glory can hardly be regarded as ours, more than that of some other creature in our stead. More desirable to us would it be, that our existence should go on, with its characteristic properties to be regulated by continuous laws, even at the expense of some imperfection for a while, than to have it utterly broken asunder, cut off from all sympathy with our present being, stripped of all that is dear in our experience and growth, and resolved back again into its primitive elements. It is on the same general ground, that we would prefer another life, with some evil, to the horrible blank of annihilation. If our reasoning, however, be correct, there must be an intimate and vital connection between the two states: the present communicating moral as well as intellectual elements to the future, to be there modified under new influences. To sum up the whole in few words, there are two sets of agencies, which, from the nature of the case, we must recognize in the future; one of them, the same essentially as at present, namely, the inherent powers and qualities of the individual's own being, such as it has become; the other, different, namely, the new circumstances and influences that will bear on those properties. We say, these two sets of agencies; but, then, both of them must work under the same immutable principles of the divine government that operate here. We can hardly suppose the objection will now be made, that we set up the evidence of analogy against the Scriptures; for, we neither know of a passage, or a doctrine, of the Bible, which interferes with our conclusions, nor have we ever heard, or seen, one alleged directly in support of such a charge. Were there anything of the kind, we readily grant that it would be decisive against our argument, either in whole or in part. In that case, even analogy itself, if loyal to revelation, must take the revealed fact as one of the unquestionable points, in its premises, and deduce its inferences accordingly. A more plausible appeal against us, however, may perhaps be made, under the form of an enquiry, whether we are not adding to the inspired doctrine, and attempting to "fill up that which is lacking in it," by means of analogy. To this, we should answer, In no other sense, than as all be lievers in revelation do so, and are obliged to do so, on every general topic. We respect the motives of the enquirers; but the question seems to arise from an oversight of the character of the inspired testimony, or rather of all language, written or spoken. This is always supposed to be addressed to rational creatures, who, as such, have already forms of thought, by which one idea, when suggested, calls up a multitude of others around it, and who, when informed of a general fact, will of themselves analyze it, to a certain extent, and place it in natural relations, unless otherwise instructed. We have been told, for instance, of such a city as London, that there is an immense number of houses and people there. But nobody has, as yet, thought it needful to tell us, explicitly, that those houses and people are analogous to such as we have seen, here; that the former are built of physical substances, of the nature of other matter, with something to stand on, &c.; and that the latter have skin, flesh and blood, and souls, &c. All these, and a thousand other particulars, not expressed, we are expected to supply from analogy. Any important deviation from this rule, is usually specified; as, the strikingly peculiar eustoms among the Londoners, or the malformation of feet among the Chinese. To say nothing of the grounds on which we affix any meaning whatsoever to terms; were we to allow no ideas to be suggested beyond the bare verbal statement, we should have but a dead, skeleton-notion of its import, even in case of the most elaborate and exhaustive description. To describe elaborately, however, and in detail, is not the method of the Scriptures. Whatsoever the subject, they usually announce but the leading facts, or perhaps give only some significant feature, and leave the rest to be filled up by suggestion. When they treat of our future existence, they presuppose that we have some conception of what is naturally implied by existence; some notion of its adjuncts and correlatives, of the peculiarities that belong to the existence of man, as distinguished from other creatures, and to that of ourselves, as distinguished from other individuals of our race. They presuppose, on our part, a multitude of analogical ideas, which are associated in our minds, with the given fact; and therefore, they enter into no details, except such as are important to be known, and still are not likely to be otherwise suggested to us. They do not assert, that man will, hereafter, continue to be but a finite creature, as he is now; shall we, therefore, abnegate all judgement on that point, lest we add to their doctrine? They do not assert that he will there retain his identity, his self-consciousness, nor his memory, nor that he will have any character at all, nor that he will preserve his reason. Nor was it necessary that they should go into the endless task of enumerating such particulars, when they had once given us assurance of his future being, under the conditions which they do specify. And to us it appears, that the general conclusions we have drawn from analogy, are but those which the mind naturally associates with the Scripture doctrine of immortality, and which would always gather around it, were they not argued away, in accommodation to some special hypothesis. We have, indeed, attempted to verify them, by such an analytical course of enquiry as the mind does not ordinarily pursue, on this or on any other subject; but every one will distinguish between the method of proof, and the ideas themselves. - We have said that even they who disclaim analogical deductions concerning the future state, do nevertheless use them. Passing over the notions which they, in common with others, entertain, that man will be but finite there, that he will exist as an individual, and not as a syncretism of the whole race, that he will preserve his personal identity, that he will have thoughts, desires, a will, &c., — all which inferences are from analogy; do they not contend that mankind will be happy, hereafter? Whence do they so confidently derive this conclusion? Not from any express assertion in the Scriptures, that we recollect. We may be told, It is the necessary inference, however, from what they do assert, namely, that man will be equal to the angels, be the children of God, incorruptible, in a spiritual body, that all will be subdued to God, &c. But how do we know that these conditions will, hereafter, produce happiness? They would, indeed, be attended with that effect, should the nature of things remain the same as in the present world; but the question now is, of the next world, which is supposed to be so different, that we cannot reason to it, by analogy with any thing here. If it would not seem like retorting, we should say, Bring us nothing but explicit declarations of Scripture! It may be replied that reason itself determines the case, on the given premises. Indeed! but, on the grounds we are examining, what has reason to do with a future state? can it "go beyond the word of the Lord?" Suppose, now, that we should rigorously follow out, on this point, the exhaustive process of ignoring, which is sometimes pursued on other rational deductions concerning our subject, it would be easy to negative away the last vestige of proof. And so, on other points, too numerous to be mentioned. How confidently is it said, that if men be sinners, hereafter, they must be miserable; if righteous, happy. Such is, indeed, the case, here; but we infer it of the future, only by analogy, not from any direct testimony of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, it cannot, we think, be properly called an addition to their doctrine, certainly not, in any bad sense; nor can any thing else, which is analogically involved in all that they explicit ly declare. The truth is, that, for reasons already stated, we are obliged continually to fall back on the general grounds of analogy, in order to take in the import of language, and to recognise the principles involved in any discourse. In most cases, we do this as unconsciously as we supply an ellipsis in a sentence. It would be too much, perhaps, to expect that our argument will be entirely satisfactory to all, with whom we should be glad to agree. Perhaps a perfect sameness of opinion, concerning the conditions in which we enter the future state, is not to be looked for. Generally speaking, too vehement an eagerness to secure unanimity on such points, only provokes to diversity. Nor can we flatter ourselves, that our several illustrations, embracing so many secondary questions as they do, are in every respect faultless. The general scope, alone, is what we regard as of much consequence. Even this, we are aware, is not, in its purely theological aspects, so essentially different from the forms of representation that have been current among us, as might at first thought be supposed. To us it seems to lay open the rational ground of connecting the present with the future, in accordance with the Scripture doctrine, and at the same time to avoid certain absurdities, of a moral and psychological nature, which we think are involved in other expositions. On this account, chiefly, do we esteem it; not as a fundamental article of religious faith. It would gratify us, to see the general subject wrought over again, by a more patient and exhaustive process, and any errors, into which we may have fallen, detected, as well as the deficiences that we have left, supplied. H. B. 2d. ART. VIII. John Foster. New 1. The Life and Correspondence of John Foster. Edited by J. E. Ryland. With Notices of Mr. Foster, as a Preacher and a Companion, by John Sheppard, author of Thoughts on Devotion, etc. etc. York: Wiley & Putnam, 161 Broadway. 1846. 2 vols. 12mo. 2. Review of John Foster's Life and Correspondence. By Rev. George B. Cheever. In the Biblical Repository, for January, 1847. THE first-named volumes give us the most real form of biography that can be obtained. They do not simply tell us where the subject of them was born and dwelt, how he dressed, and what he ate, and how he acted; but they lift the veil that hides the heart. The events of every brief period are followed by the letters written during that period letters which are singularly suggestive of what the man was, that really anatomize his moral being, and reveal the mental struggles, the self-conflicts, which made life full as much "a battle" as "a march; - letters written in all the varieties of moods to which the mind of the writer was subject; and, like the turning of a precious stone, new combinations of the primitive colors flash out upon the sight at every change. This is a form of biography which, we trust, will become popular; for letters written for one eye, are not the cramped and artificial things which Essays must necessarily be, that are worked out, and elaborately retouched, in mortal fear of criticism and the Reviews. Till these volumes appeared, John Foster was known to us only through his Essays, his contributions to the |