noble eulogies that were lavished, in this | respect, upon the Christian religion by those who became shocked at St. Simonism and forsook it, though singularly enough they refused to return to the Christianity which they so admired. We would thus first call forth Bazard, for a while the intimate and highest associate of Enfantin, to bear testimony that you pense worthy of your heart. God wishes you for a spouse; you shall be the spouse of Christ. Is it not true, that if you did love upon earth, could be faithful; that you would undergo all would know how to love really; that you tortures for him you loved; that you would die for him every momemt of your life? Learn then my secret: . . . this Lover exists, he is the greatest; he is the most beautiful; he is the most Divine of all, and he wishes that you suffer for him. Keep only your faith towards him, and you shall one day see him! 66 Michael Angelo, the sublime painter, trans Christianity, in requiring the consent of woman as a necessary condition of her union with man, in abolishing polygamy, in condemn-lated this thought, when he represented the ing adultery equally in husband and wife, in women in his Last Judgment as rising naturalpronouncing their union indissoluble, has pluck-ly towards heaven, as the iron is drawn towards the magnet. ed woman from a state of slavery, has made her the associate of man, in one word, has founded marriage.”* Socialism is never tired nor ashamed of crying out that it alone, it first, is going to emancipate woman, by making her independent of man; to emancipate her, again, by giving her up to follow her pas sions. And we in answer could not desire better than to quote whole pages from the pen of another of the early associates of the St. Simonians; one, however, who, like others of his philosophy, talks of Christianity as beautiful in its time, but alas, quite worn out quite dead! We mean Pierre Leroux, in the Revue Independant. This writer uses a language, whose confidence and noble force show at once from what armory he has borrowed it, while he asserts that it is in another manner that the true enfranchisement of the sex is to be accomplished; and that not the indulgence but the repression of the passions is the instrument of her true happiness. It is almost indifferent at what page we open, but let us first hear him saying: "Love is a form of equality or of justice, the same that equality or justice is a form of love. Christianity gave equality to woman under the form of love, in its promised paradise, the same as to the poor, and to the lowly in this world, it gave equality under the form of the goods it promised them in another." "Once more then, again, nothing is more certain, Christianity subjected woman to man. But behold the admirable law of compensation! At the same time . . . Christianity established an equilibrium, justice, equality, by saying to woman: You are a being of devotion and of love; know that I have for you a recom "But, to-day that this magnet that drew them towards heaven is destroyed, (i. e. in systems like Fourierism that contemn supernatural religion,) towards what will you that they gravi tate?" Once more, after wading through the pollutions of Fourierism, let us bathe our imaginations in the sentiments of one who, at least as poet and as dreamer, could conceive thus of the Christian religion. Let us listen to the explanation of an allusion which he has just made to the Last Judgment of Michael Angelo:— "What there is to me most beautiful in this picture... is the group of women at the right of Christ, who lift up themselves from the earth, and mount towards heaven, not alone, but carrying men with them. "As if their sufferings, as women, had freed them of the sluggish bond which holds men down to the earth, they rise by their own weight, so to say, towards the heavenly abode, without wings and without angels to assist their brothers and lovers to ascend. These, them. Nay, they themselves bear up, and help leaning on their shoulders and on their breast, indicate wonderously well the property that these women have to ascend, as a body lighter than the air, an aerostat, for example, rises so soon as one has broken its chain. . . . . It seems to me that the particular condition of women on earth, under the law of Christianity is expressed there with a sublime art. Subordination upon earth, but a redemption proportionate when the trumpet of the last judgment shall sound...." "Marriage supposes heaven for corrective. St. Augustine ends a sermon on marriage by showing women that the true marriage is that which they are to contract in the heavenly Jerusalem. All Christian priests have done as St. Augustine; all have said to woman: Suffer * "Discussions Morales," &c., première partie. | npon earth! serve man, thy chief; thou art the Such then is the sublime law of self-devotion which Christianity has taught, and which, even in the acknowledgments of one who does not embrace it, has been actually practised upon the earth: "I have said and I have proved that the normal aphorism of woman under the law of Christianity was this wish, which, in effect was uttered by the soul of St. Theresa: Lord! either to suffer or to die." That is, to suffer on earth for the love of heaven, or to die that she might love better in heaven. But Socialists sneer at the love of heaven, and take away even the possibility of love on earth. For, as has often been remarked, love, such as it is understood in Christian society, is no longer possible, when the indissoluble sanction of marriage is removed. We join then with the same writer when he cries, "With selfishness for your law, and pleasure for your aim, go on, society!" Go on, Socialism! Go on Fourierism!" with these two pilots you cannot fail to find quickly the shipwreck you are seeking!" Having spent so much of the space that we feel free to devote to this subject in the consideration of the "practical side" of Socialism-the industrial and social reveries in which it feels so strong-it is fitting now that we advert in few words to some of the more abstract principles of the societary school. For the theological notions of Fourier, we have to be indebted principally to his disciples, as he himself seems to have announced scarcely any formal dogmas of religion. But no long search into his system is necessary to find that it is pantheistic. "Fourier says that Man, like his Planet, like the Universe, like everything that exists, is composed of three Eternal, Uncreated, Indestructible Principles." Therefore he maintains that *Revue Independante, t. I. pp. 27-36. † Popular View, &c., p. 99. man, the earth, the universe, and every thing that exists, is essentially Eternal and Uncreated. But these are the attributes of Godhead and incommunicable. Let us hear the enumeration of this universal trinity: "1st. GOD or MIND, (also life, PASSION;)-the active and moving principle. "2d. MATTER;-the passive or moved principle. 3d. JUSTICE or MATHEMATICS;-the neuter or regulating principle." Here is a theology with a marvel! A principle which is eternal and uncreated is also independent. Fourier has therefore supposed three independent principles, which must destroy his fundamental idea of unity. His three principles can never be resolved into one principle, and that more evidently from the absence of any property of co-ordination among them by which they should hold their being the one from the other. Yet we have found his admiring followers reject as absurd the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, in which, nevertheless, there is but one essential principle, and a co-ordination of the Three Persons. “jas But we shall find Fourier's definitions of God self-destroying in other respects. He attributes to it the necessity of another principle, not it, for its regulator. This "regulating principle" is in morals "jus tice,' in physics "mathematics." The principle, then, which he calls God, he without the property of self-regulation; as conceives of as distinct from justice, and he says himself, it is Passion. And by what is it to be regulated? The only agent that could be found in his system> a principle which has no activity, (a co tradiction in terms,) no free will, no orignating power. The regulator is a neuter principle, though to regulate is something wholly active. But we shall hereafter show that it is truer to Fourier's system to say that it is unregulated. Such are the agroti somnia of Fourier. In every universal system, which Fourierism is, if it be anything, theology proper, or the do trine concerning God, is the master and fundamental science. Can, then, these ravings of a disordered and shameless imagination, be the real basis of the societary theory, which has engaged the affections and efforts of so many young men of tal- | ent and zeal? We shall examine the question a little. It seems that in their vain efforts to escape the charge of materialism or pantheism, Socialists have been unwilling to perceive or acknowledge the real bases of their system, or at least that they show a foolish anxiety to keep up some of the terms of Christianity, which have no place or office in Fourierism. Thus the very term God has in this system a most odd sound, and it would do much to simplify matters if it were wholly omitted. The world, man, and his passions, being rendered independent, would then become divine." Each would be God to each. With this key to Fourier's religious system, we may proceed to consider, as respects man, psychology and theology as identical. The contradiction and conflict that in all ages. man has felt within himself, the sting of passion that urges him to lawless action on the one side, and the natural virtue on the other, which is the foundation of conscience, and consists in a principle by which the light of human reason perceives the principles of all virtue united to a mysterious inclination of will answering to the light-this contradiction and conflict, it has been the prerogative of the Christian revelation to explain. But the explanation is humbling to man's pride, for it ells him that he is the inheritor of a degenerate nature, and that, so surely as in the body death and corruption is the tendency of the natural life, so surely in the soul here is an inclination to spiritual corrupion, which may be combated and checkd, but, no matter what the efforts, can ever be rooted out-no matter what the insom, can never be legitimatized. This esson it is that error has in all ages exausted itself in unlearning, and if it apeared not in the beginning, it has found place at least before the end of every al heresy. Fourier responds to this question in a anner unequivocal. Man, according to m, finds in himself "three eternal prin›les,”—“ mind," which is also passion, pulse, desire, &c., "matter," which is nply passive, and "justice or mathetics," which is to be resolved into the mplex of the eternal laws which regue the movement of matter; and these principles would be in harmony in man, were it not for the artificial embarrassments of the present civilization. Some who have not carefully examined Fourier's principles, might charitably conclude that he intended the "active principle or passion" to be controlled by the "neuter principle" of mathematics or justice. Nothing could be further from his real intention, and this is shown by his calling this passion-principle God. No! passion and justice he makes of accord, and the "regulating principle" has no task but in the transformation and preparation of society and matter for the full and unrestrained play of all the passions. Fourier was in the condition of a man standing between his conscience and his passions, and hearing the appeal of both, and who should accuse his conscience of falsehood, and proclaim his passions as his God and his highest end. And because reason declares that the gratification of his passions, of his natural inclinations generally, is not the end for which man is created, Fourier dements reason itself, for he pronounces that passional attraction legitimate and good, "which persists in spite of the opposition of reason." Thus crime is no crime because it is God, or the work of God; and it is God because God is passion or action unregulated, and because outside of man himself there is none who has the right to call him to account. To the pure Pantheism of St. Simonism, Fourier contributes the contradictory adjunct of a necessary Atheism. "GOD IS ALL THAT WHICH IS." Such was the St. Simonian confession of faith; and Fourier may be said only to have differed from it by the confusion of saying, GOD IS NOTHING IN PARTICULAR. That Fourier's system is utterly pantheistic would be further apparent, should we attempt to follow him through his wild theories of cosmogony. His whole plan commences with the trite figment of human souls being but pieces of the greater planetary soul. This planetary soul, again, has two phases, one divided among its inhabitants, the other indivisible, and forming the intellect of the planet. These planets form groups, the groups a Universe, the Universes a Biniverse, the Biniverses a Triniverse, and so on till at length he arrives-all the while in imagi- | nation at the Infiniverse, which by courtesy he again calls God, though we have already seen him give this title to one only of his "three eternal principles." It is not easy to see whether these mad fancies are the proofs or the consequences of his grand axiom, "Attractions are proportional to destinies;" but it is easy to determine that upon which both alike rest -a disordered imagination. Yet it is on this fancied identity of essence between man and his planet and the universe that reposes that other fancied harmony which is to be produced throughout the world, and which is supposed by Fourier to be capable of arrangement on the precise principles of musical notation. On the same essential identity of "all that is," which is the principle of pantheism, reposes the great axiom of Fourier:-" Attractions are proportional to destinies." But we have neither space, necessity, nor inclination to chase further these vagaries. It suffices to wait till they shall be attempted to be proved as well as asserted. If they be a "discovery," where are the proofs? If a "science," where is their demonstration? If a revelation," where is the authority on which we are bound to receive it? But if they be pure "reveries," how strange must be the infatuation of the men who persist in defending them! They are a discovery only because Fourier imagined their possibility; they form a science only because he attempted to systematize them; they are called a revelation only because those who maintain them deny any God outside of man himself, and consequently any revelation except the production of the human intellect. 66 We have found it convenient in certain parts of this essay, to treat of St. Simonism and Fourierism in common, so far as their notions have agreed with each other. And, indeed, the general identity of the principles of the two is so evident, that the critic must be fastidious who will object to considering them as co-partners in the same heritage of error. Their mission was professedly the same. Starting with the assumption that "all that is, is God," and that the evil that is in the world is either no evil, or an accidental misfortune from which man is competent to redeem himself, they proceeded to legitimatize, to deify the actions and passions of the flesh; to change the notions of right and wrong among men. Historically, indeed, they were distinct, and they differed from each other in the details of their industrial plans-from which we have seen that both took their historical commencement. And, whether by accident, or from the greater energy and practicability of St. Simonism, it gained an earlier opportunity for its full display. Consequently it rushed forward to its catastrophe, and after a tempestuous existence of a few months, outraged humanity could suffer it no longer, and it was dissolved. The attempt to reconstruct the ruined edifice at Constantinople and in Egypt was not more successful. Some of the St. Simonians returned to a profession of Christianity, some became followers of Mohammed, and others were lost in the whirlpool of new delusions. The Fourierites, likewise, even in the life-time of their founder, attempted an establishment at Condé, and have since often renewed their efforts elsewhere. We know little more of them than that they have each failed after a short existence, and that the leaders of the sect are at issue among themselves. As with the St. S monians, it will only be in the practica. workings of the system that all its enormities will appear, and will prove themselves the legitimate deductions of their firs principles; and, therefore, we agree with the remark of M. de Lourdoueix, tha "those who serve best the interests of its existence are those who retard most the realization of its doctrines." We are no prophets. It may be, that · the new state of affairs in France will soor give the Socialists, for a moment, uz bounded liberty and plentiful resources making their experiment. But even if thhappen, we doubt whether the delusion the Fourierites be not so far dispelled that their leaders would no longer hav the profound conviction of the feasibi of their plan, which alone could ner: them to such a trial. Confidence in in gination and confidence in the hour action are two very different things, and Fourierites possessed the latter, we can believe that they would have so long fa of making a complete experiment. F rierites boast of the spread of their de trines in France, Germany, England, America. Yet they say, and their system | deteriorations of modern society, and which requires, that the moment a phalanx is established, opposition will be silenced by the success of the attempt. Now since but eight hundred and ten persons are necessary for a complete phalanx, why do they not begin? Are there not of their followers in all these countries enough to make the experiment? We then reprobate Socialism because it is in direct antagonism with the dogmas of Christianity, and because it attempts to overturn the laws of Christian civilization. That there is great misery and much injustice in the heart of modern society is too true, but we do not owe the discovery of it to Socialism. The misery is the result of the sin of Adam, and the injustice is from the neglect or infraction of the laws which God has by supernatural revelation given to man for his conduct and amelioration. We object especially to Socialism, that, under the name of emancipating, it degrades woman from the rank to which Christianity had raised her. For we have seen that it was Christianity alone that availed to raise woman to being the equal of man by the tie of love, at the same time that it subjected her by the precept of obedience; and that the law by which woman was thus raised to equality with man was the abolition of polygamy and divorce, and the substitution of an inviolable and perpetual marriage. We object to it, moreover, that it contemns the tribunal of reason, and the voice of the natural conscience which God has implanted in the breast of every man. And, finally, we object to Fourierites the ambiguity and tergiversation of their propagandism; that they beguile the superstitious with the name of a revelation, the credulous with the profession of a discovery, the selfconceited with the title of a science, when it is clear that they have neither revelation nor discovery nor science for any one. Nor can we consent to accord to Socialism, in any of its for ms, the praise that some even of its enemies have yielded it, that in positive ideas in the field of industry, it has made valuable suggestions. It would be difficult to mention any of its suggestions that either it has not borrowed, or that is not an abomination instead of a thing desirable. The biting satires that the St. Simonians dealt out on the actual the Fourierites continue to repeat, have, it is true, done something to startle the public mind, and if this has urged any to cling to or revive the good principles handed down to us by our fathers, and which had been slipping away through want of constancy in their maintenance, it is indeed a good, but not much due to Socialism for its origin,-since it, instead of urging them to cling to the principles they had been taught, would have had them abandon all that the experience of six thousand years and the advancement that man has hitherto been able to make in obedience to the eternal, immutable laws of truth, have proclaimed as necessary to his conservation. And now that we have accomplished all that we intended when we commenced this article, it is time to come to a conclusion. If Fourierites still persist in spreading their doctrines through the community, a complete and analytical detail of their theory would be a useful labor, but it would demand an entire volume to fulfil it. In the mean time, their principles should not be tolerantly judged as harmless reveries. Quite true it is that they have no element of practicability, and can never take form as a society. But it is another thing whether the bad and wild notions that they diffuse abroad in the community, and which in their detached parts are caught up and adopted by multitudes that have no idea that these are a legitimate part of a system that they themselves condemn, may not be infecting whole masses throughout every country where they are propagated with a spirit of revolution for the establishment of unbridled licentiousness. The opportunities for such a revolution are accidents to which every land is liable, and it would be a poor compensation for having contributed to the fundamental convulsion, and thereby interrupted the veritable progress of any society, to have been permitted for awhile to cry, in "great words unmeet," re-organization of labor-emuncipation of woman-scientific revelations-universal happiness. It is then a duty for every good citizen and for every man of conscience to oppose and to denounce Fourierism, and every other form of Socialism. And the method of doing so with effect, is not to |