In “the Book of the New Moral World, by Robert Owen,” and bearing for its motto, “Sacred to truth, without mystery, mixture of error, or fear of man,” the foundation of the system is stated as follows,
“The Five Fundamental Facts, and Twenty Facts and Laws of Human Nature, on which the Rational System is founded.”
In another production entitled, “Outline of the Rational System,” &c. the Five facts are announced without the Twenty, as “the fundamental facts on which the Rational System of Society is founded;” while the Twenty are in no way spoken of as fundamental to the system, but denominated “The Constitution and Laws of Human Nature, or Moral Science of Man.”
In these two announcements, made in the same year, 1837, the Founder of Socialism, though he proclaims himself to the world as the wisest of men, and an infallible guide to happiness, has fallen, you perceive, into flat contradiction, on a point of no less importance than the foundation of his system. For while in the former statement he mentions at least “Twenty Facts and Laws of Human Nature,” as fundamental to his theory, in the latter he describes them as constituting, not the basis of his system, but the system itself, which he manages to found upon the five facts only. And whether he would have us adopt the first or the second of these statements, or, putting up with a little inconsistency, blend them both together; whether we are to regard his five facts as the foundation of the system, to the exclusion of the twenty, or the twenty to the exclusion of the five; and why in the former case the twenty are described as fundamental, or the five in the latter; whether we are to regard them all as equally fundamental, and why, if such be his meaning, the whole might not have been announced as the Five-and-twenty facts on which the Rational System is founded; or whether, finally, we are to consider the five fundamental to the twenty, as the twenty, in turn, are fundamental to the system; and, upon this supposition, by what process, excepting that of multiplying by four, he has contrived from his five facts to produce twenty, it is impossible, either from the announcements themselves, or the explanation given of them, to determine. Nor is there any way of accounting for statements so perplexing, at the very beginning of a work “sacred to truth, without mystery, or mixture of error,” (how evidently so ever written without “fear of man,”) unless we conclude either that the author, in imitation of ancient philosophers, designed to be unintelligible, or, in laying the foundation of his system, had dug so deep beneath the level of common sense, as to get lost in darkness. One thing, however, you perceive is certain, that the sole basis on which he pretends to found his opinions, is his knowledge of “human nature:” which may be shewn to be not only imperfect, but, though ever so perfect, insufficient for his purpose.
1. The Socialist's religion, then, is irrational in its basis, because founded upon an imperfect knowledge of human nature. Though it will be easy to evince, when necessary, that his boasted “facts and laws” are, many of them, nothing but unproved and worthless assertions, it will be sufficient for the general argument which we are now maintaining, to shew that his knowledge of man falls short of perfection. Professing to give a perfect standard of belief and practice, both with regard to our Maker and our fellow-men, he demands from us nothing less than the consignment of our entire happiness to his care; and consequently is bound, though there were no absurdity in making a knowledge of our nature only the ground of such lofty pretensions, to convince us that his acquaintance with that subject is complete. Because, if otherwise, he founds his system in partial ignorance of the nature for which he undertakes the work of universal legislation; and, for any thing he can affirm to the contrary, ignorance of what may be closely connected with its highest obligations, and most stupendous destinies. Our present argument, therefore, turns upon the simple inquiry, does the Founder of “the Rational System” possess an acquaintance with human nature thus perfect? Unabashed by the examples of great men in all ages, who by common consent have bewailed the deficiency of their knowledge, he answers this question, if we are to judge from his writings, in the affirmative. His book, as we have already seen, is “sacred to truth, without mystery, or mixture of error;” he pronounces his dogmas to be “divine,” “eternal and universal truths;” declares that they “demonstrate what human nature is,” and are in unity with “all” and “every part” of nature; and modestly triumphing in his immeasurable superiority to the wisdom of all nations and all ages, the wisdom not only of earth but of Heaven, “how opposed,” he exclaims, “are the harmony and unity of this science, to all the religions and codes of laws invented by the past generations of men, while ignorant of their own organization, and of the laws of nature!” But such pretensions, without covering the ignorance, only serve to shew the vanity and presumption in which his system is rooted; and it would be well for him to remember, that the boast of infallibility, whatever its success under the darkness of the middle ages, is sure, in the present day, to meet with pity or derision instead of reverence, being invariably regarded by wise men as the most hopeless symptom of dullness or insanity.
On the supposition, however, of its being necessary to put the perfection of his knowledge of human nature to the test, we have no occasion to torture him either with long or abstruse interrogation, since a few questions on one of the most simple occurrences of life will be sufficient for our purpose. If, for instance, we ask him to explain the process by which he lifts his arm? he replies with promptitude, “volition moves the brain, the brain the nerves, the nerves the muscles, and the muscles the bones, integuments, and skin, and thus the whole arm is put in motion.” But when we ask further, how volition moves the brain, or how the brain stimulates the nerves? the question strikes him dumb, and he stands in speechless ignorance before the most lenient tribunal of inquiry. Yet this blind and helpless creature, who cannot explain the twinkling of an eyelid, or the movement of a limb, but, as he creeps through life, picks up mystery at every step, places himself as a candidate for our faith, in opposition to the Lord and Saviour of the world; and offering to illuminate the path of happiness with his discoveries, calls upon us to toss away, and extinguish, if possible, the Lamp of life.
But, irrational as his pretensions to knowledge have been already found, let us view them in connection with some of the leading principles of his own system, and their absurdity will appear yet more glaring and contemptible. “Man,” he tells us, “is the creature of circumstances;” and, though he scoffs at the christian doctrines of the fall and depravity of our nature, he holds a theory of original sin and corruption peculiar to himselft Instead of the agency of Satan, whose existence he denies, he attributes the fall of man to the intervention of magistrates and priests; the latter, by the inculcation of religion, and the former, by the enforcement of laws, especially the law of marriage. Consequently, the whole human race have sunk into a state of ignorance, vice, wretchedness, and irrationality, entirely artificial. Their very organization, he affirms, has lamentably degenerated, and that to raise one of them from this condition, is utterly impossible, without an entire revolution in their circumstances.”
Now admitting, for the sake of argument, these statements to be true, whence, we naturally inquire, has the Founder of Socialism derived that perfection of knowledge and virtue, which renders him so infallible a guide to happiness? Generated from the common mass of corruption, and bred amidst circumstances which “compel men without their will” to be unnaturally vicious, ignorant, wretched, and irrational, he could never, according to his own theory, possess either the capacity or materials of wisdom; and, if desirous of being consistent, is reduced to the alternative either of renouncing his principles or his pretensions. But, in the reasoning of the Socialist, consistency is ef little importance; and, therefore, in defiance both of his five “fundamental facts and his twenty facts and laws of human nature,” he professes to have become mise, though born as the mild ass's colt. “The character of man is formed for him and not by him;” yet this mysterious being has formed a character of perfect excellence for himself. “Though man is the creature of circumstances,” he has not only successfully resisted their power, but, resolving to change the condition of the world, intends to shew that while man is the creature of circumstances, circumstances are the creatures of man. Artificial by education, and even by birth, with nothing too but what is artificial around him, he has become a perfect child of nature, in habit, feeling, and thought. From a book of unmingled falsehood, he has acquired the knowledge of unadulterated truth; in a land of Egyptian darkness, a darkness that may be felt, he has contrived, though hermetically sealed against a gleam from Heaven, to fill himself with unclouded light: and, throwing open the treasury of his knowledge to the world, offers to enrich mankind with sterling maxims of virtue, wisdom, and happiness, which have avowedly been drawn from a bank of wretchedness, insanity, and crime. When, therefore, the author of “the moral science of man” proclaims himself a teacher of “truth, without mystery or mixture of error,” offers himself as an infallible guide to all governments, all classes and nations, and professes to have found the means which, without the intervention of a miracle, shall transform “a Pandemonium into a terrestrial Paradise,” what, let me ask, can equal the absurdity of such pretensions except the folly of believing them! And since the root of his system is rottenness, what can be expected but that the blossom therof should go up as dust!
2. But were the views of human nature, upon which Socialism is based, not thus necessarily defective, it would still be irrational in its foundation, because the mere knowledge of man is too narrow, a ground upon which to dogmatize on morals and religion. As there are five fingers to the hand, and five senses to the body, let us admit that the “Fundamental facts of human nature” are neither more nor less than the “five” which the Socialist has given us; so that to extend them into six, or reduce them down to four, would be treason to common sense. Instead of multiplying them by four, and thus, as we have already hinted, converting them into twenty secondary facts, let us also suppose that to multiply by five, which makes them five-and-twenty, or by three, which reduces them to fifteen, would be a daring outrage against truth. Let us accept, I say, these arithmetical whims of the system, as the soundest logic and purest philosophy; compared with which, the discoveries of Newton are only as the transient gleam of a dew-drop to the immortal glitter of a star; yet how, from the contemplation of five, or twenty, or five-and-twenty, or any number of facts concerning human nature only, can he acquire the right of perpetual dictatorship in religion? or pronounce, with the infallible certainty which he professes, what it is safe to believe or disbelieve, to do or leave undone, in relation to the eternal God?
That some of the truths, both of religion and morality, may be drawn from the study of man, we readily allow; and, had the Socialist offered his opinions to the world as nothing more than the partial conclusions of a mind conscious of imperfection and liability to err, he never could have been assailed from our present position. But he professes to give the entire sum of religious truth and duty. He presumes to tell mankind that they are irrational in extending the circumference of their faith or practice a single inch beyond the puny circle of his discoveries; and, as he professes that his claims to implicit reverence are founded upon the observation of human nature only, his system is manifestly absurd in the main principle upon which it rests. Every relation supposes the existence of at least two parties; and, in order that we may understand the duties which lie between them, it is necessary that both should be considered. But the Socialist, admitting the existence of a First Cause, who sustains towards man the relation of a supreme, creative, and disposing power, absurdly and impiously presumes, with, avowedly, nothing but his observations on the inferior party before him, to scoff at the idea of revelation, and fix the obligations of creatures to their God.
In order that a servant might understand the duties owing to his master, would it be sufficient that he should consult simply his own inclinations; and, finding himself an idle, selfish, and sensual being, conclude that he had nothing more to do than, taking wages without work, to expend them on his lusts? Yet such is an exact illustration of the principle upon which “the children of the New Moral World” have founded their religion. To know what they owe to God, they look exclusively at man. To know the sun, they look at the moon. Consulting neither the nature nor the will of the Being who made them, they consider only themselves; and, finding in their hearts principles of selfishness, sensuality, and hatred to the Divine service, call upon mankind to quit the worship of God; and, regarding nothing but their worldly happiness, to live and die like the brutes which perish. Thus these modern Babel-builders, like those in the plains of Shinar, take for their basis a narrow space of earth; and, forgetting that a fabric so founded must end in a point infinitely short of their object, say to their fellows, “Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top shall reach to heaven.” So proceeding to their work, they have brick for stone, and slime have they for mortar, assertions for facts, and dogmatism for argument; and thus they rear a structure, which begins in error, rises in discord, and terminates in vain babblings and confusion.
