whenseparatedfrom the body, 339

fay that he points out the way to theirs byhinting broadly at these inferences himself.It looks as if he not only thought it possiblethat matter might think, but true that thefoul was really matter, when he fays, “ I** grant that the foul in a waking man, is“ never without thought, because it is the“ condition of being awake : but whether' c steeping without dreaming be not an affec-u tion of the whole man, mind as well as<c body, may be worth a waking man’s con-" sideration (y).” Then it seems separatesouls may steep. God differs from his crea-tures in higher prerogatives, than that he dothnot fumber nor seep. It is here granted,that while we are awake, we are under anecessity of thinking. If then we were al-ways awake, we should be always under thatNecessity.—-How comes it then that we are nota Ways awake?—Is it the defect of the foul?"-"This was the chief point to have been con-sidered, in order to consider the appearancea U sides. It hath been shewn that spiritath no parts-, and therefore it stands in needno reparation, or re-difposing its partsar 'ght; as the body doth, which consists of

(y) Ibid. sect. 4,

2 2 parts