an equality with freedom, by recognizing both as intuitions. Then comes the difficulty-the clashing between the two intuitions, which is called, and very properly, the extreme of irrationality. What then was to be done? Why, retain both; but do not draw such inferences from the law of cause and effect as to involve such shocking absurdities as would make us discredit either class of intuitions. Accept both, but do not try to explain them. Let them remain as opposite intuitions. Accept both, and though exactly opposite, call them both true. Now such a course does not strike us as philosophical. Would it not be wiser to retrace the steps, and question the statement, that both the law of cause and effect, and the perfect freedom of man, are taught us by intuition? Would it not be wiser to satisfy ourselves which is clearly taught, and try to make our views of the other conform to that? Do our intuitions give us opposite instructions? How is it with the law of cause and effect? Is there any doubt about its truth? Are not all conscious of its existence? Do not all in effect admit its truth? But are we conscious of a freedom which rises above motivesabove the law of cause and effect, and enables us to withstand the will of God? We can but think that men are mistaken when they call this an intuition. We, individually, can admit no such consciousness, and we must believe that the only difficulty arises from having imagined an absolute freedom for man, and then trying to reconcile it with the known and admitted absolute sovereignty of God. But it seems to us that some are trying to make it appear that God governs the whole, yet man governs himself; that God overns man, and yet does not govern him. To us the reasoning is incomprehensible.

But why have men been anxious to prove that man is free -an independent being, capable of forming his own motives of acting in opposition to the will of God? We answer, simply to take off the edge of certain abhorrent doctrines they had embraced. To admit that an infinitely wise and merciful God had created man, of his own good pleasure-had governed him, leading him along by motives, as he chose, and had also doomed him to unending punishment for doing as he knew he would do, and as he intended he should, involves an inconsistency in their theology so awful, that no person having a spark of humanity or com

mon sense, would try to justify it. It availed little for Augustine and others to say that God had a right to make men on purpose to damn them. And at length the doctrine of free agency was invented as a relief to the inconsistency. The theory serves partially to hide the horrors of the creed, and hence has become popular. "Man was made free, and went contrary to the will of God, hence the awful penalty of endless woe." It is not strange that a believer in such a doctrine, should try to make the most of free agency-that he should wish to change the responsibility of such an awful scheme, from God to the devil or to some other being-that he should be unwilling to recognize the hand of God in such a horrid scheme. But for the Christian who believes that goodness will finally triumph-that evil is only a means to an end, and that end the greatest good of the whole, there can be no wish to deny the overruling hand of the Father, in all things, both in the physical and moral word. And were it not for those striking absurdities which some think they see connected with it, we do not see why we should object to the doctrine that God governs the world by means of the law of cause and effect. Suppose we recognize this law— or, what is the same thing, suppose we recognize a motive preceding every voluntary act of our lives, and suppose farther that we are able to trace this law of cause and effect up to God as the First Cause, and conclude that by it he governs all his works, man included, what sad results would be likely to follow? Suppose we should give up our old ideas of accountability, as connected with retributive justice, and see God so ordering and directing his children by a universal law of cause and effect, as to bring about the greatest good of the whole, might not what some are pleased to call our intuitions of responsibility be greatly changed? And is it not possible that what may now appear as the monstrous absurdity of non-responsibility growing out of the doctrine that God governs by the law of cause and effect, may yet be seen as the wise arrangement of a Cause which never errs? Again, suppose we should admit that we never act without a motive inducing us thus to choose to act, and that in our choice, we always follow the strongest aggregate of motives, does it follow that none of our acts would be moral, and that we should be involved in the monstrous absurdity of non-morality? Finally, suppose we could see the great

First Cause, by a universal law of cause and effect governing not only the physical world, but also by the same law directing all the motives which influence men to choose to act as they do, both morally and intellectually, and that taking a broad view of the whole we were perfectly satisfied that all things were ordered and directed so as to result in the highest possible good of the whole, would there be any thing terrible in that absolute universal servitude in which we should be placed? It seems to us, that in view of such a consummation, although we were satisfied that God has not given to us a power to form our motives, yet we should be inclined to submit, and conclude that God's way is quite as well, and that he has arranged all things with due regard to the claims of morality, as well as of benevolence.

J. W. T.

ART. VII.

Clapp's Theological Views.

Theological Views, comprising the Substance of Teachings during a Ministry of Thirty-five years, in New Orleans. By Theodore Clapp. Boston: A Tompkins. 1859. pp. 360.

THE appearance of this book gives us an opportunity to note the progress of Universalist sentiments, and also to judge accurately of their form or interpretation, in a section of country far remote from the localities where Universalism has gained a popular recognition as an interpretation of Christianity. Getting occasional help from Universalist and Unitarian books, but depending mainly on his own thinking and religious experience, Mr. Clapp has developed a systematic theology which is emphatically his own; but which nevertheless bears a close affinity to the views and expositions which have become general among New England Universalists.

The author has done well in giving us the substance of his teachings, in a handsomely printed book. We have read

it entire; and have found that views and interpretations with which we have been familiar for years, can still interest and instruct when clothed in a style of such remarkable freshness and warmth, as characterize every page of the "Theological Views." Our present desire is not to review or to criticise. We wish simply to give our readers specimens of Mr. Clapp's book. We do this with a belief, that we thus worthily fill a few of our pages, and at the same time best present the merits of the work. The work has just such an arrangement as best serves the popular use. It commences

with reflections on the Divine Existence; it gives us a matured judgment of the nature and purposes of Revelation; it elaborates the Christian themes of the Nature of Sin, of Holiness, of Reward and Retribution; gives Expositions of portions of Scripture which have been thought to teach the doctrine of endless punishment; and closes with an excellent chapter on Grace-the whole being interspersed with reflections and exhortations which make the book eminently and earnestly practical.

We are pleased to see that our author has taken what we deem the true psychological position with reference to the proof of the existence of God. Leaving the Paley argument of design merely to confirm, he plants the assurance of the divine existence on the instinct of religious faith. "Of all the capabilities of the soul," he says, "that of faith is one of the most simple, important, grand and divine. Every moment of our accountable existence is a moment of faith, and every action that we perform is dictated by this principle. Indeed, without it, the whole business of civilized life would cease to be carried on, and we should be shrunk up within boundaries as narrow as those which limit the mule, the horse, or the ox." The author continues:

"Now this faculty of faith, which is universal to and inseparable from the human mind, (not knowledge scientifically so called,) is the basis of all religion. No person can doubt the reality of those external objects that come under the cognizance of the senses. The senses awaken within us the consciousness of a soul. Our souls, by virtue of their innate and essential endowments, cherish belief in a Being of infinite wisdom, power, and benevolence. We cannot, therefore, help believing that there is an Infinite Creator. We cannot avoid feeling our entire, absolute dependence on him for life, and all that is

requisite to make life desirable. It is certain that we can neither escape from his presence, nor resist the determinations of his Almighty will. In the emphatie language of the Bible, He holds us in the hollow of his hand. The divine perfections wrap us about more intimately than the garments with which we are clad; than the atmosphere that we momently inhale.” (pp. 34.)

The view thus presented as to the origin of belief in God -involving the idea of his nearness to man-necessarily authenticates that conviction of his superintendence over the progress and the destiny of human souls, which has become a fixed principle in every form of Universalism:

"God then is not a Being distant, distinct, foreign, and separate from ourselves-a Being with whom we have no common properties, but an ever-present, all-communicating Spirit; whose infinitude is but the infinitude of the human soul; whose sympathies for us are the same in kind, though infinitely more tender, than the purest, fondest mother cherishes for a beloved child. As the good earthly parent can neither hate, nor intentionally hurt his offspring; so the Supreme Father can neither abhor nor injure any creature whom he has called into existence. As the sun constantly imparts light, life and warmth to the physical globe, so God communicates, without intermission, to the moral world-the world of mankind-those influences which are requisite to make it more and more like himself—to unfold and enlarge those mental and moral powers which constitute his own glorious image. Jesus Christ tells us that the Father sent him into the world to make all mankind ultimately partakers of everlasting life-the life of God-of boundless wisdom, order, beauty, and beneficence-that they all might become warmed by beams from the inexhaustible Fountain of Light, and feel from the impulses of his Spirit in their breasts that they are indeed his ransomed, redeemed and forgiven children. We cannot cherish the sublimest form of Christian love so long as we suppose that God can do any thing himself, or allow any thing to happen, which will conflict with our final, supreme, and highest good, both for time and eternity." (pp. 36. 37.)

With reference to the Bible, the author lays great stress on the internal argument in favor of its divine origin. We must select as a specimen of his reasoning on this point, an admirable statement of the identity of the definition of morality as it appears throughout the Scriptures: