Mystery of Religion, without a Prefupposition that both are Articles of Religion. I know fome have thought the Union of Soul and Body, the fitteft Instance to explain, not the Thing, but their own Meaning, in the Hypoftatic Union; and, to carry on the Comparison thus far, that they are both, tho' not alike, Mysterious : But whether both are Articles of Religion or not, is not material to this Explication. So that this unfortunate Objection wants all the Strength that a good Argument fhou'd have, and is as weak as 'tis poffible for a bad one to be; fome Arguments are true, but not to the Purpofe; others again are to the Purpofe, but not true; but this is neither true, nor to the Purpose.

But fince this is his own Objection, he will give me leave to add a Remark (which he may if he will, improve) upon it: It is this, the Hypoftatic Union is in part explain'd, and render'd poffible to thofe that believe the Union of an Immaterial Soul and Body: And therefore, fay I, to thofe that believe the Hypoftatic Union, and believe it Ibid. to be a Conjunction of Material and Immaterial; the Union of both in Human Nature, is within the compafs of Divine Power at least which blows off at once

all

all Eftibins's Demonstrations to the contrary, from Reason and Philosophy.

The remaining Part of this Chapter, I must confess I am not able to make an Objection of it begins with a Cavil at the Old Definition of Animal Rationale, which my Author thinks fhou'd be chang'd for Rationabile; I fay I cannot make an Objection of this, becaufe I am as much at liberty to embrace the Notion, as Eftibius is; and I dare fay he borrow'd it from thofe that maintain the fame Nature of Human Soul, that I do. And as to what he wou'd puzzle us with, Promifcuous Copulations of Man and Beaft; What Souls fuch Productions are whether Material or Immaterial, Rational or Brutal, or a Mixture of both: When Eftibius has done his Part, and inform'd me whether the Production lives the Life of a Man or a Brute, or between both; I may deviate fo far from my Subject, as to give him my Sentiments concerning the Soul of it; and endeavour to vindicate, against all he can say, the Wisdom of the Creation.

CHAP

CHAP. VI.

>

The Immortality and Separate Existence of the Soul, confistent with other Chriftian Doctrins; not repugnant to any Expreffions of Scripture, but plainly countenanc'd, and neceffarily fuppos'd in feveral important Texts ; and as clearly deliver❜d as was requifite, or reasonable to expect: In answer to all that is objected, in his Seventh Chapter, from the Tenour of the Holy Scriptures.

T'S an Old Obfervation, that Here

IT'S

tics have always pretended to learn their Errors from Scripture, even those that were apparently oppofite to the true Defign, and plaineft Expreffions of it: But the Practice is not fo common, for Men to espouse Atheistic or Deiftic Principles, and turn Textuaries to fupport them. Either therefore we are mistaken in Eftibius's Principles, or he in his Plea from Scripture: This we dare to averr, that

the

the Immateriality of Human Soul, and of the Divine Nature went hand in hand of Old; were equally impugn'd by Atheists, and defended by Theifts: And this we are sure of, that every Atheist must be on Eftibins's Side of the Queftion; for admitting Finite created Spirits, he will certainly be driven to the Acknowledgment of Him who, and who only must be the Father of them. And this Tendency was fo clearly difcern'd by Mr. Blount, and those that writ with him; (Authors whom Estibius must reverence; because from them he has copy'd his beft Arguments from Reafon and Philofophy, particularly thofe to prove the Human Soul to be from Seminal Traduction) that they mention not the Scripture, as of any Authority with them; but, reverfing the Decrees of that, give the Cause another hearing at the Bar of their own Reafon. Had it ever enter'd into their Heads, that the Scripture favour'd this their darling Notion of Human Soul, fo much as Eftibius has oblig'd himfelf to make out in this Chapter, I am confident they wou'd have entertain'd a more favourable Opinion of the Scripture; and have concurr'd, at leaft in this Point, with the most Scornful and prejudic'd Opiniators, that is, thofe who believe the Divine Authority of Scripture;

R

Pag. 173.

for

for this is the Character of those, with whom Eftibius, much like a Christian, fuppofes his Scripture-Arguments will have weight.

But whether he defign'd to use, or abuse the Scripture in his Argument, he has been at the Pains to amass together abundance of what, I am fenfible, will appear Proof to fome Understandings; all which deferves to be as carefully confider'd, it has been collected: For if the Scripture does really countenarice his Interpretation, as much as it has done that of all the best qualify'd Interpreters, for fo many Hundred Years; I fear that Weakness and Deceit, wou'd but too juftlý be imputed to the Lively Oracles, which was true of the Heathen; that they were, in Matters of the greatest Importance, ambiguously pen'd, and capable of a double Senfe. This is a Difhonour that wou'd be reflected upon the Scriptures at firft Sight, by him that is brought over by Eftibius's Arguments from thence but when he comes to examin Particulars, he must either believe this no Authentic Interpretation, or the Text to be a meer Nofe of Wax ; and which, like much of the Old Philofophy, tho' it had obtain'd an Universal Authority, yet ferv'd to little better Purpose, than to exercise the Commentator's Skill.

To