pulfe and operation of the Divine Power, To speak my thoughts freely; if I belie ved, that the actions of brutes did not proceed from any foul or principle of action within them; but were either produced by the operation of the Divine Power upon them; or elfe flowed mechanically from the laws of motion; I fhould be apt to chufe the latter of these notions. At least, if it did not appear utterly impoffible to account for the actions of brutes mechanically, for it seems to me, much more concife and artist-like, and worthier of the Divine Wisdom, fo to contrive the structure and difpofition of the parts of every animal, as that its proper actions, according to the common laws of motion, should be the neceffary effect of its peculiar make and conftitution, than to be obliged to intervene himself in an extraordinary manner to produce them.

The paffage you quote out of Mr. Ralphfon's epiftles is very remarkable. I remember that Mr. Blount, in the "Oracles of "Reafon

"Reafon," compares the foul, when joined to the body, to a fmall portion of the fea inclosed in a vial; and when feparated from it, to the fame water confounded and intermixed, by the breaking of the vial which contained it, with the ocean, from whence it was at first taken.

But notwithstanding these pretty fimiles, which are used to fet off this notion, it appears to me very grofs and abfurd.-For though the ocean, which is nothing but a mafs of innumerable diftinct particles of water, may be feparable into portions and parcels, which may afterwards be poured into it again; yet, how can this poffibly be applied to a fimple uncompounded being; such as God certainly is! Or who, that has the least tincture of metaphyfics, can with patience hear men talk of plucking off fnips and pieces from the Divine Effence!

I cannot therefore blame Mr. Ralphfon, as too fevere, for ftyling those enthusiasts, who could entertain fuch idle unintelligible whimfies;

*

whimfies; nor for ranking thofe other philofophers with them, who imagine the fame common intellect to be imparted to all men, though in different measures, according to the various difpofition of their bodily organs; for this opinion, though not coincident with the former, is nevertheless equally abfurd.-For as that makes the subftance of the Deity divisible into feparate portions and parcels; fo this supposes him, though one individual being, diversified at the fame time into millions of intelligent beings. Otherwise all the men in the world must have been but one foul; and, confequently, but one individual perfon; fince the fame divine mind animates them all. So that it would be no abfurdity to talk of feeing with other mens eyes, and perceiving with other mens understandings.

But not to infift any longer upon the abfurdity of fuppofing the fame common foul to

N. B. I fuppofe this univerfal intellect to be the divine; as Mr. Ralphfon hints, by joining this opinion with Spinofa's,

animate

animate a multitude of diftinct perfors; 'tis a plain contradiction, to fuppofe the divine mind to be the foul of any one perfon, diftinct from itself. For, whatever that perfon fhould be fuppofed by this foul to think or perceive,-not he, but God, would truly perceive; this imaginary foul being in reality no other than the Deity.

When I confider the obvious abfurdity of these notions, I cannot but admire, how philofophical and ingenious men could ever embrace fuch wretched whims. Nor can I without fatisfaction obferve these pernicious opinions (which undermine the foundations of religion, and blast all our hopes of immortality and future happiness, by taking away the perfonal diftinction of the foul after death,) fo eafily refuted and overthrown.

I must confefs there are fome paffages in lord Shaftsbury's "meditations," which feem to favour this notion; but, however, I believe there are none (allowance being made

for

for the warmth and freedom of his style) which there is any neceflity of understanding in that ill fenfe. It would be great pity that fo pious and elevated a strain of devotion should be tainted with fuch poifonous notions. I find, though his lordfhip is reported not to frequent the church, he does not altogether neglect religion. He feems to be of the opinion of the Quietifts, who believe that the moit acceptable worfhip of the Deity, and that which fuits beft with his fpiritual nature, confifts in filent contemplation and inward adoration of his infinite perfections.

But to return to our philofophy. The ancients undoubtedly held the fouls both of men and brutes to be certain portions of, or effluvia from, the Deity; but neverthelefs, there feems to be fome difference between their notions of brutes, and Mr. Addifon's in the Spectator; they imagined the fouls of brutes to be real diftinct portions of the univerfal foul; as appears plainly by Virgil: whereas the Spectator only believes, that

they