many who have studied the nature of dreaming, that the dreams of imperfect sleep are best remembered, while those of profound sleep are generally forgotten, or perhaps never recollected at all, although they may have manifested themselves to others by the actions of the sleeper.

We are too apt to believe that the soul cannot have been active during sleep unless we remember it to have been so; but a moment's reflection will convince us we could not depend on a more fallacious test. A person has not the least recollection in the morning of having dreamt, and consequently says that his soul must have been insensibly asleep, yet others may have seen him smiling, speaking, laughing, and even walking in his sleep; he himself also may afterwards have his dreams brought to his perfect remembrance by some occurrence when he is awake.

Dr. Smellie mentions of Dr. Blacklock, (who lost his sight at the age of a few months, and consequently when grown up had totally forgotten the nature of this faculty,) that in his dreams, he had a distinct impression of a sense which he did not possess when awake. He described his impression by saying, that, when awake, there were three ways by which he could distinguish persons, namely by hearing them speak, by feeling the head and shoulders, and by attending to the sound and manner of their breathing. In his dreams, however, he had a vivid impression of objects, in a manner distinct from any of these modes. He imagined that he was united to them, by a kind of distant contact, which was effected by threads or strings passing from their bodies to his When blind people are enabled to see for the first time by any surgical operation, they think every thing which they observe, touches their eyes, and have no idea of distance or the sizes of the objects which they perceive. If they are made sensible that an object is at a distance from them, then their notion would probably be precisely that of Dr. Blacklock, that there was some sort of connexion between it and their eyes, beyond the mere sensation of its image in the eye itself.

own.

Whether the soul can actually leave the body and return

to it while it is under the influence of deep sleep or a trance, we have no sure grounds to decide upon, although some of the most celebrated Biblical critics and divines lay down that it can, from the passage in which they believe St. Paul expresses a doubt whether his spirit saw a certain vision while it was in his body as usual, or out of his body. I say, "believe," because it does not appear clear to me that St. Paul in the passage alluded to means himself, and I am rather inclined to understand from it (contrary to the opinions of all commentators whom I have consulted*) that the Apostle alludes to some other person, and certainly if he refers to himself, he uses a quaintness of expression of which no other example can be given where he speaks of his own actions. When he describes his own conversion, for instance, his language is direct, and he uses the first person. "And it came to pass that as I made my journey, I fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me,"-" and I answered," &c.† The other text I refer to, the Apostle introduces by saying, "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord," but he does not tell us that these were made to himself, as far as I can see. He goes on—“ I knew a man above fourteen years ago." How does this show that he means himself? He merely knew some one, years ago,—was acquainted with him. How strange a mode of expression, if he wished his auditors to understand that it was himself he was speaking of. ("Whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth.") To this parenthesis the commentaries on the passage chiefly relate, and if St. Paul really meant himself, it does seem plain that he was uncertain whether his soul had been caught up while it was in his body (and consequently his body along with it), or when taken out of his body by itself.

* It may be observed, at the same time, that none of them attempt to argue the point, or think it necessary to prove it, but all seem to take it for granted, as if the words themselves were too clear to admit of dispute, which, in my view of them, is far from being the case, or that it is most obvious from them that the apostle speaks of himself, although, perhaps, commentators may be able to show they are right. + Acts xxii. 6.

"Such a one caught up to the third heaven," this does not appear to be the language by which he would describe himself, but some other person.

If the Apostle did mean another, the part where the difficulty lies might be rendered very distinct by a simple and natural interpretation of the original, as in the following paraphrase of it. I knew a man more than fourteen years ago, who was a follower of Christ, (but whether in his body, or out of his body,—that is, whether his soul is departed,—whether he is now alive or dead, God knows, I do not.) "Such a one," (which is a common mode of expression when another person is spoken of, but not named) was carried up to the third heaven, and he repeats, "I knew such a man, how he was caught up." "Of such a one will I glory, yet of myself, I will not glory." Making here an evident distinction between two persons, and as much as to say, he was one I am proud of, or boast of, as being a fellow-christian,-one perhaps converted by the Apostle himself, a considerable time before; one at least particularly distinguished by God as described. If any other person had had such a vision, or whatever it was, he would naturally have communicated it to all his brethren in Christ, particularly to so very active and ardent a promoter of the good cause as St. Paul, who could hardly have failed to give an account of so extraordinary an event.

Now, where is the plain intimation that St. Paul alludes to himself, and what reason can there be for his not speaking in the first person, as he does in other places, if he relates the vision, or trance, or actual flight to paradise and heaven of himself, or of his own soul? I am far from wishing to put any forced or mere ingenious construction on the words to suit any particular theory;-on the contrary, my endeavour is to draw the most natural and direct sense from them, and it would tend more to confirm the proposition which I wish to prove (or that the soul and body are so distinct, as that the former can exist in consciousness without the latter) if the exposition and understanding of the passage were as other commentators on it have united to maintain.

St. Paul himself had many extraordinary revelations, but it does not therefore follow, that when in the 7th verse of the same chapter, he glories in such communications, that he also meant all of them he alluded to, had been personally made to him directly from God; especially, too, when from the manner he had just been speaking, the natural meaning of his words would lead us to think he had been referring to some one else regarding the two last mentioned. He might even glory or be delighted at hearing of those made to others, in which not only he, but all Christians are concerned. We also may glory in the revelations which St. Paul received and speaks of, because they disclose to us such bright prospects for the future, but I offer these suggestions with great diffidence in the face of such contrary opinions, and merely for the consideration of my readers, as a more easy solution of the difficulties found by theological commentators in this passage.

If the common interpretation and understanding is followed, the possibility and actual fact of the soul being capable of leaving the body during sleep, or in a trance, without death ensuing in consequence, and its returning again, is established on Scriptural authority, or that the Apostle here thought it might be the case at a particular time, and reason can find, at least, no impossibility in it, from the soul not being the life of the body.

In whatever way any one may incline to decide on the sense of the text, this Apostle's opinion is very plain from several other passages, that the soul and body are so distinct from each other, that the former can live and act when out of the latter, owing to death rendering the body but a portion of earth, hastening or already returned to mix with its kindred dust, which has not the effect of lulling the soul asleep, so as to be deprived of its consciousness in that state, or any of its perceptions, because it can no longer make use of its bodily organs, as if thought and perception were mere qualities of the brain.

The state of dreaming, mysterious and inexplicable as it is, does, however, of itself show that the soul, even while in the body, is at times independent of the corporeal organs of perception, although it may not be altogether ever free during mortal life from being in some degree influenced by the particular state or condition which the body may be in at the

time.

The soul requires not the eyes to see,

For it gazes bright in the darkest night;
And seems in sleep to roam wildly free,
Grave Reason controlling not then its flight.

The soul requires not the ears to hear,

When list'ning to many a wond'rous tale;
And glides, perhaps, from its dwelling clear,
Its strength ne'er seeming to flag or to fail!

The soul requires not the tongue to speak
To shades whom it meets in its airy way:
But the waking memory oft proves weak

To remember these dreaming words by day.

Unearthly are oft the scenes it can see;

Yet wonders at nought in its mystic clime,
Nor thinks it strange though its converse be

With those who have died in the olden time!

But well it knows, when the eyes unclose,
It must aye be in the secret cell,

Where heaven has doomed it shall feel the woes,
Which torment us ever since first we fell.

Yet soon shall the fetter'd spirit rise,

And leave for ever all mortal pain,

To rest unseen by all earthly eyes,

"Till a body shall rise to rejoin it again.

From what has now been said, and from many facts and observations which have been adduced by different authors, it may be fairly inferred :

1st, That the mind or soul is not an inherent quality of