mere Matter, and independent in it's Operations upon corporeal Organs.

To conclude this Argument; that Man is the only Animal that thinks, is abundantly apparent from the Faculty of Speech; which is necessary for the Communication of Thought, but for nothing else. For Man might express his Wants, Appetites, and Paffions, by Motions, or inarticulate Sounds, as other Animals do. Now if other Animals think, how came it to pass, that Nature, or Chance, or whatever it was into which all Things, and Principles are to be refolved, should be fo extremely unlucky, or malicious, and deviate so much from the great Wisdom, and Goodnefs obfervable in the general Oeconomy of the Universe, as not to furnish all Animals with this defirable, and altogether neceffary Privilege of the Tongue? How come they for the most Part to have Voices, but no Speech? Nature and Chance therefore are clearly out of the Question; and we must conclude from the foregoing Confiderations, that Thought is characteristical of the human Nature; that Man does not think, either as a material, or as an animal Being; and confequently that he is endowed with an immaterial, intellectual Principle, which is ufually called by the Name of Spirit, or Soul. Man then is compounded of Soul, and Body; or of Matter, and Spirit; but as

he was not himself the Maker of either of these, it follows that he is the Creature of a fuperior, and independent Being, which is God.Thus the first great Truths of Religion arife from the most rational Deductions; and the Gradation of Existence feems to be this. All Being is either mere Matter inactive and inanimate, and fubject to infinite Appearances, and Modifications; or it is Matter animated, and endowed with fenfible Organs; or it is Matter animated, and rational; i. e. compounded with Spirit; or it is Spirit unencumbered with, and independent on Matter. That Spirit exifts is evident from the Existence of the Spirit, or Soul of Man; that it can exist without Body is just as certain as that it exists with it; for there is no Principle of Existence in a Body, or mere material Being; and confequently to the Existence of Spirit Body is fo far from being neceffary, that it is abhorrent from, and contradictory to our Notion of Purity, and Perfection of Existence, and Operation, to fuppofe the Neceffity of fuch an Union. Whatever then may be the Degrees of Perfection even in an intellectual Existence, the fupreme Point is the Deity; and therefore, as it is a confeffed Maxim of Reason, that there never was, or will be a Time when nothing did, or fhall exift, fo the fame Reafon plainly directs us to the Acknowledgment of an eternal, self-existent, immaterial, and infinitely perfect Being; which is God.

From this Truth then, that God is; naturally refults another, which all muft fubfcribe to, notwithstanding the fubordinate Differences of religious Opinion, viz. that he is the Object of Adoration to all his Creatures, capable of paying it; and from this Truth, that God is a Spirit, the Nature and Manner of that Adoration appears to be abundantly ascertained. "God is a Spirit, and they "that worship him, must worship him in Spirit " and in Truth," feems to be as much a Pofition of Reason, as it is a Declaration of Scripture. For if God be a Spirit, will it not follow that it is abfurd, as well as wicked and prefumptuous, to endeavour to exhibit him under material Reprefentations? and in Confequence of that, to worship fuch Idols, or Representations? Indeed the Wickedness and Abfurdity of this is fo plain, that we cannot fuppofe Men of Understanding, in the darkest and most idolatrous Ages of the World, ever afcribed any Virtues, Powers, or Attributes to mere Idols and Images, as fuch. The great Plea for the Use of them no doubt ever was, what it is to this Day, viz. that they excite Devotion, and engage the Attention in the Divine Worship of a fuperior Being, imaged under a fenfible Object. Now in the firft Place, it is but too likely that with the Vulgar at least in this Case the Idol is the God; and if fo, the Use of Images may be the Occafion of Idolatry. But farther, is there

no Danger even in the Cafe of fenfible, understanding Men, that where the Attention is immediately and directly fixed, the Devotion will be actually, though not intentionally paid? The Weakness of human Nature is too great to be denied, or diffembled; the Mind of Man is not able duly to place it's Attention on a spiritual Object when material Ones are at Hand; and material Ones will be always at Hand in the prefent mortal State of Things. But I fhould think this very Confideration an Argument rather againft, than for the Ufe of Images in Divine Worship; because the erecting of any emblematical and hieroglyphical Figures, or especially fuch as bear the human Shape seems; as it were to call and invite the Attention to a particular material Object; and if the Attention is too apt, through the Frailty of our mortal Nature, to be diverted from God in our Devotions, methinks that of Chriftians had better be diverted to many Things, or any Thing rather than an Image. For Idolatry is a Sin; but Inattention is often our Infirmity: and therefore if the Folly and Wickedness of abfolute Idolatry be acknowledged on all Hands, the very Poffibility of committing it even in the lowest Degree, or of being acceffary to the Commiffion of it in others, by worshipping the true God through the Medium of Images, if I may fo fay, fhould furely be guarded against by all Methods of Precaution.

I am fenfible, the Use of emblematical Representations and Images among the antient Jews has been often infifted upon by the Members of the Church of Rome.-But allowing every thing that has been urged from this Circumstance it's full Weight, as particularly, that God would never have suffered, and much less prescribed the Use of Images, as he undoubtedly did in the Appointment of the Cherubims for Inftance (fee Exodus xxv. 18.) that covered the Mercy Seat, which had confeffedly a human Shape, if the using of Images, and the worshipping towards them were idolatrous in itself; allowing the full Force of this Circumstance, I say, I would yet take the Liberty to ask two or three plain Questions; whether any Precept delivered, or Practice recorded in the New Teftament, does in the least countenance the Use of Images among Chriftians? if not, whether any Ufage or Cuftom among the Jews fhould reasonably be a ftanding Rule of Practice to Chriftians? or, rather, referving to the moral Law it's Right of Obligation, whether it does not become Chriftians more than the Profeffors of any other Religion, to reject Jewish Ceremonies and Modes of Worship, even as fuch? and lastly, after all, whether the express Words of the fecond Commandment do not discourage and forbid the Ufe of Images in the Worship of God, under whatever Pretence they may be erected,

at