Observation 4. Pag. 5.
Here in the third place you cavil at Aristotles De∣finition of the Soul, and by your slubbering and bar∣barous translating of the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 smother the fitnesse of the sense. What more significant of the na∣ture of a Soul, then what this term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is com∣pounded of? viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
—Totamque inf••sa per artus Mens agitat molem.Or if we read the word as Cicero, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it wil be more significant, as being made up of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And that which do's inwardly pervade and pe∣netrate, that which do's hold together, and yet move this way and that way, and lastly still moving possess and command an organical body, &c. what is this but a Soul, or what better Definition can be given of it then this? But here this peremptory opposer do's still inculcate the same cavil, that the naked substance or essence of the soul, is not set out by this, but its operations. But still out of the same ignorance, suppo∣sing that a substantial Form can be better known then by its proper operations. And this ignorance of his makes him so proud, that he does Fellow at every word, if not Sirrah, Prince Aristotle; because he has not done that which is impossible to doe, unbare to us the very substance of the Form. What an imperious boy is this! a wrangling child in Philosophy, that