us afhamed of calling upon our Redeemer and our Sanctifier.

CHA P. II.

A View of the SOURCES, whence the Philofophers of the age draw their popular Arguments against the Catholic Faith.

T

copy

HE Royal Academy of Paris having offered a prize to the man who should write the best of verfes upon the Divine Nature, many wrote largely on the awful fubject; but Profeffor Crouzaz fent only two lines, of which this is the fenfe-Ceafe to expect from man a proper defcription of the Supreme Being: None can speak properly of Him but Himfelf: And the judicious Academicians agreed to crown this fhort performance, because it gave the most exalted idea of Him, whose dazzling glory calls for our filent adoration, and forbids the curious difquifitions of our philofophical pride.

Canft thou, by fearching, find out God? fays Job: This knowledge is as high as heaven, what canft thou do? It is broader than the fea, it is deeper than hell: What canft thou know? Job xi. 7. As the heavens are above the earth, faith the Lord, fo are my thoughts, (much more my NATURE) above your thoughts: Ifaiah lv. 9.-It is therefore one of the loudest dictates of REASON, that as we cannot grafp the universe with our hands, fo we cannot comprehend the Maker of the universe with our thoughts.

Nevertheless, a set of men, who make much ado about Reafon, after they have candidly acknowledged their ignorance, with regard to the Divine Nature, are fo inconfiftent as to limit God, and to infinuate that He can exist only according to their fhallow, dark, and fhort-fighted ideas. Hence it is, that, if He fpeak of his Effence otherwise than they have conceived it to be, they

D 2

either

either reject his revelation, or fo wreft and dif tort it, as to force it to speak their pre-conceived notions; in direct oppofition to the plain meaning of the words, to the general tenor of the Scriptures, to the confent of the Catholic Church in all ages, and to the very form of their own baptifm.

Is not the learned Dr. Priestley a ftriking inftance of this unphilofophical conduct? Great Philofopher in natural things, does he not forget himfelf in things divine? Candid Reader, to your unprejudiced reafon we make our appeal. With a wifdom worthy of a Chriftian Sage, he fpeaks thus in his Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit :"Of the fubftance of the Deity, WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL; and, therefore, all that we can CONCEIVE, Or PRONOUNCE, concerning it, must be MERELY HYPOTHETICAL: P. 109, 110.-But has he behaved contently with this reafonable acknowledgment? And may we not, upon his just conceffion, raife the following Query?

When a Doctor has granted that we have no idea at all of the Divine Subftance, &c. is he not both inconfiftent and unreafonable, if, so far from pronouncing hypothetically concerning it, he abfolutely declares, that the Divine Substance, of which he has NO IDEA AT ALL, is incompatible with the three Divine Subfiftences, which the Scripture calls the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft?

But Dr. P. after having granted the former propofition in his Difquifitions, abfolutely pronounces the latter in his Corruptions, &c. is not, therefore, Dr. P. both inconfiftent and unreasonable?

We truly honour him for his parts, and fincerely love him for his many focial virtues: But if he continually attack our Saviour's Divine Glory, (which is dearer to us than life itfelf) he is too candid to refufe us the liberty of trying to defeat his attacks, by plainly pointing out the flaws of his arguments, and the errors of his polemical conduct.

The

one.

The learned Doctor continuing to fpeak as a true Philofopher, fays, "We know there must be a firft Caufe, becaufe things do actually exist, and could never have existed without a Caufe, and all fecondary Caufes neceffarily lead us to a primary But of the nature of the existence of this primary Caufe, concerning which we KNOW NOTHING but by its effects, we cannot have ANY CONCEPTION. We are abfolutely confounded, bewildered, and loft, when we attempt to fpeculate concerning it. This fpeculation is attended with INSUPERABLE difficulties. Every defcription of the Divine Being. in the New Testament, gives us an idea of fomething filling and penetrating all things, and therefore of no KNOWN MODE OF EXISTENCE." Difquifitions, p. 111. 146.

Upon these fecond conceffions, we raise this fecond argument. A Doctor who grants that we KNOW NOTHING of the first Caufe but by its effects, that we have no conception of nature, that it has NO KNOWN mode of existence, and that this fpeculation is attended with INSUPERABLE difficulties,muft have an uncommon fhare of affurance, or of inattention, if he pretend to argue the Catholic Church out of the belief of the TRINITY, becaufe we have no (clear) conception of its nature, because it has NO KNOWN mode of exiftence, and becaufe (in our prefent ftate) the fpeculation of it is attended with fome INSUPERABLE difficulties.

But Dr. P. has made all these fair conceffions in his Difquifitions, and yet he pretends to argue us out of our Faith in the Trinity, becaufe we have no clear conception of its nature, &c. Hath not, therefore, the Doctor an uncommon fhare of afsurance, or of inattention ?

Continuing to fpeak like a Chriftian Philofopher, he fays, "In two circumstances that we do know, and probably in MANY others, of which WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL, the human and Divine Nature, finite and infinite Intelligence, MOST ESSENTIALLY differ. The firft is, that our attention is neceffarily confined to one thing,

D 3

whereas

whereas He who made, and continually fupports. all things, muft equally attend to all things at the fame time; which is a moft aftonifhing, but neceffary attribute of the one Supreme God, of which we can form NO CONCEPTION, and confequently, in this refpect, NO FINITE mind can be compared with the Divine. Again, the Deity not only attends to every thing, but must be capable of either producing or annihilating any thing: So that, in this respect also, the Divine Nature must be ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT from ours" P. 106. There is, therefore, upon the whole, manifold reason to conclude, that the Divine Nature, or Effence, befides being fimply UNKNOWN To us, has properties MOST ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT from every thing elfe:" P. 107. -God is, and ever muft remain, the INCOMPREHENSIBLE." P. 108,

Upon this fet of unavoidable conceffions, made by Dr. P. we raife this third argument. A Philofopher who grants that God is the INCOMPREHENSIBLE that the human and Divine Nature, fof confequence human and Divine Perfonality moft effentially differ-and that the Divine Effence has properties most effentially different from every thing elfe a Philofopher, I fay, who publickly grants this, muft be one of the moft prejudiced of all men, if he rejects the facred Trinity, into whofe name he was baptized, because the Trinity is in some sense incomprehenfible, and because he infifts that three Divine Perfons must be divided and feparated like three human perfons; just as if he did not himself maintain, that the Divine Effence, or Personality, hath properties moft effentially different from men, angels, and every thing, elfe.

We could fill feveral pages with arguments. equally demonftrative of the inconfiftency, and irrationality of the learned. Doctor's attacks upon the Catholic Faith: but not to tire out the Reader's patience, in the fecond Chapter of this. Work, we fhall produce but one more fet of the philofophical

philofophical conceffions, of which Dr. P. loles fight in his Theological Works.

In the firft place [fays he] it must be confeffed, with awful reverence, that we know but little of ourselves, and therefore MUCH LESS of our Maker, even with refpect to his attributes. We know but little of the Works of God, and therefore certainly MUCH LESS of his Effence. In fact, we have NO PROPER IDEA of any Effence whatever. It will hardly be pretended, that we have ANY PROPER IDEA of the fubftance even of Matter, confidered as divested of all its properties."Difquifitions, p. 103 and 104.

From these laft Conceffions, and from the tenor of Dr. Priestley's Corruptions, it appears, that men, who confefs they know little of God's works, and little of his Effence; and who have not even any: proper idea of the Effence of a straw, pretend, nevertheless, to KNOW CLEARAY what is incon-fiftent with the Divine Effence: infomuch, that fetting up as Reformers of the three Creeds, they try to turn the doctrine of the Trinity out of the Church, and the Lamb of God out of his divine and everlasting throne..

Now is not this as abfurd, as if they faid to the Catholics, We have indeed been all baptized: in the name of the God of the Chriftians, that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft But we new Gnosticks, we modern Reformers, who know nothing

of the

Father's Effence, or even of the effence of an infect we are, nevertheless, fo perfectly acquainted with the Divine Effence, as to decide: that it is abfolutely inconfiftent with the nature of the Father, to have a living Word, or a proper Son, and a rational Spirit; and, therefore, reforming our God himself, we strike the Word and the Holy Ghoft out of the number of the Divine Perfons, whom at our baptism we vowed to fervo jointly for ever..

Oye Philofophers of the age, can men of fenfe admire your Philofophy, any more than men of