ligence, which in its present ftate and ufe differs effentially from matter; and if this is produced by the parent animals, it fufficiently proves that fpirit may be from, and produced with the creature. Spirit is known by the properties of understanding and will. Underftanding is a power of defcernment, whereby things are known and diftinguished from one another: So on two different objects being presented to the eye, the mind is impreffed with the proper form of both, and the diftinguishing characters of them alfo. The will is the power of choice, and though a diftinct faculty, and different in its ufe from the understanding, may notwithstanding with propriety be termed the refult of it, as choice is always according to the dictate of the judgment. Whatever the mind prefers, the will chufeth. In things hurtful, where deftruction is certainly foreseen, the will chufeth the deadly poifon, the deftructive dart, the ftrangling ftring, &c. becausethe judgement hath pronounced it better to die than live. 12. Now neither of the fe properties of spirit can be denied to animals. They know with the fame, or perhaps a greater degree of certainty the things which concern them, than mankind do. This is obvious in almost all orders of animals and infects. The care, diligence, and order of the Bee may ferve as a proof and fpecimen of the understanding of inferior creatures. Their power of choice is alfo great and invariable, nicely felecting their provifion of grafs and herbs from many others, in appearance as good and profitable. And in this they are fo inflexible, that extreme want is fcarce fufficient to make them deviate from their method of proceeding. And thefe properties of fpirit are apparent in animals at their firft en--, trance. trance into life. How do the young of many of them, as foon as they come forth, (without inftructions from others) feek for that, and that only, by which their lives are to be preserved? Now what but nature guides them in this? And yet matter, as fuch, cannot guide. It is the fpirit within them which guides to that which their wants prompt them to feek. The docility or teachablenefs of animals, alfo, conveys an idea of their being poffeffed of a principle of intelligence. Many creatures may be taught that which they fhew no figns of by nature; as a bird to speak, a dog to dance, &c. They learn these as men learn arts and fciences, by being reprefented to the outward fenfes, and thereby conveyed to the mind, which recieves the image of them, according to the degree of impreffion which is made. 13. Seeing then that animals poffefs a nature which is fpiritual and intelligent, and that its being created with the body is a matter which has the fuffrage of moft men, so it is congruous to reason to refolve the creation and coming of man's fpirit into the fame caufė and way, because fpiritual nature is not the matter of diftinction betwixt men and other creatures. And though it be granted, that the fpirit of man is more fublime, is higher in capacity, and defigned for greater things than the fpirit of animals, yet that will not infer a different method of production; because a remarkable difference obtains among men themselves in that refpect; fome having much larger capacities than others, and which is moft obvious where generation is concerned, I mean, in particular families, children generally refembling their parents, not only in form and feature, but alfo in capacity or mental abilities; Which Which is a very paffable proof of the one being from the parent as well as the other, because capacity refpects mind and not body. 14. And as fpiritual nature does not diftinguish men from brutes, in point of production; so, if in any thing the spirit of man affords matter, whereby the origin of the fouls of men may be refolved into pre-exiftence or immediate creation, whilft animals must be content with an earthly extraction, it is religion. But then how does the nature of man differ from the nature of animals in refpect of religion? Now it muft be confeffed, that, knowing as many orders of animals are, there is no proof (that I know of) of their being religious either by nature or art. Indeed it seems poffible to teach them the form of religion, and perhaps they would underftand as well, and ufe it to as good purpose as many called chriftians do. The parallel of animals in this refpect, is man in his lapfed ftate. "The natural man (the uninòs, the animal man) receiveth not the things of the spirit of GoD: "For they are foolishness to him; neither can he "know them, because they are fpiritually difcerned." So reafon, una ffifted by grace, does not only not comprehend, but contradicts, if not blafphemes them. What natural knowledge of things religious is there in children? If they were left to themselves, would they know any more of religion than they do of languages which they never hear? Yea, do not moft men (notwith ftanding they are taught both of GOD and man) remain as ignorant of spiritual things; of conviction, converfion, &c. and the right way of ferving GoD as children, as brutes themfelves? Then, though it has II. Cor. ii. 14. been been affirmed, that there is no known nation, however remote from those called chriftian, but have fome notion of a deity, and affect to worship him, though often in a mistaken way, which is fuppofed to be the effect of rational nature, however corrupted by fin, and blinded by ignorance; yet, I believe, rational nature, as fuch, abftracted from tradition and the grace of GOD, excites none to any religious act whatsoever. For if mind and will be the criterion of rational nature, that which diftinguisheth it from matter, which few deny; and if animals poffefs a degree of it, and natural men a greater degree, and yet neither of them know the things of the spirit of GOD; but to the one, or both of them are foolishness: How do men by nature differ from animals in respect of religion? And wherein confifts man's native abilities for the purposes of it? The difference cannot be difcerned; and man's natural abilities for that bufinefs, have no being. Hence then, as rational nature in man, is no more a reason for their fouls not being by traduction, than it is in animals; fo neither is a religious difpofition, because by nature man is not so disposed. 15. And as reafon, whether in a lower or higher degree, whether in animals or men, militates nothing against the doctrine of traduction touching the foul; and as reafon and religion are not infeparable, reafon being in devils whoare free from religion, and in fome degree in animals that mind earthly things, and in men whofe native wisdom is earthly, fenfual, and devilih*;" fo it may be inferred, that religion depends on, and flows wholly from the quality or difpofition of the foul: Which quality or difpofition distinguisheth one order order of beings from another, and determineth the views and tendencies of the whole. So devils, by their diabolical difpofition, are determined to wickednefs; as animals, by their earthly quality, to earthly things; and natural men, by their double difpofition, to wickedness and the world also. 16. Yea, in the beginning, when man bore the image of GOD, when his foul was holy, religion, the knowledge and love of GoD, did not flow from his spirit as the effect of its rationallity; but from the peculiar quality of it, which determined it that way; being light to his understanding in matters moral; the proper objects of a religious mind; and by which it was as eafy (being natural) for him to know GOD and his will, as it is for any animal to know and converfe with whatsoever its spirit has recieved the likenefs of. In like manner, holinefs being ftamped on man's will and affections, they naturally affected divine things. And if, when man was holy, it was natural to him to know, love, and delight in GOD, then if that holiness is no more, and a contrary dif pofition has taken place, religion is no longer natural. Yea, religion is the reverse of nature; for by nature man is rebellious. The carnal mind is enmity against GOD, and cannot fubmit to his lawt. A change of principle has produced a change of practice. 17. But notwithstanding this change, and that man by nature is not religioufly difpofed; yet it must be acknowledged, that the moral, or rather immoral difpofition remains in his nature, and muft remain fo long as men continue à diftinct fpecics of beings: † Rom. viii. 7. For |