Page images

my arms; and as I saw her bosom again heave, a renewed glow of hope rushed to my heart.

We had not been on board the sloop many minutes ere, slowly and awfully, the Demon sank to the same eternal grave to which she had so often doomed her victims. We saw the top of the main-mast, which had borne her fatal flag above the waters, tremble like a point on their very surface, and then vanish beneath them. A frightful chasm yawned for a moment-it was then closed by the meeting waves, which soon rolled peacefully over the vessel they had engulphed; and the Demon, so long the terror of the seas and the scourge of mariners, disappeared forever.

Here abruptly terminated my relative's narration; and if any reader should have felt just sufficient in

terest in it to wonder whether Margaret died, and whether Colonel Francillon attended her funeral as chief-mourner; or whether after all she recovered, and was married to the Colonel,-I can only briefly say, that the sloop put into Naples, where the Countess was soon placed under a skilful physician. He pronounced her case hopeless, and my relative had only the melancholy satisfaction of reflecting that her dying hour would be peaceful, and her lovely remains honored by Christian burial. She passed from the hands of her physician into those of the British ambassador's chaplain; but I do not think it could have been for the purpose of religious interment-as I enjoyed, for nearly forty years after this period, the inestimable privilege of calling the Colonel and the Countess my revered father and mother!


SIR, On the meeting which was held on Wednesday, the 20th October, at the London Tavern, by Mr. Owen, and on the doctrines which he advanced, with your permission, I beg to offer a few observations, especially as this pretended philanthropist-this brilliant luminary-this revealer of a new religion, which is to make the community of man virtuous and happy, left no opportunity or time for reply; and as his self-willed deluded votaries, no doubt from well-ascertained evidence of the infallibility of their oracle, would listen to no reply, lest the light which he had poured on their benighted minds, should be shown to be darkness visible.

In all that Mr. Owen propagates, it is clearly implied, that he is the greatest philanthropist that has yet appeared in the world; that he is more generous and disinterested than any of the sons of men; that he has larger and juster views than any philosopher of ancient or modern times that he is the most ho

nest, if not the only honest man, that ever lived-that he is the only person that has discovered the path to universal purity and felicitythat the whole world are now in darkness, and that light exists no where but in his mind, and in his writings-that he has more knowledge and experience in human affairs than all men of all past ages and generations-that the light which is to fill the whole universe with its blaze, is to burst forth to the delight, wonder, and admiration of all nations, in his next lecture, when it will appear that all men, save and except Mr. Owen, are fools, ignoramuses, or knavesthat Bacon and Newton, and Locke and Butler-that all the illustrious names of all nations, have been either weak, blind enthusiasts, or united and leagued together to keep the world in ignorance, misery, poverty, vice, and crime. Truly this gentleman is excessively modest in his pretensions! I believe there is some truth in the doctrine

of Mr. David Hume, that nothing Mr. Owen may reply, his efforts have all been upon a large scale, they have been spread over the world; that he has spent his fortune, and employed his time and abilities, in attempts to remove superstition-the principal if not the sole impediment to universal illumination and happiness-that he has been serving mankind in the most comprehensive manner-that he has not dissipated his energies in insulated attempts to benefit individuals; but that he has hitherto kept steadily in his eye the whole family of man. He has spent four thousand pounds in puffing his schemes in the newspapers; but as schemes, though practical, have not been reduced to practice, the good of his efforts is yet to come; and as he openly avows he can do no good till religion, as hitherto taught in the world, has been banished from the earth, ages,-or millions of ages, may intervene before a single individual in this distracted or miserable world can be warmed and cheered with a solitary ray of the sun of philanthropy that arose at New Lanark, in the eighteenth century of the Christian era.

is so effectual in gaining a man credit in the world as a good stock of assurance; I do not mean the assurance of faith, but audacity bottomed as it commonly is on ignorance of one's own self, and on loathsome vanity and self-conceit. Mr. Owen told the meeting that he was, if not the only practical man in existence, at least the most practical, his whole life having been directed to practice. But as most boasters in practice, Mr. Owen discards all theory, system, or principle. His lecture consisted of a tissue of loose, incoherent rhapsodies, cemented by an implacable enmity to religion in every form in which it has yet appeared in the world. Destruction being the end, aim, and scope of all his philanthropical labors, he may very properly be styled Abaddon or Apolyon, that is, destroyer. No good, he said, again and again, could be done, until religion, which he called the parent of all the misery, vice, ignorance, and crime, now, or that has ever been in the world, were totally and forever eradicated and obliterated from the mind of man. Then this great masterbuilder is to lay the foundation stone of a new golden age-a millenium surpassing all that fabulist, poet, philosopher, or prophet has predicted, or conceived in the wildest frenzies of enthusiasm, or under the most powerful and happy inspiration.

Mr. Owen told the meeting he lived for the world; that whatever fortune he had, he had used it for the world; and that all which he had expended on the world, he had spent without regret. We may therefore look for the records of this gentleman's benevolence in every state, city, village, or hamlet, which he has visited. But where is the prisoner whom he has rescued from his dungeon? Where is the captive that he has ransomed? Where are the hungry that he has fed, the naked that he has clothed, the sick to whom he has ministered?


In these remarks I have no personal feeling against Mr. Owen, whom I regard as a weak, wellmeaning, crazy enthusiast, that would do good, if he knew how to set about it; but his opinions being so mixed up, or rather identified with himself, it is necessary, in attacking them, to divest them of all extraneous merit, to detach them as much as possible from himself, and to consider them also in their practical operation on his efforts. Besides, it is the course which Mr. Owen himself pursues in attacking Christianity, which he classes with all the impure and degrading superstitions that have ever appeared in the world; and it was the course which he pursued in his discourse or sermon, on the disadvantages of religious instruction in all present existing forms, delivered on Wed

nesday, 20th October, 1830, at the London Tavern.

I have read it somewhere, that if you attack a man in his character, principles, or conduct, yet if you do not name him, the attack is impersonal. This, I confess, I cannot see; nor can I see either sin or impropriety in naming a person when you assail his opinions; nay, I am convinced it is a duty which we owe to the individual and to the public, to weigh before we admit his lofty pretensions to be received and hailed as the illuminator and liberator of a benighted, enthralled universe. Does Mr. Owen surpass every man in every age and country in common sense, in reach and force of understanding, in information and research, in zeal and benevolence, in honesty and mental independence, in love of truth and in love of his kind, in knowledge of literature and science, in natural endowments and liberal acquirements? Unless this be the case, he may be wrong, and some other man who does not think with him may be right; he may, as all his predecessors in the work of philanthropy, be wrong; be a blind guide: he may have mistaken his own vain imaginations for the truth;-he may be as far from the right way as any man that ever lived. What evidence has the public, that Mr. Owen is right, infallibly right, and that all who are not of his opinion are wrong? They have Mr. Owen's testimony, to be sure; and that is a thing of no ordinary kind. He has told the public that he is right, and that all who think differently are wrong. His pretensions, moreover, have been weighed in the scales of cockneyism, and have been ascertained to be full weight; of which the cockneys, the best informed animals, and the best judges of truth in the universe, express, at all Mr. Owen's meetings, their unfeigned assent and consent, by rapping, clapping, smiling, laughing, shouting, and vociferation, to cheer him on his way towards the emanci

pation and regeneration of the world, and by bawling and noise to prevent men of different views from expressing their sentiments, and unmasking the sophistry and pretensions of their idol.

Let us look at this matter in another light. It is a doctrine taught by Mr. Owen, which was also brought forward at the meeting, that man is not accountable for his belief; that his belief is the result of his opinions; and that his opinions are the result of physical organization. All the opinions of men on every subject are, according to this theory, the result of physical organization. Now who gave man his physical organization; was it not the author of his being? If a man's opinions on any subject are wrong, it is no fault of his; the fault lies with the author of his nature. If the qualities of moral good or evil do not belong to a man's belief, they do not belong to a man's thoughts; they cannot belong to a man's organization without involving in all the blame the former of this organization; for if the machine does not go accurately, it is the fault of the maker; and if there is no evil in thought, there can be no evil in bodily action, of which thoughts are the index, the expression, and the cause. Whatever Mr. Owen's thoughts are, or the illumination of his mind, it is all the result of physical organization. He is the only perfect machine that ever has been constructed since the beginning of the world. Why the author of nature has not seen it proper to present to the world such a machine before, must, I imagine, be classed among the inscrutable arcana or mysteries into which mortals are not permitted to look. As all thoughts are the result of organization, and as all the errors and delusions in the world are thoughts, and have had their origin in thought, therefore physical organization is the fountain of all errors and delusions; and how this evil can be remedied without chang

ing the organization, I leave to the astounding intellect of Mr. Owen to explain. It appears to me, that if Mr. Owen would do his work efficiently, he should begin with correcting the evil at the fountain head; he should begin with the physical organization, and instruct the author of nature in the construction of perfect machines; for if the organization is not changed, the thoughts cannot be changed, the belief cannot be changed, the actions of man cannot be changed. Whether Mr. Owen means to set about the re-construction of the physical organization of man, I do not know; though I think he hinted at something of this kind when he spoke of making man in his thoughts, feelings, propensities, and desires, transparent as crystal. One thing is certain in Mr. Owen's theory; while the organization continues the same, no improvement can be made till it is re-constructed and adapted to a new and perfect order of things, such as Mr. Owen is anxious to realize; the world must go on as hitherto, a depraved organization being the only impediment, and one that is invincible to universal illumination and perfect happiness.-Mr. Owen lays the blame of all moral and physical evils to the charge of religion, but then religion resolves itself into thought, and thought resolves itself into organization, and organization into the contrivance and design of the great first cause. Does Mr. Owen think he could instruct Him that is infinite in wisdom, or that he could have made man better than the Creator of all things?-If organization be the measure of what the faculties of man can give out, it must also be the measure of what they can take in; so that by education a man can be neither better nor worse. His thoughts will always be as his organization. What is education, but the thoughts of some one reduced to practice? It must, therefore, be the result of physical organization; and if the

thoughts of one man be disordered for a time by the thoughts of another, they must recover again naturally and involuntarily their former standing, according to the original organization. If all thought originate in organization, then every mode of religion must have its origin in the same source, and this source is divine, as God is the author of organization. Therefore religion, by the theory of Mr. Owen, in all its forms, must be divine in its origin. Both these things cannot stand: that religion is the source of all evil, and that organization is the source, fount, and type of all thought, unless religion itself is resolved into organization. I have hitherto reasoned on this subject, on the assumption of Mr. Owen as to the omnipotence of organization over thought, and of thought over belief. I now call in question that assumption, and maintain, that man is accountable for his thoughts and his belief, as it is in the power of man to conform his thoughts to the truth by inquiry, research, and examination. It is as much in the power of man to alter his thoughts. on religion as on any other subject, and by the very same process-a careful examination of facts. Is not religion founded on facts? and are not these facts as susceptible of inquiry as any fact in nature? May not a jury err criminally in their opinion of the guilt or innocence of a defendant? May not an accountant err criminally in his calculations? 'May not a servant err criminally in his conceptions of his master's orders? And where does the criminality in these cases lie, but in indolence, carelessness, inattention, apathy, or contempt? If a man's thoughts on religion are not conformed to the truth, and if this want of conformity be owing to his not examining the truth, to his disregard of truth, to his aversion to the truth, to his enmity to the truth, to his life not being in accordance with the truth, or to self-sufficiency or self-conceit, then is the discon

formity of his thoughts to the truth culpable, censurable, and punishable.

Mr. Owen says there is no merit in believing, or demerit in disbelieving. This is true on his theory of organization, but untrue if a man's thoughts may be approximated to the truth by inquiry; and that thought is susceptible of change by inquiry, is a fact unquestionable. Even on Mr. Owen's theory, there is as much criminality or innocence, merit or demerit, in belief or disbelief, as in any act whatever. If all be the result of organization, there is neither good nor evil, virtue nor vice, in the world; inasmuch as whatever is the result of organization is chargeable on the Creator. Such are the legitimate consequences of this absurd and irrational theory. One should hardly have conceived it possible for the great illuminator to fall into such notorious errors. All religion, said Mr. Owen, is opposed to sense, that is, the senses of man. Religion is not only different from but contrary to what meets the senses; as if religion required men to believe that the same things were altogether opposite to what they appeared to the senses; as much so as if he must believe that what was tangible were intangible, or what is visible were invisible, or what is hard were soft, or that what appears to the eye as a wafer, and tastes as dough, were a real man. I undertake the defence of no religion but what is revealed in the Word of God, which religion teaches nothing opposed to the senses. Let Mr. Owen, if he can, lay his hand on one fact in the Bible which is contradicted by the senses. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, is built on facts addressed to the senses-of which any man could form an accurate opinion by his senses. Is not revealed religion bottomed on two things, miracles and prophecy? Miracles, it has been said, are opposed to the senses. But to whose senses are they opposed? Were they opposed to the

senses of those who have witnessed
them? or are they opposed to the
senses of those who did not exist
till ages after they were performed?
Did those in whose presence mira-
cles are recorded to have been
wrought, not see these miracles?
Did they not see the dead raised,
the eyes of the blind opened, the
lame leap as a hart, and hear the
tongue of the dumb sing for joy?
If they saw these things, then they
were not opposed to their senses.
But it may be said, we do not see
them. Does it then follow, that no-
thing ever has existed but what we
have seen? Are our senses the
measure of all possible existences?
-But miracles are opposed to the
laws of nature. To which I answer,
if nothing could happen but accord-
ing to, or as the result of, some law
of nature, then there could be no
miracles. But what is a law of na-
ture, but a mode in which the Deity
acts? Now, if he acts in one mode,
does it follow that he cannot act in
an opposite mode, or that he can
act only in one mode? If, by one
law of nature, iron sinks in water,
what is there to hinder the same
Being, who made the law of gravity,
to suspend that law, or to cause the
iron to swim? Are these two modes
of action contradictory? Are they
such as could not be performed by
the same power?
And are they
not both compatible with the moral
attributes of the Deity? Suppose
a person, who had never seen the
application of steam to machinery,
were to say, "I cannot believe in
it, it is contrary to my senses."
Contrary to your senses it is not.
It is something which you have not
seen, but it is uncontradicted by any
fact that ever fell under your obser-
vation. In like manner, were a
person to deny that iron could, by
miracle, be made to swim :-He
might say, "I have never seen it.
Any time that I have seen it unsup-
ported in water, it has sunk." True,
it has; but that has been by the
operation of the law of gravity.
But when we say that iron was

« PreviousContinue »