once present at a dispute between a layman and a clergyman, upon
the subject of dreams. The first thought no regard should be given unto
them; that their communication from the invisible to the visible world
was a mere chimera, without any solid foundation. For, first, said he,
if dreams were from the agency of any prescient being, the motives would
be more direct, and the discoveries more plain, and not by allegories
and emblematic fancies, expressing things imperfect and obscure. 2.
Since, with the notice of evil, there was not a power given to avoid it,
it is not likely to proceed from a spirit, but merely fortuitious. 3.
That the inconstancy of such notices, in cases equally important, proves
they did not proceed from any such agent. 4. That as our most distinct
dreams had nothing in them of any significancy, it would be irrational
and vain to think that they came from heaven. And, 5. That as men were
not always thus warned or supplied with notice of good or evil, so all
men are not alike supplied with them; and what reason could we give,
why one man or one woman should not have the same hints as another.

To all this the clergyman gave answer: 1. That as to the signification of
dreams, & the objections against them, as being dark and doubtful, they are
expressed generally by hierogliphical representations, similies, allusions,
and figurative emblematic ways, by which means, for want of interpretation,
the thing was not understood, and, consequently, the evil not shunned. 2.
That we charge God foolishly, to say, that he has given the notice of evil,
without the power to avoid it; for, if any one had not power to avoid the
evil, it was no notice to him; and it was want of giving due head to that
notice, that men first neglected themselves, and then charged the Judge of
all the earth with injustice. 3. That we ought not to find fault with the
inconstancy of these notices; but rather with our weak understandings, by
pretending dreams were not to be regarded, and negligent when the voice
really spoke to us for our good. It is a mistake to say, dreams have no
import at all: we might, with more reason, have said, none that we could
perceive the reason of, owing to our blindness and supine negligence, too
secure at one time, and too much alarmed at another; so that the spirit,
which we might be said to be conversing with in a dream, was constantly
and equally kind and careful; but our powers are not always in the same
state