course, we who are the greatest, the wisest, and the best here on earth. If reason does not teach this, our pride and our vanity are all put to confusion, and our marvellous attainments are of no value! This, to be sure, is intolerable. It must not be so. Let us go to work now in earnest, and make reasonable calculations. But as it is not modest to be talking about ourselves, we will make our calculations in regard to others, having ourselves in mind all the time. Which will enjoy the most happiness in the immortal state, St. Peter, or Ananias? The latter lied to the Holy Ghost, and then died; the former denied Jesus, and cursed and swore that he knew not the man, and was rebuked by his Master, and by him called Satan; and was withstood to his face by St. Paul, for his dissimu lation. Will not Peter remember, in the immortal world, his base conduct here? and will not Ananias remember his foul lie? Well, if they both remember these things, will not such recollection render them both less blessed than they would have been had they never done those things? If this be granted, it does not determine which of the two will enjoy the most. Let us try another case. Take those wicked enemies of Jesus, who maliciously procured his crucifixion, and his disciples who preached his gospel, and suffered death for his cause. Which of

these classes will enjoy the most in the immortal state? Is it said, that reason, without a moment's pause, answers, the disciples will enjoy far the most happiness in that state? If this be said, we have some important queries to suggest. 1. Does reason, enlightened by the Scriptures, allow that divine wisdom had no design in the crucifixion of Jesus? 2. If it be allowed that God designed this event, does not reason teach us that he also designed all the means by which it was accomplished? If our reason will not consent to this, it is of no use to us, and the less we have to do with it the better. But the fact is, reason, enlightened by the Scriptures, does fully assent to the fact. However humiliating it may be to allow this, allow it we must. 3. Did God design the crucifixion of Jesus, and design that the enemies of Jesus should do this act, and did he design all this for good? Reason, now having got into the divine light, answers in the affirmative. Now suppose, that in the eternal, immortal state, it should please

the Father of the spirits of all flesh, to open this whole plan to the clear vision of all concerned in it, what does reason say will be the effect on those who were the enemies of Jesus? Will such a discovery, if such be ever made, cause those who crucified the Son of God to hide their faces with shame, and forever to lament the deed? or will it cause them to be sensible of their entire dependence on God, and to be wholly swallowed up in the bright glory of divine wisdom, and the ocean of God's mercy?

Should such a scene as above suggested be exhibited in the immortal state, does reason lead us to suppose that the enjoyments of those who crucified Jesus will be less on account of their having done this deed? Will they, to all eternity, enjoy less than they would have enjoyed had they not done it? Will those disciples of Jesus, who published his gospel, and suffered in his cause, feel that they are entitled to more enjoyment than those who persecuted them? How are we to dispose of this subject? These disciples love those who were, in this world, their enemies; and they love them as they love themselves; yet claim for themselves more than they are willing those whom they love as themselves should enjoy. O, not so. This would be open hypocrisy. No, these disciples must be sincere; they must love those who persecuted them as they love themselves, and, of course, must wish them as much happiness as they themselves enjoy. This is the right spirit; this is the very image of Jesus. In the light of this spirit of love we see that, if what the enemies of Jesus did in this world affects them in the immortal state to their disadvantage, it will equally affect the disciples, to their disadvantage. There is no way to avoid this argument, but by ridding ourselves of this spirit of love and meekness. Once get rid of this, and nothing remains to obstruct our onward course. We may be loud and even clamorous about distinctions in the immortal state, and therewith nourish that vanity and pride which now love to feed on such air. And we may build our highest hopes of heaven. hereafter, on that which shuts us out of heaven here.

But it is time to draw to a conclusion. But first let us take one general survey of the whole subject. Does Christianity teach us that all men, who have sinned and come short of the glory of God, will be, on account of sin, less

happy in the immortal state, than they would have been if sin had never existed? Here we have the whole subject before us. If we answer the question in the affirmative, we impeach both the wisdom and goodness of God. If we answer the question, as we ought, in the negative, we, necessarily, repudiate the belief that sin committed in this mortal state will lessen the enjoyment of the immortal.

Now, candid reader, be careful to compare the foregoing reasoning, and the result at which we have arrived, with the three positions, consistently with which we have endeavored to keep, in all the arguments here presented; and decide whether there be any want of consistency in the whole. If the Creator had a design, in his infinite mind, when he created mankind, which reached to the final destiny of all the human family; and if in that design impartial goodness was a prominent attribute; and if all the events in time, which have any influence in determining the final state of men, are under the control and direction of that wisdom and power which designed and executed the work of creation, and if all must contribute to the accomplishment of the divine purpose, is it possible to disprove the result here presented?

Farther to assist us to a correct view of the whole subject, let us suppose that the final state of our whole race is reached. Now can we suppose, that our Creator, in view of all past time and events, and with a perfect knowledge of the condition of every man, sees any one in a condition less favorable than infinite, impartial goodness desires? Or can we reasonably believe that he sees how events might have been varied to the advantage of any? Moreover, let us ask if we have reason to suppose, that in this state, there are any who regret that their condition is not like that of others? To the understanding of the Christian, who loves his fellow-creatures as he loves himself, can any thing be clearer than the fact, that when he sees a want of enjoyment in others, he feels a corresponding want in himself?

If any one should be so short-sighted, and so hasty as to say, that if the moral evil, existing in this mortal state, will not lessen the enjoyments of man's final condition, we have nothing to restrain us from indulging in sin; he

may be required to solve us the question, why he does not eagerly pursue means to bring on himself all the bodily pain he possibly can, if he does not believe that the pains which the body suffers in this life will lessen his enjoyments in his final, immortal state.

H. B.

ART. V.

Fourierism, and similar Schemes.

A Popular View of the Doctrines of Charles Fourier. By Parke Godwin, &c. &c. New York: J. S. Redfield, Clinton Hall, corner of Nassau and Beekman streets, &c. 1844. 8vo. pp. 120.

A concise Exposition of the Doctrine of Association, or Plan for a Reorganization of Society, which will secure to the Human Race, individually and collectively, their happiness and exaltation. (Based on Fourier's Theory of Domestic and Industrial Association.) By Albert Brisbane, &c &c. Fourth edition. New York: J. S. Redfield, Clinton Hall, &c. 1843. 8vo. pp. 80.

We do not mention these two pamphlets with the design of reviewing them, or of entering into a strictly critical analysis of their doctrine. For such an undertaking we acknowledge that we are not prepared, either by adequate information, or by sufficient maturity of thought, on the subject. Still, we have some general views, which we wish to present, in relation to Fourierism and other plans of the same sort for reorganizing society.

That the social arrangements of the civilized world may be greatly improved in the future, as they have been in the past, is, we trust, too reasonable a proposition to be doubted; and that some useful suggestions towards the work may be found in these new theories, as well as elsewhere, is not at all improbable. But in considering the merits of Fourierism and of the kindred schemes, we ought never to forget that such mere improvement is not their object. This fact should be clearly understood at the outset, and kept in mind throughout the examination. We may see, in our existing relations, many evils to be rectified; we may sigh for a better state of things; but all this does not imply any leaning whatsoever towards the hypotheses of

which we speak. They stand on separate ground, on ground peculiar to themselves. What they propose, is, not to improve our present system of society, but to abolish it entirely, and to construct a new one in its stead. One of the mottos on the title-page of Mr. Brisbane's pamphlet, is the following sentence from Fourier: "The error of reformers is to condemn this or that abuse of society; whereas, they should condemn the whole system of society itself, which is a circle of abuses and defects throughout. We must extricate ourselves from this social abyss." It will be found that our authors mean, deliberately and systematically mean, all that this motto expresses. What the doctrine of total depravity, in its worst form, is with respect to individuals, these doctrines are with respect to society. According to them, it is a complication of abuses and defects only; it is not to be reformed; it is to be overthrown, and then made up anew, from its very first elements. They who do not go to this length, have no part nor lot in the new doctrines; they are merely old-fashioned reformers, on very different principles. Society, which, one might think, must have grown up out of the social wants of human nature, though, of course, with all the imperfections of human nature, has unaccountably happened to grow up in thorough contravention of those wants, directly against the very demands that gave it birth and form. It came up wrong-end-foremost, like the beans in the famous abstractionist's garden.

It is proposed, therefore, to supersede this inverted state of things, by bringing mankind together into a new kind of Associations. Fourierism lays down the following plan, which, in general, answers well enough for a specimen of all the plans proposed. Each Association shall consist, say, of 400 families, (a smaller number might suffice for a partial experiment,) or about 1800 persons, on a sufficient tract of choice land for agriculture, a domain perhaps three miles square; in the centre of which, a vast and elegant edifice shall be built, with suitable apartments to accommodate them in the best manner, and with workshops around for carrying on all the mechanical trades, as well as with halls, temples, &c., for amusement and instruction. Into this Association every member brings his property, and receives a certificate which secures to him a 5

VOL. II.