376 ObjeSHons to the immateriality

principle laid down in N° 2. and the reason- ^

ing upon it N° 3. (That it is impossible (c

matter, by being moved, should arrive to the n

power of moving itself, &c.) that which j S

was only a possible conjecture, becomes ab- T

folutely certain; and the sceptical conclusion k)

demonstratively false. Farther, let us put the t j.

Sceptic in mind here, that though there is a k

nobler species of activity in the human foul, ir

than moving the body; yet since that can no l e

way appear, but by some motion of the ' a(body; and since all bodily motion is per- ss

formed mechanically, even by Lucretius’ 5 q

robust, foul: if the mechanism of the bod/ s c

is quite disordered, the power of the sod p,

must be quite hid to us, who can fee butwith bodily eyes; while the active Being it- st

self remains untouched in its nature. There- in

fore he concludes wrong from the former k

premises, when he fays, ir

V;

: Ergo dijjohiquoque convenit omnem anitW* st

Naturam .; ceu fumus in. alt as air is aur&* d.

d.

VII. As to what is said in this objection h

of the generation and vegetation of fouls; l£ tl

is contradictory that any substance, whether st

. materials