Mr. Chairman: At this stage of the discussion I do not wish to occupy many minutes in descanting upon the method of debate; but I must beg to be indulged in a few general remarks on the matter or the allegata of this discussion, and the method adopted by my opponent. I do cherish the most kind feelings toward Mr. Owen. I am sorry that controversial rules require me to call him my opponent. This term I use with perfect good-will toward him. I am satisfied that Mr. Owen is doing that which he conceives to be just and right. I take this occasion explicitly to declare that such is my conviction. At the same time I am just as fully persuaded that the aberrations and mistakes into which he has fallen are properly referable, not so much to any want of verity in his documents, as to his loose and illogical reasonings upon what he is pleased to call "facts" and "laws of nature."

      My friend and opponent has stated some facts accordant with the experience of all mankind. To discriminate his real from his imaginary facts is not now my object, so much as it is to advert to the method he adopts. His manner, rather than his matter, now claims my attention. His manner is certainly loose and declamatory; and as he does not exhibit any bearing or connection existing between his allegata and the affirmative propositions which he intends to prove by them, he necessarily imposes upon himself as well as the audience. Therefore, in order to bring the allegata and probata of our logical disputation (for I trust this is to be a logical disputation) in a more orderly way before us, it will be necessary for me to advert to the original propositions which have been mutually acceded to, as constituting the topics of the discussion at present before us.

      Here Mr. Campbell read the propositions which Mr. Owen stood pledged to prove:--

      "Gentlemen: I have now finished a course of lectures in this city, the principles of which are in direct opposition to those which you [24] have been taught it your duty to preach. It is of immense importance to the world that truth upon these momentous subjects should be now established upon a certain and sure foundation. You and I, and all our fellow-men, are deeply interested that there should be no further delay. With this view, without one hostile or unpleasant feeling on my part, I propose a friendly public discussion, the most open that the city of New Orleans will afford, or, if you prefer it, a more private meeting; when half a dozen friends of each party shall be present, in addition to half a dozen gentlemen whom you may associate with you in the discussion. The time and place of meeting to be of your own appointment."

      "I propose to prove, as I have already attempted to do in my lectures, that all the religions of the world have been founded on the ignorance of mankind; that they are directly opposed to the never-changing laws of our nature; that they have been, and are, the real source of vice, disunion, and misery of every description; that they are now the only real bar to the formation of a society of virtue, of intelligence, of charity in its most extended sense, and of sincerity and kindness among the whole human family; and that they can be no longer maintained except through the ignorance of the mass of the people, and the tyranny of the few over that mass."

      "With feelings of perfect good will to you, which extend also in perfect sincerity to all mankind, I subscribe myself your friend in a just cause."

"ROBERT OWEN."      

      Now, said Mr. Campbell, it is surely illogical to say that what will logically prove the first proposition, will logically prove the second. If each of these positions is to be distinctively asserted, the facts and reasonings supporting each must be as distinctly adduced. Each position requires a regular induction of facts and documents to sustain it. There can be no separation of argument from fallacy by the clear, simple rules of pure unsophisticated logic, if we deal in such loose and general declamations. Our argumentation might thus be drawn out ad infinitum, without the remotest probability of ever arriving at any logical conclusion. If the truth is to be elicited, for the love of truth let us close the door against the admission of all extraneous and irrelevant matter.

      We have heard some positions, called "twelve facts," or "twelve fundamental laws," stated; but the question (logice) is, What are these "twelve facts" to prove? How are they logically to be applied? To the first, second, or to all these five positions? I must reiterate that what may logically prove the first position, cannot, ex necessitate, prove the last; and that such facts and reasonings as may prove the last cannot [25] prove the first. We must have a regular logical connection and dependence between the allegata and probata. Without this, how can our hearers or readers learn (for this matter is for the press) how much logical argument, how much fact, how much demonstration has been elicited in this discussion?

      I now state another preliminary difficulty or objection to our modus operandi, which a feeling of self-respect requires me to have removed. It is not improbable, from the turn that things have taken, that there are numbers who at this moment misapprehend the true object of this controversy. From a letter which appeared in the London Times last October, it had been stated in the public prints in this city, that I had agreed to meet Mr. Owen for an object, toto coelo, different from that contemplated in my acceptance of Mr. Owen's challenge.

      In that communication I was represented as being about to co-operate with Mr. Owen in an attempt to expunge the abuses of all religions, and to form out of them all a consistent and rational religion adapted to all ages and nations. But we shall permit this letter to speak for itself:--

      "Sir: I authorize you to state that the paragraph which appeared in the Times and some other London papers, a few days since, purporting to give a detail of my intended proceedings, and which was copied from the Scotsman newspaper, published in Edinburgh, was given to the public without my knowledge, and that it is incorrect in some important particulars. The object of the meeting between the clergy and myself, in April next, in the city of Cincinnati, state of Ohio, in the United States, is not to discuss the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion, as stated in the Scotsman, but to ascertain the errors in all religions which prevent them from being efficacious in practice, and to bring out all that is really valuable in each, leaving out their errors, and thus to form from them collectively a religion wholly true and consistent, that it may become universal, and be acted upon conscientiously by all."

      "Neither is it my intention to remove finally from this country, as stated in the Scotsman. On the contrary, I have purposely made arrangements to be, without inconvenience, in any part of the world in which my earnest endeavors to ameliorate the present condition of society shall appear to be the most useful, as I do not entertain the least doubt of an entire change being near at hand, in the commercial, political, and religious policy of all nations."

      "The very small amount of benefits that is affected for the great mass of mankind, with the extraordinary powers for insuring general [26] prosperity, now possessed by society, united with the daily growing intelligence of the population in civilized countries, render, I think, this change not only unavoidable, but not very distant.

"ROBERT OWEN."      

      You will perceive that this representation of this discussion is very different from Mr. Owen's challenge, published in New Orleans, upon which the debate is based. I now put the question to my friend Mr. Owen, categorically, whether I ever did, directly, or indirectly, accede to, or propose, a scheme of the character portrayed in this letter? This is a question which Mr. Owen will soon have an opportunity to meet and answer. Mr. Owen's simple affirmation or negation on this point will clear up the whole of this preliminary difficulty, and exonerate me from the calumnies of one of the editors of this city. And while on the subject of preliminary difficulties, it is necessary for me to remark, that there can be no development of logical truth without the nicest precision and co-intelligence in the use of our terms. It is a rule of logical interpretation, that all words are to be received and understood according to their most usual and known acceptation; and if there is to be any co-intelligence in the use of terms between Mr. Owen and myself, he must not establish a peculiar vocabulary of his own, but permit me to understand his terms according to their usual and most ordinary acceptation. Let me not be supposed destitute of a just contempt for mere verbal criticism or hypercriticism. I am not contending that if the law of the state of Ohio should say that whoever drew blood in Cincinnati should suffer death, that this law should be interpreted to apply to the case of a surgeon who opened the vein of a man who fell down in Main Street with a fit. But I do contend that between Mr. Owen and myself, there must be, in the course of this discussion (if it is to be governed by polemic laws), a co-intelligence, co-application, and co-acceptation of such terms as are of cardinal importance in the questions at issue. For example, the terms, divine, divinity, religion, virtue, moral law, created, Creator, etc., etc., are to be found in the Christian vocabulary. These terms Mr. Owen uses; but in what sense? In the Christian acceptation, or in a private interpretation of his own? I may very appositely inquire of Mr. Owen whether he has not a peculiar phraseology of his own, and whether he does not annex a very different meaning to these terms, divine, divinity, religion, intellectual, moral, virtue, vice, etc., from what he may rationally suppose is my acceptation of them and that of all other Christians? Is it candid or honest to use our terms in a sense different from that we have stipulated? I hold myself bound to render the most precise definition of any term which I may [27] use, when called upon by my opponent; wherefore I apprehend that he cannot complain that I should mete out the same measure to him, and insist on the like precision and perspicuity on his part. If Mr. Owen will use Bible terms, let him use them in the Bible sense, or tell us honestly what meaning he attaches to them. He must either believe in the Bible, or he conceives its language superior to all other language, or he would not impose upon our understanding by a parade of words, well approved in the vulgar sense, but rejected in his acceptation. But I confine not this inquiry nor these remarks to Bible terms only, but to all the current terms in religious discussion, morality and philosophy. Everything depends upon precision and co-intelligence in the use of terms. I apprehend it is altogether unnecessary to elaborate this matter any further. Will Mr. Owen have the goodness to explain himself in this particular? The simple naked question is, Does Mr. Owen use certain very significant terms, such as those specified, in the commonly received significance?

      I would appeal to the gentlemen who moderate this discussion, whether the exceptions I have taken to the course pursued by Mr. Owen, are not reasonable; whether the queries I have proposed to him for solution, are not pertinent and necessary; and especially, I would request them to decide one important question of order, viz: whether Mr. Owen is not logically bound to show some logical connection between the matter he reads and some one of the positions he has undertaken to prove. The same matter cannot be received in evidence of each position; it must apply to some one in particular; it cannot to all, unless they be identical positions.

      Here it was suggested to Mr. Owen (by the Board), that all the arguments which he might be about to introduce in support of any one of his positions might have exclusive relevance, and pertinence, and logical connection, with that single position. The Board thought that Mr. Owen was, logice, bound to exhibit the logical connection and dependence between his proofs and positions.