Fellowship association, or of any union of men professedly for any purpose of rendering assistance to each other; it is at once pronounced an encouraging omen of "the good time coming," and all who speak favorably of anything of the kind are hailed as "already having commenced the alphabet, and mastered the first letters of Fourierism." So, too, let a word be said by any writer or speaker in favor of any scheme for improving the condition of the poor,for diminishing the number of hours of daily labor, or for giving more time to mental improvement, does any one, in short, even speak of the "toiling millions" in tones of commiseration, straightway with an absurd and even ludicrous self-complacency he is claimed as a Fourierite. Should he be an open opponent of associationism, all such language is most sapiently urged as triumphant proof of the writer's inconsistency, or as furnishing an unanswerable argument against himself. We know too well the power and clearness of logic often manifested by the editor of the Tribune, to believe for a moment that he really can regard as legitimate or cogent reasoning, assumptions so unfounded as these.

Such combinations for mutual benefit differ from associationism as taught by Fourier, and, as the latter is essentially constituted, just in the very points where it is most objectionable. In other words, they leave unaffected all the social, domestic, parental, filial, and conjugal relations. If Fourierism did the same, it would become identical with them. It would, however, in that case, have no philosophy, no parade of science, nothing new, nothing to justify the extravagant encomiums which have been bestowed on the "immortal Fourier,”-in short, nothing at all worthy of the elaborate discussion which has been given to it.

In the minds of serious and Christian men it should be a conclusive argument against Fourierism, that it does not rest at all on the Bible. Indifference here, or mere negative exclusion, is infidelity. There are many subjects on which it would be out of place to refer to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, simply because such subjects belong to departments in which revelation does not assume to enlighten us. This may be said to be the case in matters of strict science. It may also be true in some branches of political philosophy; though here we are inclined to think the word of God should have an authority which many are not disposed to concede to it. But in schemes for social regeneration, in which the great and fundamental questions are, or ever ought to be,-What is man? What is his true nature? What is his moral state? What are his true relations to the world of men around him, to the material and animal world beneath him, and to the spiritual world above him?

-in such schemes, we say, involving such questions, to leave out all consideration of the authority of that book which professes to contain, not only a revelation of God and divine things, but also, and in a main degree, a revelation of man unto himself; to have, in short, no recourse to the Bible in such examinations, or not to have frequent and confiding recourse to it, or to build up a social scheme without it, and to the exclusion of no feature which would have been admitted had the Bible never been known to have had existence, this is sheer infidelity-heartless, contemptuous infidelity. No matter what eulogiums some of the writers of the school may pronounce on Christ; no matter how they may employ two or three grossly perverted texts about the kingdom of heaven. on earth, and good-will to man, and the law of love; it is a disparaging rejection of that which professes to be a light from heaven shining in a dark world, and from the illumination of whose rays no truly Christian mind would ever think of straying for a moment, on any question connected with the moral nature of man. We say, then, that, whether it rail or not, it is infidelity of the most heartless kind. Its studied silence is more contemptuous and insulting when regarded in its connection with such themes, than the openly malignant opposition and profane ribaldry of the scoffer.

On this ground alone we hesitate not to say that Charles Fourier was an infidel, without any faith in the supernatural character of either the Old or the New Testament. But this is not all. His fundamental positions in respect to human nature and human destiny are in diametrical opposition to those of the Scriptures. His whole philosophy on these points is alien to that of Paul and Jesus. This is most conclusively shown by the respondent in the discussion; and to it we refer the reader for much fuller detail of argument than we can bestow in this review. Suffice it to say, that the French reformer utterly denies the facts of the fall and of human depravity, coolly assumes grounds which totally nullify all the great doctrines of atonement, of regeneration by a divine power, of self-denial, and of the cross; and then, in contemptuous disparagement of the revealed wisdom of God, would most absurdly attempt to prove that the evils of human nature proceed from society, rather than that the evils of society are the direct result of the corruption of human nature. In the face, too, of all this, they still have the folly, if not dishonesty, to insist that in the Fourier society all denominations of Christians may engage on an equal footing, and with equal consistency.

Such is the scheme which, along with a kindred philosophy on many other points, has been for years circulated through our land

in the columns of the New-York Tribune. This journal puts in ever a great claim to the merit of fairness and neutrality in respect to theological opinion and discussion. Sometimes, in answer to the complaints of correspondents, it takes a position which, when viewed in connection with the facts, is absolutely ludicrous. "We cannot have our columns," it often says, "occupied with matters of theology or the discussion of controverted religious points." Now, is it possible that any one could have read the New-York Tribune for years, and yet have been ignorant of the length, and breadth, and depth, and real nature of its theology? Does the editor imagine that by such declarations of neutrality, there can be kept out of sight what is so perfectly transparent as the religious opinions which are known to find favor in his journal, and which he has so long, and so indefatigably, and under so many appearances, and in so many modes of conveyance, been infusing into the public mind? There are many newspapers which we might read for years, and yet be ignorant of anything beyond the political, and literary, or scientific opinions of their conductors. But who is ignorant of the theology of the Tribune? What reader can be so simple as not to know-and that, too, judging solely from its daily perusal that this theology is the same with that of Parker and the Roxbury associationists, and the Harbinger, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and George Sands, and Charles Fourier, and that whole class, who, with some shades of difference, do all unite in discarding the supernatural character of the Bible as conclusive authority in any social or moral question? This journal has been unable to conceal either its likings or its dislikes,-its prompt and lauding reception of all new and startling ideas at war with the old faith of the churches, or its hearty and unrelaxing enmity to what the great mass of believers regard as evangelical Christianity. It has made no coarse and railing assaults, but its constant and most adroitly managed influence has been ever steadily in favor of the one, and against the other. Wherever it has been continuously read from year to year, this unvarying prominence given to certain aspects of theology (without the alarm that might have been excited by the use of plain and open language) must have told powerfully on the minds of the young. The children of pious parents who have for a long time been permitted to read such a journal, must have had their faith insensibly weakened in the Scriptures and creeds of their fathers, and unless divine grace restore them, cannot hereafter look upon the Bible in the same light as though their unformed opinions had never been subjected to this hostile influence.

It is, too, among just such a class of readers that peculiar circumstances have given it a most extensive circulation. Commencing as the organ of a large and most respectable party, it found its way into thousands of families it would never have reached, had all the marked features of its subsequent course appeared plainly and frankly set forth in the original prospectus; if it had openly said in the start, We intend to devote much of our space to the advocacy of the doctrines of Charles Fourier; we mean to be zealous for the right of tenants to treat as feudal tyranny the performance of their stipulations with their landlords; we mean always to make room for every atheistical tirade of Robert Owen, whatever may be its length; we mean warmly to advocate some of the most ultra and unconstitutional measures of abolitionism.

But not to dwell on its connection in other respects with almost all the radicalism and infidelity of the day,-what right, we ask, had it to open its columns for so long a time, for the spreading of these abominable tenets of Charles Fourier? What right had it to present this infidel philosophy to the children of those who had taken it for so very different a purpose, and who composed in the main a portion of the community inclined, professedly at least, to conservative views both in politics and theology? It is all trifling to say that this was a separate concern, a private matter of dealing with the Fourier lecturer. All who are known to be in the habit of reading the journal, and on whose patronage it was expected to depend, had an interest in such a contract. A man publishes a bad book on his own responsibility. People may buy it or not as they choose. But the known circle of readers of a daily journal, especially if they had been induced to take it on well-known grounds of a political nature, have certainly some right to a voice in the question, whether or no it shall be the vehicle of what they must regard as a daily stream of infidelity. As well might a clergyman, pretending to be orthodox, claim the right of permitting an infidel or a Universalist to occupy his pulpit every afternoon, or, at least, in the evening, if the regular occupant had punctually discharged his duties during the day; with as much justice might he tell those who complained of such a proceeding, to leave, or stay away from, the church, as the editor of such a journal to assume that his highly respectable circle of readers-a very large portion of them serious and religious men or the numerous party of which it professed to be the organ, had no right to find fault with any such private sale and arrangement of his columns. The forbearance of the readers of this paper has been astonishing. It has doubtless been caused by a strong conviction that its editor has many redeeming qualities,

both of mind and heart, which tend to palliate the mischief of his false philosophy. They justly give him credit for talent of the highest order, for honesty of purpose, and a sincere feeling of philanthropy. Surely, in gratitude for this, he is bound to keep from his columns whatever may offend the religious feelings of that large class of serious men by whom such forbearance has been so long and so kindly exercised.

ART. III.-History of the English Revolution of 1640, commonly called the Great Rebellion: from the Accession of Charles I. to his Death. By F. GUIZOT, the Prime Minister of France. New-York: D. Appleton & Co., 200 Broadway. 1846. The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, with Elucidations. By THOMAS CARLYLE. New-York: Wm. H. Colyer, No. 5 Hague-street. 1846.

The Protector: a Vindication. By J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNE, D. D. New-York: Robert Carter, 58 Canal-street. 1847.

ALTHOUGH two articles, written with distinguished ability, have already appeared in this Review on the subject of Oliver Cromwell and the revolution with which his name is connected, yet, as no portion of English history has been so studiously misrepresented, or is of deeper interest to the present generation, it is not, perhaps, presumptuous in the writer to think that the subject is still unexhausted, and will bear to be brought to the attention of the reader again.

After the death of Cromwell the reins of government fell back into the hands of the Stuarts, and the task of giving to posterity a record of the events connected with his administration devolved on those who were interested to heap indignity and disgrace on his memory. Hence the stream of history has been polluted, and the character of the Protector comes down to us distorted by the prejudiced and malicious colorings of Hume and Clarendon.

The professed object of the volumes quoted at the head of our article is to correct these errors, and to set Cromwell right before the world. The work of M. Guizot is incomplete, the present volume being only a prelude to the History of the Commonwealth, which is yet to be published. It takes us down only to the death of the king, and breaks off when the story is at the height of its interest. The author has sought out his facts diligently, but he