therefore naturally immortal. 247 :

in a literal and physical sense; our souls, tho’compounded, must endure lor ever, withouthis act to dissolve them.

tc ward, God may have provided proper recompences“ for them, according to their several natures and capa-*' cities. There is nothing in all this but what is rea-“ sonable.” Now if even we can conceive more waysPossible, and not inconsistent, how they may be disposed°f i where is the absurdity consequent upon allowingthem to be immaterial! Though , as this last Author wellobserves a little before, it is none os' our business to deter-mine what becomes of them after death.

We should never dissemble any truth for fear of itsconsequences. It is directly impossible that truth shouldhave any bad consequences. The things we are afraidof may be but our own particular prejudices; and Ithink it is so in the present case, with respect to the im-materiality of the brute soul. Besides, if we deny theseto be immaterial, we deny the most convincing argu-ment for the immateriality of the human soul, taken'from the necessary inactivity of matter. And thus thislearned and pious Author, while he is zealous to esta-blish the immortality of the soul, because of its beingimmaterial, goes in effect a great way to deny that veryimmateriality; and thus seems to defeat his own design.The Sceptic, though he is never consistent with him-self; is yet very clear-sighted to discover these incon-sistencies in his Adversaries; and fails not to improvethem to his own purposes.

r 4

SECT