Eftibius often forces it to speak, where it is really filent: For,

3dly, We want not Scriptures which fa vour our Opinion; as being with more Clearnefs and Confiftency, interpreted upon this than the contrary Suppofition. And here it may not be improper to take our first Prospect from the Creation of Man. The Text I have already mention'd, God created Man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, Gen. 1. 27. From this History it is obfervable, without critically enquiring into the meaning of these Words, that there is more than a gradual Difference, between the Principle of Life in Man, and that in Beast. And God faid let the Waters bring forth abundantly, the moving Creature that hath Life, and Foul that may fly above the Earth, in the open Firmament of Heaven. And again, God faid, let the Earth bring forth the living Creature after his kind; Cattel and creeping Thing, and Beaft of the Earth after his kind; and it was fo, Gen. 1. 20, & 24. Thus the Earth, at the Command of God, cou'd bring forth the Brutal Kind, as well as the Vegetative; but what part had it in the Formation of Man, befides that of supplying Duft? And what, befides the immediate Hand of God, cou'd finish him that was to be made in his own Image, and after his Likeness? If this

Creation

Creation imply'd no more than giving him Life, or a more perfect Degree of it; then the Beast does alfo in fome Degree bear the Image of God, which Mofes, it feems, ignorantly, and injudicioufly made the diftinguishing Part of Man's Creation: but if this Difference be any thing more than gradual, as it is more than probable Mofes thought it was, then it is paft Difpute, Eftibius's whole Hypothefis is ruined. Let us farther examin a little into the meaning of this Expreffion in the Image, and after the Likeness of God: In the first place this cannot relate to the Body of Man, nor any Qualities or Endowments of that, which was already created with the Mafs out of which it was taken, before God faid let us make Man in our own Image: Nor cou'd it be the forming of his Body out of the Duft, but the breathing into him the Breath of Life, as it is in the other Text, that can relate to this. For the Body, confider'd apart, comes much nearer to the Image of Brutes, than that of the Creator; nay, and I think, is exceeded, in every part, whether as ufeful or ornamental, by fome of the Product of Earth and Water; who did not partake, acccording to this History, of the Image of God. And therefore this Notion is altogether groundlefs, and inconfiftent with the History from which it is taken.

Others

Others place it in the Dominion, which God gave to Adam, over the Brutes: But thefe we find are two things plainly distinguish'd in the History; And God faid let us make Man in our Image, after our Likeness, and let them have Dominion, &c. Gen. 1. 26. And again, where this Dominion is not mention'd, but the Image of God is alledg'd as a Reason, which has no manner of Conne xion with, or Relation to the Dominion he has over the Beasts, it is faid, Whofo Sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man fhall his Blood be fked; for in the Image of God made he Man. And again, it is exprefly faid, that God created Man in his own Image, Gen. 1.27. which shews, that altho' it was agreeable to the Divine Wisdom to substitute him, as his Vice-gerent, who bare his Image; yet this was an external Prerogative; not his by Creation, but by a fubfequent Gift.

We must therefore feek for a farther Resemblance than this; and where can we hope to find it, if not in the Faculties and Endowments of our Soul? Here it is easie to difcern the divine Image delineated, fo far as it is imitable, both in his vital and moral Perfections. God has a perfe&t Knowledge of all Truth, and of himself the exhibitive Author of it: Man alfo does perfectly know many Truths, is a felf-confcious. Being, and can reach, and fix his Thoughts

upon the divine Nature it felf. Again God has an abfolute Freedom of Choice, together with an inflexible Rectitude of Will: Man is not determin'd by fecond Causes, and wherever his Will is corrupt, he becomes confcious of Guilt, that is of acting against the Defign of his Creation. Now if this Image is not utterly defac'd in the Ruins of Human Nature, but ftill difcernable on our Souls; it was doubtless much more visibly there, at our Creation, before either Sin or Infirmity fell upon us. The Point in Question then is, whether the Soul, as bearing the Image of God, ought, with more Clearnefs and Confiftency, to be efteem'd a finite Spiritual Subftance, or only a Power inherent in Matter; for that it is not God himself that thinks in Human Body I have already prov'd; and Part.1. §.9. indeed that would be much more than his Image in Man; or what the Hebrew Word for Likenefs fignifies, an Adumbration, that is, an imperfect Representation of him. That God is a Spirit, I may take for granted, when the Appeal lies to Scripture; and that God may not create Subfiances immaterial, as well as material, no reafon can be given for this, by him that grants the former. Now as we conceive God to be of a spiritual Nature abfolutely perfect; fo it is most agreeable_to

Reason

Reason to conceive his Image ftamp'd upon a fpiritual, tho' finite Creature; resembling thofe Attributes and Endowments, which characterize the original Spirit. For if he has conferr'd this Power on Matter, (tho conferring a Power, does not come up to the Notion of a Creation; and yet Mofes tells us Man was created in God's Image) then he has created a certain part of Dust in his Image; but it is not intelligible to me that Matter fhou'd, in any one Modification, however refin'd, bear the Image of God, in that Senfe, which it does not in any ot her. If he thinks the Power of Life and Senfation, to be fomething more than a Modification of Matter, I am ftill at a Lofs to conceive how Matter fhou'd be susceptible of any Power, but by the various Modifi cations it is capable of. Befides, granting Thought and Consciousness in the Divine Nature as a Spirit, and yet placing them as a Power in Human Body, is granting that both a Body and Spirit can think; which in reality destroys the Diftinction between them: But if both Scripture and Reason confirm the Distinction, by affuring us that God is a Spirit; then, to maintain and keep up that Distinction, it is requifite we affert those Beings, which resemble his fpiritual Perfections, to be alfo of a fpiritual Nature.