cast. I belong to no particular school in metaphysics, not having yet found terra firma extensive enough to choose and proclaim my dwelling-place. I find difficulties in most of the systems of mental philosophy that I occasionally read, and love to read; and Dr. Woods is not the only writer. with whom I have an account of this nature which I should like to settle. But he is most recently before the public, in respect to the subject just named. He is a writer, if I rightly estimate him, who will not parry off a responsibility which he has thus publicly assumed. I may add too, that he is one who does not appear to need wily expedients for avoiding difficulties, but is ready to meet them and look them in the face, and not to quit the arena until it is fairly known who is entitled to the wreath of victory. I like the spirit of candour and kindness, which he has in general shewn in the recent criticisms to which I refer. 1 approve, moreover, of the discussion itself. It is time that more were said and done, in relation to this great subject. It is easy to see, that at present the public in general are not ready nor willing to stereotype and make exclusive the former publications in respect to Free Agency and Fatalism, which have long had their day of almost exclusive dominion among us. If we may judge from present appearances, it seems to be no more probable that they will do this, than that they will go back to the logic of Aristotle, or to the natural philosophy, astronomy, and chemistry of the 17th century. New times, and new attitudes of the human mind, and new acquisitions, i. e. new additions to the old stock of knowledge, demand new treatises and new writers. It is not possible in the nature of things, that the human mind, in such an attitude of energy as it has been for the last fifty years, should not have made some advancement in all the sciences, either as to a more extensive knowledge of the principles of them, or as to the more successful development of the sciences themselves. I suppose this may be true of mental science; nay, tyro as I am in it, I have, in respect to this matter, so far decided for myself, as to be fully persuaded that such is the fact.

As the maxim: Audi alteram partem, is rather a favourite with me, I have read, with no little interest, the remarks of Dr. Woods to which I have referred. Those of the anonymous writer, on whom he criticises, I have also read; and

1

with a deep conviction that this writer is one who thinks and reasons for himself, or for herself; it matters not which, except that, if it be the latter, I have only to say, that a man's brain must have been put into a woman's head. For one I must say, also, that I like good-natured discussion of deeply interesting principles. Dispute I do not love, and never can (if Dr. W. will let me employ his philosophical word to express myself), until I have a new taste in some way communicated to me, or (to speak with our friends the phrenologists) a new development of combativeness is added to the conformity of my head.

I am not, and cannot be, one of those who declaim against all efforts to acquire a better knowledge of our mental powers, by reproachfully calling them metaphysics. In its proper place, and duly meted and bounded, metaphysics is an elevated and noble science. And as Dr. Woods has intimated (p. 193,) that he may yet have something more to say on the subject which he has discussed, I take the liberty, which I must believe it after what he has said) he will cheerfully concede to me, of asking some questions in relation to what he has already said, that, if answered satisfactorily, may tend to make his future communications still more profitable and instructive. He will be pleased to know, conversant as he is with the subjects of metaphysical disquisition, what difficulties have arisen in the minds of tyros like myself, and of inquirers after some terra firma in that region, some views of which he has already exhibited. If my questions arise from ignorance, he will patiently bear with this in a learner; or if they have any good foundation in the want of satisfactory views in some part of his criticisms, he will rejoice in an opportunity of explanation, which will at once guard in future against misapprehension by such a class of readers as myself, and at the same time communicate to them welcome instruction.

I have said enough to define my position (as the language of the day will have it), and my wishes. Lest my preface should be longer than my book, I proceed, without further explanation, to state the difficulties that I have met with, in the attentive perusal of Dr. Woods' communication.

(1) On p. 187, Dr. W. puts this question respecting the unregenerate man: "While he remains in his natural state, can he, by the power of his will, prevent it, and call

forth the affection of love, and so be subject to the law of God?" The question, as the context shews, is designed to be a strong affirmation that he cannot do this.

In respect to such an affirmation or sentiment, I have some difficulties, the removal of which will entitle Dr. W. to my most sincere thanks.

First, in what sense does he mean to employ the important word CAN, in this statement? This word, connected with a negative expressed or implied, is often employed, in the Scriptures and in common parlance, for the expression of any thing which appears very difficult, or very revolting, or very improbable. Thus Joseph, when tempted to sin, exclaimed; "How can I do this great wickedness?" Every day we say: How can an intemperate man reform? How can an honest man cheat his neighbor? How can a true Christian love the world? In all these, and in all the like cases, the word can, with an implied or expressed negative, is intended to designate merely the idea that the thing spoken of is very difficult, improbable, or disagreeable. Is this the sense, in which Dr. W. means the word to be understood here? But,

Secondly; the context renders this sense of the word, as employed by him, very improbable; as we shall see in the sequel. Taking the word can, then, in another sense, and understanding Dr. Woods to mean, that the unregenerate man has actually no power to love God, and to be subject to his law, I wish to invite his attention to that host of texts in the Bible, addressed to all men without distinction, commanding them all to love God and to be subject to his law. Does God command sinners to do what is actually impossible? That he does COMMAND all men to love him, is absolutely certain; it admits of no doubt, and of no dispute. In what sense, then, I ask, is it actually impossible for unsanctified men to love him? Is it in such a sense as precludes the possibility that an unsanctified man can change his present state for a better one? Or does Dr. W. merely mean, that so long as the sinner does not make such a change, he will continue only to sin in all his moral acts? If the former (which strikes me as Dr. Woods' meaning), then what are we to say of the COMMAND directed to all the unregenerate: "Make you a new heart, and a new spirit; for why will ye die ?" Does God command the sinner to do what is abso

lutely impossible; and threaten him with everlasting death, because he does not achieve a work which nothing but Omnipotence itself can accomplish?

But perhaps Dr. W. will say, that he has merely affirmed, that the sinner cannot love and obey God, " by the power of his will." If now this should be said; then I am forced to inquire, whether he means, that the sinner may, and can bring himself to love and obey God in some other way; the power of the will not being at all exerted? Has he other faculties besides the will, that render obedience on his part to the command in question a real possibility? And what kind of love and obedience must there be, when "the power of the will" is left out of the question? Can it be willing love and obedience?

(2) On p. 187 Dr. Woods has said, that "unrenewed men invariably have wrong affections and desires, and per fectly holy beings invariably have right affections and desires, in view of moral objects."

I have, as an inquirer, a difficulty here from which I would fain be freed. Angels were once all perfectly holy beings; have they all "invariably had right affections and desires?" Our first parents were once sinless beings; did they "invariably retain right affections and desires !"-But Dr. W. says (and perhaps in some way this may modify his meaning)," in view of moral objects." I do not know that I understand his meaning here. He has applied this view of moral objects, both to wrong affections and desires and to right affections and desires. It would seem, then, that the same objects occasion wrong affections in the one class, and right affections in the other; and so he represents the matter, p. 187. In respect then to the first sin of the fallen angels-all the moral objects were before them, the moment before they sinned, which ever had been before them; and even if we suppose new ones to have supervened, yet as they were perfectly holy, they must invariably have continued to feel nothing but right affections and desires. And just the same must be true in regard to our first parents. They were once perfectly holy. But here there comes in a new excitement-the temptation of Satan, Yet how could this affect them? What Satan tempted them to do, was something of a moral nature. But since, in view of moral objects, "perfectly holy beings must inva

riably have right affections and desires"-what possible in fluence could temptation have over our progenitors? It may be, that I am breathing Baotian air, and that my circulation through the brain is therefore irregular and impeded, and so I can not think clearly; but if Dr. W., who lives on high ground and in the purest air of the country, will set me in a plain and clear path here, he shall receive the most grateful thanks which I can render. I can not make any thing more or less out of Dr. Woods' affirmations, than the simple position: Once a perfectly holy being, always so; once a sinner, always so.' If indeed he admits a change in either case, then a new physical and psychological creation, in the literal sense, is absolutely indispensable; and then, of course, men are not real agents, either when falling from a holy state, or rising to one.

(3) On p. 187 Dr. Woods also says, that "the divine. law preeminently aims to control the affections and desires

of the heart."

This proposition seems, at first view, to be a very reasonable one. But surrounded as it is by such declarations as I have already noticed, I need more light in respect to the author's views of it. In what respect does the law undertake to control these affections and desires? To what is the law addressed? If to the understanding and the conscience then how is any saving effect to be produced; unless they are brought to exert an influence upon the will? Then, as Dr. Woods has said that "the will has no power to call forth the affection of love and subjection to God," of course we cannot suppose, that the divine law is at all addressed to this faculty, but is directed to the affections and desires. But how are they to be operated upon by the divine law? On p. 186 and p. 187, Dr. W. declares, that 'holy and sinful affections and desires, in the saint and in the sinner, arise spontaneously from the presence or contemplation of moral objects.' So when the saint contemplates the divine law, he spontaneously loves and desires the holiness which it requires; and when the sinner contemplates it, his enmity and dissatisfaction are spontaneously called forth. Such is his illustration. What other tendency, then, can the divine law have upon the mind of a sinner, except uniformly and always to increase his hatred of all which is

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. II.

18