wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

Chap. I. iDtth an impartial Cenfure. 5 5feparable and immortal, giving his reafon for it in like manner ' : 'Kh- its/a,Si TO'j v»)/ [AO>o\i S'upaSfv frriKTuvaiy Xj ofio'j fi'vai jj^o'jo^j ' io\ yxp cc'jtv tv) hioyny. xciv/.e;ffufj^xrim in^yux' It remains, that the mind or intelleU, and that alone (pre-exifting)enter from without, and be only divine ; Jince its energy is not blended iviththat of the body's, but it a£ls independently upon it. Notwithftanding whicli,Arifiotle elfewhere * diftingiiifhing concerning this mind or inteiledt, andmaking it to be twofold, agent and patient, concludes the former of themonly to be immortal, but the latter corruptible ; tbto ^o\o-i dhavxTov >^ aiJ'iov,Si -rrx^rdiKo; v?; (p9:jsf1of, the agent intelkff is only immortal and eternal, butthe paffive is corruptible : where fome interpreters, that would willingly excufeArifiotle, contend that by the paffive intellecl, is not meant the patient,but the fantafy only, becaufe Arifiotle fliould otherwife contradift himfelf,who had before affirmed the intelleft to be feparable, unmixed and inorganical,which they conceive muft needs be underftood of the patient.But this falvo can hardly take place here, where the paffive intelleft is diredllyoppofed to the agent. Now what Ariflotle's agent underflanding is,and whether it be any thing in us, any faculty of our human foul or no,feems to be a thing very queftionable, and has therefore caufed much difputeamongft his interpreters ; it being refolved by many of them to bethe divine intelleft, and commonly by others, a foreign thing. Whenceit muft needs be left doubtful, whether he acknowledged any thing incorporealand immortal at all in us. And the rather becaufe, laying downthis principle, that nothing is incorporeal, but what a6ls independently uponthe body, he fomewhere plainly determines, that there is no intelleftionwithout corporeal fantafms. That, which led Arifiotle to all this, pofitivelyto affirm the corporeity of fcnfitive fouls, and to ftagger fo much concerningthe incorporeity of the rational, feems to have been his doilrine offorms and qualities, whereby corporeal and incorporeal fubrtance are confoundedtogether, fo that the limits of each could not be difcerned by him.Wherefore we cannot applaud Arifiotle for this ; but that, which we commendhim for, is chiefly thefe four things : firft, for making a perfect incorporealintelleft to be the head of all ; and fecondly, for refolving, thatnature, as an inftrument of this intelledl, does not merely aft according tothe neceffity of material motions, but for ends and porpofes, though unknownto it felf ; thirdly, for maintaining the naturality of morality ; andlaftly, for aflerting the to £(p' ryA-j, autexoufy, or liberty from neceffity.: Ibid. » De Aninu, Lib. III. cap. VI. p. 50. Tom. II. Oper.toSSSStmw^CHAP.