Rev. Joseph Mather opens his tract by directly quoting Robert Owen's claim that all religions are 'human laws in opposition to nature's eternal laws.' Rather than engaging with Owen's economic proposals, Mather immediately frames the debate as a contest of authorities: the Bible versus Owen's self-declared system. He warns against abandoning known comforts for an untested promise, invoking the fable of the dog that dropped its meat for a shadow. This rhetorical strategy sets the tone for a work that proceeds by contrast rather than by systematic exposition.

Authority and Evidence

Mather's primary argument rests on the nature of evidence. He contrasts the Bible's miracles, prophecies, and 'beautiful simplicity' with Owen's lack of credentials. The Bible's writers claim divine origin; Owen offers only his own assertions. Mather insists that before abandoning Christianity, one must be convinced that Owen's system is 'a superior good'—and he finds no such proof. The tract does not examine Owen's economic theories but instead demands that Owen provide equivalent testimonies for his 'New Moral World.' This focus on evidentiary standards reveals Mather's assumption that religious and social systems must meet the same burden of proof.

The New Harmony Experiment as Counterevidence

Mather devotes substantial space to the failure of Owen's community at New Harmony, Indiana. He quotes a detailed account by Mr. Flint: the settlement's location, its purchase from a German religious sect, and its rapid decline. Within a year, the society 'began to moulder.' Mather highlights internal divisions—educated members kept apart from 'tatterdemalions,' young ladies formed an 'aristocratical club.' The experiment, conducted under Owen's personal supervision with ample resources, collapsed. Mather uses this as empirical proof that Owen's principles cannot succeed, even in ideal conditions. He mocks the notion that what failed in America could thrive in England.

Rhetorical Tactics and Audience

Mather writes for a readership already convinced of Christianity's value. He employs rhetorical questions ('What evidence does Mr. Owen furnish?'), direct address ('let me ask'), and appeals to common sense. His language is combative: Owen's followers are 'dupes.' The tract is published by the Religious Tract Society, indicating its intended use in evangelical outreach. Mather does not attempt to understand Owen's system on its own terms; instead, he reduces it to a set of claims that can be dismissed by comparison with biblical authority and historical failure. The structure—assertion, contrast, anecdote—is designed for quick persuasion rather than deep analysis.

Readers should note that Mather's tract is a polemic, not a balanced assessment. It assumes the reader shares his Christian commitments and treats Owen's ideas as a threat to be refuted rather than a philosophy to be understood. The excerpts provide only Mather's side of the debate; Owen's own writings would be necessary for a fuller picture. The work is valuable as a specimen of mid-19th-century religious anti-socialist argument, revealing the anxieties and rhetorical strategies of its time.