his works they forget the Author. In the study of philosophy, in the investigation of Nature's arcana, in their admiration of all they see, and in their eagerness to learn all things, they forget Him who has opened these sources of delight, these fountains of instruction. But shall we attribute the scepticism and irreligion of philosophers to philosophy? Shall we say, that to know what great things the Creator hath wrought, inspires irreverence for him ;—or that the means of developing proofs of design shall lead one to ascribe the beautiful order of all things to the blind effects of chance? Let any one ask himself candidly, if his own doubts sprang from his knowledge of the works of nature. If the testimony of his own heart is insufficient, let him listen to Newton, exclaiming with all the humility of an ignorant man-I am a child, gathering pebbles on the shore of the great ocean of truth.' Let him hear Sir Humphrey Davy declaring that he 'envied no man his possessions, his power, or fame'-but humbly craved for himself a part in the Christian's hope.' Let him look at Locke, in the midst of his philosophical researches, anxiously and patiently engaged in religious inquiry, fervently pious and eminently good too. Let him see Paley, well skilled in natural science, devoting his knowledge of this kind to the science of religion. Then let them infer, that if minds like their's rested in the Christian faith, men of ordinary intellect should not neglect its supports; that if such mer were believers in a Deity, then they, who from their knowledge of Nature pretend to deny Nature's God, do not declare the true cause of their unbelief, or rather violation of their faith; for it must not be ad

mitted that a man shall be a profound natural philosopher, and not perceive a Deity in nature, whether he acknowledge him or not.

To contemplations of this sort there may be an objection in the minds of some, on the ground that the value of revelation seems to be weakened by the admission that we had some glimpses of the light before it was fully unveiled. It seems to me, however, that this very admission places the value of revelation in a most striking light.

Making due allowance for the imperfect knowledge of Natural Philosophy which the ancient Pagans possessed, we may suppose that they perceived in nature indications of super-human power. Else, whenee was that system of Mythology, which, though wholly inadequate to the solution of the multitudinous questions of mighty interest which are suggested to man by reflections on himself, yet exerted a powerful influence on those minds who believed in its beautiful teachings or feared to doubt its terrible dogmas.

In suggesting the idea that the Ancient Mythology owes its origin to observations on the works of Nature, I would not seem to say that every fabled deity held his throne, because there were in Nature, indications of a power like that attributed to him; for we know that some of them were the mere creations of poetry; and others the embodying of ideas of moral or intellectual excellence; but it is easy to conceive how the God of seed time and harvest, of storms and tempests, and of serene skies, the giver of all good, and the dispenser of 'seeming evil,' might appear to them as many beings; and how, under this impression, they might

have peopled the regions of the invisible world with creatures of their own imaginations.

Compare our system of ethics with their's. Behold virtue and vice among them alike claiming the approbation of guardian divinities; see them with clashing interests, and in the midst of irreconcilable differences, besieging heaven with prayers against each other, dictated by faith in opposing deities. See all this, and then look at the sublime doctrine on which our religion rests; There is one God, one Father of all men, caring for all, doing good to all, the Judge of all. Here is a ground for every social virtue. Knowing that one Almighty Being, who regards our common hopes and fears, guides the destiny of all of us; dispensing blessings and imposing necessary trials, upon all,—should we not cultivate sympathy with our fellow beings? If this great truth were felt by all, would not the human race be one great brotherhood? Look now, long and admiringly, if it must be so, at the gorgeous array of gods and demigods of ancient mythology, and when you are dazzled by the glitter of the pageant, turn to the genial light of your own holy faith. Compare the best Pagan philosophy with the sublime truths of Christianity, and give thanks unto God for his unspeakable gift.'

DR. WOODS' VIEWS OF HUMAN ABILITY.

Dr. Woods, of Andover, is publishing in the 'Spirit of the Pilgrims,' a series of 'Letters to Young Minis

ters,' of which six have already appeared. They are written in a spirit of candor and great kindness, and must be not only pleasing but highly useful for those for whom they are designed, even if they do nothing more than lead them to examine and judge for themselves. This effect they are likely to have; for there is in them no tone of dictation or domination. The writer appears thus far to have had in view those doctrines, on which differences of opinion have recently appeared among his own brethren. Indeed, it would seen that these differences, either in faith or preaching, among the elder members of the orthodox persuasion and the professors of the theological seminaries, have been the occasion of these letters to the 'young ministers.' This, however, I do not know, nor is it material. It is not my purpose to scrutinize motives. But I am disposed to examine some of the positions which Dr. Woods lays down in regard to one point-man's ability to repent and obey the gospel.

The three last letters relate to this subject; one of the most fruitful of all disputed topics. It is not, however, as a disputed metaphysical question, that I wish to notice it. In that character I pretend to no knowledge of it. All that I have ever read on the metaphysical question, has either been too profound to enter my understanding, or has appeared too unprofitable to engage my interest. I look at it only as the scriptures bear upon it, and as common sense receives it. It seems to me that most writers have contrived, and Dr. Woods not least, to involve the subject in difficulties altogether needless, and to create mountains of separation out of mere verbal differences. At the

same time they do make some assertions which involve much more than a verbal difference, compared at least with our views. But I will speak for myself at present.

I ask then, What is the point in dispute? It is this: Can we believe, repent, and obey the gospel of Christ, by the use of those powers and means which we naturally possess-we who live in a Christian land with all common privileges and capacities—or, do we need an added ability, such as can come only by a special act of omnipotence, before we can believe, repent and obey? It cannot be said that this is stating the question too strongly. For if it mean anything less than this, there is no dispute about it, there is no question. If it mean this, for instance,-Can a wicked man repent and obey God without being changed, converted and renewed, there is no sense in the question; it contains its own answer, and its own uselessness. If it mean this-Can any man come to God without the aid of God, there is no sense in it; because no one pretends that he can do any thing without the aid of God. No; the question is, Do we need special, supernatural aid? Do we need the interposition of omnipotence? At all events, Dr. Woods considers this as the question; for he says plainly, that men's natural aversion to holiness is such as to constitute a hindrance in the way of conversion to their God, which nothing but omnipotence can overcome.' Again, he says, the natural aversion is such that it yields to nothing but the act of omnipotence.' Now if he mean only that the aid of omnipotence, that is, the aid of God, is needed and essential, no one would object.