him, is a subject of controversy, upon which it is not proposed to enter in this place.

One observation however there is, which, even in this place, claims admission,-and that by a title which it seems not easy to dispute. This is

that, in a discourse, which is intended for the instruction of Christian children, and which has for one of its objects the causing these Commandments to be regarded as binding upon Christians, it seems not altogether congruous to that design to employ a form of words, upon the face of which it appears that no person, not being of Jewish lineage, and at the same time of the Jewish persuasion in matters of religion, and therefore no child for whose use this formulary was intended, is of the number of the persons to whom these Commandments were addressed.

In relation to this incongruity, what was the expectation, and consequent instruction, of the penners and establishers of this formulary?-that it would and should, or that it would not and should not, attract, in general, the notice, and engage the attention, of those who were destined to be impregnated with it?-impregnated with the matter, or at any rate, with the words of it? If yes, then the expectation and intention was, that, by those, by whom the words of this formulary were got by heart, no reliance should be placed in the words, of which it was composed; but that for the sense of it, they were to refer themselves to whatever construction the person, to whose guidance it was meant they should stand subjected, might at any time be pleased to put upon it :-if no, then the expectation and intention was,-that in this part at least (and if in this part, how should it be

otherwise in any other ?) the place it occupied in men's minds would and should be that of an insignificant assemblage of words:-of mere words, not accompanied by correspondent ideas, and therefore not capable of exercising any influence on human practice;-on the conduct of those upon whose memories it was to be impressed.

But, in relation to this matter, let the expectation and intention have been what they may, what is likely to be the effect? The incongruity, will it be perceived? then in so far will the unfitness of this formulary for its purpose be perceived. The incongruity, will it not be perceived? it will then be, because,-in this particular part, as in the whole together, it is not of a nature to take on the understanding any efficient hold, nor therefore to produce on life and conduct any beneficial effect.

Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.

OBSERVATIONS.

Upon the face of this commandment, two branches of art and science stand condemned and prohibited; viz. the graphic art in all its various modifications; the graphic art, and thereby, in great measure, the science of natural history; two branches of art and science; and thereby, among men, those by whom those branches of art and science are respectively practised and cultivated on the one hand, painters and other such artists-on the other hand, natural philosophers.

True it is that, immediately after the above, these are the words that follow :- - "Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.” Well

then (it has been said) by this it appears, that in so far as concerns manual operation in any shape, in addition to the act of bowing down to and worshipping them, all that was meant to be included in the prohibition was, not simply the act of making the sorts of things in question, but the act of making them for the purpose in question: viz. that of their being bowed down to and worshipped.

Yes, verily in this may be seen a signification, which must per force be put upon these words, in so far as a resolution has been previously taken, that whatsoever were the real meaning of the prohibitory clause, the act of making, as applied to the class of articles in question, shall not be considered as included in it.

But, upon the face of the words, as they here stand, is this the true, the natural, the proper sense of them? If so, then are the words designative of the sort of act first mentioned, viz. the act of making-then are the words "Thou shalt not make to thyself”- -to be considered as words void of meaning: then is the whole passage to be understood, as it would be if no such words were there.

But, for the taking of any such liberty with this passage, where is the sufficient warrant? If with this passage, that sort of liberty may be taken,-taken at pleasure, by any man who finds a convenience in so doing,-why not with any other, and every other?-This is the way that, now-a-days, so many religions are made. By omission, by insertion, by substitution-by amendment in every shape-a man makes a Bible of his own; and thereupon, with intimations given of

divine vengeance in case of refractoriness, he calls upon mankind to bow down and worship it.

The writer, inspired or not inspired, by whom this passage was originally penned, was he so much less skilled in the import and management of his own language, as not to be able to give expression to a prohibition, which he did intend should take effect, not to be able to give expression to this prohibition, without adding to it another and still more extensive,and that a useless and pernicious one,-which he did not intend should take effect? Inspired or uninspired, had he not foresight enough to foresee (and surely no such gift as that of supernatural prophecy was necessary to enable a man to foresee) that such as is here contended for would be the signification put upon these words,—and in consequence to do what was so perfectly easy to do, for preventing any such sense from being put upon them, viz. to forbear inserting the words by which this supposed real intention was so plainly counteracted, and which could not be either necessary or conducive to any other pur pose than that of counteracting it.

In truth, according to the plain and only natural import of the words, here are two sorts of acts, perfectly distinct from and unconnected with each other, that are successively taken for the objects of so many successive prohibitory clauses. One is the act of worshipping the natural objects therein described, the other is the act of making visible representations of these same objects.

True it is, that it is not in this order that the

two prohibitions follow one another: it is in the reverse order: the prohibition of making any likenesses of the objects in question-this is the prohibition that happens here to have been first. And in this collocation it is-in the relative position thus given to these two prohibitive clauses, which in this their situation are, however, upon the face of them, no less completely independent of one another, than in the opposite situation they would have been-in this circumstance, insignificant as it is, may be seen the only shadow of pretence that could be found for a change so violent for a misrepresentation so manifest.

All this while, as every body knows in this country, in which the religion of Jesus is not only professed, but established, and even forced upon men by law,-under the same law the making of graven images is not only practised and allowed, but by public authority encouraged; as well as in all other imaginable ways, "the "likenesses" of all sorts of things that are "in "heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in "the water (whatsoever there is of it that is) un"der the earth." In this state of law and universal practice, while such as above is manifestly the import of this commandment,-a commandment, exhibiting not only in the character of a divine one, but of a divine one, binding not only upon the Jews, to whom it was delivered, but upon Christians, to whom it was not delivered,— is it not deplorable, that, in this country in particular, every Christian belonging to the established religion, should thus be forced to declare his resolution to keep this commandment along with the rest;-this commandment, which no