SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE?' 



thing he ever wrote. The Providence he depicts is 

 the Providence I see in Nature : 



"Providence supports, but does not spoil its 

 children. We are called sons, not darlings, of the 

 Deity. There is ever good in store for those who 

 love it; knowledge for those who seek it; and if we 

 do evil, we suffer the consequences of evil. Through- 

 out the administration of the world there is the 

 same aspect of stern kindness; of good against your 

 will; good against your good; ten thousand channels 

 of active beneficence, but all flowing with the same 

 regard to general, not particular profit. . . . And 

 to such an extent is this great statute policy of God 

 carried, that many, nay, most, of the great bless- 

 ings of humanity require cycles of a thousand years 

 to bring them to their height." 



A remarkable statement to be made in 1824, in 

 New England, and by a fledgling preacher of the 

 orthodox faith and the descendant of a long line of 

 orthodox clergymen. It is as broad and as impartial 

 as science, and yet makes a strong imaginative ap- 

 peal. Good at the heart of Nature is the purport of 

 it, not the patent-right good of the creeds, but good, 

 free to all who love it, a "stern kindness," and no 

 partial, personal, vacillating Providence whose ear 

 is open only to the password of some sect or cult, 

 or organization — "good against your good," your 

 copyrighted good, your personal, selfish good (unless 

 it is in line with equal good to others), the broad, 



7 



