39 8 Obje&ions to the immateriality

deal of pains, by the help of its other facultyof ratiocination to find out the true naturesof objects, from this disadvantageous and di-stant manner of perception. From this it ap-pears we make a very false inference, whenwe conclude, because such a thing as thissensory is necessary to the foul in a state ofunion, it must be equally necessary to it ma state of separation. This is to forget thedifference of these two states; or to think amedium of communication will still be neces-sary, when we suppose the necessity removed.This is as if I should say, the contrivance ofa camera ofcura would still be necesiary, thoI might look directly on the objects them-selves in broad and open day-light. For, as

concerning fenfories, that it is an exceptionable way

of

speaking to say, Universal space is the sensory os the Deity"I believe it is designed to thew us the necesiary immensityof God; or that space which is necessary and somethings(not a pure negation) some way or other belongs to h>lN-But the analogical meaning of the word sensory is not t°be applied to a Being, whose life and perception can « el 'ther be limited , nor enlarged. This word is mifunderst°°°(as I but just before observed) as if it were the org 311without which the foul would be impercipient.let it be taken in any sense whatever, the Deity can 110 *

stand in need of an organ of perception. .

ham