give a perfect standard of belief and practice, both with regard to our Maker and our fellow-men, he demands from us nothing less than the consignment of our entire happiness to his care; and consequently is bound, though there were no absurdity in making a knowledge of our nature only the ground of such lofty pretensions, to convince us that his acquaintance with that sub¬ ject is complete. Because, if otherwise, he founds his system in partial ignorance of the nature for which he undertakes the work of universal legislation; and, for any thing he can affirm to the contrary, ignorance of what may be closely connected with its highest obligations, and most stu¬ pendous destinies. Our present argument, therefore, turns upon the simple inquiry, does the Founder of “the Rational System” possess an acquaintance with human nature thus perfect? Unabashed by the examples of great / n Jr 0 men in all ages, who by common consent have bewailed the deficiency of their knowledge, he answers this question, if we are to judge from his wri¬ tings, in the affirmative. His book, as we have already seen, is “sacred to truth, without mystery, or mixture of error/’ he pronounces his dogmas to be “divine,” “eternal and universal truths;” declares that they “demon¬ strate what human nature is,” and are in unity with “all” and “every part” of nature; and modestly triumphing in his immeasurable superiority to the wisdom of all nations and all ages, the wisdom not only of earth but of Heaven, “how opposed,” he exclaims, “are the harmony and unity of this science, to all the religions and codes of laws invented by the past genera¬ tions of men, while ignorant of their own organization, and of the laws of nature!”* But such pretensions, without covering the ignorance, only serve to shew the vanity and presumption in which his system is rooted; and it would be well for him to remember, that the boast of infallibility, whatever its success under the darkness of the middle ages, is sure, in the present day, to meet with pity or derision instead of reverence, being invariably regarded by wise men as the most hopeless symptom of dullness or insanity. On the supposition, however, of its being necessary to put the perfection of his knowledge of human nature to the test, we have no occasion to tor¬ ture him either with long or abstruse interrogation, since a few questions on one of the most simple occurrences of life will be sufficient for our purpose. If, for instance, we ask him to explain the process by which he lifts his arm? he replies with promptitude, “volition moves the brain, the brain the nerves, the nerves the muscles, and the muscles the bones, inte¬ guments, and skin, and thus the whole arm is put in motion.” But when we ask further, how volition moves the brain, or how the brain stimulates the nerves? the question strikes him dumb, and he stands in speechless igno¬ rance before the most lenient tribunal of inquiry. Yet this blind . and helpless creature, who cannot explain the twinkling of an eyelid, or the movement of a limb, but, as he creeps through life, picks up mystery at every step, places himself as a candidate for our faith, in opposition to the Lord and Saviour of the world; and offering to illuminate the path of hap¬ piness with his discoveries, calls upon us to toss away, and extinguish, if possible, the Lamp of life. But, irrational as his pretensions to knowledge have been already found, let us view them in connection with some of the leading principles of his own system, and their absurdity will appear yet more glaring and contemp¬ tible. “Man,” he tells us, “is the creature of circumstances;” and, though he scoffs at the Christian doctrines of the fall and depravity of our nature, he holds a theory of original sin and corruption peculiar to himself.t In- * Book of New Moral World, p. (>8, + Marriage System of New Moral World, p. 44, 45. 7 stead of the agency of Satan, whose existence he denies, he attributes the fall of man to the intervention of magistrates and priests; the latter, by the inculcation of religion, and the former, by the enforcement of laws, especially the law of marriage. Consequently, the whole human race have sunk into a state of ignorance, vice, wretchedness, and irrationality, entirely artificial. Their very organization, he affirms, has lamentably degenerated, and that to raise one of them from this condition, is utterly impossible, without an entire revolution in their circumstances.* Now admitting, for the sake of argument, these statements to be true, whence, we naturally inquire, has the Founder of Socialism derived that perfection of knowledge and virtue, which renders him so infallible a guide to happiness? Generated from the common mass of corruption, and bred amidst circumstances which “compel men without their will” to be unnatur¬ ally vicious, ignorant, wretched, and irrational, he could never, according to his own theory, possess either the capacity or materials of wisdom; and, if desirous of being consistent, is reduced to the alternative either of renouncing his principles or his pretensions. But, in the reasoning of the Socialist, consistency is of little importance; and, therefore, in defiance both of his five “fundamental facts and his twenty facts and laws of human nature,” he professes to have become wise, though horn as the wild ass's colt. “The character of man is formed for him and not by him;” yet this mys¬ terious being has formed a character of perfect excellence for himself. “Though man is the creature of circumstances ,” he has not only success¬ fully resisted their power, but, resolving to change the condition of the world, intends to shew that while man is the creature of circumstances, circumstances are the creatures of man. Artificial by education, and even by birth,t with nothing too but what is artificial around him, he has become a perfect child of nature, in habit, feeling, and thought. From a book of unmingled falsehood,^ he has acquired the knowledge of unadulterated truth; in a land of Egyptian darkness, a darkness that may be felt, he has contrived, though hermetically sealed against a gleam from Heaven, to fill himself with unclouded light: and, throwing open the treasury of his knowledge to the world, offers to enrich mankind with' sterling maxims of virtue, wisdom, and happiness, which have avowedly been drawn from a bank of wretchedness, insanity, and crime. § When, therefore, the author of “the moral science of man” proclaims himself a teacher of “truth, without mystery or mixture of error,” offers himself as an infallible guide to all governments, all classes and nations, and professes to have found the means which, without the intervention of a miracle, shall transform “a Pandemonium into a terrestrial Paradise,” what, let me ask, can equal the * Marriage System of New Moral World, p. 65, et passim. Book of New Moral World, p. 60. t Ibid. f Ibid, p. 43. § Ibid, p. 43, et passim. 8 absurdity of such pretensions except the folly of believing them! And since the root of his system is rottenness, what can be expected but that the blossom therof should go up as dust! 2. But were the views of human nature, upon which Socialism is based, not thus necessarily defective, it would still be irrational in its foundation, because the mere knowledge of man is too narrow a ground upon which to dogmatize on morals and religion. As there are five fingers to the hand, and five senses to the body, let us admit that the “Fundamental facts of human nature” are neither more nor less than the “five” which the Socialist has given us; so that to extend them into six, or reduce them down to four, would be treason to common sense. Instead of multiplying them by four, and thus, as we have already hinted, converting them into twenty secondary facts, let us also suppose that to multiply by five, which makes them five-and-twenty, or by three, which reduces them to fifteen, would be a daring outrage against truth. Let us accept, I say, these arithmetical whims* of the system, as the soundest logic and purest philosophy; compared with which, the discoveries of Newton are only as the transient gleam of a dew-drop to the immortal glitter of a star; yet how, from the contemplation of five, or twenty, or five-and-twenty, or any number of facts concerning human nature only, can he acquire the right of perpetual dictatorship in religion? or pronounce, with the infallible certainty which he professes, what it is safe to believe or disbelieve, to do or leave undone, in relation to the eternal God? That some of the truths, both of religion and morality, may be drawn from the study of man, we readily allow; and, had the Socialist offered his opinions to the world as nothing more than the partial conclusions of a mind conscious of imperfection and liability to err, he never could have been assailed from our present position. But he professes to give the entire sum of religious truth and duty. He presumes to tell mankind that they are irrational in extending the circumference of their faith or practice a single inch beyond the puny circle of his discoveries; and, as he professes that his claims to implicit reverence are founded upon the observation of human nature only, his system is manifestly absurd in the main principle upon which it rests. Every relation supposes the existence of at least two parties; and, in order that we may understand the duties which lie between them, it is necessary that both should be considered. But the Socialist, admitting the existence of a First Cause, who sustains towards man the relation of a supreme, creative, and disposing power, absurdly and impiously presumes, with, avowedly, nothing but his observations on the inferior party before * Should any reader suspect me of unfairness in the use of this epithet, I have only to request that he will read over the five fundamental facts, and the first of the twenty, together with the explanation given of it. And 1 promise, that if he can find out a rational process by which it either has been or may be deduced from any or all of the five fundamental facts, to submit patiently to his censure. 9 him, to scoff at the idea of revelation, and fix the obligations of creatures to their God. In order that a servant might understand the duties owing to his master, would it be sufficient that he should consult simply his own inclinations; and, finding himself an idle, selfish, and sensual being, conclude that he had nothing more to do than, taking wages without work, to expend them on his lusts? Yet such is an exact illustration of the principle upon which "the children of the New Moral World” have founded their religion. To know what they owe to God, they look exclusively at man. To know the sun, they look at the moon. Consulting neither the nature nor the will of the Being who made them, they consider only themselves; and, finding in their hearts principles of selfishness, sensuality, and hatred to the Divine service, call upon mankind to quit the worship of God; and, regarding nothing but their worldly happiness, to live and die like the brutes which perish. Thus these modern Babel-builders, like those in the plains of Shinar, take for their basis a narrow space of earth; and, forgetting that a fabric so founded must end in a point infinitely short of their object, say to their fellows, " Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top shall reach to heaven.” So proceeding to their work, they have brick for stone, and slime have they for mortar, assertions for facts, and dogmatism for argu¬ ment; and thus they rear a structure, which begins in error, rises in discord, and terminates in vain babblings and confusion. If we proceed to examine the particulars of the system, the force of these remarks will be greatly augmented; and therefore we observe that,— II. Socialism is irrational in its Distinguishing Sentiments CONCERNING GOD. Admitting that there is a “ Supreme Power,” " an external or internal cause of all existences,” "an all-pervading cause of motion and change ;”* and that we may receive, as “probable truths,” that this eternal, uncaused existence has ever filed the universe, is therefore omnipresent, "and pos¬ sesses attributes to govern the universe as it is governed,” which are "eter¬ nal and infinite;” t —the Socialist ascribes to this mighty Being neither life, intelligence, benevolence, nor rectitude; denies his “personality”\ and moral government;§ affirms that "it is of no importance” whether he be called "Matter or Spirit;” || "that all ceremonial worship of this Cause is founded in ignorance;” "that it is impossible to train men to be¬ come rational in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, until all such forms shall cease;” IF and that, among "the children of the New Moral World,” "there will be, therefore, no worship!—no forms and ceremonies!! no * Outline of Rational System, p. 8. t Religion of New Moral World.— Hobson, Printer, Leeds, t Book of New Moral World, p. 46. § Ibid, p. 14. tl Religion of New Moral World, 5. % Outline of Rational System. 10 temples!!!—no prayers!!!!—no mortification of the flesh and the spirit!!!!!”* As far as I have been able to disentangle any meaning from that jungle of folly and impiety gravely styled, as if in burlesque, “ The Rational System,” these are the religious tenets which distinguish it, and shew it to be nothing better than atheism without its consistency. And, though it would be reasonable, prior to the refutation of their princi¬ ples, to request the lovers of truth without “doubt,” “mystery,” or “mixture of error,” to explain their own dubious and mysterious conduct, in giving to the world “probable conjectures ” as articles of religion; we shall dwell no longer upon the circumstance than to remind you, of what it obviously suggests, that, in exchange for the anchor of your hope, the only religious privilege which they offer you, is that of being cast adrift upon a broad and fathomless expanse of uncertainty, without pilot, rudder, chart, or compass; until tossed, beyond endurance, from wave to wave of conjecture, you are swallowed up in the depths of bottomless despair. Neither shall we stop to inquire with what consistency men, who denounce without ex¬ ception, framers of laws and teachers of religion, as enemies to the human race,t have fallen, themselves, into the unpardonable crime of inventing laws and religion for the world? nor with what pretensions to superior learning, wisdom, piety, or right, they grasp at a civil power of which sena¬ tors and magistrates are to be disarmed, and at an ecclesiastical authority to which Christian ministers, who consider themselves the expounders only of revelation, never aspire ? Such inquiries, we feel assured, will be deemed unnecessary; and, as it might seem severe to demand an explanation of what is manifestly inexplicable, we shall content ourselves with pointing out to the Socialist the absurdity of his atheistical dogmas under the fol¬ lowing heads. 1. His sentiments concerning God are irrational, because confessing an “eternal,” “omnipresent,” and “all-pervading cause” “of all existences,” “motion and change in the universe,” a Power “infinite” in its “attributes,” he will not admit the spirituality of the Divine Nature, but impiously af¬ firms that it is of “no importance ” whether it be denominated “Matter or Spirit.” If language is to be the vehicle of thought, and constitute an intelligible medium for the communication of ideas, it is of the utmost im¬ portance that things should be distinguished by their appropriate names; and as religion, with all its vast concerns, hangs upon the mighty question, of the materiality or immateriality of the First Cause? the assertion which we are now combating is contemptibly preposterous. If the Supreme Power be matter, it is due to our adversaries that, for the justification of their hatred to divine worship, it should be spoken of as such, in order that * Religion of New Moral World. t Marriage System of New Moral World, passim. New Moral World, p. 68, &c. 11 the unimportance of religion may, at once, be seen. If, on the other hand, the great Disposer of all things is an eternal, omnipresent, and almighty Spirit, to speak of Him in correspondent language, besides involving a pre¬ ference of truth to falsehood, will suggest to mankind, what it then becomes their highest concern to know, the unspeakable worth and reasonableness of religion: while the application of terms which would degrade him to a mass of matter is, not only to “darken counsel by words without knowledge,” but utter blasphemy, of which, without a thrill of horror, no serious mind can conceive. Yet under the plea that “such names alter nothing and ex¬ plain nothing,” a plea more despicable than the absurdity which it would palliate, the Socialist confounds, and calls upon mankind to confound, these mighty distinctions; as if he seriously believed that between the terms, Matter and Spirit, there were no difference either of meaning or importance. Though we strongly suspect, that a discovery of the intimate connection between the spirituality of the Divine Nature, which he found himself unable to disprove, and the necessity of religion, is the true secret of his leading on, as the forlorn hope of his argument, so reckless an attack on the import of words. From their profane railing against the personality of the ever blessed God, no less than the general strain of their writings, it is easy to see, as I have already hinted, that the advocates of “the Rational System” are materialists in the most extensive sense of the term. Yet, ashamed of their atheism, or terrified at their own shadow, they shrink from the sight of it in words; and, instead of boldly avowing their belief that the God who made them is matter, skulk into ambiguities, affirming only that he may be such for any thing we know to the contrary. But vain their hope of shelter in such an asylum! The immateriality of the Deity, like every other simple proposition, is either true or false; and since the Socialist will not venture to assert the latter, we shall undertake, from his own acknow¬ ledgments, to maintain the former, and thus shew that his handing over the question to uncertainty must have arisen either from incapacity to see, or unwillingness to avow, the result of his own admissions. If, as he allows, there be such a thing as motion in the universe, together with material forms of existence, distinct from the First Cause,* the Deity, being as he also admits, an “ omnipresent” t and “all-pervading”^ “power,” cannot, it is evident, be matter. For since it is impossible for bodies to exist or move, without space unoccupied by matter to exist or move in, and equally certain that the omnipresent Deity, if material, filling the universe with matter, would leave no space unoccupied, it follows, either that motion and created bodies have no existence, or that the “omnipresent” Deity cannot * Outline of Rational System, p. 8. Article I. t Religion of New Moral World, X Outline of Rational System, p. 8. Article I. JU be material. And since, denying the former of these conclusions, he grants, as well he may, the existence of motion and material beings dis¬ tinct from the First Cause; that omnipresent and all-pervading Power which, co-existing with them at the same time and in the same places, has ever filled the universe, cannot, it is clear, be matter; and must subsist in a manner and with properties totally different from any thing cor- But, besides admitting that the First Cause is an “eternal, omnipresent, and all-pervading existence,” he very properly ascribes to Him “infinite attributes,”* though he does not inform us in his creed what they are; and, as we cannot conceive of a finite being with infinite attributes, it follows that the Divine Nature is infinite or without limits. But as there can be no such thing as matter without figure , and no such thing as figure without an outline or limits, —the Supreme Existence, being infinite or without limits, cannot be matter, t His admissions too, when in his favourite phrase of jingling sublimity, he styles the First Cause “the Power that composes, decomposes, and re¬ composes all things,” or speaks of Him as “the all-pervading Cause of change and motion in the universe,” conduct, when reflected upon, to the same inevitable conclusion. For 'power either ought or ought not to be considered as the property of matter. If he should contend that it ought, then it will appear that the material universe, being capable of altering and moving itself, his supposition of any other cause of its movements and changes, is groundless and unphilosophical. On the other hand, if he allows that matter, being inert and lifeless, is destitute of inherent power, he has no escape from the conclusion, that the Being whose unbounded power “composes, decomposes, and recomposes all existences,” and is “the all- pervading Cause of change and motion in the universe,” cannot be matter. And as those subsistences, wdiich are not matter, are what we denominate mind or spirit, we are brought to the solemn conclusion, which we reach by a shorter path in the inspired word, that God is a Spirit; and I may add as an obvious inference, that we are bound to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Without, therefore, assuming any other ground, or working with any other materials than their own concessions, it may be clearly shewn, you perceive, that the insinuations so frequently thrown out by the Socialists against the spirituality of the Divine Nature, along with their express declaration that it is of no importance whether the “eternal, un¬ caused, and omnipresent existence,” be denominated “ Matter or Spirit,” should be regarded as only so much presumptuous ignorance, or blasphemous impiety. * Religion of New Moral World, 3, 4. t Vide Hall’s Works, vol. 6. On the Spirituality of the Divine Nature. IS 2. In denying the Personality of the Deity, and in ascribing to Him neither moral perfections nor government, “the Rational System” is equally impious and absurd. On whatever side we look, we see the universe teem¬ ing with organized and living forms; and if we examine these, from a cowslip to an oak, an insect to a man, or an atom to a world, we find them replete with exquisite workmanship and contrivance. If, for instance, pre¬ suming to offer an illustration from my own very imperfect knowledge of anatomy, we dissect the human wrist, we shall find it composed of no less than eight small bones. On one of these we discover a projection, which answers to a similar prominence on the opposite side, at the root of the thumb, while a ligament, thrown across from one to the other, forms a natural bridge, under which tendons are conducted from the arm to the hand. Now in all these arrangements we behold beautiful traces of design. If the wrist were formed of a single bone, or by a lengthening of the two bones of the lower arm, it would be comparatively stiff and useless; but being constituted of no less than eight, it combines with strength that wonderful fexihility which fits it for so many mechanical purposes. It is of great importance also that the hand should be able to move downwards and forwards; accordingly we find it connected, as we have already seen, by tendons, to the arm. But with every contraction of the muscles, these tendons, if left at large, would fly out from the wrist, and stretching across in a straight line from the hand to the elbow, present to the eye an un¬ sightly appearance, while exposed themselves to perpetual danger. Conse¬ quently they all pass under the bridge, so admirably formed out of the two projections and their connecting ligament, as at once to keep them in their place, and afford them room to play. Not only in the human frame, but throughout nature, such specimens of contrivance are every where to be met with; and since they are all effects of which the Supreme Power is allowed to be the cause, they afford the most unquestionable proofs of his unbounded wisdom and intelligence. But there cannot be intelligence without consciousness, nor consciousness without life, nor life, consciousness, and intelligence, if there be meaning in words, without personality. Hence, when the Socialist declares that a “Personal Deity” is something “which man has been led to create” “through ignorance of his nature,” and ascribing to the Author of his being neither life, consciousness, nor intelligence, speaks of Him only as a “cause,” a “principle,” a “power,” “nature,” or “existence,” it is evident that he tramples under foot the most obvious suggestions of reason, in his way to insult religion; and with Thracian folly discovers only the impotence of his impiety, while pointing his arrows at the sky.* The moral perfections and dominion of God, in consequence of the con- * Herod. Melpom. xciv. 14 fusion which sin has occasioned in the world, are not, apart from revelation, capable of so easy a demonstration as his natural attributes. Yet the proofs of his goodness, rectitude, and moral government, are too numerous, too clear and important, to be passed over unnoticed, while the cause of our difficulties concerning them is sufficiently obvious. In every direction to which the eye can be turned, whether above, around, or beneath, we meet a stupendous creation, filled with an endless diversity, not of contrivances merely, but of contrivances for the promotion of enjoyment. Innumerable forms of animated existence, with powers and senses adapted to the parti¬ cular element of their being, and surrounded by objects suited to their facul¬ ties and wants, present to the eye a universe of joyous life, on which the traces of boundless benevolence are broadly and deeply stamped. While the sufferings which render the happiness of creatures incomplete, and im¬ part to the proofs of infinite goodness an apparent imperfection, are in many instances such, as by preserving individual life, prolong the period of enjoy¬ ment, or may fairly be regarded as either the trials peculiar to a proba¬ tionary state, or the punishment of crimes injurious to the general good.* Amidst the acknowledged disorders of the world, when we weigh the pro¬ portions of pleasure and pain, we find an immense preponderance in the scale of happiness: while the exceptions that we meet with, are so fully explained by the existence of sin, that the language of the Royal Psalmist is no less rational than devout, “ The Lord is good to all , and his tender mercies are over all his works!” As to the rectitude and moral government of God, it would be impossible to do justice to any argument in their favour, without adverting to the moral constitution of man, which we shall have to consider at length under our next proposition. For the present, therefore, we shall simply observe, that since the First Cause, as the Socialist admits, is the disposer of the universe, and while conducting the movements of inferior creatures with undeviating regularity, has impressed upon man “moral feelings” and “laws,” and since we have proved him also an intelligent Being, acting, in what he does, with design,—it follows as a matter of course that he is an infinite lover of order and law, and consequently a Being of perfect recti¬ tude. As laws, moreover, imply an authority to legislate on the part of the lawgiver, as well as a correspondent obligation to obey on the part of those for whom they are made, and are never enacted but with a view to enforce¬ ment, the Divine Being, by the very circumstance of his having imparted moral laws to his creatures, has shewn them that he maintains a moral government in the world, to which he holds them amenable. Yet, after * It can be scarcely necessary to remind the reader of the full and masterly manner in which these subjects are treated in Butler's Analogy. 15 admitting that the First Cause is the Supreme Disposer of all things, from whom men have derived both intellectual faculties and moral feelings, which are so many laws of their being, and adapted to make them happy, the Socialist, blind alike to revelation, nature, and the plainest deductions from his own admissions, denies to the God who made him, both the cha¬ racter and office of a righteous judge! Presumptuous and unhappy man! He that planted the ear, shall not He hear? He that formed the eye, shall not He sec? He that chastisetli the nations, shall not He correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know? The Author of moral laws, has He no moral government!! Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken of by the Lord, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, wicked servant! 3. The Plea which the Socialist advances in support of those irrational sentiments, which strip the Deity of every property but omnipresent exist¬ ence and power, viz: “that man knows the forms and qualities of those existences around him, only so far as his senses have been made to perceive them,”* is no less absurd than the sentiments which it is designed to justify. Upon what grounds men, who confess so vast an amount of ig¬ norance on the subject of religion, yet legislate for human belief and com¬ mand us to deny the personality and moral government of God, though, for any thing they pretend to know, he may be possessed of both; or how it is, that while so scrupulous lest we should give to the Deity more worship than is due, they are so fearless in prescribing for him what, from their acknowledged ignorance, may be infinitely less ? are questions that naturally arise, you perceive, out of that plea of ignorance behind which the Socialist endeavours to shelter his impiety. But leaving at present these inquiries, let us examine the plea itself and we shall find that, by making the senses the standard of knowledge, the Socialist has only stepped out of one fallacy into another, and thus increased the absurdity which he meant to extenuate. Were there any force in this exploded dogma of Atheism, this rusty weapon long since thrown away as useless from the hand of infidelity, it would be as fatal to the power and existence of God which he maintains, as to his personality and moral govornment which he denies, since he can no more, by the senses, perceive the one than the other. Does he not, more¬ over, testify to the reality of “animal appetites,” “intellectual faculties,” and “moral feelings?” But did he ever see an animal appetite? Did he ever smell or taste an intellectual faculty? Handle or hear a moral feeling? His objections, if valid, limiting our information to the present moment and the sphere of the senses, would break up the very foundation of mental and moral science; and, in the general ruin, the Rational System itself must * Religion of New Moral World, 5. j u 4 16 be dissolved, and “like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck behind.” However great his acknowledged ignorance of God, the Socialist pro¬ fesses, as we have already seen, an extraordinary insight into men; but, strictly speaking, we can no more perceive the properties of human nature by the senses than those of the Divine. When a human being is near you, though you are said to see him, all that you really perceive with the eye is a Jiat surface, of certain magnitude, form, and colour, varied by light and shade, which, so far from constituting the man, does not consti¬ tute the principal part of the man.* How then do you perceive the rest, or that there is any more than the flat surface before you? Plainly by the operation of the mind only, which has learnt to recognize, in that small and inferior portion of the man perceptible to the eye, the rational signs of a human presence. In the same way the Deity, though his per¬ fections are not proper objects of vision, manifests himself to the mind through intelligible signs which are; and, though we often fail, through sinful reluctance as much as mental incapacity, to learn the lessons they impart, we cannot complain of any deficiency in the signs themselves: since they are infinitely more numerous, more varied, more strongly marked, and more constantly present to our senses, than any indications by which we perceive the existence or attributes of man. We may repair to solitudes which have never echoed to the human voice; “where foot of man has never trod,” and no trace of his existence can be found. But to escape from the manifestations of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God is impossible. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen: being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and god-head. Darkness, which veils all human objects from our sight, can neither hide our God from us, nor us from our God. In every heaving of the lungs, every beating of the pulse, every thought and volition of the mind, we are reminded of the presence of an infinitely wise and beneficent, as well as almighty Spirit, in whom we live, and move, and have our being. Thus upon these momentous subjects, though we keep the volume of Revelation closed, “the Universe is our argument.” Proofs and illustrations, “in numbers without number,” crowd the vast field of creation; and, while the stars which fought against Sisera hang ready to join battle on our side, we find, in the meanest objects, materials for reasoning too powerful for the Socialist to resist. Every opening flower refutes him, every insect at his feet reproves him, and the glow-worm lends a sufficient lamp by which to read his folly. For marvellous are thy works, 0 God! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches! * Vide Bishop Berkeley’s Minute Philosopher. 17 4. And is it not reasonable that this blessed Being, who givetk us life and breath and all things, who, independently of his word, has spread around us such boundless manifestations of his glory, and poured out, in so rich a profusion, the treasures of his love, should be honoured and adored ? In the picture of primeval perfection, from the pencil of our immortal Bard, when the first man, waking into life and the exercise of faculties not yet corrupted or impaired by the fall, contemplates the mystery of his own existence along with the mighty scenes of grandeur and beauty stretched out before him, though it be poetry, is it not the poetry of reason , which, conducting him from the universe to its Author, elevates his feelings of wonder into gratitude and praise; placing among the earliest sentiments of his new-born and happy consciousness the reverence and love of God? If, between our faculties and external existences, any harmony or corre¬ spondence should be maintained, is not Divine majesty the proper object of our awe, wisdom of our admiration, sovereignty of our homage, recti¬ tude and goodness of our imitation, confidence, and love? When he covereth himself with light, as with a garment, amid the splendours of the sun, or in robes of midnight grandeur bespangled with stars; or when he maketh the clouds his chariot, his ministers a faming fire; and, displaying the more terrific aspect of his power, speaks to us out of the whirlwind, or from the secret place of thunder; is it unreasonable that we stand in awe of him, and, conscious of our insignificance, look up to him with humility ? Or, when we commune with our own hearts in retirement, and, amidst the multitude of our thoughts within us, innumerable recollections of his mercy throng upon the soul, does reason demand that we should remain untouched by his goodness, and, with the song of gratitude rising to the lips, send it back unuttered to the bosom ? Or, contemplating the relation in which he stands to our race as a common Parent, Governor, and Benefactor, is it more reasonable that, meeting together for profane disputation, or for danc¬ ing and song,* we should enter into a deliberate covenant to blot out his name from our thoughts; than that we should say to each other, in the language of social devotion, “ 0 come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker! O worship the Lord in the beauties of holiness! Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyf ul noise unto him with psalms ?” Calling to mind the innume¬ rable instances in which we have violated his laws, is there any thing un¬ reasonable in the confessing of our sin, or in prayer for forgiveness ? And supposing that he has afforded us a well-attested revelation, in which he has made known, more fully than we otherwise could learn, the perfections of his nature, the principles of his government, the way to obtain his favour, together with the duties which he expects at our hands; are the * These, we are informed, are the principal objects for which Socialists meet together. C / Y O vfo 18 belief, worship, and service of God in themselves so absurd, that “all hope of our becoming rational in our feelings, thoughts, and actions, must be abandoned,” until we have abolished his ordinances, silenced his oracles, thrown down his altars, and laid his temples in the dust ? Such, if we are to believe the Socialist, is the case; and so close, in his estimation, is the identity between religion and madness on the one hand, and between wis¬ dom and impiety on the other; that, while the worshipper of God ought to be branded at the bar of public opinion, without the formality of a trial, as a worthless enthusiast, and “a moral coward,” the miscreant, who hardens his heart against the impressions of the Almighty’s goodness, keeps his knee unbent in his presence, and seduces his creatures from their allegiance, ought to have the diadem of reason placed upon his brow, and be crowned as a prince of philanthropists and sages. But, if any thing were necessary, enough has been said to shew the folly and wickedness of such sentiments, and therefore quitting this topic we beg to submit another, and if possible, yet more revolting aspect of the system to your attention. III. Socialism is irrational in its Distinguishing Sentiments on the Moral Constitution of Man. According to Christianity, man is a free but accountable agent, capable of acting, within the range of his powers, from choice; yet amenable, in some relations, to his fellow-men, and in all to God, for his conduct: and therefore endued with faculties suited to his responsible condition. Against this important view of the human state and constitution, the “laws,” “facts,” reasonings, assertions, and declamation of the Socialist are chiefly levelled; that, on the ruins of religion and morals, he may establish a per¬ manent system of sensuality; which, releasing woman from her shame and man from his fear, would throw over the vilest passions the charms of in¬ nocence, and thus encourage the fornicator, seducer, and every other villain of the class with the double hope of success and impunity. As several of the facts and laws, which constitute the foundation or the materials of the system, are either wholly or in part alike, it is as undesirable as impossible, within the limits of this discourse, to lay them all before you, especially in the disorderly manner in which their author has placed them. Taking care therefore to omit nothing considered by him of importance to his system—and reducing what otherwise would seem to you unintelligible to something like method, we shall state the principles and substance of his reasoning in the following order; in which his sentiments on human nature, human character, the formation of character, the dependance of action on the will, of the will on the feelings and convictions, of the feelings and convictions on the organization, of the feelings and convictions on circum¬ stances, of circumstances on the organization, and of both organization and circumstances on a Power unknown to man, will be presented in his own words to your attention. 19 “Human nature in the aggregate is a compound of animal propensities, intellectual faculties, and moral feelings.”* “Man is a compound being, whose character is formed of his constitution or organization at birth, and of the effects of external circumstances acting upon that organization, which effects continue to operate upon and to influence him from birth to death.”+ “His feelings or convictions, or both united, form the motive to action called the will, which stimulates him to act, and decides his actions.” J “Man is compelled, by his original constitution, to receive his feelings and convictions independently of his will .”§ “Each individual is so organized, that his feelings and convictions are formed for him, by the impressions which circumstances produce upon his individual organization.” || “His feelings and convictions are instincts of human nature.”5T “He must like that which is pleasant to him, or in other words, produces agreeable sensa¬ tions,” and the contrary.** “He must believe according to the strongest conviction made upon the mind; which conviction cannot be given to him by his will, nor withheld by it.”++ “The influence of external circum¬ stances is modified in a particular manner by the peculiar organization of each individual, and thus the distinctive character of each is formed through life.”^ The “elements of his nature and their proportions, are made by a power unknown to the individual, and consequently without his consent.”§§ “No infant has the power of deciding at what time, or in what part of the world he shall come into existence, of what parents he shall be born, in what religion he shall be trained, what manners, customs, or habits shall be given to him, or by what external circumstances he shall be surrounded from birth to death.”|| |J “Each individual is so organized that, when young, he may be trained to acquire injurious habits only, or beneficial habits only, ora mixture of both/’HIT “His whole character, physical, mental, and moral, is formed independently of himself.”*** From these premises he draws the impious conclusions expressed in the following language. “Man is, altogether, a being whose organization, feel¬ ings, thoughts, will, and actions, are predetermined for him by the influence of external circumstances acting upon his original constitution, and he is, therefore, irresponsible for the character formed^or him, whatever it may be.” “Man is not, therefore, to be made a being of a superior order, by teaching him that he is responsible for his will and his actions.” ttt “We reiterate that the whole man, physical, mental, and moral, is formed inde- * Book of New Moral World, p. 20. This “law” is expressed in no less than three different ways by the same author, which, if reasoned upon, would lead to very different conclusions. In one we have “ moral qualities in another “ moral feelings,” in a third “ moral qualities or the germs of them.” But not to take advantage of this absurdity, I have given the version which stands at the head of the chapter that professes to make it the subject of argument. t Ibid, p. 4. % Ibid, p. 10. § Ibid, p. 6. j| Ibid, p. 42. ** Ibid, p. 39. ft Ibid, p. 30. XX Ibid, p. 28. §§ Ibid, p. 24. *** Ibid, p. 45. ttt Ibid, p. 14. If Ibid, pp. 7, 9,11, 44, &c. 1111 Ibid, p. 29. f f Ibid, p. 35. 20 pendently of any original will and choice of the individual; that he is con¬ sequently irresponsible for what he is formed to be and made to do”* Such are the sentiments, on the moral constitution of man, which this system is designed to propagate. With oracular confidence the Founder of Socialism offers these frightful falsehoods to the world, not as matters of opinion or points of probable speculation, but as laws of such irresistible truth and importance as must soon compel the rulers of the earth to lay down their useless sceptres at his feet, and all nations to regard him as their common deliverer: while existing religions, Christianity by no means excepted, sink before his wisdom into eternal contempt.f In advancing these sentiments, however, he appears extremely reluctant that they should be considered by themselves; and, whether to soften down the deformity of falsehood under a veil of truth, to propitiate superficial readers by pampering their love of “common-place,” or to deceive them into an opinion that the enemies of his system are at war with the simplest and most unquestionable truths, he mixes up his peculiar notions with a mass of idle declamation and endless repetitions upon irrelevant topics, some of which have not the remotest connection with the controversy, while others are calculated to draw off the mind, imperceptibly, from the real subject of dispute. To intelligent persons, this attempt to escape from the difficulties of his undertaking, by darkening the element through which he passes, will prove nothing better than a useless waste of ink. But for the benefit of those who are unacquainted with the artifices of writers who hold themselves irresponsible for the truth or falsehood, for the good or evil, of what they propagate through the world, it may be proper to state, that the points in dispute are not, whether we act with design in what we do, but whether, in acting from design, we act likewise from choice; not whether we accommodate ourselves to circumstances, but whether we are compelled to do so, and to do so universally; not, as to the order of our feelings, whether the will follows the judgment, or the judgment the will, but whether we have a will. Denying the freedom of human agency, the Socialist affirms that the “whole character of man, physical, mental, and moral, is formed independently of himself that what he is he is “ com¬ pelled” to be, and what he does he is “made” to do; and that, irresponsible for his feelings, belief, conduct, and character, whatever it may be, he may challenge an impious independence of all law, both human and divine; or * Book of New Moral World, p. 48. t Dialogue between the Founder of the Association, &c. and a Stranger, p. 16. Outline, &c. p. 15.— One of this fraternity has had the blasphemous assurance to say, “ The Law came by Moses, the Gospel by Jesus Christ, but benevolence and truth by Robert Owen”!! He has also delivered what he deno¬ minates a lecture on the “ Salvation of Man, by Robert Owen”!!! Yet this man has the meanness to call himself a Christian, and to whine about the injustice of his being regarded as an infidel; and, while endeavouring to establish this new sect upon the ruin of all religious denominations, professes to hate Sectarianism. 21 in other words, has a right to be an atheist and a villain, with perfect im¬ punity from God and man. We feel persuaded that the mere mention of these principles will be sufficient to awaken in the minds of most who are now present, an invincible horror and detestation of the system; but as an argumentative colouring has been given to them, by which many unhappy beings have been deluded, it is necessary that we should offer a more detailed exposure of the falsehood and absurdity which they involve. 1. The reasoning by which the Socialist arrives at his conclusions, is replete with fallacy and contradiction. Without attempting to follow him through all the inconsistencies, blunders, and absurdities of that labyrinth of folly and wickedness, which we are compelled, for want of a more appro¬ priate epithet, to denominate his system; if we turn to his leading propo¬ sitions, we shall find that the real agent in the formation of character is kept out of sight, and a nature, wholly passive, given to man, by means of such ambiguous terms and false assumptions, as only a most shallow or dishonest reasoner would condescend to employ. (1.) In the passages already cited, the expressions, “human nature ” “moral feelings” “elements of his nature,” “ compound” “ organization ,” “ instincts ,” &c. are found, when closely examined, to be only so many nests of sophistry, containing, in the concealment of embryo, the whole brood of his infamous conclusions. It is evident, from his reasoning on the subject, that we*are expected to regard his definition of human nature as a definition of a human being. But by substituting the nature of man for the man himself, he manages to exclude from the mind the idea of a living, conscious, and voluntary agent: and, speaking of human nature as a thing instead of a person, and of our faculties as the elements of which this thing is composed, he tells us that, by a practical application of this first law of human nature, we may obtain a race of men of superior faculties upon the “same general principles” which produce “superior vegetable and animal productions”!! In his enumeration of the human faculties, not to notice other absurdities which it contains, when he speaks of moral feelings as all that constitutes the moral nature of man, he employs a fallacy some¬ what different, but with a similar result; insinuating that how active soever man may be in physical and intellectual concerns, he is wholly passive in morals. Indeed, as if this were not sufficient, he tells us, when reasoning on the proposition, that “man is constituted a being altogether of physical, intellectual, and moral feelings a mere recipient, therefore, of foreign impressions, but destitute of any inherent principle of activity. If we allow the Socialist his premises, he will find his way, no doubt, to his con¬ clusions, and impart a character extremely dubious to the free agency of man. We beg, therefore, to remind him, that for any thing he has shewn * Book of New Moral World, p. 21. J p 9 22 or pretended to shew, we possess moral powers as well as feelings; and that in asserting the contrary, he has assumed the entire subject of dispute; guilty of no less an error than that of mistaking the goal for the starting- post of his argument. The terms compound and organization afford instances, yet more glaring, of the cool impudence or unconscious stupidity, with which he takes for granted what he is solemnly bound to prove, or to confess himself incapable of proving. These words which signify, the one, a mass formed out of various ingredients, and the other, a construction of several parts, belong, properly speaking, to material objects only; and though casually applied to the mind, can never be so applied but in a sense extremely vague and figu¬ rative. Yet, taking advantage of this occasional and improper mode of expression to slip them, without definition, explanation, or apology, into the foremost of the “facts” which are to constitute the basis of reasoning, he draws his deductions from them in a totally opposite signification, and gravely tells us, that “the influence of circumstances on the organization partakes more of chemical action than of mechanical impression:”* as if reason, will, and conscience, were so indisputably nothing more than pro¬ perties of organized matter, that the thing might be assumed as unques¬ tionable; and the only point for serious deliberation in the formation of character, whether it should be moulded on the principles of the chemist or the mechanic; mixed to the right consistence in a crucible, or hammered into shape at a blacksmith’s forge! How justly may the author of these extraordinary discoveries claim a patent as character-maker to the universe. How admirably is he qualified to rail at the “fanciful notions,” “prejudices,” “wild imaginations,” and “mysteries” of the Christian! It may not, how¬ ever, be improper to suggest, that he moves too fast for even Christian credulity to follow him in his philosophy; and that it will be time enough to adjust the rival claims of chemical action and mechanical force, when he has proved that the human mind is susceptible of either. His misapplication of the word instinct, in direct opposition to his own statements on the subject, is an abuse of language still less excusable. The intellectual faculties, he tells us, are only “in some degree” analogous with the instincts of animals, and that “there is this remarkable difference between them that, while the latter remain nearly the same through the life of every successive generation, the former are continually enlarging, through experience or the acquisition of new knowledge, leading to new discoveries in every department of life.”t Yet, regarding the convenience of the word as of more importance than either truth or consistency, he places it as another wheel in that machinery of fraud by which his wholesale manufac¬ ture of falsehood and folly is carried on. Persisting, without offering the * Book of New Moral World, p. 5. t Ibid, p. 20. 23 shadow of a reason why, to call the faculties, feelings, convictions, and habits of the human mind, instincts, he reasons from one to the other as if they were analogous, in the very points in which he has declared they differ; and representing man, like other animals, as the blind slave of an irresisti¬ ble power, he tells us, that because our feelings and convictions are instincts, all laws are useless, and all religions absurd.* Thus, in the prominent parts of his reasoning, the Socialist scarcely employs a word, you perceive, but what contains a lurking fallacy or assumption; well aware that if allowed the selection of his terms, it will be impossible to disturb his conclusions. Let him, by a commodious use of the phrase “human nature,” speak of man as a mere thing, and of his mental and moral faculties as the “ele¬ ments” of which this thing is composed; allow him to assert, uncontradicted, that a rational agent is nothing but a mass of susceptibilities and feelings; grant him that the human mind is a material compound, or a piece of passive organization, to be operated upon by chemical action and mechani¬ cal force, and that its faculties are only so many irresistible instincts; and, trampling the pearls of truth and religion under foot, he will lie down and wallow in the vile conclusions, that we are only so many lumps of clay in the iron hands of necessity, and, consequently, irresponsible for our actions to God or our fellow-men. Allow him undisturbed possession of the cock¬ atrice's eggs, and he will find no difficulty in hatching them into vipers. But we have shewn thus far the fallacy of every one of his assumptions^ and, consequently, that they are so many gross impositions either upon himself, or upon the credulity and ignorance of those unhappy persons whom he has managed to deceive. (2.) A misrepresentation of the relation subsisting between the mind and “external circumstances ,” is another link in that chain of sophistical necessity in which he would have the free-born hands of human agents bound. As if circumstances were invariably active and the mind passive, he speaks of the “influence of circumstances;” of “circumstances acting on and upon the organization;”+ of man as “the creature of the circumstances in which lie is placed;”^ of his feelings and convictions being formed for him by the impressions which external circumstances produce :”§ and afterwards adds, “these circumstances united direct the feelings, thoughts, and conduct of every one, and therefore we reiterate that the whole man, physical, mental, and moral, is formed independently of any original will and choice of the individual: that he is consequently irresponsible for what he is formed to be and made to do.” || Now as the term external circumstances, as used by this writer, is but another expression for events and external objects of every description, with which the actions of men are connected; and as amongst these many are wholly inactive, inanimate, or, though * Book of New Moral World, p. 68. t Ibid, p. 42. t Ibid, p. 27. § Ibid, p. 42. || Ibid, p. 48. endued with life, subject to our control, it is evident that when he speaks of their influence, activity, and absolute dominion over the mind, he reasons, as far as these are concerned, upon an inversion of facts; the relation between the agent and the circumstances, which is falsely said to compel the action, being directly the opposite of what he pretends. For, though it is a task of no small difficulty to determine with precision all the relations subsisting between our faculties and the external universe, one thing is certain, that whenever we regulate our conduct by a circumstance, which from its very nature is destitute of life and motion, all the activity, which the case supposes, belongs to the mind, while the external object is merely passive or inert. That from weakness and imperfection, we are sometimes compelled to accommodate ourselves to such circumstances, it is impossible to deny; but the necessity which we are now supposing, arises not from the influence or activity of the things,around us, but the deficiency of our own powers. Rivers, precipices, inaccessible mountains, barren deserts, and the pathless sea, are so many circumstances to which a pedestrian traveller is obliged to accommodate himself, and may be regarded, so far, as limits to his power, freedom, and responsibility. But in laying down laws which are to consti¬ tute the basis of reasoning, to speak of such objects as influencing or acting upon the man, as compelling him to act independently of himself, or of the man as the creature of the rivers, mountains, or seas, which he finds im¬ passable, is to found argument on absurdity; since they no more act upon the traveller, who stops before them, than upon the bird that flies over them; their power being just the same in the one case as in the other, and in both nothing at all, since in their very nature they are lifeless and inert. To which we may add, that circumstances of this specific class have nothing to do with the subject of our present enquiry, because the question to be settled is not, whether we are accountable for physical weakness, but whether, within the range of acknowledged powers, we are responsible for our conduct. If, however, it is impossible, without misrepresentation, to apply terms of activity, guidance, and control to those circumstances, according to which, though inanimate, we are compelled by Him who has measured out our powers to regulate our conduct; to ascribe such properties to things, which besides being inert, are so subject to our will that we act as we please con¬ cerning them, is to be guilty of more inexcusable, because more palpable, absurdity. And, that from such an abuse of language, a boaster of ration¬ ality should have rushed headlong into the conclusion, that man is the creature of circumstances, and irresponsible for his conduct, only serves to shew that his hatred of truth and virtue is too powerful for even his pride of reason to restrain. If, for instance, a thief, having stolen a purse, should assert that it influenced and acted upon his organization, and that, being <25 the creature of the purse, he was irresponsible for what it formed him to be, and compelled him to do independently of himself, would not such a defence involve a direct inversion of facts, and however accurately copie