4 ’ 6 ObjeStions to the immateriality

tain is it that the sceptical principle take®away the difference between truth and false-hood, and introduces an universal defect ofreason in philosophy! This might suffice ibut I add, If they would reflect, that it is thelaw of the union of an immaterial foul to abody, that the foul cannot actuate the body,nor be apprized of external action by it, un-less the mechanism of it be in a right orderand disposition; otherwise there would beno need at all of an organized body, butmy parcel of matter might be the body ofah animal; if they would reflect on this, Ifay, or only take it but for a possible suppo-sition, they would fee that such examples andexperiments must take place as much on thatsupposition, as when they suppose that thereis nothing but matter in the animal. Thisrenders these instances equivocal , and liableto be mistaken; and they have pitched onthe impossible conclusion.

to keep free from another. Though my Adversary'were Inattentive enough, not to observe the repugnancyof what I fay; though he should allow his own positionto be overthrown; that cannot make it yield satisfactionto my own mind. This is so far from proving whathe fays false,, that since our assertions are contraries r lCproves his assertion-true.

. XVII.