Mr. Chairman: Public attention and curiosity have been much excited from the first proposal of this discussion even up to the present moment. On Mr. Owen's first appearance in this country, our expectations were raised to an unusual degree. Coming direct from one of the most enlightened countries in the world; having traversed the British Isles, and visited several places on the continent of Europe; professing to have discovered very great errors in the present order of society, and to have it in his power to new modify the world, by some very rational changes, resulting from the march of mind and the progress of science; our expectations were very much raised, and we bade the benevolent visitant a hearty welcome to our shores. Under these favorable circumstances Mr. Owen was received by the good citizens of these United States. He was treated with all the liberality of our republican institutions.

      In his first addresses he was cautious and reserved on the subject of religion. It is true, indeed, that from the first address which I saw in print from Mr. Owen, I observed the poison artfully infused into the golden chalice which he presented to the American people. But for some time he was a little cautious. He became bold; and finally, as large as life, he appeared the advocate of irreligion, or no religion; and, like all his brotherhood in France, he talked much of reason and common sense. Philosophy, too (most abused word), was adored as the patron goddess of the whole scheme. All this, too, associated with a good moral exterior, uncommon mildness and suavity of temper, procured for Mr. Owen (to say nothing of the charms of wealth), a degree of respect and courtesy which would not have been shown to the system in the person of almost any other advocate, and still less in the person of one who should have exhibited the more natural and the more usual tendency of the system in his own conduct.

      But, added to all this, it was published far and wide that Mr. Owen was a gentleman of the most extensive reading, great research, a first-rate political economist, and profoundly acquainted with everything connected with the political, religious, and economical systems, practices, and relations of mankind. He seemed to understand everything relative to the subjects on which he declaimed and wrote more profoundly than any person else; and from the plenary confidence and the air of infallibility which decorated his ratiocinations, deductions, and proofs, all were almost afraid to call any of his dogmas in question. Progressing thus, specious in his philosophy, and the perfect gentlemen in his manners, it was not to be wondered at that he found many disciples and admirers in all parts of the country whithersoever he turned [458] his course. He attempted to organize societies among us, and to set on foot a new order of things. But religion impedes his progress, and finally it absorbs all his energies and those of his friends. It is combated on new principles, as it did appear, and was threatened to be prostrated by reason and science. The old artillery of little Deists and petty cavilers were all to be laid aside, and nothing but the apparatus of good logic and genuine philosophy were to be employed by Mr. Owen is pulling down all the religions in the world. And now our ears have heard and our eyes have seen the whole strength of this new armament against the faith. This discussion will, I think, be a new and no ordinary confirmation of the faith of Christians. Mr. Owen, the cool philosopher, the great political economist, the universal reader, the extensive traveler, the shrewd and logical thinker, after surveying the productions of six thousand years, appears with the maturity of almost threescore years, laden with the spoils of time, standing upon the shoulders of all the skeptics of Greece, Rome, England, and America, selects the most puissant weapons, and chooses the best mode of attack, which all his reading, observation, and experience could devise. You have heard it, my friends, you have seen it all in twelve principles, all poised upon one metaphysical question. This is the dos pou sto of Archimedes. Here Mr. Owen places the fulcrum for his puissant lever which is to raise the human family from all the superstitions, good and bad, and from all political degradation, from poverty, ignorance and suffering. This is the "summum bonum," "the philosopher's stone"--the old doctrine of Epicurus in modern broadcloth.

      Now it is lawfully to be presumed, that Mr. Owen has taken the strongest ground which can be taken upon the skeptical hypotheses. He has seen where all his predecessors have been foiled; and, therefore, selects the ark of safety, the impregnable fortress, the strongest tower which his imagination and reason could grasp. Forth comes the essay which you have heard. This is the cream of fifty years' reading, traveling, studying, conversing with minds of his "best caliber," arrayed in the majesty of twelve propositions, which will equally suit the horse and his rider. Mr. Owen appears brandishing the sixth, the fatal sixth, which, like a two-edged sword, is to cut off all the heads of all the priests and kings in the world.

      Upon the whole, we were glad to see Mr. Owen take such high ground. First, because he made Thomas Paine, Gibbon, cum multis aliis, with all the old skeptics, a set of simpletons and driveling philosophers. And next, because he was all for reason and philosophy, which no intelligent Christian ever feared. We met him on his own five propositions, on which he defied the world. You, however, heard the [459] contents of Mr. Owen's logic upon these premises. And you have seen what he has offered in defense of them. It would be only a species of insult to the good sense of any hearer of this discussion to state again that Mr. Owen has only repeated over and over the same dogmas; and that he has in every instance refused joining issue either upon his own propositions or mine. He has met all sorts of arguments by mere assertions, by mere declamation.

      Regarding Mr. Owen as the present magnus Apollo of skepticism, as a man of great reason and philosophy, we did most certainly expect that he would reason and not merely assert--that he would not at last, when foiled in argument, descend into the ranks of those little spirits who strut about in the pomposity of two or three witticisms or sneers, which they have heard and retail from some infidel apostle. Nay, indeed, I did not expect to hear Mr. Owen talking in the ribaldry of these little demagogues of infidelity, who talk about Eve, and the apple, and the serpent, about the Virgin Mary, and Joseph, with a sort of significant grin, expressing the great detestation of their great little souls against such fables!

      There is nothing proof against those Parthian missiles that the vanquished Parthian throws behind him on his retreat from the pursuing conqueror. I could, without pretending to any genius in this way, turn every virtue in the world to ridicule, and laugh out of countenance the gravest and best man that ever lived. Only, as the great Warburton said, "put a fool's coat upon a philosopher or a saint, and you may, under this covering, laugh him down." Call bravery temerity; call generosity prodigality; call wisdom gravity; call honesty simplicity; and good manners foppery; and the work is done. So the atheist ridicules the idea of God. A pretty world this, to come from a rational first cause! Talk not of wisdom while you see so much folly in the universe! Only see the waste of water and the waste of land; only look, says he, how many half-begun operations, and how many unfinished enterprises there are. Look at the deformities and the irregularities, and the mal-adaptations everywhere. Talk not of goodness, says the ridiculing atheist: don't you see poisons lurking in your fields and gardens--pestilence and death stealing upon you in the invisible miasmata? Talk not of justice: see the good man punished for his virtue, and the wicked rewarded for his vice, etc., etc. So the idea of God is laughed out of the world by the atheists. Tell me the virtue I cannot caricature and render ridiculous. I will call humility meanness, charity pride or ostentation; and then, under such a garb, laugh them out of society.

      Is there any ways of proving, in a court of law, that Queen Elizabeth [460] or Oliver Cromwell once lived? If there be, the same sort of evidence will prove in a court of law that all the gospel facts are true. But there is as much wit in a peddler's telling you to prove how many yards are in a given web, by weighing it in scales, or by putting it into a bushel, as there is in Mr. Owen's telling you, you cannot prove the gospel facts in a court of law?

      His Adam and Eve, the apple and serpent puns are very puissant weapons in his armor; and his representing the imbecility, or folly, or malevolence of the Deity, in giving birth to the present state of things, are all in unison with the nice discernment, good taste and fine feelings of the champion of skepticism. The human body and all its organs, internal and external, by the same logic could be shown to be ridiculous. Call it an animal machine, and then examine it in detail. You may then laugh at yourselves, as we might conceive an actor would who had assumed a character which did not suit him.

      But, my friends, I cannot but admire the influence which Christianity has now exhibited in you. In speaking of the Christian religion this morning, as on other occasions, Mr. Owen has severely tested the influence of Christianity upon us. He has tried our Christian patience and forbearance to the utmost. I feel a degree of pride to see you bear these indignities with so much patience. These insults were all gratuitous, and ill-timed, too, if there be any time for insults. When I was laying before you the historic evidences of Christianity, if Mr. Owen had any objection to any of the historic facts, testimonies, or proofs adduced, then was the time to have made his objections. But it is an easy method of refuting any argument, to say it is impertinent, or inconclusive; to call any document a fable, a legend, and to represent the most credible testimony in the world as a story, a fiction. This is a wholesale way of rebutting all argument and proof, and I am much disappointed to find the boasted reason of the skeptical heroes, compelled to adopt this miserable subterfuge of the poorest drivelers, who have not sense to know when a point is proved, or when a conclusion is fairly drawn from just premises. Mr. Owen arrogates too much for a philosopher. He put himself in the Pope's chair, and makes his say so, his ipse dixit, go as far as the Roman Pontiff ever claimed for himself. I have never heard so few therefores, so few illative particles in as much reading as in Mr. Owen's speeches.

      But after all Mr. Owen's great reading and research, there is one book which he has not often read, and which, above all others, he ought (even to attack it successfully) often to have read. I need not tell you that this is the Bible. It is true, indeed, that he told me he read it some two or three times when an infant at school--but what [461] of that? At this I am astonished? How dare any man attack a book of such high pretensions, from a school-boy reading of it? But this is in unison with the skeptical school. Thomas Paine wrote against the Bible from recollections, and acknowledged that be had not much read it. David Hume acknowledged, not long before his death, that he had never seriously read the New Testament through. I have never, to this hour, met with a skeptic, who was well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, or who had, in his writings, evinced that he had given them a close or critical examination. If it were lawful thus to retort upon Mr. Owen, I would engage to prove that his opposition to Christianity is founded upon his ignorance of it, instead of its being founded upon the ignorance of mankind, in his sense, or as he presumes.

      Mr. Owen's logic reads thus: I have read five hours per diem for twenty-five years. I have explored all the systems of government, political economy, and of religion for forty years. I have visited many countries. I have early discovered the influence which the doctrines of free-will have upon the advocates of this system. I have come in contact with the greatest minds of the present day:--therefore (pardon this one therefore), all religions are false. Moses was an astrologer, a sorcerer, or what you please; the passage of Israel through the Red Sea, and the miracle said to have been wrought in Egypt, are mere legends; all the prophets and apostles were impostors. Yes, from my experience and observation, all religions ought to be proved by arithmetic, and when we come to add up the evidences, they are as absurd as one plus one, equal three. This is one-half of his logic; and the other is as follows: I say to a blind man, This is a piece of blue cloth--I don't believe you, sir, he replies. Why? I ask--He answers, it does not smell blue--I do not hear or taste it blue--I cannot feel it blue. All this may be true, yet all this will not prove that it is not blue. But upon such logic does Mr. Owen rely for the proof of his five positions.

      If Mr. Owen's experience is to be relied upon by us, he claims the very same sort of faith from us that the Apostle Paul claimed, and without affording us any evidence. And surely we have infinitely more reason to rely upon the testimony of Paul in attestation of palpable facts, than upon the testimony of Mr. Owen in attestation of his opinions--I think, and I saw, are very different sorts of evidences upon matters of fact.

      Mr. Owen might think, from his mode of reasoning, that the inhabitants of the torrid zone, who would not believe him that water became in the Ohio river so hard and firm, that wagons and horses passed upon its surface; or that the inhabitants of Iceland, who would not believe [462] him that there were men as black as jet in Virginia; I say, he might think such persons very incredulous; and yet, upon his own principles, they could not believe him because they had no such experience.¹ I presume the absurdity of this species of reasoning has already been made apparent to the dullest capacity. We do not suppose that Mr. Owen's experience is equal to set aside any single fact well attested, of an ordinary or extraordinary character, and still less equal to disprove any fact which occurred two thousand years ago.

      To ridicule your faith, my friends, upon such feeble arguments as Mr. Owen has to offer in favor of infidelity, appears to me as impolitic as it is profane. When men have reasoned very strongly, and carried a point by a very powerful attack upon the human understanding, they may be allowed to slacken the reins upon their passions, and to make some appeal to the hearts or feelings of the audience. But this supposes a case very unlike that before us. Mr. Owen commenced his ridicule before he had weakened the faith of a single soul in the audience. And, indeed, I must tell you that I have never felt so much disgusted at the spirit of infidelity, as in hearing this last speech from Mr. Owen. The abuse was uncalled for, undeserved, and every way mal-apropos. I could not but think of, I could not but remember, while he was uttering those scoffs, an anecdote which I heard a few days ago from a citizen of this city, concerning a Dr. Patterson of England. This bold and impious skeptic, riding out in harvest-time in England, was overtaken with his companions in a violent storm of wind and rain, which prostrated the harvest fields, and seemed to blast the hopes of the husbandmen of the vicinity. Coming into contact with some Christians, who were probably talking of the calamity, he remarked, "Only see what sort of a God you Christians worship! Don't you think he ought to be tied up and whipped for sending such a storm upon your fields in this important crisis?" But this saucy skeptic was not permitted long to pass unpunished [call it my superstition if you please]; and by a shower of rain too, the God of Christians called him to account. For not long after, while attending a horse race, a heavy shower of rain coming up, compelled him and his companions to seek a shelter. While endeavoring to escape, his horse stumbled, fell, and broke his master's neck. So departed this life, the scoffing doctor. But, although I doubt not many thousand such occurrences happen, I would not draw a general conclusion from them, and say, that so it shall always happen. No, indeed, "the Lord knows how to reserve the ungodly until the day of judgment to be punished." But [463] to speak as philosophy authorizes, it is only in the absence of argument, that recourse is had to ridicule, and the chair of the scoffer is never filled until that of the logician is vacated.

      But when Mr. Owen assails us, my friends, through the medium of our sectarian divisions and discords, 'tis then he wounds us most sensibly. He has told you very plainly, several times in this discussion, that it was the wild and conflicting dogmas and rancors of sectarian pride and jealousy that made him first of all a skeptic, and you see this yet confirms him in his skepticism. Here we are vulnerable. Were it not for the spirit and temper, as well as for the foolish and absurd dogmas of the fashionable systems of religion, the attacks of skeptics would avail no more than the barkings of a dog at the full moon. Even here, however, this logic fails: for what good thing under heaven has not been abused and perverted by the wickedness of man! And is it not an axiom among all reasoners upon all subjects, that no man can reasonably make the abuse of anything an argument either against the use of the thing, or the thing itself?

      But as the matter has stood, and now stands, we should have been discouraged long since in vindicating the divine authority of this religion, had not Paul and the other Apostles foretold these times--these divisions; their rise, continuance, and termination. And although it is a fact, and an evidence, which, in itself, and abstractly considered, is very discouraging; yet, when contemplated through the data which the New Testament affords, it forms a very powerful evidence of the divine authenticity of this religion. To this we have paid sufficient attention while reasoning upon the Apostasy, and need not now repeat what was then demonstrated; namely, that, from the beginning, it was known, foreseen, and declared, that such an apostasy should, for certain ends and purposes, take place. It has taken place, and has fully corresponded with all the predictions of its rise and progress, and the signs of its speedy destruction are among the most impressive signs of the times.

      The necessity of the union of all the disciples of Christ, in order to the triumphant and universal spread of the gospel throughout all nations, was distinctly declared, and its influence fully depicted in that admirable prayer of the founder of our religion, in the 17th chapter of John: "Neither," said he, "pray I for these alone (who now believe in me and are my Apostles to the nations), but for all them who will hereafter believe on me through their testimony; that they all may be one; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." The universal conviction of the world of the truth of the divine mission of Jesus, is made dependent on the union and harmony of the disciples of [464] Jesus. And as this view of the matter came from the fountain-head of all wisdom and goodness, it is fairly to be presumed, that it is a sine qua non--a something indispensable to the progress, and all-triumphant success of Christianity; that until Christians are united, the world cannot be converted to the belief of the mission of Jesus.

      I doubt not but the ground, the true ground of Christian union, is now discovered; and it has been declared in this discussion more than once--indirectly it is true, but it is fairly inferable from these premises. It is this--that Christian faith is to be known and recognized as a belief of the gospel facts, and not the assent of the human understanding to certain matters of opinion--a belief of facts, and not of opinions dependent upon the acuteness of the human intellect or the logical powers of inferential reasoners. A regard to men's moral actions, more than to the strength of their intellects, will soon subvert the metaphysical systems of past ages and place Christianity upon a new footing in the eyes of the world. This is not the place, nor the occasion, for the minute exposition of these sentiments; but they can be given, and they do now appear in the publications of the day; but so far we deemed it expedient to call up this matter, alike to the consideration of skeptics and of Christians.

      But still I am very far from agreeing with Mr. Owen that Christianity, as it is now taught, is the greatest curse to mankind. Mr. Owen, who never speaks anything but the truth, will have to retract this assertion. For most surely there are many greater curses in the nations of this world, than is Christianity to the people of the United States. Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Apella the Jew may believe it, and not I. It will require more facts and documents than Mr. Owen can command to make good this assertion.

      I did entertain some hopes that when Mr. Owen arose, he was about to concede that he had been mistaken; that Christianity is what it purports to be--a revelation from God. I felt conscious that he could not rebut the arguments in favor of Christianity; and did hope, as he would doubtless find them too strong for him, that he would have the candor to retract the rash positions he had taken.

      It is true, indeed, that I thought Mr. Owen, of all men, the most unlikely to be convinced. I know that the circumstances created for him and by him rendered his conviction almost impossible. He has been so long the apostle of his own tenets his whole soul has been engaged in these speculations. He is one of the most extraordinary men; he cares not for praise; he know, he says, he deserves it not; and as for fame, he has not taste for it at all! To these causes is to be attributed, perhaps, his insensibility to the force or power of argument. [465] It is not reasonable that a person who has so far wandered from the common sentiments, feelings, and, indeed, nature of the species, could feel the force of arguments. For my part, when I shall be insensible of praise or blame, of any difference other than utility between virtue and vice, I shall then consider myself incapable of distinguishing the truth or force of any argument. And, therefore, taking all these things into view, I do not wonder that Mr. Owen cannot be convinced.

      There was, notwithstanding, one good omen--one symptom of returning conviction in his last address. He qualified his denunciation of Christianity with these remarkable words, "As it is now taught." He did admit that I had given such an exhibition of the genius and spirit of Christianity, as to make it appear most excellent. My opponent would not venture to attack the Bible Christianity, but "Christianity as it is now taught." But even with his reservation I cannot admit this sweeping denunciation. Mr. Owen's social system has never been tested; but his materialist or atheistical system has been tested. France, revolutionary France, can tell the tale. Equality and liberty--no religion, no God, no hereafter. On the gates of the graveyards were inscribed, "Death an everlasting sleep!" The division of time into weeks of seven days, because it was of no human origin, became obnoxious to the materialists; and nothing short of an indiscriminate obliteration of every vestige of Christianity, even to new-modifying the divisions of time, would satiate their deadly antipathy against everything like religion. Paris, in 1789, under the domination of the infamous Robespierre and his brethren, is a pretty good example of the tendency of the no praise, no blame system; and an admirable per contra to the assertion that Christianity, in its present form, is the greatest curse that can happen to a nation. I think not so bad as atheism when it had the ascendant, Mr. Owen himself being judge.

      Christianity has its direct and its indirect influences upon society. The direct or the reflex light of this holy religion affects almost every man in the region where it shines. It shines into the hearts of some, and in their lives it is reflected as from a mirror upon all around. And thus some are Christianized, more are moralized, and all are, in some good degree, civilized by its light. A single pious man in a village is a restraint upon the wickedness and profanity of all the villagers. I have known some instances, and have heard of others, where a general deterioration of morals has followed the death or removal of a good man out of a small town or neighborhood. There is a charm, there is an indescribable influence in the genuine fruits of Christianity, which, when exhibited in living Christians, the most abandoned are constrained to respect. Hence an increase of genuine Christians [466] is one of the greatest national blessings--if, indeed, it be a truth that righteousness exalteth a nation.

      But, says Mr. Owen, where is the Christian now living whose whole life is not in direct contradiction to his professions? Christianity certainly is highly eulogized in this challenge; so excellent that it condemns in every point the best man living! By this appeal to our modesty, Mr. Owen has prevented us from pointing to any one present, and he would not believe, upon any testimony, anything favorable of the absent living. We shall then have to go to the dead. I have, then, just lately heard, that in this city two very aged Christians recently died, both members of the Methodist church, in whose house we now meet. The one had been sixty years, and the other forty, professors of the Christian religion--both of the most unexceptionable reputation; living proofs of the excellency of the religion which they professed, and conformed to it in temper and behavior. But after thus giving a new sort of "argumentum ad hominem," or "ad modestiam," Mr. Owen is ready to claim all the men of large souls, of great minds, as of his creed, while we have not one--no, not one who lives up to the Christian religion. I fear Mr. Owen is, in this respect, of that jaundiced or distempered eye to which everything appears discolored. There is a malady called hysteria, corporeal and mental too. Some of those laboring under a real mental hysteria, cherish their hallucinations until at last they imagine that demonstration itself is not half so clear as their wild conceptions. In this state of mind all arguments are thrown away. It is much more difficult to convince a man whose mind is in this morbid state, that it is to convince the most confirmed hypochondriac, that his legs are not made of glass, or that there is not some other peculiarity in his composition. But Mr. Owen will have all the sons of science, all the enlightened minds in the world, on his side of the question. Let him make out his list; we have ours ready; here it is (Mr. C. pointed to a manuscript). We are prepared to show that all the fathers of modern science, in fact, that all the men of profound erudition, and of mighty enterprise, are of the Christian school. This, however, is no argument; but when Mr. Owen gives his cloud of witnesses, ours shall be forthcoming.

      The most intelligent persons in Europe, Mr. Owen says, "are well aware that all religious mysteries and miracles are opposed to reason, and therefore abandon them to men who discard reason." Thus, by the authority of these "intelligent men," Mr. Owen would rebut all argument and demonstration. But we must have faith in Mr. Owen's testimony about these intelligent men; and hence Mr. Owen requires us to exercise faith in his mere assertion as the best weapon he can [467] wield against the Christian faith. I might tell Mr. Owen in the same loose style, that I believe that all the mysteries and miracles (meaning thereby the pretended miracles and artificial mysteries of popery), were all contrary to reason. But what of that? Will my arguing, or my proving that certain bank bills are counterfeits, prove that all bank bills are counterfeits; and that there is not a genuine bank note? No, nor ever was, nor ever will be.

      We want, moreover, to hear the names of some of these "intelligent men." Perhaps they are the skeptics of France and Germany, and not an intelligent man among them. We must first agree that they are intelligent men, and then to refer this discussion to them as arbitrators before their verdict will be of any consequence. Mr. Owen may tell us we are "insane," "blind as moles," and that he sees like Argus; is sane, a sage, a philosopher, a reasoner, a logician, a standard of reason; and with the powerful artillery of such browbeating syllogisms, and with such egotistic demonstrations among the vulgum pecus, the common mass of society, who think that he who asserts most stoutly and arrogates most to himself is the hero, the logician, and the philosopher, he may obtain faith, confidence, and admiration. But the really intelligent would always discriminate between argument and assertion, between logic and calumny, between philosophy and egotism.

      Were I to talk about sanity of mind, I would undertake to prove that every atheist under heaven is insane; and that there can be no greater proof of insanity than to hear a person say that there is no God. Such persons may, like other insane persons, be rational upon many other subjects. But by all the arguments, counting them one by one, by which any person is proved to be insane, I will engage logically to prove, that all atheists are insane. By atheists, here I mean those who oppose the being and government of God, after having heard and understood the terms and phrases used in the Holy Scriptures upon this subject.

      Mr. Owen puts into the mouth of reason certain interrogatories, which, of course, his obsequious reason answers, just to suit him. This reason is more religious than Mr. Owen, for it acknowledges its Creator; and unreservedly complies with all his requisitions. "Reason would ask ten thousand questions of this nature," says he, "to not one of which could a rational answer be given." Yes, but Sir Isaac Newton's reason and Mr. Owen's reason are very different sorts of matter. What would convince the former would not convince the latter; and what would convince the latter would appear ridiculous in the eyes of the former. The secret is here, my friends, there is no inconsistency at all in Mr. Owen's system. For, you know, there can be nothing [468] crooked unless there be something straight. Now, Mr. Owen has a vast advantage over us Christians; there is something straight in our system to which he can compare, and by which he can measure, and which will show all our aberrations; but there is nothing in his system by which we can measure, or to which we can compare any part of it. Everything with Mr. Owen is quite straight. If a child kill its mother, it is quite right, for it is according to nature; if it support and honor its mother, it is quite right, for it is according to nature or necessity. All things are straight; that is, exactly conformable to necessity. Mr. Owen, then, has a system of straight lines, and nothing in it is crooked. There is no aberration from necessity, and, therefore, all is straight. There is then no inconsistency in Mr. Owen's scheme. I have but one fault to it, and that is, his measuring-rod is crooked itself; and while he thinks it is straight, he must inevitably be in an error in every comparison of measurement which he makes. A person who has a false standard, who calls a rule straight which is crooked, will err in every measurement. And so all his conclusions are false. If that be a straight line which makes everything straight to which it is applied, then is Mr. Owen's standard correct.

      Mr. Owen, this morning, deeply lamented this weekly preaching institution; or, rather, that no person was permitted to reply. I should not care, provided it did not disturb the worship of a Christian congregation, that every person will rise up in the midst of an assembly, and in good order make his objections to the Christian religion. For my part, I think, if we had a few such gentlemen as Mr. Owen, so privileged as to rise in congregations, calmly to interrogate or to oppose, it would tend much to confirm the Christians, and to confute the skeptics, provided they would reason as my friend, Mr. Owen, reasons. Christianity, like its founder, never loved darkness. It never shunned light. But it would illy suit the peaceful worship of Christian congregations to turn them into debating schools. There is a time for everything. But I think, after the results of the present discussion are appreciated and known, Mr. Owen will think it safer for his cause, that the preachers be permitted to proceed as usual in their weekly sermons.

      I never saw the superiority of the evidences of Christianity so fully exhibited as Mr. Owen's last speech has evinced. He presumed not to attack a single position in my long speech, although he promised to reply to it, and come to "close quarters" as soon as it should be brought to a close. A few general assertions, such as Christianity is all fable, and every way pernicious, constitute the inventory of the whole of the magazine of Mr. Owen's logic against it. This eclaircissement fully proves Dr. Chalmers' position that there is nothing left [469] after the argument for Christianity is fairly stated, but a firm belief of it, or atheism.

      Mr. Owen has said that I have made my defense of Christianity to rest upon testimony alone, or that I have made Christianity altogether a matter of faith. This is true, but not as Mr. Owen represent it. I do certainly contend that Christianity is legitimately founded upon historic facts, and that it is properly a matter of belief. But I have done more than was necessary to be done; I have by one philosophic series of reasonings shown that no man philosophically or rationally can object to the Christian religion; and that upon principles of reason he is compelled to assent to the divine truth of Christianity. I know Mr. Owen intends to communicate an idea something like this: that I have conceded that a person cannot prove Christianity to be divine, upon principles of reason, and must make it altogether a matter of belief through a fatal necessity; and faith, passing for little else than superstition among skeptics, he thinks his cause pretty safe with the skeptics upon this representation of my defense. This is, then, not a correct statement in the meaning which he intends to convey. I have shown that if a person act rationally, upon principles of reason, they must assent to the truth and certainty of the Christian religion, as supernatural and divine. I have called the argument based upon these principles a philosophic argument in the singular number, though comprising many distinct arguments, as the historic argument is one. I must call upon Mr. Owen to admit that I have produced one philosophic argument which he has not in one instance attempted to oppugn. He may call it by what name he pleases; but I am thoroughly convinced neither he nor any skeptic on the globe can shake it. I only have to regret that I was not opposed with earnestness and ability on this topic, because, then, I would have illustrated and confirmed it more fully. An attempt to refute it on the part of Mr. Owen, would be more compatible with the character of a truth-loving philosopher, than to hear such unfounded assertions as that "I am unprepared to discuss the evidences of Christianity upon any other ground than that of testimony."

[COD 458-470]