20 '^n &]s a y on the

thoughts, and something more urged, thanD. Berkley hath contended for, (he allowsthat those Ideas, which the foul is not con-scious of exciting in itself, are excited in itby some other thing ,. though not the thingthat we imagine) and that kind of Scepticismcalled Egomism, would have a new argu-ment to support it. Let reasonable Menweigh these considerations (i). i

Arisotle , when he gives a definition of adream, is very explicit in making it only ex-tend to what the soul is not akli've in : and fsince he is on the other side of the question, |

as was said, it cannot be unfair to take his |

account; and really any considering person ■will find it to be very agreeable to nature. .He makes the dream only the (petvjcUpx ,the appearance , vision , or thing represented , j

arising from the motions excited in the fen- Isory, or brain, (k ); and explains several other |

concomitant j

(») These considerations are suggested here, because Iof a doubt started against, the Argument in this para- -graph; of which below. '!

(k) ’a?,'ax to (patlda^a to koto txihjVsoj; r m ala- \StiftaTOT, orun l» xaScvSeut f,, ri xaStvht, tSt’ eVi» |

h'!nmw. lib. de insomniis, cap. 3. He hath taken pains -

. , . before !