our nature, the religious self-consciousness of man, and the revelations of God to the individual soul, from having any voice on the subject of this treatise, or (as we conclude) in the settlement of religious belief at all. We must now, however, add that we do not differ from Mr. Heinfetter in his results (as far as we see them) in the same way as we do in his premises. We think on the contrary that he throws out a valuable hint in the great question of Materialism and Immaterialism: and to throw out a single ray of true thought on this profound inquiry, is no small service. Our Author starts with the received theory of man's nature, that he consists of body and spirit: and he maintains that not only is this true of man, but of every existence known to man: that there is therefore but one species of existence of which we are cognizant, and that this is invariably distinguished by the combination of form and spirit, of inward and outward being. In proof of this he shows that all spirits, made known to us in the Scriptures (the sole or at least chief repository of our knowledge), are represented to us as seen, heard, or felt, and are only known to us as having bodies. Thus ". we look on him that was pierced." The spirits of the just are to cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabbaoth, and to wear crowns of gold. Even the Almighty looks down from Heaven-speaks-is in Heaven-sits upon a throne, and (if the Author had chosen to quote a thousandth part of the anthropomorphical expressions of the Old Testament writers) has limbs, senses and motions as human beings have. All spirits therefore of which man knows anything belong to the same species of existence as himself, as far as the possession of a material or formal existence as well as of a spiritual is concerned. It does not, however, follow that the matter, any more than the spirit, of all is the same. Present matter is corruptible and immortal; spiritual is incorruptible and immortal. Spirit therefore is not a term of opposition to a material body, but only to the material body of man. "Spirit only stands in opposition to body, as descriptive of a new form of Material body." "A spirit is an existence not of matter of the present life -a body is an existence of matter of the present life." The words, "a spirit stood before the Lord, does not assert or imply that what stood before the Lord was that which Thus had no body, but only that it was that whose body was not of matter of the present life."-(Pp. 3, 4.) Thus then the mode of human immortality is indicated-the old human body dies, but the spirit is immortal and is clad in a new body, even the more glorious body of our risen Saviour. At least this we presume to be our Author's theory, as it has long been our own. The vicious influence, however, of the Author's false premises leads him, as we infer, to take every anthropomorphic expression used in the Old Testament in describing God, as the very word and wisdom of God, and thus he is brought to a conclusion from which we shrink, but which is thus boldly stated: "God is a spirit does not assert or imply that God has not an Incorruptible and Immortal Body, but only that God is not, like Man, of Matter of the Present Life. Let me not be charged with presuming to assert what Almighty God is. I contend not for the productions of the Invention or Imagination either of myself or others; all that I assert is this-that it has not pleased Almighty God to reveal to Man anything respecting himself, or any species of Existence, but that which is, as far as Man has knowledge, attendant on and proper to a Material Existence; hence it follows that the Idea of an Immaterial Existence is not warranted by Holy Scripture, and consequently, that unless Man can adduce the evidence of his Senses in its support, its origin and existence can alone be attributed to the Invention and Imagination of Man."-Pp. 4, 5. Now that spirit may exist in material forms different from the present material form of man, and thus that the spiritual existences, we call angels, may be material as well as spiritual; that man himself may hereafter exist as a spirit with a different material body from that in which he now exists; and that therefore we must not conclude that every form of spirit is a contradiction of matter, and that spirits are disembodied-we allow with the Author. But are we compelled to add that because the Bible speaks of God in human, and in anthropomorphic language, that no spirit can exist without the distinctness and limitation of an outward material form of some kind? That this law of spiritual existence which our Author shows to be a real law as far as man is concerned, and a probable law as far as other beings and man himself in his futurity are concerned, is therefore an universal law? That not only does spirit exist in material forms, and may continue to exist in new material forms, but that it must ever and under all conditions so exist, that there is no such thing as pure spirit, and that the Almighty himself must exist under some form of corporality? We must be pardoned for preferring some of the products of a reverential invention and imagination in this reference to the dogmatic limitations of our Author's conclusions from Reason and Revelation. It must not, however, be supposed from what has now been adduced that the Author of this Treatise is deficient either in reverence or in charity. In proof of his possession of both, and to bring this notice to a close, we may quote the following sentiment: "Union of opinion will not be obtained by condemning to Eternal Perdition all who differ in opinion from ourselves, till an infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture be proved to exist. In condemning those, perhaps in the words of Holy Scripture, who receive God's word in a sense we deem false, we do not, as is asserted, condemn the rejection of God's word, but of our own interpretation of it, that is, we condemn the rejection of our opinion.”—Introduction, vi. "Few as these pages are, they have cost years of study; and I can appeal to the Searcher of all hearts that scarcely one contemplation has been directed to the subject, either by night or day, abroad or at home, in solitude or in the busy throng, that His assistance has not been sought, and acknowledged as indispensable to the accomplishment of any beneficial result."-P. 76. Postscript to Article III. IN the Revue des Deux Mondes, published on the 1st of June, is an Article "Des Travailleurs dans nos Grandes Villes," by M. le Mal B. . . . .-written evidently by a person of experience, which gives some valuable testimony as to the working of Socialism, where it has been attempted to put it in practice. We extract for those of our readers who may not have an opportunity of seeing the original, the following paragraphs :— "In proposing for adoption the agricultural colony of M. Louis Blanc," (i. e. in Algeria, and as a means of drawing off a part of the population employed in manufactures,) "I am far from expressing an opinion in favour of his System of Association and Solidarity. And my reason is this: While I was in Africa, I witnessed the creation of three military villages, placed under the condition of labour in common. The Colonists were all young and vigorous; they were animated with the spirit of companionship; they were accustomed to a common mess (la communauté de la gamelle) and the uniformity of a military life; though Colonists, they had rations and their pay, which made them less dependant on the produce of their labour. Notwithstanding this, the three villages, at the end of a year, independently of each other, begged to be released from the Association and to give up their working in common. The reasons assigned by the Colonists of the three villages were all the same:-there is no emulation; no one feels that he is working for himself; there is no working; we are on the same footing as the idle. The Association was dissolved; emulation revived; and the villages prospered. This is a fact, and can be verified. The villages of which I speak, are those of Mered, Mahelma, and Foucka, in the neighbourhood of Algiers. "Still I think it would be well, for the instruction of the public, to repeat the experiment in one or two Colonies, and apply to them the complete system of the Socialists. Africa, where we are founding a New Society, is the field for our Reformers to try their experiments-not our Old Society, where their ideas can only introduce war and ruin. Let a trial then be made in Algeria of Socialism in all its forms-Association on the plan of M. Louis Blanc-Fourierism-complete ComCHRISTIAN TEACHER.-No.41. 2 G munism.. Let the State come forward liberally in aid of this experiment; the tax-payers will have no reason to complain; and for my part I would willingly contribute towards such an object. It is urgently necessary that the public should know from wellascertained facts, what to think of these theories which trouble the country, and with promises of abundance plunge it in a depth of misery."-P. 799. |