ately abfconded, and could not be found for fome time; but as my father was one evening ftanding at the court-yard gate, he efpied his maftiff creeping along by the wall-fide. Having called him into the court-yard, he fhut all the doors, and, fetching a horse-whip, lafhed him feverely. The dog at firft ran round the yard, but finding the doors all fhut, lay down at his feet, and submitted to his punishment without crying. His master, when he thought he had fufficiently chaftifed him, opened a door to let him go out; the dog walked flowly towards it; he returned, and gave him another lafh, to quicken his pace. At this the dog growled, and, he believes, if he had ftruck him again, would have flown at him. I need make no reflections on this story, for what I would infer from it is very obvious.

But whether the Spectator's notion about this matter be true or falfe, it is certain this was the opinion of a great many ancient philofophers; but then they carried it a

great

great deal farther, and contended not only that the fouls of brutes, but even of men too, are nothing but an efflux, or emanation, from the Deity.

Mr. Ralphfon, in one of his Epiftles*, giving an account of the various opinions. concerning the nature of the foul, has thefe words: "Remarkable of old was the opi"nion of thofe (and it is ftill embraced by "fome) that the foul is a ray, as it were, "or emanation, of the Deity. Of this opi"nion formerly were the Stoics, and among "the moderns are fome enthufiafts, whom "it is needlefs to name. Nor do thofe

.

philofophers deserve more notice, who "have established a ' common intelligence," or a " fole univerfal intellect," "which they style the " Agent," and impart it to mankind in proportion to the

See the Epiftolæ Mifcellania anexed to Mr. Ralphfon's Demonftratio de Deo, p. 67.

This opinion had been then lately maintained by Mr. R. Burthegg, in a Latin epifle to Mr. Locke, " varis

"various minds and difpofitions of their

organs. Similar to this among the mo"derns are the notions of Spinofa." He then quotes feveral paffages from Spinofa in proof of this charge.

The reasons of my tranfcribing this paf fage are, 1. To defire you to explain to me the difference between thefe notions; for Mr. R. fpeaks as of two distinct opinions, whereas they seem to me to be but one, and the fame. And, 2. That I might not be thought too fevere in faying, that if lord Shaftesbury be one of thofe enthusiasts, of whom Mr. R. here fpeaks, and if his "univerfal genius" is the fame as is here called the "univerfal intellect," I do not fee how he can believe the immortality of the foul, confidered as one diftinct individual being; fince it is plain, according to thefe notions, that the mind will, at the diffolution of the body, be fwallowed up in the infinite abyfs of being.

VOL. I.

M

I fhall

I fhall expect, in your next letter, your thoughts on this fubject, and am, My dear friend,

most affectionately yours,

W. DUNCOMBE.

LETTER XX.

Mr. NEEDLER to Mr. DUNCOMBE.

DEAR SIR,

Portsmouth, Dec. 20, 1711.

I COULD wish that the Spectator had de

livered his notions concerning brutes a little more clearly and diftinctly; for it does not seem to me sufficiently plain, from what he has faid, whether he believes brutes to be mere machines or organifed bodies, moved and actuated by the immediate hand of God, in fuch manner as may best conduce to the preservation of themselves and fpecies, and the fitting them for those uses for which they were originally defigned; or, that being endued with a sort of inferior or

fenfitive

fenfitive foul, they move and actuate their own bodies, receiving only direction and guidance from the Divine Providence.

But the Latin fentence which that ingenious writer quotes from Monf. Bayle, and confeffes to express his own fentiment, together with the comparison he makes of the operation, whereby he fuppofes GOD to direct brutes in their natural actions, to that by which the feveral portions of matter are determined to their proper centres (in which the matter fo determined is purely paffive, receiving only the impulse of an external agent) incline me to believe, that he embraces the former of these opinions.

This hypothesis, taken in this sense, agrees fo far with the Cartefians as to deprive brutes of all foul, fenfe, and perception, Both equally render them mere machines or organised fyftems of matter; one refolving all their actions into mechanism, and making them the neceffary effects of the laws of motion; the other into the external im