so, we should be at loss to account for the outrages of Editors who assume the responsibility to alter lines in the best spiritual songs in the language. We can forgive a man for writing a foolish Hymn, but our feelings towards him, who can place a line of his own in a stanza of Watts or Cowper endeared to us by years of religious experience, are similar to those with which we should regard a blacksmith mending a chain of gold with hammer, anvil and iron links. From this species of high literary misdemeanor, we believe the editors of the work at the head of our notice are free. Although at times, perhaps wisely, omitting a stanza in a long Hymn, we recollect no example of the mutilation we have condemned. The well known poetical taste and devotional fervor of these reverend gentlemen, was a pledge that the work they took in hand would be well done. We are not disappointed by the result. As far as we have examined their book, it bears undeniable marks of industry, good taste, and extensive reading in devotional poetry. Although coming from the Universalist denomination, there is in it nothing to which any liberal Christian can object. We hesitate not to pronounce it, by far the most complete and well-selected Hymn Book that has yet appeared among us. We will mention a few particulars in which it appears to us to excel former collections:

1. The number of Hymns upon the moral and spiritual relations of Christianity is much larger than in most books. We believe few clergymen do not complain of deficiency of this sort in collections now in use, often being compelled to read a hymn differing in sentiment from their discourse. If it be true, in the services of God's House, as Herbert says, that

"A verse may find him who a sermon flies,"

then, this excellence in the present work which so facilitates the desired adaptation, will be accounted a great merit.

The length of the Hymns is another advantage of this work. There is fault in many of our books in this respect, making the performances of the choir tedious, from the number of verses sung, or forcing them to destroy sense by omission of stanzas. The selections in this collection are of moderate length.

3. Many new Hymns also appear, and many beautiful ones arranged from the early English Poets. Several of these must become standard productions in this department of literature.

4. But the most original feature of this work is its excellence in Hymns adapted to the Reform movements of the day. The newly aroused feeling in our churches, in favor of such operations, demands a medium of expression in sacred song as well as speech. And here is provided a large number of Hymns, fitted

to almost every occasion of the kind that may arise. Several of these are by the editors, and are characterized by unusual fervor and power.

We do not intend to speak disparagingly of the many excellent Hymn Books already in use. We only say, that this, in our estimation, combines the advantages of them all, as far as such an object can be attained in one volume. We would, also, mention with approbation the neat form given it by the publisher, alike creditable to him and acceptable to the public.

A. D. M.

6. True Patriotism. A Discourse delivered on Fast Day, in the Second Universalist Church, School Street. By E. H. Chapin. Boston: Abel Tompkins, 38 Cornhill. 1847. 8vo. pp. 19.

7. Might and Right. An Oration delivered before the Erosophian Adelphi of Waterville College, August 12, 1846. By E. H. Chapin. Boston: Abel Tompkins, Cornhill. 1846. 8vo. pp. 40.

On receiving the first-named of these pamphlets, we regarded the occasion as presenting an opportunity to atone, in some measure, for omitting to give a seasonable notice of the other. We therefore wrote out both titles, at once, as above, and sat down to the perusal. But on reading the Fast-Day Discourse, we changed our purpose. Though the Oration is the more highly labored performance, in point of literary execution, we have been so strongly impressed by the clear exposition, fearless but unostentatious plain-dealing, and just statement uttered in temperate language, which characterize the Discourse, that we wish, for the present, to direct attention solely to this. We have seen nothing, on our public obligations, as citizens, that so well corresponded to the demands of our conscience. It is a word fitly spoken, and in season. Unacquainted as we are with the details of national affairs, and especially of party-politics, we are nevertheless sure that there are some eternal principles of truth and justice, to which all these movements at the surface are amenable, and by which they will be led to issues favorable or disastrous, according to their moral deserts; and we are equally sure that all policy, patriotism, party-spirit, or passionate excitement, which overlooks this law, is blind to its direct results. We believe "there is a God who judges in the earth." It is into these eternal principles that the preacher enters; on these he bases our duties, both as patriots and Christians, in relation particularly to our present war with Mexico. Its well-known grounds are sufficiently indicated; the apologies for it, or, rather, that class of them which sets aside all moral obligation, are faithfully exposed, as well as that false and atrocious patriotism whose motto is, "Our country, right or wrong." We hope this true-spoken Discourse will have an extensive circulation.

ART. XV.

Origin of Moral Evil.

In a preceding number of this work, [July, 1844,] the writer offered some thoughts and arguments on the "Origin of Sin," but left the subject, (as may be seen at the close of that article,) in an unfinished state. Circumstances, which we need not relate, have delayed the completion of the argument, till the present. This very long hiatus between the two parts of the subject, renders it proper that we introduce a brief recapitulation, that readers may see our starting-point, and be prepared to set out with us in pursuing our investigations.

It was maintained, in the previous article, that the popular notion concerning the origin of sin, viz., that the original cause of sin was itself sinful, is erroneous; since it would imply that moral evil originated the first moral evil. This is not possible; as a sinful cause could no more exist previous to the first sin, than sin could be committed before there was a sinner. The sinning and the sin must have begun at the same time, and in the same act. To contend that a being is a sinner previously to his sinning, or that he cannot sin till after he is a sinner, is an absurdity in theology as well as metaphysics. To say that the first of any given series of events or things is preceded by a first, the first link of a chain, for example,

is equivalent to the assertion that the first is not the first, but the second, or something else! To use such language, or such reasoning, if reasoning it may be called, is to confound the very first elements of common sense.

Moral agency, or the capacity of the moral agent, must precede moral action, as machinery cannot be put in operation before it exists; and the first moral act of the moral agent commences his moral character, for better or for worse, for weal or wo. Previously to that act, "the moral agent," as the term is, had no personal moral character, properly so called; he had no personal desert, either

VOL. IV.

19

of praise or blame. Though constitutionally possessed of faculties capable of forming moral character, man is not virtuous or vicious, holy or sinful, before he exercises his faculties. He may be naturally endowed with the intellectual apparatus for thinking and reasoning; but he is not a thinking being, before he has thoughts, nor a reasoner, before he begins to reason.

If we adopt the tenable ground, that the action takes its character from the motive or intention of the actor, the result will be the same as to the position in question; because, the first intention to do wrong, could have no precedent of the kind. The first wrong motive or volition could not have been preceded by a wrong motive or volition. Pursuing the argument, therefore, upon any and every fair ground of reasoning, we come to the conclusion that moral agents, in the exercise of powers, faculties, or agencies, which are in themselves entirely sinless, transgress the law, or commit sins, and hence form a character of their own, and for which, just so far as that character possesses moral attributes or qualities, they are accountable. Men cannot, even if they would, be morally amenable for acts which are not morally their own. They may suffer in consequence of acts, in which they have had no participation; as the most innocent often do, by reason of the conduct of the wicked; but they cannot suffer as really guilty, till innocence and guilt are synonymous. Should

an unjust, or an erring tribunal, adjudge them as guilty, the wrong decision would not alter the facts of the case. Men are equitably responsible, on moral principles, for their own moral acts only.

We continue and conclude the investigation of this subject, from no spirit of vain curiosity with no disposition to appear singular, or to boast of originality in these views; but we do it from a deep and thorough conviction of its importance, and of the salutary influence it will exert, when clearly understood. That it is a reasonable doctrine, and that it agrees with the personal experience and unsophisticated convictions of our readers, we have not a doubt. Can we suppose, then, that it is unscriptural? Are the revelations of the Bible at war with reason, and incompatible with the nature and fitness of things? Shall we, for the sake of adopting some sentences in that

good Book in the most literal sense, throw aside the knowledge which has been derived from long years of various experiments in things moral, discard the use of reason, and either disregard and overlook the plain and obvious tenor of the divine testimony in general, or make it conform, for theory's sake, to the few passages which divinity-manufacturers have consecrated to sectarian purposes? Shall we pursue a course of interpretation which will lead us, to be consistent, to adopt the doctrines of vicarious atonement, transubstantiation, and the like?

But that the Scriptures, though not composed for the accommodation of disputants and metaphysicians, abundantly warrant the positions here assumed, and the conclusions at which we arrive, we now proceed to show, "from the account of the sin of Eden, the temptation of the Saviour, and the meaning of Paul in the seventh chapter of Romans." It may not be improper to state that, after a patient and more careful examination of the whole subject, our serious convictions are strengthened and confirmed, that sin originates from sinless faculties, or the misuse of those powers, senses, appetites and passions, which, if properly employed, would contribute alone to virtue, usefulness, and innocent enjoyments.

The Bible account of the first transgression of our race, affords the fairest opportunity as we might reasonbly expect it would of testing the correctness of our views, of any part of that sacred volume. If the doctrine of original depravity be true, it will be found to have infected the nature of our first parents. But what is the substance of the narrative in Genesis, so far as the questions at issue are concerned? Why, it is simply as follows:- Adam was formed of the dust of the ground, breath was infused into him, and he became a living being, (Gen. ii. 7.) Nothing wrong-no depravity-so far. Having placed Adam in the garden to cultivate it, his Maker provided for him sustenance suited to his nature, his wants and appetites; giving him free access to the trees of the garden, save the tree of knowledge of good and evil." (verses 15, 16, 17.) For wise reasons, the man was furnished with a help mete for him, (ver. 18.) The new born pair were innocent and unsuspecting as babes. They knew no moral wrong, (ver. 25.) They had appetites for