or creditable to his own moral character, is, in the full and literal meaning of the term, an Atheist !

This may sound like bold and theoretical assertion, but it is the uniform language of Scripture; and I am fully convinced that it is on the carrying, in men's convictions, this stronghold of resistance, that Christ plants the standard of victory in the heart. I am fully convinced that Atheism, not sin in its popular acceptation, is the radical disease of society; and that while the pulpit or the press addresses itself to the endless task of eradicating the pride of one, or the sensuality of another, or the worldly-mindedness of all, it is but lopping off members of the old man, while the carnal mind is still sending out, at every pulse, into this mutilated trunk, its own essential nature, enmity against God. These remedies are all palliatives, not alteratives, and exercise no sanatory influence upon the radical constitution of the soul. While we hear the Saviour say, "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," while again we hear Him say, "This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;'"- contrasting these two declarations, we cannot but declare that "all men have not faith," that all men know not God; and therefore we do not merely accuse the many of deep-rooted pride of nature, of ungodly levity, of "covetousness which is idolatry," of love of this present evil world, of forgetfulness of the Blessed God; but, under shelter of these declarations of the Saviour himself, we bring against society in general, and against the great majority of its individuals, the sweeping and levelling charge of practical and substantial Atheism!

What, then, is God? And where is he to be sought and found of man?

In which of heaven's palaces God has set up the throne of his more immediate dominion, and which is the presence chamber of heaven's court, and heaven's Sovereign, I know not. But this I know, that he whose finite mind wanders throughout the realms of immensity to search after God, will ever search in vain. "Say not then in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above :) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead :)" for "the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith which we preach." In the still silence of worldly affections, sensual passions, and malignant tempers: in a deep prostration of the will of self to the will of God: in the calm solitude of mental retirement-let the peace of God rule in your heart over holy affections, regulated tempers, and moderated desires, and then, in the prayer of faith, offered to the Father, in the name of the Son, through the Eternal Spirit of grace and supplication, seek God, and find Him within your own bosom.

God, in His essence, we know not, and cannot know. God, in His attributes, is revealed to the understanding of the natural man in His works, and word, and Son, -to the heart of the regenerate, by His Spirit. And therefore, in whatever degree men are ignorant of the attributes of God, in that degree God is to them but an empty name.

And can it be admitted that men know God in His natural attributes, in his awful majesty and tremendous omnipotence, as Him who wields the sceptre of universal sovereignty, and with a thought creates or annihilates worlds; not only as a Being whose piercing eye penetrates the deepest recesses of nature, and converts darkness into light, but as a Being who, at every point of time, is actually present in every point of space, can it be admitted that men believe all this, and as it were concentrate upon their own souls these burning rays of Heaven's tremendous majesty, by the belief of a superintending and particular Providence, and yet that these awful truths have no more influence upon their understandings, hearts, or lives, than the acknowledged fables of heathenism? See the far different influence which God and man exert upon the habits and conduct of society. How many lawless passions and angry tempers, how much profane or indecent conversation, does the entrance of a worldly superior suddenly put to silence, perhaps convert into the studied proprieties of a strict morality, while the professed belief of an omnipotent, omniscient, ever present God, is wholly powerless; as intimate associates, and unguarded hours, and, above all, as the book of God's remembrance, would amply testify! How many vices, uncongenial with the temperament of society, like the noxious weeds of the desert, wither before the presence of man, but flourish in rank luxuriance, the spontaneous produce of an ungrateful and accursed soil, when the pure eye of Heaven alone beams upon them! See men, on the right hand and on the left, voluntarily engulfing their souls in the unbridled and absorbing pursuit of wealth or pleasure, until the transient visits of God to their consciences are at length steadily rejected, and because "they like not to retain God in their knowledge, God gives them over to a reprobate mind." See, on one side, the man whose whole business is pleasure, content if he can kill with some idle amusement those hours of time upon every moment of which hangs an eternity, or if, in utter forgetfulness of God's demands upon him, he can earn from those around the character of an inoffensive, good natured, and amiable man. See, on the other side, the active man of business embarked by that "covetousness which is idolatry," in some ambitious speculation, daily securing to himself, in the opinion of his fellow worms, the character of an industrious and prosperous man, who bids fair for wealth and respectability; but watch him with the eye of faith, as he advances, with indeed now and then a hesitating, faltering step, yet with regular and rapid pace, to perdition, through the successive stages of neglected duties, religious, moral, natural; through an array of broken Sabbaths polluted by the hand of business; through a host, that closes upon him as he advances, and forbids his retreat, of unprincipled compliances, illegal transactions, fraudulent gains; through all the tricking and chicanery which the world perhaps may sanction, but which God condemns; and all this, beneath the eye of that awful Being from whose penetrating glance he cannot for a moment withdraw himself, nor veil the evil of his doings with all the pleaded sophistry of "general custom," or "unavoidable necessity," or all the subtle, and with himself but too successful, artifices of selfdeception. Can it be admitted that this man knows God even in His natural attributes? Can it be admitted that he ever lifts an eye to heaven, or ever breathes to conscience the thought, Thou, God, seest me? J. M. H.

DANGER OF DAMAGING GOOD PRINCIPLES WHILE DEFENDING

THEM.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I AM somewhat alarmed by the turn which the anti-Tractarian controversy is taking. Sound principles are often endangered by unsound defences; and the experience of ages proves that when any cause, however good, is advocated upon collateral considerations, rather than upon its direct merits, it loses ground in public opinion. What are called argumenta ad hominem, confutations of an adversary upon his own principles, and the like, however efficient at the moment as party weapons, add nothing to the real stability of truth. Among these ad captandum arguments none are more common, and at the moment more controversially efficacious, than appeals to authority. In Parliament, a Whig will silence a Tory, and elicit the cheers of his own party, if he can produce a good pungent passage from Mr. Pitt on his side of the question; and a Tory will confound a Whig, and gratify his own friends, if he can adduce the counterauthority of Mr. Fox. But in the mean time attention is drawn from the real merits of the case; and in some instances the speaker himself may have actually wished to withdraw it; not perhaps being sure whether he could maintain this ground, or thinking it sufficient if he can place the matter in such a light that his party may, without violating self-respect, gregariously vote with him. But what is the result? A third party arises, which says, "I care neither for Pitt nor Fox-one rogue is as bad as another; or if you wish softer words, I value one opinion as little as the other; you may squabble about your rival authorities-I disclaim both; and both are wrong." Now it might be that the one or the other was right; but the assailant of both is likely to make a new party, which in the end may conquer both. Tories have sometimes helped Radicals to oust Whigs, and Whigs to oust Tories; not that either the Tory or the Whig approved of the extreme argumentum ad hominem which, for a party object, he addressed to the Radical; for each knew that what he believed to be the just argument, would not serve his purpose. Lord A. B. C. says to his Conservative friends, "Vote for me; for I hate Reformers;" and to Radicals and Chartists, "Vote for me, for what have Reformers done for you?" On the other hand, Sir X. Y. Z. whispers to Conservatives, "Vote for me; for it is only moderate Reformers like myself who can keep out those pests, the Radicals and Chartists;" and to Radicals and Chartists, "Vote for me; for though I do not go all the journey with you, I go some way, and keep out the borough-mongering Tories." All this is accounted good and honourable electioneering; but it puts principle out of the question.

I have wandered from the particular point upon which I proposed addressing you, for I set out with remarking upon merely injudicious defences, but have digressed to those which are not sincere. I do not, however, intend to class them together; I mean only to say, that any argument which does not satisfy a man's own mind, and is merely an argumentum ad hominem to his adversary, is a dangerous weapon, where the only object is to ascertain truth.

Permit me to illustrate this by the turn which, as I have said, it

seems to me, the anti-Tractarian controversy is taking. You yourself, Sir, and those of your correspondents, and others, who coincide with you, adopt the principle that "The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants," that is, as judiciously explained-I will not say mitigated by the sixth Article of our Church, that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." A party has arisen in the Anglican Church which maintains the Popish doctrine that the Bible is not the only rule of faith; and it appeals to Fathers, Councils, and to a catena of English bishops and priests, as upholding that and other Tractarian opinions.

And what say the replicants? First, they justly disclaim all reference to human authority, as decisive of the questions at issue, which they assert must be settled by the word of God alone; for I acknowledge that yourself and others have fairly and broadly taken this ground; including Mr. Goode, whose admirable volumes, for research, ability, and utility, well deserve the encomiums you have passed upon them. But though the replicants deny the Tractarian position, they add various argumenta ad hominem grounded upon it. They shew that the early Fathers and Councils, and also the Anglican Reformers and best divines, are on the Protestant side; and they prove that the Tractarians have quoted either very heedlessly or very unfairly, and that the stream of "authorities," as they call them, sets strongly in a counter direction.

All this is well in its way, and it may be indispensable, but it demonstrates nothing but what Bishop Taylor said long ago, that Fathers may be quoted against Fathers, and Councils against Councils; and that the Tractarians have incorrectly or fraudulently summed up the suffrages. But suppose that they have; and suppose their catena snapped at every link-what then? Suppose that we convict them of fraud or folly-what then? Suppose that their assumed authorities are in truth our witnesses-what then? The truth of doctrines does not depend upon the number of those who maintain or oppose them.

But are the sentiments of learned and holy men to be lightly accounted of? Certainly not. Arguments stand upon their own merits; but opinions come recommended from the lips or the pens of the wise and good; from men of faith, and love, and prayer. I acknowledge not the "authority" of Cranmer or Ridley, of Jewell or Hooker, of Beveridge or Leighton; but I think much of the judgment of such men; and if I found that I held any opinion contrary to the doctrines set forth in our Homilies or Articles, or to the catena of our most devout and learned divines, I should begin to question whether I was right; and I should humbly repair to Holy Scripture, with every aid which I could gain from creeds, liturgies, commentators, and dead or living instructors, to search out the matter.

But this is not precisely the complexion which will be given to the pending controversy, if great care be not taken to keep what are called authorities in their right place. I rejoice that many venerable names have been rescued from the embrace of the Tractators; but still nothing is authority but the Word of God. As the Tractators and their allies have quoted hundreds or thousands of pages to prove that they are right, it may be necessary to quote as many to shew that they are wrong; but if necessary, it is still a necessary evil. The majority of readers, when they see testimonies thus opposed to testimonies, conclude that it is only a contest as to which side has most votes, and that both agree to abide by the decision. But do they so? I hope not. The Tractators indeed say, as did the Papists to the Reformers, (though in neither case confessing and yielding, when they are fairly beaten at their own weapon): "Shew us that the sense of the Church Catholic, which we believe to be infallible, is against us, and we will acknowledge we are wrong." But will any man who holds Scriptural views, consent to this setting up of any human tribunal as infallible? He may, as did Jewell and many other of our eminent writers, speak words which sound this way; but he means them not in this sense. "Find me a salamander, and I will eat it," is only a popular way of asserting that there is no such animal. It was thus that our Reformers challenged Papists to find transubstantiation, and various other fables, in the early Fathers; they used an argumentum ad hominem; they said that they would embrace the doctrine, if found; not as meaning that the finding would legitimate it, but only that it could not be found at all, so that they should never be called upon to fulfil their pledge of eating it. But the Papist and the Tractarian mean literally that whatever they find ruled by tradition-which they consider infallible authority-they will receive : but Protestants deny the alleged infallibility, and therefore are not bound by the issue; even if it were against them, which they deny also.

But the million do not make this distinction. They take up two sets of quotations, and conclude that the palm is to be awarded to the strongest. But if this inference is not strenuously guarded against, truth will be swamped in defending it. I feel sure that if Mr. Goode could be convinced that every writer whom he has quoted is against him, in the momentous questions at issue, he would not adopt their opinion, but would fall back upon Sacred Writ as the only unerring standard of truth. He would not eat the salamander if found; he only means that there was a false finding. To what then comes the whole argument? To this; What is the doctrine of the particular branch of Christ's Church to which we profess to belong? How does our belief tally with our subscriptions? Have we any right to be where we are? Are the Tractarians or are their opponents true and consistent Anglican Churchmen? And alsofor I would not overlook the great importance of seeking out the old paths, and tracing "the footsteps of the flock," - what light is shed upon Sacred Writ by the interpretations of holy and understanding men of many ages, whose opinions, though not authoritative, yet are weighty, and should act as a powerful check upon rash private judgments?

Thus far, however, we do not get much beyond the argumentum ad hominem. The citations adduced may be Tractarian or antiTractarian; and this may decide who is the consistent Anglican; who rightly construes what he subscribes to; and who has on his side Catholic testimony, so far as it can be collected; but the question, What is truth? is not thereby concluded; for, as man is fallible, Fathers, tradition, and the Church of England may all be wrong, wholly or in part; therefore we must resort to the Word of