and the same time, to actuate the distant members of the body, without either multiplication or division of the soul? Is there any thing in the body that can bear any resemblance to this without a manifest contradiction? Nay, even as to bodies, is any thing more a self-evident principle than that the cause must be before the effect? yet the light and heat of the Sun are as old as the Sun; and supposing the Sun to be eternal, they would be as eternal.

And as light and heat are of the nature of the Sun, and as the three faculties before mentioned are of the nature of the soul, so that the soul could not be a soul if it wanted any of them; so may we from small things to great, comprehend without any contradiction, that the three persons are of the very nature and essence of the Deity, and likewise of the same substance with it; and though one proceeding from the other (as the faculties of the soul do), yet that all three are consubstantial, co-eternal, and of necessary existence as God is for that these three are God, and God is these three; as understanding, memory and will, are a soul; and a soul is understanding, memory, and will.

I have said thus much here, to clear the way from that objection to receiving revelation (though we are infallibly assured of the fact), because of the supposed contradiction to our Reason in comparing it with our Earthly things.

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,
VERAX,

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

POSTSCRIPT.

Pope Alexander the Third says, "Examine the soul of man.... "and you will see in a certain manner, though obscurely and dimly,

66

an image of the Divine Trinity. There is in the soul of man "intelligence, memory, and will."-(To render the comparison exact, it is necessary to substitute sentiment for intelligence, and to place it before memory; sentiment being the faculty of the human soul which more appropriately represents the Father.)— "But we say that the memory is the soul, that the intelligence is "the soul, that the will is the soul; the memory, intelligence, and

66

66

"will are but one soul....These three things have the same essence, "and, nevertheless, the one is not the other. It is the same with regard to the ineffable and infinite existence of God. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from the one and "the other; and though the Father, and the Son, and the Holy "Ghost, have the same substance, the same power, the same great'ness, yet, they are not three Gods, but one only substance in three persons, and three persons in one only substance."-(Alexander 3rd, Ep. 32.) The illustrious Bossuet says, "The image of the (Divine) Trinity is magnificently represented in the rational creature (man); for, like to the Father, he has existence; like to the Son he has intelligence; like to the Holy Ghost, he has love or will." I refer you to the writings of this most illustrious Prelate on this subject-Elev. Sur. les Myst. 6 em, de la Semaine 2; 7 em, de la Sem. 14.

I ask, in the words of a learned Catholic theologian, “Shall Reason now acquiesce? Is she not convinced by the force of these arguments? Is she not ready to bury in eternal oblivion her pretended differences with religion? Pretended, because there never was a real difference between them; it is but when reason is distorted, outraged, forced, (and consequently no longer reason,) that she seems to deviate from religion. Is she not ready to enter into the bonds of union with the latter, and embrace her with the kiss of peace; or does she require more explicit arguments to convince her before she condescends to do so? If she does, the Eagle of Meaux, the illustrious champion of Religion and Reason too, comes forward again, and with arguments the most illustrative, though metaphysically profound, removes the barrier of pretended discord, and forms a perfect reconciliation between them. "We see in ourselves," says again the great Bishop of Meaux, "an image of the Trinity; the thought, which we perceive to arise, to be born with us, as the germ of our our spirit, as the son of our intelligence, gives us some idea of the Son of God, eternally conceived in the intelligence of the Heavenly Father. He takes the name Word, in order that we may understand that he is born in the bosom of his Father, as is born in our soul this interior word which we conceive when we contemplate the truth. But we love this interior word, and the soul in which it is conceived and born; and in loving it, we find something in ourselves which is not less precious to us than our spirit and our thought, which is the fruit of the one and of the other, which unites them and unites

itself to them, and makes with them but one and the same soul. So as far as a comparison can be drawn between God and man,-so, I say, is produced in God, the eternal love which proceeds from the Father, who thinks, and from the Son, who is his thought, to make with him and his thought but one and the same nature."-(Hist. Univer. p. 180.) Trinity created, image of the Trinity uncreated. We are, we understand, we wish. The connexion and distinction of these three things, represent the Father, his Word, and the Holy Ghost, who unites them: substances in God, but accidents in us. "The Father is the principal of the other two Persons. How is that? God thinks substantially, perfectly, eternally, he cannot think but of himself; in thinking, he knows something, substantial, perfect, eternal, as himself; that is, his delivery or bringing forth, his eternal and perfect generation; for divine nature has no imperfection, and in it the conception cannot be separated from the delivery: it is, therefore, in this manner that God is Father, it is in this manner that he gives birth to a Son who is equal to himself. ... God is fecund, God has a Son; but where here is the Holy Ghost? where is that holy and perfect Trinity, which we adore from our baptism? God, does he not love his Son, and is he not loved by him?....This love is neither imperfect nor accidental in God. The love of God is substantial as his thought; and the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and Son as their mutual love, is of the same substance with the one and the other; a third consubstantial, and, making with these, one and the same God."-(4 em. elevation, 2 em. et 5 em. Semaine.)

These proofs are both clear and conclusive, they require no demonstration on my part; they, in my humble opinion, point out the distinction of Persons in the Deity, and at the same time, the Unity of their nature.

"The word Trinity," says Dean Swift, "is indeed not in Scrip"ture; but was a term of art invented in the earlier times, to express "the doctrine by a single word, for the sake of brevity and conveni"ence. The doctrine, then, as delivered in Holy Scripture, though "not exactly in the same words, is very short, and amounts only to "this:-that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are each of "them God, and yet there is but one God. For, as to the word "Person, when we say there are three Persons, and as to those "other explanations in the Athanasian Creed, this day read to you, '(whether composed by Athanasius or not,) they were taken up

66

66

"three hundred years after Christ to expound this doctrine; and I "will tell you on what occasion," &c. . . . . ." God commands us to "believe that there is a union and that there is a distinction; but “what that union or what that distinction is, all mankind are equally "ignorant; and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, "without some new revelation. Therefore, I shall again repeat the "doctrine of the Trinity, as it is positively affirmed in Scripture,"that God is there expressed in three different names, as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each of these is God, and that "there is but one God. But this union and distinction are a mys"tery utterly unknown to mankind. This is enough for any good "Christian to believe on this great article, without ever enquiring "further; and this can be contrary to no man's reason, although the "knowledge of it is hid from him." "From what has been "said, it is manifest that God did never command us to believe, nor "his servants to preach, any doctrine which is contrary to the reason he hath been pleased to endue us with; but for his own "wise ends hath thought fit to conceal from us the nature of the 66 thing he commands, thereby to try our faith and obedience, and "increase our dependence on him. It is highly probable, that if "God should please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some other mysteries of our holy religion, we should "not be able to understand them, unless he should at the same time "think fit to bestow on us some new powers or faculties of the "mind, which we want at present, and which are reserved till the "resurrection to life eternal; for now,' as the Apostle says,

66

......

" we

see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.' Reason itself "is true and just; but the reason of every particular man is weak "and wavering, perpetually swayed or turned by his interests, his "passions, or his vices."-(Swift's Sermon on the Trinity; Works, Vol. 11, old edition.)

St. Patrick simplified it (the Trinity) in making use of a Shamrock and certainly the Shamrock is an excellent sensible emblem of the Trinity; for it has but one nature, the one source or stem, and three distinct leaves, whereof one is not and cannot be the other. Water, in like manner, serves as an example; for it is the same in the source, the same in the river, and the same in the sea; the source produces the river, and the source and the river produce the sea; and yet they are perfectly distinct, for the source is not the river, nor the source or river the sea. The like argument may be taken from the circulation of the blood, &c.

X

APPENDIX IV.

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR SAVIOUR.

REV. SIR,

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

I shall in this letter offer first a few observations on the Genealogy of our Blessed Lord according to St. Matthew. He had principally in view in this genealogy, to show the accomplishment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and he accordingly commences by calling him "the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” because to these two Patriarchs the special promise was made, that the Messiah should be born of their blood; and consequently that great Evangelist proceeds through the different generations: Abraham," says he, "begat Isaac, &c. &c." I refer you to this genealogy, and also to the Notes, on the 8th verse of the 1st chapter of St. Matthew, "And Joram begat Ozias; "* note on verse 11 (Ibid.), "Josias begat Jechonias;"† note on verse 16 (Ibid.), “And Jacob

66

"Joram begat Ozias;" three are omitted, Ochosias, Joas, and Amasias, the mixture of the blood of Achab with that of David is the cause of it, God having declared to Achab that in punishment of his impieties and of his crimes he would exterminate his race; he promised to David that his race should always subsist, and that it would reign for many centuries. We see here the accomplishment of the Promise and of the Threat. The blood of David perpetuates itself and continues to reign in Juda; but three Kings of Juda, descendants of Achab by Athalia his daughter, the wife of Joram, are suppressed in the list of kings, and by this suppression a doubt is raised of the way which they might be placed in by the proscription of the impious Achab. In fine, this omission of three generations is not material, the design of St. Matthew being only to shew the Jews that Jesus their Messiah was of the Family of David, though the said three generations be left out, for Ozias may be called the son of Joram, though Joram was his great grandfather.

† Verse 11: "Josias begat Jechonias, &c." The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the Evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain forty-two persons. The first class of