*Sect. 12. Perception, I believe, is, in fome degree, in all forts of Animals; though in fomie, poffibly, the avenues, provided by Nature for the reception of fenfations are fo few, and the perception, they are received with, fo obfcure and dull, that it comes extremely fhort of the quickness and variety of fenfations, which is in other animals: but yet it is fufficient for, and wifely adapted to, the ftate and condition of that fort of animals, who are thus made: fo that the wifdom and goodness of the Maker plainly appears in all the parts of this ftupendous fabric, and all the several degrees and ranks of Creatures in it.

"Sect. 13. We may, I think, from the make of an Oyster, or Cockle, reasonably conclude, that it has not fo many, nor fo quick fenfefs, as a Man, or several other Animals; nor if it had, would it, in that flate and incapacity of transferring it felf from one place to another, be bettered by them. What good would fight and hearing do to a creature, that cannot move itself to, or from the objects, wherein at a distance it perceives good or evil? And would not quickness of senfation, be an inconvenience to an Animal, that muft lie ftill, where Chance has once placed it; and there receive the afflux of colder or warmer, clean or foul water, as it happens to come to it?

"Sect. 14. But yet, I cannot but think, there is fome fmall, dull Perception, whereby they are diftinguished from perfect infenfibility. And that this may be so, we have plain inftances, even in mankind itself. Take one, in whom decrepid old age has blotted out the memory of his past knowledge, and clearly wiped out the Ideas his mind was formerly ftored with; and has, by destroying his fight, hearing, and fmell quite, and his tafte to a great degree, flopped up almost all the paffages for new ones to enter: or, if there be fome of the Inlets yet half open, the impressions made are scarce perceived, or not at all retained. How far fuch an one (notwithstanding all that is boafted of innate principles) is in his VOL. V. knowledge

T

knowledge, and intellectual faculties, above the condition of a Cockle, or an Oyfler, I leave to be confidered. And if a man had paffed fixty years in such a state, as 'tis poffible he might, as well as three days, I wonder what difference there would have been, in any intellectual perfection, between him, and the lowest degree of animals.

1

"Sect. 15. Perception then being the first fep and degree towards Knowledge, and the Inlet of all the materials of it, the fewer fenses any man, as well as any other creature hath; and the fewer and duller the impreffions are, that are made by them; and the duller the faculties are, that are employed about them, the more remote are they from that knowledge, which is to be found in fome men. But this being in a great variety of degrees, (as may be perceived amongst men) cannot certainly be discovered in the feveral fpecies of animals, much less in their particular individuals. It fuffices me only to have remarked here, that Perception is the first operation of all our intellectual faculties, and the Inlet of all knowledge into our mind. And I am apt too, to imagine, That it is Perception in the loweft degree of it, which puts the boundaries between animals, and the inferior ranks of creatures."

I

[To be continued.]

On the ORIGIN of the SOUL.

Was many years in doubt, concerning this queftion, finding nothing fatisfactory wrote upon it. But I am thoroughly fatisfied with the following account, which I think will fatisfy any candid Enquirer.

"The advocates for the natural purity of the human race (endeavouring to clog with difficulty, what they cannot difprove to be matter of fact) ftill affert," As we have our fouls immediately from God, if we are born finful, he must

either create finful fouls, which cannot be fuppofed without impiety; or fend finless fouls into finful bodies, to be defiled by the unhappy union, which is as inconfiflent with his goodness as his juftice. Add to this, fay the objectors, that nothing can be more unphilofophical than to fuppofe, that a body, a mere lump of organized matter, is able to communicate to a pure spirit that moral pollution, of which itfelf is as incapable, as the murderer's fword is incapable of cruelty."

This fpecious objection, which Dr. Watts acknowledges to be "the very chief point of difficulty in all the controverfies about original fin," is wholly founded upon the vulgar notion, that we have our foul, immediately from God by infufion: it will therefore entirely fall to the ground, if we can prove that we receive them, as well as our bodies, by traduction from Adam and that this is a fact, appears, if I am not mistaken, by the following arguments:

1. We have no ground from Scripture or Reason to think, that adulterers can, when they please, put God upon creating new fouls to animate the fpurious fruit of their crimes. On the contrary, it is faid, that God refted on the feventh day from ALL his work of creation.

2. Eve herself was not created but in Adam: God breathed no breath of life into her, as he did into her husband to make him a living foul. Therefore when Adam faw her, he said, fhe fhall be called woman, becaufe fhe [her whole self, not her body only] was taken out of man. If then the foul of the firft woman fprang from Adam's foul, as her body from his body; what reafon have we to believe, that the fouls of her pofterity are immediately infufed, as Adam's was when God created. him?

3. All agree, that under God, we receive life from our parents; and if life, then certainly our foul which is the principle of life.

4. Other animals have power to propagate their own fpecies after its kind; they can generate animated bodies: why

should man be but half a father? When did God flint him to propagate the mere fhell of his perfon, the body without the foul? Was it when he blessed him, and faid, be fruitful and multiply? When he spoke thus, did he not address himfelf unto the foul, as well as to the body? Can the body alone either understand or execute a commandment? Is it not on the contrary highly reasonable to conclude, that by virtue of the divine appointment and bleffing, the whole man can be fruitful and multiply; and the foul, under proper cir, cumstances, can generate a foul, as a thought begets a thought; and can kindle the flame of life, as one taper lights another, without weakening its immortal substance, any more than God the Father (if I may be allowed the comparison) impairs the divine essence by the eternal generation of his only begotten Son.

5. Does not matter of fact corroborate the preceding argument? A fprightly race horse generally begets a mettlesome colt; while a heavy cart-horse begets a colt that bears the ftamp of its fire's dulnefs. And is it not fo with mankind in general? The children of the Hottentots and Eskimaux, are commonly as ftupid; while those of the English and French are ufually as sharp as their parents. You feldom fee a wit fpringing from two half-witted people, or a fool defcended from very fenfible parents. The children of men of genius, are frequently as remarkable for some branch of hereditary genius; as thofe of blockheads, for their native ftupidity. Nothing is more common than to fee very paffionate and flightly parents, have very paffionate and flightly children. And I have a hundered times difcovered not only the features, look, and complexion of a father or mother in a child's face; but feen a congenial foul, looking out (if I may fo fpeak) at thofe windows of the body, which we call the eyes. Hence I conclude, that the advice frequently given to thofe who are about to chufe a companion for life," Take care of the breed," is not abfolutely without foundation; although fome lay too much stress upon it; forgetting that a thoufand unknown accidents may

form

́À LETTER WRITTEN BY OLIVER CROMWELL. 149

form exceptions to the general rule; and not confidering, that the peculiarity of the father's breed may be happily corrected by that of the mother, [and vice verfa:] and that as the grace of God yielded to, may fweeten the worst temper; fo fin perfifted in, may fower the best.

[To be concluded in our next.]

A Letter written by OLIVER CROMWELL.

Writer of the last century, gives us a remarkable re

lation concerning Oliver Cromwell. On his death-bed, he asked fome of his Chaplains, "Is it poffible, that a faint fhould fall from Grace?" They anfwered, "No; no more than it is poffible, that Chrift fhould fall from heaven." He replied, "Then I am fafe yet: for I am fure, I was a good

man once."

Of this I think no reasonable man can doubt, who carefully reads the following Letter, which is transcribed (word for word, and letter for letter) from Mr. Thurloe's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 1.

I

Deare Cozen,

Ely 13th of October 1638.

remem

Thankfully acknowledge your love in your kind brance of mee upon this oportunitye. Alas you doe too highlye prize my lines, and my companie. I may bee afhamed to own your expreffions, confidering how unproffitable I am and the meane improvement of my tallent. Yett to honour my God by declaringe what hee hath done for my foule, in this I am confident, and I will bee foe. Trulye then this I finde, that hee giveth springes in a drye and barren wildernesse where noe water is. I live (you know where) in Mefheck, which they fay fignifies prolonginge; in Kedar, which fignifieth blacknesse; yet the Lord forfaketh me not, Though he doe prolonge yett hee will (I truft) bring mee to