being spent most upon Invectives against Hippocrates and Galen persons above the biting of his venemous tooth and the first as to his Cavils against his Aphorisms Prognosticks c. so fully and learnedly vindicated by Doctor Sprackling that when he or any of his Tribe shall give a solid Answer thereunto he shall then see what more may be added upon that subject onely let me adde this to the much materially said by Doctor Sprackling that he condemns some of them for their Plainness in which he discovers his own Ignorance not knowing that Aphorisms are short Determinations and therefore ought to be plain But pray Sir is it not as plain that totum est majus parte that the whole is greater than a part that if from equal you take away equal the residue shall be equal which may as well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet these were thought fit to be laid down by Euclide as previous to his Elements and yet was never blamed for their plainness nay without them we should have been at a loss for many Demonstrations both by Euclide Archimedes and others made good onely per deductionem ad impossibile But because in his next Chapter he is so bitter against the frigid notion of Four Elements that we must away with them root and branch without being heard what they can plead for themselves I shall enter into consideration of the Compofition of Mixt bodies and though I would not be understood to defend that Doctrine in every thing but onely that those that make the principia corporum to be Atomi and those that make them Salt Sulphur Spirit Water and Earth either are the same with the four Elements or where they differ are subject to as inextricable difficulties as can be urged in allowing their composition to be from four Elements Fire Air Water and Earth An Examination of the Doctrin of the Elements and the Composition of Mixt Bodies TO him that considers under what great obscurities the ancient Philosophers laboured to find out the causes and beginning of things who being either wholly deprived of the knowledge of the Creation or but darkly comprehending the History of it delivered indeed very anciently by Moses but by most of them either not seen or not believed to wit that there was an Omnipotent Power who was able of nothing to create all things by the effectual operation of his Word concurring with his Spirit He commanded and they were made Thou sendest forth thy Spirit and they were created To him I say that considers these things it will not at all seem strange to find them sometimes run into errors which we see those that come after them in this fertile Age of Learning and deep search into Natural Causes cannot fully excuse themselves of Insomuch that had we that ingenuity which might deservedly have been expected from us by our dead Predecessors we should rather render them their due honour for many great Truths delivered by them to us when like our M. N. with too great presumption and boldness rail upon their persons with invectives calling the Philosophy of Aristotle dull the notion of four Elements frigid Galen the great corrupter Hippocrates his learned Book De Principiis slighted his Doctrine of Critical Days called as childish a conceit as was ever owned by any long beards called the children of men Without returning invectives against this Writer who lies open enough to him that hath a mind I shall onely with as much brevity as may be propound the several opinions as well of the ancient as modern Authors touching this matter and with as much candor as I can lay them down and then leave the Reader to judge where the most reason is I shall not enter into the subtil speculation de Materiâ primâ an Abyss fathomless and in which all that have endeavoured to penetrate have rather lost themselves then found that out and 't is no wonder for how can Man who is not able to judge of any thing but under the Idea of somewhat hath fallen under some of his senses tell what that is that cannot possibly fall under any one of them Plato Pythagoras and those of their Sect made the beginning of things to be what could not be comprehended either by sense or imagination but made it consist in certain eternal and unchangeable Ideas or Numbers Aristotle makes Privation to have the nature of a Principium for having disputed upon that subject Ex nihilo nihil fit he tells you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say That according to his opinion nothing could be simply made ex non ente yet per accidens it might for out of Privation which in it self was nothing having no existence something is made Phys lib. 1. cap. 8. Then after saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here he tells you That Hyle or Materia prima and Privation are different and of these that Hyle is a Non ens by accident but Privation properly that Hyle is near and as it were a substance or existence but Privation by no means Last of all saith Phy. lib. 1 cap. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is That Hyle is the first subject of every thing out of which what ever hath being not by accident is begotten By all which you may see how Aristotle was streightned to extricate himself in the business of the first beginning of things He found there was a necessity to admit in a manner something to be made out of nothing and yet not seeing how that could be tells you it could not be simply true but true by accident explains his meaning by Privation which though it were in a manner non ens yet gave beginning to something that was as the privation of one thing is the generation of another where Privation is but accidentally the beginning of an Entitie Then after tells you that Hyle is a Non ens per accidens but Privation properly so Why is Hyle a Non ens per accidens Because he could not comprehend how if it were admitted to be an Entitie and have existence there must not be something precedent which must be the matter of that matter and so there would be a climbing in insinitum All this I conceive proceeded from his not knowing the power of God to create all things of nothing and that Maxim Ex nihilo nihil fit was onely true à parte post not à parte ante 'T is true since the Creation nothing can be made by it self but must come from a seminal vertue by God's blessing given to the Creation that various things might be produced according to their several kinds but before the Creation it was not so But the speculation of these things being wholly Metaphysical I shall so leave them and refer those that have a mind to wade beyond their depths in them to what Vasques Scotus Suarez and all the Thomists have written upon this subject Yet withall let me adde this Observation
the matter they called Mercury sometime the whole matter crude and undigested without any previous preparation was called Mercury and this on purpose that they might conceal their Art from such as they held unworthy to know it The nexus utriusque to wit of Sulphur and Mercury they called Salt which by many Philosophers is left out and indeed in the Philosophical work appears not but as a vehiculum to set the other two at work that so superius haberet naturam inferioris inferius naturam superioris But there is nothing more clear from all their Writings that they admitted the four Elements of Fire Air Water and Earth this is very plain by Raimund Lully in codicillo cap. 33 34 c. among the later Writers Sendivogius throughout his Book In tract de Sulph he hath these words Sunt autem principia rerum praesertim metallorum secundum antiquos Philosophos due Sulphur Mercurius secundum Neotericos vere tria Sal Sulphur Mercurius Origo autem horum principiorum sunt quatuor Elementa Sciunt ergo studio si hujus scientiae quatuor esse elementa c. And in another place of the same Author Duplex est materia metallorum note he saith not rerum omnium but metallorum proxima remota proxima est Sulphur Mercurius remota sunt quatuor Elementa c. By which it is manifest these ancient Philosophers did not intend that these Principia of Sulphur and Mercury should justle out the Doctrine of the four Elements but held that of Sulphur and Mercury distinct from them and in the same Treatise handles the natures of them all distinctly and apart The Author of that little Tractate called Physica restituta Can. 58. tells you That all mixt bodies are made of two Elements which answer to Earth and Water in the which the other of Air and Fire are virtually included In Arâ—an Hermet Philosoph Can. 76. â—e tells you That the other Elements are circulated in the form of Water He tells you of Ignis â—â—aturae in mixtis and a Humor raâ—â—calis which are both immortal and inseparable from any subject explains his meaning by the example of glass made out of ashes which could not be made fluxile except there were in those ashes a radical moisture so of Salts In summe I know not one of them but admit that in all bodies there is something answerable to the four Elements of Fire Air Water and Earth which we feel and handle and by the mixture of which they are all or at least some of them composed For by the way I would not be understood to say that necessarily every body whatsoever must be composed of all the four Elements for a mixture may be made and some body for ought I know framed out of the conjunction of two or three of them and 't is enough for the support of that Doctrine that there are four to deducâ— rationally that any one body is composed of them By what hath been already said it is evident that the ancient Philosophers did conceive and hold that their Sulphur and Mercury is something that lies hid in the heart of that matter which is compounded of the four Elements See Phys restitut Can. 224. That Sulphur answers to the Calidum innatum which is the spiritual fire and Mercury to the humidum radicale So that by those names sometimes they understand what â—n mixt bodies hath some analogy with the Elements of Fire Air and Water for under humidum radicale both Air and Water in their sense are comprehended At other times by Sulphur they understand the fixed matter after the circulation of the Elements through eveâ—y degree of their Zodiack and by Mercury the volatil part which â—auses that circulation to be made informa aquae and in ventre aëris till at last all ends in rupem illumiâ—â—tam as they are pleased to phrase it which of it self is a powerful remedy for all diseases and hath an ingress to the solution of all imperfect Metalls and as they say after some succedaneous preparations and repetition of the same work will cause a transmutation of them But they never understood that any of these Principles should destroy and put out of doors the four Elements which themselves always maintained Some of the Chymists I confess as Monsieur de Clave and others have denied an Elementary Fire not distinguishing between the material Fire we see in its effects and that central we see not So by their laborious operations of the ancient Philosophers they have corrupted their sense and merited what Sendivogius saith of them Si hodie revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes subtilis ingenii Geber cum profundissimo Raimundo Lullio non pro Philosophis sed potius pro discipulis à nostris Chemistis haberentur Nescirent tot hodie usitatas distillationes tot circulationes tot calcinationes tot alia innumerabilia artistarum opera quae hujus saeculi homines ex illorum scriptis invenerunt excogitarunt That is to say If those ancient and profound Philosophers Hermes Geber and Lullius were alive they would rather be accounted Disciples then Philosophers who would not understand the meaning of those many Distillations Circulations Calcinations and innumerable other laborious operations found by these Artists out of their Writings contrary to the meaning of them What reason therefore have we to believe that these men have by their fiery and destructive trials found out the Principles or Elements from which mixt bodies have their composition when they have so much mistaken the sense of those Authors from whom they first took their names and notions of Sulphur Salt and Mercury I shall onely touch at many unreasonable deductions which in my judgment will follow out of this Doctrine First Entia non sunt multiplicanda nisi propter necessitatem So that all those parts in which humidity is prevalent may be well comprehended under the Element of Water such are insipid Phlegm perhaps Spirit and Oyl except you had rather reckon them of the Element of Fire because of their inflammability The drier parts under that of Earth in which Air and Fire are included which two likewise insinuate themselves into all other compounded bodies for I believe Air is in the most rectifi'd Spirit and natural heat in all water whatsoever which causes first a fermentation and then a corruption The different savours and viscosity may well be believed to proceed from the different wombs of the Earth in which the elemental mixture or matter produceth various off-springs to wit of Metalls Marcasites Stones Plants and the like endued with those several qualities and tastes we find in them participating in their nature of that part of the Earth whence they had their beginnings Beside if this opinion should be admitted we must fancie as many Sulphurs as there are different sorts of Oyls produced out of any body so of the rest Neither do I see what more reason they have to say
material but this is certain it remained all in the form of a liquor for many years I might adde that many of these substances will in time corrupt and stink others nourish which cannot well be conceived from what is simple and hath nothing in it heterogeneous Thus I have done with the examination of the several opinions and come now to the last Aristotelian way of the composition of mixt bodies out of the four Elements in which we have after all this clamour of our M. N. and those of his party this advantage that two of them are granted to our hand viz. Water and Earth as for the other two the parties are divided some denying an elementary fire others admitting fire and denying Air perhaps their mistake may proceed from not being able to form to themselves any Idea of Fire and Air except what they see and feel in their effects whereas undoubtedly the elementary Earth and Water are as different in their natures from that Earth and Water we see as the Fire and Air in their elements are different from those we see and feel But the Ancients with Aristotle and his followers finding by experience that there were four contrary qualities to wit Heat Coldness Drought Moisture and that these being accidents must needs inhere in some subject did from hence rationally enough deduce that that subject in which heat was without any mixture might be well called the element of Fire and so of the rest Finding secondly that most bodies as well animate as other were endued with a certain temperament that is to say some in which heat prevailed yet so alloied with coldness that the heat did not utterly consume and destroy the compositum others in which Drought was most intense yet attempered in some measure with moisture deduced that this temperament could not well be introduced in nature without a mixture of those qualities which resided purely in their elements hence came first the notion of the four Elements found out primarily by the consideration of the four qualities the mixture of the Elements in the composition of bodies by the temperament of them so that the qualities and temperament the one introduced the Elements the other the mixture of them in which they were careful to distinguish between apposition confusion and mixture apposition where two different things were put together so as again they might be seperated as for the purpose different seeds or grains Confusion where different things were put together which could not be separated yet introduced not a new form such is the putting of wine and water together which retains still the same form it had of liquor Lastly Mixture properly so called in which by most Authors these four conditions are required First that the Miscibilia must be endued with contrary qualities that they may mutually act and suffer one from the other for otherwise they would remain in the same state without any mixtion at all Secondly there must be a certain proportion both in quantity and quality otherwise one would destroy the other and there could be no temperament Now this proportion and contrariety in the Miscibles if it be of equality produceth a temperament ad Pondus which so long as it remains in any body that as it seems to me cannot receive any change or alteration But where there is not that equality both in quantity and quality but that one prevails over the other in some measure yet not so to destroy hastily the Compositum this is called Temperament ad Justitiam by which the Compositum may be preserved for many years in a good estate yet at last from the constant fight of these contrary qualities alteration death and corruption at last let in Thirdly the Elements must be so put together that every part of the Compositum must retain them all four And lastly that they must remain formally in Mixto I know this last is controverted by some Writers yet I believe will upon examination be found a truth but the disputation thereof is not for this place Avicenna lib. 1. d. 2. proves the Elements from the necessary things that must concur to the generation of every natural body he tells you no generation can be without a fixion of the matter and extension a dilution and permeation of the parts a subtiliation and mixture with motion he tells you fixion comes from the Earth extension and dilution from the Water permeation and subtiliation from the Air the motion of the mixed from the Fire and then concludes that since those things are necessary to all generations and are supplied by those four Elements those Elements must needs have existence to supply that office This argumentation from this learned Arabian will upon good consideration be found to have more weight then at first sight doth perhaps appear Of this I am sure that this with those before drawn from the combinations of the four qualities amongst many others have so far prevailed with the world that they have I think for nigh if not full 2000 years been thought reasonable and therefore not so easily to be exploded and thought dry and jejune notions as our M. N. would have them Let every man however for me safely enjoy his own opinion and the learned judge which carries most weight of reason I should now come to a particular examination of the eighth and ninth Chapters of his book which are very long but contain in them nothing or little more then a repetition of what hath been several times inculcated in other parts of his Book and already taken notice of What he speaks touching Digestion Fermentation and the mistake of the Schools in the notion of Diseases whether a disease be onely a distemper in the excess of qualities as the Galenists or a real substantial thing inherent in the Archeus as Helmont may admit of an endless dispute but he should do well to explain what they mean by Archeus and how a disease can be inherent in it or how any Medicine can work upon a Spirit and incorporeal thing or disease cured except it can be done by means of the qualities in correcting their excess I am sure none of them have hitherto delivered us any such Medicine or method and till then for ought I see we must be content with our old ones No more to the purpose is what he saith in the same Chapter touching the distribution of the Chyle in which the new discoveries have not at all altered the old method which stands firm upon its ancient base of long experience and practise Neither doth he or any other make it appear that Chymical preparations which he onely contends for do otherwise operate then the other Galenick ones do viz. by Purging Vomit Sweat Urine Digestion or Transpiration which effect they had long before the new discoveries in Anatomy were at all made known to the world and therefore from that Topick no casting off the old Medicines and erecting a new method can be
that both Plato and Aristotle who in many things disagreed yet in this accorded that from this Materia prima were produced the four Elements of Fire Air Water and Earth Plato ascribing to them their several forms The next sort of Philosophers we are to deal with are Democritus Epicurus and those of that Sect. Not that I am ignorant that Democritus lived before the time of Aristotle contemporary with Hippocrates and that Epicurus succeeded Aristotle Democritus Empedocles Anaxagoras and Parmenides lived about the 80 Olympiade and were lookt upon as defenders of a different sort of Philosophy then what was generally by others of their age thought most probable and most received some holding one opinion some another concerning the beginning of things as you may see them recited by Aristotle in sundry places in his Physicks his Book de Coelo and other of his Writings Amongst them all Democritus or perhaps one ancienter then he Leucippus broach'd that opinion that all things were at first made of Atoms though I confess I find not that word used before the time of Epicurus who flourished much about the time of Aristotle they maintained that the beginning of all things came from Atoms flying about in vacuo and that by their motion concourse all bodies were made They agreed not well what to call them some called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unities others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plena densa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first matter of all things And Epicurus saith as Plutarch relates it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was called an Atom not because it was the least bodie but because it could not be divided being uncapable of vacuitie See Gassend Phys sect 1. lib. 3. cap. â— Then they farther added they were aspera levia rotunda angulata hamata rough light round angled and hooked Plutarch tells you that Democritus allowed them magnitude and figure and Epicurus allowed them weight so that it seems they were both heavie and light Vid. Lactan. de ira Dei pag. 784. edit Hacky 1660. However be they what they will from these as the beginning of all things was the Universe made This opinion seemed so unreasonable that for nigh 2000 years it lay buried and forgotten till at last it was revived by Gassendus a learned Philosopher and Divine Regius Professor of the Mathematicks at Paris whom my self had the honour particularly to know and frequently converse with there and often about this subject I found him a man very communicable but to me would never declare his opinion to agree with that of Epicurus onely resolving to write his Life and Philosophie thought fit to propound fairly what might be said on that subject This opinion in my judgment labours under many and great improbabilities First they admit of no first Causes beyond the sphere of Nature and are disputed against by Lactantius as deniers of Providence They held there was no difference between Materia prima and Elementa That Atoms were both and had their beginning ab aeterno from no other cause but Nature or themselves against Aristotle who affirms Exelementis eterna fieri impossibile Secondly They were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little bodies that they had figure and weight so there was locatum but there was no locus for they did volitare in vacuo for in vacuo there can neither be space nor extension and a Body cannot be without both neither can we have any other Idea of a Body but what we have of Space Besides in Vacuo there can be no terms of motion Thirdly There is less absurditie to make maeximum divisibile the beginning of things then Minimum Nature might as well make a great bodie of nothing or let it be from eternitie as make many little ones out of them to make one great one for Maximum and Minimum differ not specifically and divide a bodie into what particles you please the matter is still the same and the magnitude would be the same could you restore the figure and a thing is called Maximum in respect of the matter not the figure Fourthly There can be no solid reason given for the passion of any bodie from this Doctrin for if the first Man were made from the voluntary concourse of Atoms they being impassible and eternal why is not the compositum so too There is in them no contrarietie and so can be no fighting between contrarie qualities which should cause either pains or death their difference being onely in figure This argument is used by Hippocrates in his book de naturâ humanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be but one that is to say of one principle he could not feel pain Fernelius tells you in his Book de Elementis lib. 2. cap. 4. His argumentis tanquam fustibus vis illa turbulenta concursu atomorum immutabilium per inane volitantium in exilium relegata de naturâ mundoque depulsa videri possit Fifthly Aristotle in his Physicks demonstrates that a continuum cannot be made of indivisibles because in them there is nothing first nor last in regard there are no parts the Chapter is well worth reading over and confuted by those that think themselves able to do it Sixthly How comes it that all things are made with so great ornament if they came by a voluntary concourse of Atomes at first why have we not still the same things An infinitie of Atoms cannot be exhausted nor can any reason be given why there are not every day new Machines made equal to the frame of the world Why need we â—eeds of any thing that which brought them at first may continue them still 'T is strange to think this Machina mundi could be made by a concourse of Atoms and yet we never saw a poor Cottage so made Or at least whence comes it to pass that some new concourse of Atoms doth not disjoint and put this already made out of frame To say that here is a transition from Mathematical to Physical lines is but a meer effugium or cavil for what ever is Mathematically true is Physically true too if you take it under a Physical consideration and the line or Atom a c take it under what consideration or notion soever will be still shorter then a d c and so a d c not the minimum divisibile Again An Atom must be considered under the notion of a Quantity let it be the least But Diophantus will teach you lib. 4. Arithm. quaest 33. that an Unit that is to say the least quantity is in its own nature divisible To say that an Atom is divisible in its own nature but that nature never did proceed to the dividing it is to speak this not intelligible for how is it possible to consider a thing divisible in its own nature and yet not to have its beginning from something less then it self Neither can you have any other Idea of it then
the making more dark opacous bodies why doth he not then make as many Elements as there are diversities of densitie and rareness Secondly I cannot conceive how there can be any motion in those particles out of which these Elements are made For first it is admitted that the great Expansum hath extension and so consequently is filled with some body or bodies which must then of necessity be contiguous one to the other and consequently no possibility of motion except what is common to all the parts together like a bladder filled with air For either you must say that the several faces of these particles meet together which must hinder the motion or abrasion of one another or else the angles of some must meet and touch the plains of others then they will not complere locum solidum so that there must be an empty space not filled with any thing since that thin subtil matter that should fill up all these vacuities is not in nature till it be first made by abrasion Thirdly I see not Mr. Des Cartes make any contrarietie in these Elements and so the same inconveniences will follow that did from the other opinions to wit that there should be no passion death or alteration of bodies For if these three Elements be made one out of the other they must needs be homogeneous without any contrarietie and so subject to no corruption To say that it may come from some disturbance in the motion of that very subtile etherial matter which fills up the void spaces or pores in all bodies is very hard to conceive For first admit that such a disturbance in the motion of that matter might cause an alteration or corruption what extraneous matter should cause that disturbance I see not nature of her self never tending to her own destruction Besides from hence it must follow that corruption and alteration of all bodies comes from a cause without them and not from any thing that enters into the texture of the body or any indisposition of the parts thereof Lastly to say that those little particles that go to the texture of any body do of themselves disunite doth not avoid the precedent inconvenience for it may be asked why they disunite or what made them come together to seperate Neither can that be supposed of which no cause can be given vid. Magnen p. 302. Lastly I see little difference between this opinion and that of Democritus since they both agree there was an infinitie of small parts from the conjunction of which all greater bodies were made in this they differ one saith they are solid compact and indivisible the other that they are indefinite though not infinite divisible though not divided One makes the little Atoms first made by nature and that by their concourse the great Machine of the world was made the other saith the great Expansion was by God first created that the ornaments and elements thereof were taken out of the great mass by division and separation of the parts of it I come now to examine the reasons of our late Chymists touching the beginning or elements of mixt bodies and I shall as shortly as I can not onely shew their opinion but withall shew what deviation they have made from those ancient Hermetick Philosophers from whom they at first deduced their notions These late Philosophers by fire as they style themselves finding that the ancient Hermetick Philosophers made often mention of Sulphure and Mercury in their writings to which others added Salt and farther finding them to make frequent mentions of Sublimation Calcination Ablution Circulation Digestion Reverberation Fixation and the like and also of the different Vessels and Furnaces to be used in their Philosophical works adhering to the Letter but deviating from the sense not considering the simple and easie waies of nature in the production of things though ever inculcated to them in the ancient Writers presently fell to the invention of several Furnaces proper for those several works as themselves not the true Philosophers understood them who do not stick sometime to tell you that by Sublimation Calcination Circulation Fixation and the like they understand things quite different from what our vulgar Chymists mean nay that these several Operations are performed in one and the same Furnace nay in one and the same Vessel Nature being the true Philosopher who of it self excites the central and natural Fire that lies hid in the prepared Matter by the help of an artificial one in its degrees administred by the hand of the Artist So that Sublimation Circulation Digestion Calcination and Fixation are but different steps in the same work But this either not suiting with the humour or pride of later Wits who thought nothing very good that was not attained by great labour fell to inventing of several Furnaces proper for these several works thence came your Furnus Sublimatorius Calcinatorius Reverberatorius Circulatorius Digestivus and as many more as every man according to his several fancy pleased to think of Next finding that out of several things both Mineral and Vegetable by divers preparations and different administrations of Fire they were able to produce different sorts of Substances some inspid some quick and piercing some acid and sharp some viscous Unctuous and inflamable some saline some fixed have attributed to these Substances several names viz. to the watery insipid part phlegm to the spiritual or piercing Mercury to the unctuous Sulphur the saline Salt the fixed Earth and make these to be the five Principles or Elements of natural bodies So Mr. Le Febvre whose words are quoted by our Author pag. 270. understanding Principles and Elements to be the same thing So Mr. de Clave cap. 7. pag. 40. tells you they find onely five simple bodies in their last resolution and thinks them ridiculous who make any difference between Principia and Elementa So that these five Principles must by them at least by our M. N. be held up exclusive to those four of Fire Air Water and Earth the notion of which must be look'd upon as frigid and vain and these five lookt upon as the most simple Substances In this Disceptation it will not be unworthy our observation that these persons having deduced their notions of Salt Sulphur and Mercury out of the Writings of the ancient Hermetick Philosophers ought not in reason to be believed farther then they agree with their ancient Masters not where they differ from and fight against them now 't is very clear out of all their Writings that by Sulphur and Mercury they understood very frequently something latent in the Materia magisterii which matter they all held to be compounded of the four Elements by the circulation whereof in the Rota Philosophica the Magisterium was composed when they then called Sulphur fixum Vniversale solvens nay sometime Mercurius Philosophorum not but that there was in it before it came to this heighth both Sulphur and Mercury the volatil part of
safest pleasantest and most effectual means both for conservation of health and cure of all diseases whatsoever I would ask M. N. how he can engage to improve the Science of Physick Onely by Hermetick and Chymical Medicaments except he understand the use of them exclusive to all others whether Simples or Specificks What ever is Chymically made or otherwise may be called according to its nature an Extraction a Salt a Spirit an Oil or what you will but certainly 't is not a Medicament but in its use and application and I cannot believe M. N. did intend onely to know Chymical preparations and not in like manner onely to make use of such and no other at least at that time when he subscribed that Engagement But perhaps between the publishing his Book and his subscription he had changed his mind or warily considered that every Clyster Apozeme or distilled Water from any Simple or Specifick may be as well called a Chymical Medicament as their Salt Oils or Spirits which are all made by the Fire some in a close some in an open one and therefore the Preparers as deservedly called Pyrotechnists as any of these If in this I have mistaken his meaning I shall be willing to ask his pardon when he makes me understand it But that the Reader may know where this Engagement is he shall find it printed at the end of a Book called The Poor man's Physician put out By Thomas Odowde as he calls himself Esquire one of the Grooms of the Chamber to his Sacred Majesty King CHARLES the Second Now that at the same time you may know the jugling of these kind of dealers and how likely this Esquire is to make his Boy do such strange Cures which it seems a sworn Physician of the Kings could not as appears by a Letter of his page 75. of his book Be pleased to understand that by the omission of three Letters he hath confounded one of the most honourable employments about the King with one of the most inferiour I think of any above stairs for had he called himself Groom of the Bed-chamber to his Majesty it had been one of the most honourable Places about his Person as it is Groom of the Chamber you may understand his Office is to wait in the Guard-chamber to go of such errands as any of the Gentlemen-Ushers of the Presence-chamber nay though they be but Quarter-waiters shall think fit to employ him in Now he had this Subtilty to make such Readers as could not distinguish between Groom of the Chamber and Groom of the Bed-chamber believe he was some great Officer whereas in truth there is no such matter nor â—e likely to take such an employment were he such a proficient in Physick as he would have the world believe I could shew the falshood of most of those Cures he pretends in that Book to have done but that is not my task who am already weary but shall close up all this discourse with the words of Mr. Boyle who speaking of the great difficulties in the Art of Physick and consequently that perhaps without presumption some innovation might be made in the Methodus Medendi goes on Yet Exper. Philos p. 2. cap. 9. pag. 202. Pyrophilus I am much too young too unlearned and too unexperienced to dare to be Dogmatical in a matter of so great moment And the Physicians are a sort of men to whose learned Writings on almost all Subjects the Common-wealth of Learning is so much beholding that I would not willingly dissent from them about those Notions in their own Profession wherein they seem generally to agree And do very much disapprove the indiscreet practise of our common Chymists and Helmontians that bitterly and indiscriminately rail at the Methodists in stead of candidly acquiescing in these manifest Truths their observations have enrich'd us with and civilly and modestly shewing them their errors where they have been mistaken Let me advise you hereafter M. N. to write with such modesty and candor as this both Learned and Honourable Person doth and you will quickly learn to have a less esteem for your self and the world put a greater value upon your Writings and Endeavours FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. line 22. dele smattering page 7. line 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 21. in tit dele all page 23. in tit leg Natures appearances page 25. line 8. leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. line 20. leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 40. line 3. leg could page 33. tit leg M. N. confident asserting page 56. line 15. leg next page 67. line 4. leg popularis page 70. line 4. after chapter adde is page 79. line 4. leg dolosus page 97. line 3. leg Pharmacopaeas page 103. line 23. leg Pharmacopaeas page 106. line 19. after therefore make a period and let In begin a line page 115. line ult leg Crat. page 145. line 6. leg things page 161. line 10. leg which page 166. line 16. after the word operations adde and mistake page 169. line 22. leg then I to say they are c. page 189. line 20. leg Leo Suavius page 203. line 5. leg Laboratory