Mr. Chairman: I do not discover anything in my friend, Mr. Campbell's, last address, that requires an immediate reply. I shall, therefore, proceed further to demonstrate, from my manuscript, the ignorance which has pervaded the world up to the present time. I had proceeded to the sixth law when my half hour expired. I now come to the seventh. [Here Mr. Owen begins to read, commencing on the subject of the ascertainment of the standard number of individuals to be congregated in social union, so as to give to each the greatest advantages with the fewest inconveniences.]

      [Mr. Owen reads to the fifteenth law, and here remarks;]--

      And, therefore, there will be no selection or election to office, and every one at an early age will discover that at the proper period of life he will have an equal right with all, to be in possession of his full and fair share of the government of society; there will be no electioneering artifices; no detraction of private character; no jarring of interests, or collision about the distribution of office.

      [Mr. Owen gets to the twenty-third law, and here he remarks:]

      You will observe, my friends, that, by these arrangements, we shall save the enormous waste of time and money to which religion now subjects us, and we shall be relieved from the still more enormous expense of all its vice and injustice.

      [Mr. Owen reads to the twenty-fifth law, and observes:]

      These, my friends, will make in our new state of existence, just twenty-seven laws, very plain and easily to be understood, and most effectual for all the purposes of society. You will presently learn that truth is always simple; that there is so much more harmony, unison, and consistency in all its parts, that there can be no difficulty in comprehending and acting upon it.

      When we remove the priests, lawyers, warriors, merchants, etc., what a happy state of society shall we enjoy! None of us shall have [190] occasion to be employed more than two hours per day; yet we shall all have an abundance of the best of everything! I now proceed to the Appendix, which is the last part of the subject I have written out; and this additional explanation is only for the sake of a more full development of the subject. I have merely glanced at the nine requisites for happiness--it would require too much of your time to proceed to its extent. Can any of you, my friends, form an idea of anything necessary for human happiness beyond these nine conditions? All I can say on this part of the subject, is, that my mind has not been able to discover anything for the heart of man to desire, beyond what these arrangements provide, and for what, if consummated, they must secure--except your future fanciful ideas of happiness, which I leave with each of you.

      I have now, my friends, to show you in detail that all the religions of the world have been founded in ignorance. To those who have been accustomed to reflect deeply on these subjects, the outline stated in the twelve fundamental principles which have been advanced, is amply sufficient to enable them to come, at once, to a conclusion upon the subject. But as there are many who never had their minds directed to these subjects, it becomes necessary to proceed point by point in order to show the discrepancy between these twelve laws and all religions. It is, however, first requisite that I should state what the religions of the world are, according to my views of them. If I make a wrong statement, Mr. Campbell or the gentlemen Moderators will set me right. According to my views, then, all religions of the civilized world are founded upon the assumption that man has a free will, forms his own character, and determines his own conduct; has the power of believing or disbelieving whether a God exists, and of ascertaining his qualities, and is punished for not doing so. These religions assume that man is accountable for his feelings, his thoughts, his will, and his conduct; that if he believes according to the religious dogmas in which he has been trained, and acts up to that belief, he shall be eternally happy, but that if he does not believe in a God, he shall be eternally tormented, notwithstanding the most virtuous and exemplary conduct through life. They assume that the favor of God is to be obtained by the observance of forms and ceremonies, and by contributions of money; and that those who do not believe in these things, are infidels, and worse than the Devil, because he believes and trembles. It becomes necessary, Mr. Campbell, to ask you if this be a true and fair outline of the Christian religion. [Mr. Campbell answers, No.] Then, Mr. Chairman, before I can proceed systematically, it will be necessary [191] for Mr. Campbell to explain what the Christian religion is. I cannot proceed without I have his Christian religion before me. Each different sect will tell me that Mr. Campbell's religion is not theirs. At present I have nothing to combat; I am fighting against shadows.

      Mr. Campbell rose and said--The Christian religion is contained in the New Testament. Mr. Owen ought to have made himself acquainted with the New Testament before he challenged this controversy. I have no other answer to Mr. Owen's query but that the Christian religion is fully developed in the books of the New Testament; that its evidences are to be examined by all the rules by which we examine other historical facts; that the rules of interpretation are the same which are to be adopted in the interpretation of other ancient writings.

      Mr. Owen rose and said--Gentlemen, if I take Mr. Campbell's account of Christianity to be correct, a great many Christians will oppose Mr. Campbell, and say he knows nothing about Christianity; therefore it will not be sufficient for me to show that Mr. Campbell's notions of Christianity cannot be reconciled with these fundamental laws of human nature. But perhaps we may come at the matter in another direction: Has man, according to Christianity, a free will, and the power to form his own character? I cannot proceed without an answer to this question.

      Mr. Campbell rises--Gentlemen Moderators: If it be the order of the day, that my opponent and I shall enter into a catechetical examination of each other, by way of question and answer, I shall make no objection to such an arrangement. In engaging in this controversy, the sole object I proposed to myself, was the fair elicitation of truth. But the immediate question is, whether interrogatories are to be mutually and reciprocally proposed and replied to, or shall our interrogatories be propounded in our respective half-hour addresses, and the answers deferred until the respondent rises to address the audience? I make this point here simply as a question of order.

      Mr. Owen rose and said--I do not see how the argument can be conducted on the original plan of alternate half hours. We must come to close quarters; but unless I know what the Christian religion is, I cannot know what I am to disprove. I have made fair tenders to Mr. Campbell in order to find out what his Christian religion is. I cannot conceive that the Christian religion consists in the whole of the New Testament, but that it is contained in some general principles which may be stated in a very few words.

      Mr. Campbell rose and said--As my opponent seems to be at a loss [192] how to proceed without documents, perhaps we may expedite our progress by presenting a recapitulation of our premises by way of posting our books up to this morning.

      The Hon. Chairman rose and said--The Moderators are prepared to decide the question of order submitted by Mr. Campbell. They are of opinion, from the nature of Mr. Owen's proposition, he is not entitled to call on Mr. Campbell for any concession; he is only entitled to call on Mr. Campbell for a definition of his terms. We view the matter in this light: Mr. Owen states, by implication, that he has examined all the religions of the world. This implication results, necessarily, from Mr. Owen's affirmation, that all religions in the world are founded in ignorance. We cannot, for a moment, presume that Mr. Owen has passed sentence of condemnation upon all religions, without having examined these religions, and ascertained what they are. Inasmuch as Mr. Owen holds the affirmative of the proposition that all religions are false, the Moderators think that it would be exceedingly discourteous in them to suppose that Mr. Owen has not studied all religions. The Moderators conceive that it would be taking from Mr. Owen's opponent an advantage to put him upon the affirmative. We must take it for granted that there are many individuals in this assembly who have full faith in the truth of the Christian religion, and yet would not agree, perhaps, with any other individual of this congregation in every minute particular. Courtesy to Mr. Owen compels us to suppose that he has ascertained the fundamental principles of all religions, and has here proposed to demonstrate that all are founded in ignorance and error. This is Mr. Owen's affirmative proposition, and according to all controversial rules, he is, therefore, bound to establish it in evidence. The adoption of any other course in the conducting of this argument by Mr. Owen, we conceive, would, in another point of view, be imposing upon his opponent an unfair difficulty. For, if it should be ascertained, at the termination of this discussion, that Mr. Owen has formed erroneous conceptions of the Christian religion, and has proceeded to condemn it under these mistaken ideas of its real character, it would not be fair to place Mr. Campbell in a logical predicament which might deprive him of an opportunity to demonstrate that his opponent's conceptions of Christianity were erroneous, and thereby to disprove his conclusions. This would be to throw Mr. Campbell off the vantage ground, which, as the challengee he legitimately holds. Courtesy toward Mr. Owen, therefore, compels us to take for granted that he has thoroughly examined every religion, which he has undertaken to condemn; [193] and that the reasons of his condemnation are applicable to his peculiar conceptions of these religions.

      The Board are further of opinion, that Mr. Owen cannot be fairly called upon to admit that religion is what Mr. Campbell supposes it to be. It may be, that Mr. Owen may assent to Mr. Campbell's views of religion, yet this assent would not prove Mr. Campbell's views to be correct. It would not be doing justice to Mr. Campbell to require him to state his views of Christianity, and authorize Mr. Owen to argue from them as the only correct standard; because, Mr. Owen would thereby be deprived of all opportunity of demonstrating that Mr. Campbell's views of Christianity were not warranted by the Christian scriptures. Therefore, the opinion of the Board is, that Mr. Owen's proper course is to state his views of religion, assign the reasons upon which his opinions are founded, and draw his conclusions from the premises which he may establish; and if his opponent can show that religion is not the thing which Mr. Owen has condemned, then the cause of religion remains safe and uninjured by this argument.

      Mr. Owen again rises--Mr. Chairman: It appears, then, from this decision, that I must form my own notions of religion, from all that I have read, seen, and heard--and I am quite willing so to do.

      My belief, then, is, that in all religions of the world, it is a fundamental principle that man has a free will, forms his own character, and determines his own conduct; that he has the power of believing or disbelieving in a God, of ascertaining his attributes and qualities, and that he shall be punished hereafter if he does not believe in a God, and ascertain these attributes and qualities; that he is accountable for his will, his conduct, his feelings, and his thoughts; and if he believes according to the dogmas of his religion, and acts up to that belief, he shall be happy after death; but that if he does not believe in God, in his qualities and attributes, he shall after death be eternally tormented. I believe it is a fundamental principle in all religions, that prayers, and forms, and ceremonies are necessary to enable the individual to know God; and it is, moreover, necessary that he should contribute money for all godly purposes; that in all these religions, whoever disbelieves is an infidel. Therefore, I am an infidel, for I believe none of them. I have then to show, in detail, that man has not a free will; that he does not form his own character, nor determine his own conduct. I have to show, in detail, that no man has the power of believing or disbelieving in a God; that he has no means of ascertaining the qualities and attributes of any being whose mode of existence cannot be cognizable by his senses. I shall, therefore, endeavor [194] to show, in detail, what a monstrous absurdity it is, to suppose that man, constituted as he is, can be accountable for his feelings, thoughts, will, or conduct. I mean also to prove that there cannot be one particle of merit or demerit in any man's believing the doctrines of the religion in which he has been trained. I intend also to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the notion that man will go to heaven for his belief, or to hell for his disbelief. I intend further to show, that religious forms and ceremonies are most useless; and that if men were not more ignorant than the beasts of the field, they would never pay money to a priest for showing them the way to heaven.

      I also mean to prove that the opprobrious meaning generally annexed to the epithet infidel, is most irrational and absurd: How can an infidel, if any of you attach any definite meaning to the term, prevent himself believing as he does, any more than he can help being warmed by the sun, or cooled by the breeze? Now, my friends, these are the points I mean to prove. I might indeed go much further. I might attack some of the details of the Christian system, which are not to be found in any other systems of religion. I might tell you that it is a fundamental principle in the Christian religion, to believe that Christ is the son of God; that he came down from Heaven to save sinners, or a certain portion of them, called the elect; that he was crucified, rose and ascended to Heaven; and that now he is certainly interceding for us there. But, my friends, after having been so long a faithful student of the laws of nature, and after the mental collisions which I have encountered with the first minds in Europe and America, I should feel ashamed seriously to attempt any opposition to such monstrous absurdities--such a ridiculous incongruity. But I know that we are beings so organized as to receive our early impressions, however absurd they may be. We are compelled, by an unchanging law of our nature, to receive our early impressions, however monstrous and absurd, from our parents, our nurses, and other early instructors. This is an indisputable truth; therefore, there cannot be a more simple process than to force into the mind of any child doctrines, notions, and chimeras, the most wild, extravagant, and fanciful, and at the same time, compel him to receive them as divine truths. This being a law of our nature, I cannot be surprised at the variety of absurd notions which I everywhere meet with. It was only, I think, about two months ago, that I very unexpectedly found myself in the middle of the great square of the City of Mexico. Suddenly I heard the tinkling of a little bell, which was in the hands of a man preceding the host. My friend, who was with me, said to me, Mr. Owen, you must kneel [195] down till that bell passes, or you will endanger your life. Hearing this, I looked out for the cleanest place I could find, spread my handkerchief upon it, and knelt down. [The audience here laughed heartily.] But why laugh at this, my friends? These Mexicans were as sincerely conscientious in performing and executing this act of adoration to their host, as you are in going to any place of worship.

      The whole difference is, that you have been trained in one sect of religious notions, and they have been trained in another; and if nationality could be estimated by numbers, it is very doubtful whether those who believe in the importance and necessity of this act of prostration, do not outnumber you who disbelieve and laugh at it. But the great stumbling-block of the metaphysicians is, that man is formed to have a free will; and, therefore, by his will can control his belief and his conduct. Now I have stated it to be one of the fundamental laws of human nature, that the infant, when born, has no knowledge of his organization; but he then comes into the world a highly compounded being, made up of a great variety of propensities, faculties, and qualities--and upon this foundation of his organization, his intellect, morals, and will, are formed for him. Now these propensities are made either good or bad--these intellects and morals are made superior or inferior; but whether the one or the other, how is it possible that the infant can be held accountable for it in any degree whatever? When we see a little child obeying the impulse of its nature, and thereby acting contrary to our notions of right and wrong, we say that child is bad by nature; we punish it, and call it hard names for acting in opposition to our notions, when the real cause of all the evil is the ignorance in which we have been trained. I dare say many of you have now in your eye the children of different families of your acquaintance, and the difference in the characters of these children. You know that these children have been trained very differently--that the children of the one family have, according to your notions, been well brought up, while those of the other have been badly trained, and you have witnessed the consequent difference of character in these two families. Are not these inferior children unfortunate in being under the direction of the ignorant and vicious? And is it not fortunate for the superior children that they have been placed in the care of the more virtuous and intelligent? But who shall say that either merit or demerit attaches to either set of children, on account of their difference of character? To illustrate how little depends upon the power of the infant itself in the formation of its character, observe the effects produced upon the children brought up by the people called Quakers. [196] I am not so competent to speak of this sect as it exists in this country, but in England I am well acquainted with the first families among them, and I have uniformly found the children of these Quaker families brought up very differently from the children of other families; but no merit or demerit can attach to these children for having been thus fortunately born and educated. In my frequent visits to London, I have made a part of my business to go frequently to that part of the city called St. Giles. This division of the city is extensive, and the number of its inhabitants considerable. I have there seen many children of parents reduced to the lowest depths of poverty, and yet obliged to support themselves and their parents. They have no means to do this except by thieving; and, therefore, from earliest infancy they compel their children to believe that they perform a most meritorious action when they can dextrously steal; and when they succeed, and bring home their plunder, they are called good children and rewarded by their parents with something they think will gratify them. But if they do not succeed in their day's prowling, and come home empty-handed, their parents call them very bad children, and punish them severely. Now these children are compelled to believe that to steal is very meritorious, and not to steal is very wicked. These children never hear anything of what is called good moral instruction. With what justice, then, can they be condemned for their vices? It is with these unfortunate children as with all others--some of them are born with organizations greatly superior to others, but they are all equally compelled to imbibe the same early lessons of depravity.

      But the truth is, that no child can have the forming of himself, any more than he can have the selection of his parents. When we reflect upon this matter, we shall discover that the child has just as much control in the one case as the other. How absurd, then, must be the invention of a system which leaves the child at the mercy of chance, and then exacts responsibility from him!

      I do say, that nothing but the grossest ignorance could have led to the introduction of a system which supposes this to be right. It is contrary to nature, and not in the least degree calculated to effect the purposes which it contemplates. It is anything but a rational method of operating upon the human mind.

      I conclude that there are intelligent medical gentlemen present, who have made it their business to study minutely the human frame. They well know that all children are born with different degrees of powers and feelings. They know, also, that probably from the beginning of [197] time, no two individuals ever had any two senses formed alike; that there are no two who see, or feel, or taste, or hear, or smell alike. Each individual has a distinct natural character at birth, arising from the peculiar combination which has entered into each of his senses. Those gentlemen well know, that when the organization is perfect, the human being becomes superior; that when it is imperfect, the child must ever be, to a certain extent, an inferior human being, if placed under similar circumstances with the former. Now, if we had the power to form our organization and characters, can we suppose that beings possessing one particle of reason would not make these perfect? I ask you whether every male and female would not make themselves perfect? The only reason that we are not perfect beings is, because we have no power over the formation of our organization and circumstances. Yesterday Mr. Campbell said a great deal upon subject of language. Now no child has the power of deciding what language it shall be taught, and he can only derive oral instruction through that language which he has learned to understand. No child can determine what religion he shall be taught to believe, or whether he shall retain his belief. No child can determine what shall be the character of his circumstances from birth to death, except in the latter part of his life, and in that case he has been influenced to endeavor to effect some change by the previous circumstances to which he was compelled to submit.

      We very well know (if we did not, we might all easily try the experiment), that over the power of belief or disbelief, no man ever has had, or ever can have, any control. As Mr. Campbell has very well explained, we know that of which our senses take cognizance; but in like manner, we are compelled to believe according to the strongest impressions made upon us. And so, too, of opinions; we receive them according to the evidence offered to us for their foundation, and we are compelled to receive them. Our liking, indifference, or disliking, are also in like manner equally beyond our control. We must be indifferent to that which makes no impression upon our senses, and dislike that which offends our senses. It is futile, useless, and injurious to contend against these laws of our nature. My half hour, I perceive, is out. I will, therefore, merely add, that if these are facts, and I will prove them to be such, that nothing but the grossest ignorance could ever have permitted any such system as the Christian, or any other religion, to have been introduced, and that nothing but this ignorance causes it or them to be now tolerated. [198]

[COD 190-198]