yo h wife, we can fee the Reafon of that Correfpondence and Relation, which all the corrupt Syftems have ever borne to each other, and which prove their mutual De- parture from force common and eftablifhed Truths, originally held among them. Thus the very Sins and Depravities, the Superftitions and Idolatries, and ever} the Oppofition and Enmity of Men ; are turned, by the Wifdom of GOD, into á Teftimony to the Truth of his Word ; and ferve, like the dark Shades in ; beautiful Painting, to heighten and embellifh thofe Ob- je&s, which themfelves could never delineate or pour- tray. If, as the Scriptures affure us, Man by his utmof} Wifdom could never knowGOD (and, indeed, in the Reafon of Things, " What is infinite, as Tertullian obferves, can only be known to itfelf)" ; it is impoffible, that he fhould know the Mode of his Exiftence. Even Sir IJaac Newton, in his celebrated Definition of the ,Godhead, is obliged to own, "That he exifis and at after a manner entirely unknown ;" which Conceflion, bow much it muft weaken any rational Inveftigation of his Nature, needs not many Words to determine. The true Knowledge of GOD, in any Cafe or to any De- gree, muft therefore have been the Effea of his divine Revelation. And if this Pofition be (as it certainly is) as true as the Bible ; we may then fafely alert, as a pollatéral . Maxim, that Idolatry not only confifts 'irvorthipping That for GOD, which is not GOD, but allo in attempting any Idea of his Nature, contrary to what He himfelf hash revealed. Our prefent De/s,, therefore, and all who derive their Notions of the God- head from the low and depraved Conceptions of their own Minds, are as touch guilty of this Offence againft their Creator, as the older Heathens themfelves. If two DOf thefe people fhould offer each a Definition of the eity, according to their refpeétiveJudgements and Opi- nions ; it is no more likely that they íhould ex&11y, 'mree than any two of the antient Philofophers have upon i
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=