i8o

An Essay on the

XLIX. The last objection I shall mention*is an insinuation, that our dreams are no tno? ethan the thoughts and business of the daycurring : or which it may be supposed th®soul itself some way or other resumes, with"out the interposition of such a cause as lShere assigned. Mr. Locke fays, “The dreatn s

AwV fjttiv Iv«£0t7« T(»«, &£GZJ-S<UZtr7fii fit s/x f

tvvnvta, Lite yiyovi tit X uomx /uivhi ' 11

yxg (puss/? Soaucvix, «aa’ x S'eiot. Where it is, I thir*^*very remarkable, that the nature of this surprizing ap'pearance made it otherwise probable, that our drearswere suggested by some intelligent efficients had not th> Sparticular hindered him from concluding so; but as the/are accounted for here it hath no weight. The distincti 01 *<pJcri? yoi(> Soup.cn co aAA x A'ttoi is an affected way 0speaking; our dreams are truly Soupdvioi, in the prop efsense of the word. Nature is in right philosophy*but a fatal or necessary constitution of nature (if that b enot contradictory) is not so much as Soupovtct. He ha ** 1elsewhere another reason why our dreams are not ( efltby God j because they are only oiysv^ uvSfwTroi, and ° lthat have true and significant dreams (see ^Book sle§) rijt xah' vitvov fxxvlmijc.) But undoubted!/*if a poor man hath a true, significant dream, it rrAhave a sufficient cause, as much as if his pupil Jlexan^ r .had dreamed it.

tf of