Enthusiasmus triumphatus, or, A discourse of the nature, causes, kinds, and cure, of enthusiasme; written by Philophilus Parresiastes, and prefixed to Alazonomastix his observations and reply: whereunto is added a letter of his to a private friend, wherein certain passages in his reply are vindicated, and severall matters relating to enthusiasme more fully cleared.

Observation 9. Pag. 11.

Here Anthroposophus tells us rare mysteries con∣cerning the Soul, that it is a thing stitched and cobled up of two parts. viz. of aura tenuissima, and lux simplicissima. And for the gaining of credence to this patched conceit, he abuses the authority of that excellent Platonist and Poet Virgilius Maro, taking the fag end of three verses which all tend to one drift, but nothing at all to his purpose. AEneid. 6.

Donec longa dies perfecto temporis orbe Concretam exemit labem, purumque reliquit AEthereum sensum, atquo aurai simplicis ignem.

This is not spoken of the Soul it self, but of the AEthereall Vehicle of the Soul, and so is nothing to your purpose Mr. Philalethes! You tell us also in this page in what shirts or sheets the Souls wrap them∣selves when they apply to generation, (as your phrase is) as if you were Groom of their bed-chamber, if not their Pa••der. You tell us also of a radicall vitall

liquor that is of like proportion and complexion with the superiour interstellar waters, which is as learnedly spoken, as if you should compare the Sack at the Globe-Tavern, with certain supernall Wine-bottles hung round Orions girdle: Which no man were able to smell out, unlesse his nose were as Atlantick as your rauming and reaching fancy. And yet no man that has not lost his reason, but will think this as grave a truth in Philosophie as your interstellar waters. But Interstellar, indeed, is a prettie word and sounds well, and it is pitie but there were some fine Philosophick notion or other dld belong to it. But now, Philale∣thes! if I would tyrannize over you as you do over Aristotle, for the manner of your declaring the na∣ture of the Soul, where you pretend to shew us the very naked essence of it, and first principles whereof it doth consist, you have laid your self more bare to my lash, then you endeavoured to lay bare the Soul to our view: for you do plainly insinuate to us, That either the Soul is Light, or else a thin Air, or that it is like to them. If onely like these bodies of Light and Air, how pitifully do you set out the nature of the Soul, when you tell us the principles of it onely in a dry metaphor? Is not the nature of the Soul far better known from the proper operations thereof (as Aristotle has defined it) then from this fantasticall metaphoricall way? But if you will say that the Soul is properly Light or Air, then be they never so thin, or never so simple (unlesse you will again use a meta∣phor) the Soul must be a Body. And how any cor∣poreall Substance thick or thin, fluid or dry, can be able to think, to reason, to fancy, &c. nay to form matter into such cunning and wise frames and contri∣vancies as are seen in the bodies of living Creatures, no man of lesse ignorance and confidence then your

self will dare to endeavour to explain, or hold any way probable.