Part 1

Transcribed from the [c1840’s] Religious Tract Society edition by David Price, email [email protected]

[Picture: Book cover]

SOCIALISM EXPOSED.

* * * * *

BY THE REV. JOSEPH MATHER.

* * * * *

* * * * *

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY, INSTITUTED 1799. 56, PATERNOSTER ROW, AND 65, ST. PAULS CHURCHYARD.

MR. OWEN professes to be seeking the happiness of his species: he imagines he has discovered the specific, which, if believed and applied, will produce it; and he is using all the means in his power to convince the world that such is the fact, and to induce the men of it to receive, and follow his prescriptions.

We must confess that we are not a little startled at the means by which he proposes to accomplish this desirable object. And here we quote his own language: “The religions founded under the name of Jewish, Budh, Jehovah, God or Christ, Mohammed, or any other, are all composed of human laws in opposition to nature’s eternal laws.” (Book of the New Moral World, p. 68.) From which it appears that all other systems have been wrong, founded on error, and productive of nothing but misery and crime: and before his can be established they must be renounced, and overturned, and abolished. Now, Mr. Owen professes to have found out something better than what I and the world are in possession of; but I do not wish to be like the dog in the fable, which, when he had a piece of meat, dropped it, because, from seeing its shadow in the water, he fancied there was another and a larger within his reach, and so lost them both. Before I give up what I know and feel to be valuable, the source of comfort and the source of happiness, let me not only be convinced that it is a superior good which is held out before me, but let me have the possession of it.

Then let me ask, What evidence does Mr. Owen furnish, that the system and principles of the New Moral World are so much superior to those of the Christian system? Let us contrast the two a little, and see how far we shall be acting wisely in rejecting all that we have been accustomed to believe and reverence as Divine in favour of these new principles.

And first, as to the evidence of their authority. The writers of the Bible, while they come to us claiming our attention, and demanding our regard, tell us that they are only messengers sent from God; they come in his name and speak what he has put into their minds and their mouths; and, as a proof of their being what they profess, as credentials, they work miracles which none but a Divine power could work; they deliver prophecies and predictions of events, many of which have since come to pass, and others are in course of accomplishment; and they announce truths, doctrines, and principles which, for their originality and yet beautiful simplicity, for their importance, and at the same time their universal adaptation to the wants and the circumstances of the whole human race, and for their purity and invariable tendency to good, speak for themselves, and declare that they are Divine. Yet a book resting on such authority, and supported by such testimonials, is to be rejected, and thrown aside, and its principles are pronounced to be evil and unsound, on the authority of—whom think you? Mr. Robert Owen!!

Is it not a fearful responsibility which such an individual assumes, to tell me that I am not to believe a testimony which is supported by miracles, is confirmed by prophecies, and, above all, is borne out by its own native dignity, and intrinsic beauty and worth? Surely such a person ought to be furnished, and he ought to present to those whom he wishes to believe him, evidence of his authority, and proofs of his claims to the high distinction to which he aspires, to be the founder of a New Moral World. Then, where are Mr. Owen’s claims? And what are his proofs? Would you believe it? He adduces nothing but his simple testimony! his own unsupported word!! Here is a man wiser than Solomon, and more profound than Moses! He is even superior to Jesus Christ, the Son of God!!! And this you and I are called upon to believe simply because he himself says so!!!

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.

It is, however, not necessary to go to what may be termed the children of nature, to the untutored sons of the forest, to prove, not only the existence of sin, but also of a sinful disposition, of a natural tendency to evil even in the infant breast; it might be furnished to almost any extent from Mr. Owen’s own establishments, and from the lips of his own agents. It is possible that Mr. Owen himself, from his attachment to a favourite theory, and his desire to support it at all hazards, as well as from having his mind absorbed in the grand object which he has before him, may not see what is so plain to others; or, it may be that what appears black to them is white to him; but let his dancing masters, and the nurses of his infant children, be brought into an open court and fully examined, and they will testify to the satisfaction of every impartial jury, although composed even of Robert Owen’s followers, that some, at least, of these urchins, at an age when they could not have been taught these things, unless their mother’s milk imparted them, display passions and dispositions which indicate anything rather than an entire absence from evil. We shall require no other witnesses to prove that the nature of man is not naturally good, but is inherently depraved.

But, if man from his birth has an evil principle within him, (I would call it a depraved nature,) then Mr. Owen’s principles, however much they may modify and change the external character, will not avail in changing the heart. His system will no more produce the results which he promises, the paradise of joy which he pictures before his followers, than have the systems of the old world. And, therefore, he is only amusing and deluding those that attend to him with pleasing dreams which can never be realized. If this, however, were all, it would not much matter; he might be left to pursue his course undisturbed; but when it is known that the effect of his system, whatever may be his design, is to take off the mind from everything but what is connected with his earthly paradise, and so cause it to neglect, and even despise everything connected with eternity and everlasting life, and the happiness of the principle which never dies, it would be, not only a dereliction of principle, but also a want of love to one’s species, not to lift up the voice against him, and endeavour to warn such persons of their fatal error, and the destructive consequences which must, and will inevitably ensue.

But another fundamental principle of Mr. Owen’s system, as expressed in the 2nd and 3rd Fundamental Facts, and 13th Law, is, “Man is compelled by his original constitution, to receive his feelings and his convictions independently of his will;” and “his feelings, or his convictions, or both of them united, create the motive to action called the will, which stimulates him to act, and decides his actions;” and “each individual is so organized that he must believe according to the strongest conviction which is made upon his mind:” the plain meaning of which is, that man is not accountable for his belief, neither ought he to be considered accountable for his actions; and which, indeed, Mr. Owen does not leave his readers to deduce from his principles, but which he himself explicitly states. Thus, he says, “Man cannot be bad by nature, and it must,” therefore, “be a gross error to make him responsible for what nature and his predecessors have compelled him to be.” (Book of the New Moral World, p. 54.)

That man is not accountable, that he can think as he likes, and act as he pleases, without being amenable, either to God or man, for his thoughts or his actions, is a doctrine which will well accord with the wishes of all those who feel the idea of God and judgment a restraint upon their conduct, and human laws oftentimes a barrier in the way of indulging their evil desires. And it is lamentable to think how many, even of this description of persons, there are to be found in the world.

But it is a question of the deepest importance, whether or not this principle be true. Mr. Owen calls it a law and a fact; and if persons are willing to take what he says for granted, merely because he says it, and so to stake their character in this world, and their eternal well-being in another, upon his unsupported testimony, they may endeavour to satisfy themselves in believing it, and try to make and keep their consciences as easy as they can. What a happy thing it would be, if Mr. Owen’s saying that there is no judgment, and that man is not accountable, could make it be so! But is it so? We all know that Mr. Owen’s saying that there is no guilt in crime, that man acts only as he is compelled to do, and ought not, therefore, to be either punished or praised for what he does, does not release him from the responsibility imposed by human government and human laws; and it is well both for him and for us, that it does not; for only break the bonds of law, and leave each one to act as he likes, and what a pandemonium, instead of a paradise, we should have! Why even Mr. Owen himself is under the necessity, in his own paradise, of imposing laws, and putting very considerable restraint upon the wishes and the inclinations of those that expected when they entered his establishment to be perfectly happy in the enjoyment of their own will. As a proof of this, I beg to give an extract from a published statement of a visit paid to New Harmony, in America, by the Duke of Saxe Weimar, in April, 1826.

“On Sunday morning, the society met in the large building, and the meeting was opened by music. Mr. Owen delivered a discourse on the advantages of the society. In the evening the duke paid visits to the ladies, and witnessed philosophy, and the love of equality put to the severest trial with one of them, young and handsome. While she was singing, and playing very well on the pianoforte, she was told that milking of cows was her duty. Almost in tears, she betook herself to this servile employment, deprecating the new social system, and its so much prized equality. After the cows were milked, in doing which this pretty girl was trod on by one, and daubed by another, the duke made one in an aquatic party with the young ladies and some of the young philosophers, in a boat, upon the Wabash. The evening was beautiful. The duke’s heroine regaled the party with her sweet voice. Afterwards, the whole party amused themselves in dancing cotillions, reels, and waltzes, and with such animation as to render it, as the duke adds, quite lively. A new figure had been introduced into the cotillions, called the New Social System. Several of the ladies objected to dancing on Sunday. ‘We thought, however,’ writes the Duke, ‘that in this sanctuary of philosophy, such prejudices should be utterly discarded, and our arguments, as well as the inclination of the ladies, gained the victory.’” (Three years in North America, by James Stuart, Esq., vol. ii. p. 442.)