The Examination of his Second, Third, and Fourth Chapters.

I Shall consider these Chapters together, because their Sub­jects are not much different, being onely subservient to prove the necessary alteration of the Pre­cepts of the old Physick, and the pulling up the Foundations there­of, from the alteration of Disea­ses now from what they were anci­ently, and that in respect of Worms, (that of Worms I shall consider in the first Chapter) Fe­vers, Womens diseases, the Scor­bute, Pox, and some other. In which I would have it observed, that if he had done all this he pre­tends, yet the Shooe would be too short for his foot, since these Dis­eases would still remain the same in their nature, and the alterations require onely a difference of Re­medies [Page 57]in their Composition, not either in their substance or nature, and so would not put us to new Precepts and new Foundations, but onely to raise some Superstru­cture upon the old. But I believe we shall find him fail in all his at­tempts.

His first instance is in Agues. These, he tells you, give the baffle to Physicians, being distempers quite of another nature, insomuch that the old Rules and Remedies for the cu­ring them are quite out of doors, sel­dom doing good, but generally hurt: as for instance, Bloud-letting, which should we in these days administer in all Putrid Fevers, (as Galen directs, and too many follow) we should make mad work with our Patients, &c. And then hath a fling at Avi­cenna, who gives the same precept if the Ʋrine be thick and red. Against all these Directions of the Ancients he onely opposes a new sort of Quartan in the year 1662, which [Page 58]had tokens of Malignity, and some others in the years 1657 and 1658. both in the Spring and Fall of the year, and in the Autumnal quarter of the other; in which are these words, Pag. 30. Whereas I have observed ge­nerally in former years, (and parti­cularly in this Spring) that bodies either ill-habited or scorbutically in­clined, being phlebotomiz'd for A­gues, have grown very much worse upon it, &c. — Then follows a mis-translation of Sennertus his words, Plurimae febres quae hîc aegros infestant, omnes notas febrium à Graecis & Arabibus descriptas non obtinent: by him thus rendered; Most Agues which insest men in this age, do not agree with the description of Agues made by the Greeks and Arabians. Very good. For the first part of it, viz. that Agues are altered, we have his word and observations in the years before mentioned, that the ancient Re­medies generally hurt, particularly [Page 59]Bloud-letting, as he generally ob­served in former years, and parti­cularly in this Spring. To this I need make no other Reply, than that other Practisers, as much in credit, and far more judicious, have not made the like observati­tions; that if he hath found Bloud-letting so dangerous in his Patients, he ought rather to mis­trust his own preposterous appli­cation of that remedy, without preparation of the Peccant hu­mour before hand, if the Fever were free from Malignity; if Ma­lign, perhaps his using that reme­dy after the Malignant humour was too much dissused, by which the veins being emptied, drew poi­son instead of good bloud from the greater vessels, and so transfu­sed the Malignity all over the bo­dy more than it was before; with many other cautions fit to be ob­served. In the Precepts of the Ancients two things are to be ta­ken [Page 60]notice of; First, that they are given as Directions to Physici­ans, not Mountebanks; that the first shall seldom miss, the last as rarely hit, in the pursute of them. Secondly, that as to the matter of Bleeding, we are to consider that they framed their directions accor­ding to the constitution of the In­habitants in those Countries, where generally drinking Wine, their bo­dies were more easily inflamed. I wish this London-Physician would travel over Spain, Italy, France, and other hot Countries, and see how many Proselytes he shall gain unto this new Doctrine: if I be not deceived, he will find himself laughed to scorn. Nay, in our own colder Country, I am very confident that remedy of Bleed­ing in persons Scorbutically incli­ned hath been many times succes­fully made use of. I love not to brag of my own Knowledge or Practice in Physick, I know they [Page 61]are both very inconsiderable in re­spect of many others; yet this I must avow, that I was a Practiser in those very years by him mention­ed, have had to do with some Agu­ish and Scorbutical persons, and in some have let bloud, in others for­born, as my Judgment led me, but never had that misfortune to turn a Tertian into a Quotidian or te­dious Quartan. But lest he should be fully without shew of Authori­ty, he rather chuseth to mis-allege Sennertus, whom he makes to say that most of the Agues now adays agree not with those described by the Greeks and Arabians; where­as he saith onely, that Agues now a days have not all those marks that are recounted by the Greeks and Arabians: there is a great diffe­rence between not having at all, and not having all. Does he be­lieve that their Descriptions were made upon the disease of one or many men? or did he ever know [Page 62]that all the marks of any one Dis­ease were at any one time found in the same man? Let him take for patern the Scorbute, and tell me whether he ever found all the signs described by Engalenus, Reusnerus, Sennertus, Johnstonus, Riverius, and others, in any one man. Doth he not know that some Agues are exquisite, some bastard, and some­time complicated, and so all the Marks never or rarely to be ex­pected to meet in any man? 'Tis enough that the signa idiopathica are found. When found he in an Intermittent Ague, where there was not a preternatural Heat, an inordinate Pulse, or Horrour, or some one of these, if perhaps the Urine might deceive him?

His next step is to shew there is a great alteration as to the severe Symptoms now happening to Wo­men in their several Diseases; but this he passeth over without gi­ving any reason, so shall I by the [Page 63]bare denial of it; not but that 'tis very easie to shew that most of what happens now to any of that Sex, hath formerly been upon them with as great severity.

The French Pox comes in the next place, much altered, he tells, from what 'twas at first; but as it appears by all his Quotations out of Fracastorius, Fernelius, and Sen­nertus, less malignant than at the beginning, and now frequently ta­ken by Contagion without any act of Coition: then he instances in the Scorbute and Rickets. Admit all these had those variations and alterations he contends for, what is this to the overthrow of Phy­sick, and the Precepts of it? Ei­ther these Diseases are new, or old; if new, as some hold the two first, others doubt, certainly we shall onely need Descriptions of these Diseases, and Methods to cure them, which the Ancients could not give if they knew not [Page 64]the Diseases in so particular a man­ner. Yet will not the general me­thod of curing Diseases teach us to judge of the Parts affected, the seat of the Disease, and so apply Remedies? How was the Cure at first found? by Revelation, or reasonable Discourse by Learned men among themselves, and then Experience grounded upon Rea­son? Lastly, if the two first of these Diseases were unknown, the first in Europe till the Spaniard brought it from the Indies to Naples, and infected the French Army in the year 1590; the later a Disease pe­culiar to Islands, and probably first brought in by Seamen, used to hard and salt meats: doth it thence follow, that no men knew them till we did here? Sen. de lue Ven c. p. 1. Was the Pox new to the Indies who gave it the Spani­ards, how then had they so readi­ly the cure of it? No certainly; 'twas of standing long enough there, and perhaps upon good exa­mination [Page 65]will prove to have been in those hot parts but a kind of gentle Leprosie or dry Scab. Ve­ry much of kind with this is the Scorbute, and but four years dif­ference in their birth, the first be­ing a stranger in Europe till about the year 1490 and 96, Fern. Sm [...]z. p. 204 ex sp [...]ngent. Senaer, de Lue Ven. cap 1. as some think; the last known first in the Northern parts of Germany 1486, but not necessarily so in all the world: then will it fall out that these Diseases were not so very great strangers to the Ancients.

'Tis not unknown to any man, that many learned Physicians have maintained that the French Dis­ease was known to the Ancients; he that is curious may read what Valesius, Reusnerus and others have said as to that point, or look what Sennertus and Fallopius have col­lected out of them touching this subject; and though they both in­cline that the Pox doth not answer to those Diseases described by the [Page 66]Ancients, and known in those parts, yet Sennertus is very clear, that though it were till about that time beforementioned unknown in Eu­rope, yet it had been a common guest in the Indies many ages be­fore, and so not unknown to the Ancients wholly, nor by them thought of force for its sake to change the Body of Physick.

Touching the Scorbute, Senner­tus doth with many very strong Arguments prove, that that Disease was known and described both by Hippocrates and Galen, though per­haps not in every thing and cir­cumstance so particularly known as it now is. Pliny tells you, that when Julius Caesar passed the Rhene, this Disease was in Germa­ny, and known by the name of Stomacace or Sceletyrbe: he adds further, Plin. hist. nat. cap 3. lib. 25. Reperta auxilio est herba, quae vocatur Britannica, non nervis modo & oris malis salutaris, sed con­tra anginas quo (que) & serpentes. Strab [...] [Page 67]tells you, that in the Expedition of Aelius Gallus into Arabia, Hos morbos Arabibus [...], populares esse refert, Strab. lib. 16. in expedit. Aelii Galli.

I might have been very much larger in the deduction of the Rea­sons of the Authors before menti­oned, and many others both of one and the other side; but I la­bour to be short, and not spend time in what (were it never so true) would avail very little to overthrow the general Method of curing Diseases, because every day new ones may come up.

Rickets, Rising of the Lights, which he takes to be Hysterica pas­sio, Convulsions, Measils, Small Pox, and Scorbutical Gout, come next into play. Touching the first, whence it came, where its seat is, and a rational way of the cure of it, let the Reader consult the lear­ned [Page 68]book of Dr. Glisson on that subject. The rest, because there was no colour for him to make them strangers to the Ancients, they must from the great alterati­on they now have from what for­merly, require new Precepts and new Methods for their cure. The great severity of these Diseases now a days more than heretofore is indeed most doubtily proved out of the weekly Bills of Morta­lity collected by Mr. Grant, and his own Observations, worthy proofs to overthrow an Art by: as if he knew not that in the world there can be no so fallacious a way of proof. Every one is enough acquainted with the Searchers, and their way of dealing, who regard nothing more than to give the ge­neral account of the Dead and the Born, and to let the World know when the City is infected with the Plague, with whom nothing is so usual, as to put one Disease for [Page 69]another; Consumptions and Fe­vers are general names compre­hending all sicknesses whatsoever; and the mistake is in them no way material, the end being onely to inform the Magistrates what Ma­lignant Sicknesses reign: and though that way be tolerable in Mr. Grant, whose design is onely to prove the Increase and Decrease of Mankind; yet from hence to prove the Alteration and Severity of Diseases to the overthrow of all Rules of Physick, savours too much of Ignorance, Self-ends, or both. He comes after this in his third Chapter to inquire into the Causes of the alterations of diseases from their ancient state and condi­tion. But till he had proved an Alteration, such as would be sub­servient to his purpose, in Disea­ses, I need not trouble my self to follow him in his Causes; yet that I may not seem to pass by any thing he thinks material, I shall [Page 70]trace him in those also. 'Tis ob­servable that the subject of his se­cond Chapter, that there is an Al­teration in Diseases; the third Chapter pretends to shew the Cau­ses of this Alteration, to wit, The Pox and the Scorbute by their inva­sions made upon the universality of Mankind, have been the two main causes of this alteration. What the meaning of these plain words is, may perhaps be a little intricate: for if he here understand that these Diseases are solitarily in most bo­dies, then certainly their presence cannot be the cause of Alteration of other Diseases that are not there with them. If he understand their Complication with other Diseases makes such an Alteration as he contends for, so that a Fever, or what else, assailing the body alrea­dy infected with the Pox or Scur­vy, makes such an alteration, as must change the Precepts of Phy­sick; this is the whole subject of [Page 71]his fourth Chapter, and carries something of reason in it; but then the third Chapter is wholly use­less, or as to those Diseases coinci­dent with the second, and onely brought in to fill up room, and to bring in one whom he calls Doctor John Winnels Preface, and to call this a wanton, painting, patching, Pag. 69. perfuming, issuing age. Certainly all these Epithetes have been much more ancient than this age; let him look upon Jezabel in the Jew­ish, Julia Messalina in the Roman, Rhodope Crispa, of whom Ausonius speaks,

[Page 72]Where is Wantonness equal to that described by Petronius in a Woman? Junonem meam iratam habeam, si me unquam virginem me­minerim; nam infans cum paribus inquinata sum, & subinde prodeun­tibus annis majoribas me pueris ap­plicui, donec ad hanc aetatem per­veni. What wantonness in this age ever answered that of Messa­lina? Ziphil. quae efficiebat ut multae in pa­latio viris suis praesentibus ac viden­tibus cum adulteris coirent. What Pa­rysatis was author of his Sons incest with his own Sister in this age? Plut. i [...] A [...]t [...]xt [...]x [...]. Where has Prostitution been en­couraged or promoted by a Re­ward and Law? If in this, as in all ages, something be amiss, what has this man to do to upbraid the times, being neither Divine nor Magistrate, to whom the correcti­on of Vices in any kind might be­long? for though the words are taken out of the Preface of ano­ther, he that with applause tran­scribes [Page 73]them, makes their Sordid­ness as much his own, as they were before the Authors that first writ them. And truly 'tis no marvel that men of light Principles should be of loose Tongues. He first tells us, in this age we have lost Philo­sophy, we understand not Physick, and now we fail in Sobriety and Cood manners. Pag 62. After this large Preface, which hath given us the diversion of two leaves, he falls upon a discourse by what means the Venereal and Scorbutick Miasms have gained ground in the world, to wit, by Carnal Contact, ill Cures, accidental Contagion, he­reditary Propagation and Lactati­on, and is large upon every one of these heads. To what purpose all this is, and how it will serve his turn, I see not, except to usher in their complication with other Dis­eases, which is the subject of his next Chapter, as I touched before. The Propagation of this Lues by [Page 74]Carnal Contact he passeth over to insist upon a truth of much impor­tance to be laid open for the security of mankind, viz. That after the com­mitting that folly with an unwhole­som person, though there appear no sign nor symptom of a Disease for the present, yet it may lie latent and lurk­ing in the body many years before it make any discovery of it self, either in its own noture, or in the disguise of other diseases. And in another place tells you, Pag. 6 [...]. that it may be in the Father, lie quiet in the Son, and at last discover it self in the Grandchild: and whatever he saith of the Pox, he would have you understand of the Scurvy also. This he proves from prostituted Women, who having long lived in that wicked course, have infect­ed many others without being pri­vy to any ilness in themselves. In which Assertion he begs two things which are impossible for him to prove; first that those per­sons [Page 75]were not privy to the know­ledge of any Infection in them­selves, notwithstanding they im­pudently enough might say they were not. For truly 'tis not hard to believe, that those persons that will lie with their Bodies in those unjustifiable ways, will also lie with their Tongues when 'tis for their advantage, either to make themselves appear more innocent, or their Copesmates more confi­dent. Secondly that the Infection given to so many persons hath proceeded from a Disease long la­tent, or perhaps one newly taken. I much fear, that Men and Women so given, keep not themselves so constantly to the same person, that they can tell either when they give or take Infection, till by the succedaneous effects it discovers it self. Something more reasonable might have been urged for him, were he able or any other to prove, that those hundreds infect­ed, [Page 76]as he saith, by the same com­mon Woman, had never touched any other from whom they might possibly as well take it, as from her that did not know her self infect­ed. From this he passeth to exa­mine the teasons why some that pra­ctise that wickedness, most of their days seem sound even to old age; and there gives you a large tran­script out of one he calls Dr. Win­nell, which being no may material, though in some things not true, I leave to the consideration of those whose time and leisure will give them the liberty of a more serious examination of this Writers extra­vagancies. Onely let me remem­ber, he omits the main cause why men guilty of that wickedness escape sound, viz. their frequent taking Physick for the expelling that Contagion they suspect may lie in their bodies, though they find it not in any effect. And as he directs me what here I have spoken [Page 77]of the Lues Venerea, may be also understood of the Scurvy, mutatis mutandis; onely by the way let it be observed, that he conceives the Contagion of the French Disease less apt to be communicated than that of the Scurvy; for pag. 65. & seq. he gives you many reasons why some sinners in one kind are not at all, or know not themselves in­fected; but in the Scurvy he tells you pag. 75. That whereever either of the mates is Scorbutically tainted, the other never scapes, but catches the taint more or less, &c. 'Tis pret­ty boldly asserted; Never scapes! What Aphorism of Hippocrates, that he so much carps at, is so ge­neral? yet this Pigmy must be be­lieved, or he will take it ill, with­out reason and without experi­ence, when Hippocrates cannot up­on both. Pray why may not those reasons taken from the difference of Constitution, the difference of Temper, the strength of the Body, [Page 78]used by him for assoiling men of the Pox, be used here in the Scur­vy, since by himself they are so near of kin? Or let him tell me what difference there is between not being, and not being discovered in its own colours, but in the garb of some other disease. Pray how shall one know that any Disease, that appears in its own garb, hath any of the Scorbvtical taint in it, ex­cept there be also some Scorbutical colours appear? unless he would have my faith as large as his, to wit, that whereever the one Mate is Scorbutically tainted, the other never escapes; for then whatever Disease may be, we are sure the Scorbute is with it. But we have a caution here to check any oppo­sition to this, viz. Let him first ob­serve the course of things before he oppose it; so that his Answer is ready, Dr. Twysden opposeth this, but he hath not observed the course of things. Pray, Sir, what [Page 79]course, or what things do you mean? they are both of very large extent, and you know Dolus ver­satur in universalibus. I conceive the course of things to be obser­ved must be something concerning the disease of the Scurvy, or else you speak not ad idem. If in that Disease, then what period of it is most observable, or to be taken notice of? The Beginning cannot, for you say pag. 75. sometime it discovers not it self at all, the pro­gress nor the ending cannot of­tentimes, for it sometimes dis­covers not it self (you say) in its own colours, but in the garb of other Diseases; and the discovery of it self in its own colours, and in the garb of other Diseases, are by you contradistinguished: so that except when it discovers it self in its own colours, which sometimes happens not, it cannot be observed at all; and therefore that Cauti­on, either altogether, or in the [Page 80]greatest measure, is useless and un­profitable. For my part, I have been for some time an observer of Disea­ses, both in their beginning, growth, and termination, and must agree with you, that the Scurvy is very frequently at the beginning or end of most Chronical sicknesses in our Island-bodies, and that the Lues is likewise very general, but cannot subscribe to that Opinion, That their Infection is so catching, that all the World must needs be infect­ed at so eafie a rate without Con­tact, by the Emanation of I know not what Effluviums, invisible Atoms or Bodikins, as our M. N. loves to call them, Pag. 99. pag. 97. (rather than a subtil Vapour, which being sucked in by our breath, may poi­son the body though it operate not presently:) whenas he deter­mines not their Sphere of Activity, nor at what distance their noxious qualities shall cease. Sennertus in reckoning the manner of the Scor­butical [Page 81]Contagion saith, Med Prac. ti. lib. 3. part. 5. ca. 3. Indeed it may be taken per semen & sangui­nem maternum, vel lacte instillari, aut alio modo per contactum & conver­sationem, pocula (scil.) aegrotantium usu in bibendo praecipuè inquinata; oscula etiam, ut nonnullis placet, aut aerem exhalationibus, expirationi­bus, & foetidis halitibus, aegrorum in­fectum inspiratione attractum com­municari potest. Here you see is but a nonnullis placet when the Com­munication comes either by Kis­sing, which is a Contact, or by the noxious Vapours taken in with the breath. Nay further, Censent etiam nonnulli per Venerem communicari posse Scorbutum, si (scil.) vir cum foemin â Scorbutica, fluxu albo labo­rante, concubuerit. You see here is but a Censent nonnulli, and then too a Circumstance required which seldom falls out, that Men or Wo­men have any Communication when the Woman is so disposed. So far you see is this learned Au­thor [Page 82]from M. N. his confident Asse­veration, That whereever either of the Mates is Scorbutically taint­ed, the other never scapes, &c.

You have thus heard the Opi­nion of Sennertus; in Forestus I find nothing at all touching the Contagiousness of this Disease; perhaps he hath mistaken his words, as he hath the sense of Sen­nertus, Horstius, and Reusnerus. But because I would use him with all civility, let us examine what their Opinion is touching the Contagion of the Lues Venerea at a distance. But there is an unfor­tunate rub lies here in his way, which he well knows not how to balk, Pag. 128. viz. That Sennertus in other places of his book is so gross, as to deny its Communicableness at a distance, as other Contagions are, &c. I wish he had shewed us those places where he saith, that Contagion may be taken without Contact. I am sure where he [Page 83]handles the Question purposely, he determines the contrary: Hoc tamen concedi non potest, quod sicut pestis per aerem & loca dissita ad alios transferri potest; ita etiam Lues Venerea communicari possit. Experientia enim quotidiana testa­tur, Medicos & alios multos cum infectis hâc lue familiariter conver­sari, nec tamen ab iis infici. De Lue Ven. lib. 6. part. 4. cap. 4. pag. 503. edit. Venetianae. Forestus is of the same opinion, lib. 32. observ. 2. Itaque Lues Venerea contagiosus est morbus, non sponte intimó (que) corporis vitio, sed attactu solo contrahendus: then tells you of a Priest, that was adeo facie deturpatum, ut leprosus videre­tur, & carcinomate totius faciei in­fectus; who being drunk, and find­ing a handsom Maid dancing with her Companions, kist her against her will, & solo osculo eâdem lue infecit. Certainly here was a Con­tact, and in all likelyhood he hung so long upon her lips, to leave filth [Page 84]enough there to beget that disease, without having recourse to these Bodikins and Atoms, which must infect at a distance by the vehicu­lum of the Air and I know not what medium. You thus see the Opinion of Sennertus and Forestus, of the same Opinion he is forced to confess Fernelius, Pag. 126. & 127. though his wit is in many other things divine, flies so low a pitch concerning the conta­giousness of this disease, as to place it onely in humour and dull contact. Aurelius Minadous tells you, it ought not to be defined by Quality, but by name of a Bodily Substance, and that it so passeth from body to bo­dy by contact. A man would have thought these Authors had been plain enough, and I thought of Learning enough to express their own sense in significant words, but it seems they were deceived, and we too; for as to Fernelius he tells you, that in another place he speaks plainly to our sense, and quotes him [Page 85] De morb. contagiosis cap. 14. he should have done well to have told us a piece of news we are as yet strangers to, where Fernelius writes fourteen Chapters de morbis contagiosis. But I will let that pass, since the good man means well, and would have said lib. 2. cap. 14. de abdit. rerum causis, where he hath one Chapter de morbis conta­giosis, the place he quotes is (in the last Edition put out by Hackius, 1645.) pag. 212. where besides his false translation of his words, quod dum vident symptomata haec omnia, cum humoris cujusdam vitio insul­tare, nihil praeter humorem inesse putant. Which he renders, they think of nothing but humour; whereas the Author means, they think there is no other matter in the disease, than the peccancy of that humour, and do not careful­ly search whether any thing else be latent under the cover of that humour so peccant, to wit, that [Page 86]Contagious quality he then treat­ed of; for I never before read, that subesse signified to prevail. But I shall let that pass, and onely ob­serve, that in that whole Chapter there is no one word to contradict what he said before touching the Lues Venerea, but in his whole dis­course instances the Contagion to come by Contact, and not per acti­onem ad distans. So Sennertus, whose words before cited, Censent nonnulli per Venerem, &c. si (seil.) vir cum foeminâ Scorbuticâ, fluxu albo laborante, Pag. 13 [...]. concubuerit: he tells you Sennertus is very positive, where his words are, Censent non­nulli, Some think. Next by lying with a Scorbutick Woman, or with one that hath the Fluor albus: where doth he find (or) in the Text? Sennertus puts them both together, as if in the judgment of those nonnulli 'twere not enough to lie with a Scorbutick Woman, but she must likewise have that [Page 87]disease upon her, to make the Con­tagion to pass from one to ano­ther: where is now the speaking home of Fernelius, or positiveness of Sennertus? or what else is this but a corruption of Authors, and straining their words contrary to their sense or meaning? Yet that I may do him no wrong, though the foregoing Authors are not of his Opinion, yet Zacutus Lusitanus, the learned Jew, is otherwise minded. In his Praxis admiranda, lib. 2. ob­serv. 125. he gives an Example out of Manardus his Epistles, of one troubled with an Ophthalmia Gallica, who infected his servant that waited upon him with the same disease; and therefore ob­serves that that Disease is contagi­ous at a distance. Our M. N. should have done well to have likewise taken notice of Sennertus his Answer to this Observation; first, that there is no Example but this of Manardus; secondly, that a [Page 88]simple Ophthalmia is infectious, and therefore a Venerate may more likely. He might likewise have observed, that this Servant was always about him, wiped off his sweat, and undoubtedly dressed and washed his Eyes; so that here was, if not a direct, yet very near to a Contact. Besides, the disea­ses of the Eyes are more likely to be Contagious, than those that have their seat in any other part of the Body; because, whether Sight be performed by the intromission of species from the Object, or by emission of Rays from the Eye, or both, it must of necessity be grant­ed, that the Eye doth receive Rays, or else one Eye could not see another, where one is necessa­rily the object to the other. Last­ly, 'tis to be taken notice of, that this is in praxi admirandâ, and so much out of the common rode. Lastly, 'tis much to be feared that this Servant had got the disease [Page 89]some other way, but was glad to put off the guilt of his fault by lay­ing it to this of Infection. Well, but it cannot be denied that there pass effluvia out of the body, atoms, bodikins, as he calls them, Pag. 141. not a Spiritual substance; yet pag. 128. he tells you out of Sen­nertus, they are a Spirit or Spiri­tuous substance, a thing of so sub­til a nature, that it can make its own way through bodies without the help of immediate contact. If this last Assertion be true, the first cannot, and so farewell his Atoms and Bodikins, for certainly they cannot pass through bodies any way, nothing but a Spirit can pe­netrate Dimensions. Bodies or Bodikins, [...] or [...], call them as you will, differ onely in Majority and Minority, and so can enter in at the Pores onely, and no other ways. Well, however 'tis manifest such Emanations there are, (and he is copious in proving [Page 90]what no man denies) as in the Plague, Spotted Fevers, Small Pox, Leprosie, Itch, and the like: if so, then he wishes some tolerable rea­son were produced why they deny it in reference to the Pocky conta­gion. Pag. 129 See Win­nel, cap. 7. fol 28. Where he shews his opinion to be, that this dis­ease can not be ta­ken other­wise than by Con­tact. Since the reason given by them, that the disease is lodged in a slow dull viscous matter, doth not please him, I will endeavour to satisfie him with some other. I would first tell him after his own language, that the Atoms or Ef­fluxes that come from the Pocky body are of another figure than the Empty parts in the texture of the body, and so cannot enter in­to them. Perhaps the Effluxes that come from the sound body are more and stronger than those that come from the infected, and so purifie the Air, that it shall not be a vehiculum for the Contagion; as we see a Perfume will destroy a Stink. Whether these reasons are true or not, is not material; I am [Page 91]sure, according to his Principles, they are specious, and are sufficient Answers ad hominem, if they be not ad rem, and are urged by me to let him see how fallacious that way of Argumentation is, which is drawn from the application of Reason from one thing to another, con­trary to Experience. 'Twere a strange way of arguing the Load­stone, which is a black heavy stone, of such a bigness and weight, will take up a pound of Iron; there­fore every Loadstone of that big­ness will have the same virtue, con­trary to Truth and Experience. Just so 'tis with him; the Plague, &c. is infectious, and the Conta­gion passeth from one body to another, without any immediate contact; therefore every Disease that is infections, as the Pox and Scurvy are, must do so too. Nay, he has the boldness to improve this Notion so high, as to tell us, Pag 130. no man never so innocent can be [Page 92]secure that he is sound: A Do­ctrine every way pernicious and unsafe; for the innocent, it makes them upon every light occasion doubtful and suspicious of them­selves; the guilty, bolder and more impudent, being fitted with this lie in their mouth, However I am now tainted, 'tis not by my own fault, but the fault of my Pa­rents, Nurse, or any other I have seen or conversed withall; endea­vouring by this cheat to vindicate their own Credits in the world. And thus this miserable flagellum scortatorum is made an Arrow to wound the innocent and excuse the guilty, who will be always ready to cast their disease upon that fine way of communication M. Pag. 97 N. hath taught them, which suits not with the conceit of a brain that mea­sures every thing by the gross Philo­sophy which Aristotle ties men to in the Schools, who teach men that Infection may be by Incorpo­real [Page 93]qualities insinuating them­selves with the Air; whereas in truth they are infected by invisible indivisible Atoms corporeal ef­fluxes, as he saith Dr. Flud in his Mosaick Philosophy, and Sir Kenelm Digby in his Discourse at Montpel­lier, have made manifest, with some others. How far these Examples will warrant the efflux of Corpo­real Atoms; or whether the same effects may not follow from the impacting incorporeal qualities, and the dulness of Aristotles Phi­losophy, I shall have fitter oppor­tunity to discourse of hereafter; and I doubt not to shew, that this anciently-confuted and now late­ly-revived Philosophy, of making Atoms the beginning of all Bodies, and their flying up and down in vacuo not to be without great dif­ficulties, and probably not true. This that hath been said I conceive abundantly sufficient to clear that part of his discourse concerning [Page 94]the Propagation of the Lues Vene­rea and Scorbute by accidental Contagion, Hereditary Propaga­tion, and Lactation, by all which ways I admit those diseases may be transferred from one to another; but deny, that either of them are so general as he would infer, or that they are transferred by such an infection at distance, as the Plague, Malignant Fevers, and some others, but must be got by Contact, or very near and fre­quent Conversation.

There rest now onely to exa­mine his second cause, to wit, their Propagation by the ill-curing of them both. For my part, I shall never rise up a Champion to de­fend the ill-curing of any disease, much less either of them named; onely I would have him remember that of the Poet,

Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua. He justly condemns the going for cure to any Pretender, Pag. 76. amongst [Page 95]which number I reckon all Moun­tebanks, or such as take upon them the Practice of Physick without lawful Warrant thereunto; and then runs over the ordinary Me­thods, first of Issues, where by the way he should do well to observe his inadvertency, in calling this age by exprobration an issu­ing age; for if the Pox be so general, and this be one kind of cure, though it be but the Poor-Whores cure, certainly he ought not to blame the Age for taking any course to cure their Maladies. Then comes Mercurial Ʋnguent, Mercurial Cinabar fume by Saliva­tion, and inveighs against them all; notwithstanding he cannot but know they have been all suc­cesfully used by skilful men, and in unskilful mens hands the best Remedies will not succeed. More­over, he forgets the Method used by Fernelius and most others by Sudorifick Potions, made with [Page 96] Lignum sanctum, Sarsaparill, Chi­na, &c. He touches not upon Quercetans Method in his Consilium pro Lue Venerea: Whether he ap­prove these ways better than any by Mercury, I know not, or whe­ther he hath any better of his own. 'Tis much to condemn all the Phy­sicians in the world, and then leave us in the dark. Out with it, Man, tell the World if you know any better than others do: till then give us leave to think this onely an artifice to cry up your selves to the defamation of others, this is usual with the rest of your Gang, Manwairing, Odowd, and others, who pretend great things, but con­ceal what they are. In the Scurvy likewise he inveighs against Bleed­ing Specificks, and that ordinary way by which we find by daily ex­perience that disease cured, if Ju­dicious men deal with them. He blames the use of Pills, Infusions, Powders, Electuaries reputed Clas­sical, [Page 97]and tells you, in all the Phar­macopoeus he cannot pick out one Composition proper to purge Scorbutical Humours in so gentle and effectual manner as they ought to be: What if there be not? Doth not he know, that every Physician is able to be his own Pharmacopoeist, and that those Books are rather made for the use of Apothecaries and Surgeons than them? But let us see; what thinks he of the Pilulae macri, of the Tar­tareae Quercetani, of the Sal Co­chleariae, Absinthii, and the rest? Cannot a Mass be made out of these proper enough to purge Scorbutick Humours? Pray, Sir, bless us with something of your own, that we may judge of your Abilities, and owe our Know­ledge to you.

His fourth and fifth Chapters contain further Proofs of the Pro­pagation of the Pox and Scurvy, by their being complicated with [Page 98]other diseases. Their Complica­tion with other diseases he proves from Forestus, Eustachius, Rudius, Sennertus, and others: Sensim in universum orbem est disseminata, saith one, maxima pars mortalium eo infecta est. I shall not much contend with him in this particu­lar, but easily grant, that there may be very frequently a Compli­cation between the Pox and some other disease, that may render that other disease more difficult in the cure. But must this be enough to overthrow all the Rules of Phy­sick, and put us to new Studies, new Foundations, and Medicines of another nature? Is the Compli­cation of diseases but now known in the world? Did not all the An­cients as well as we know and con­sider it? Is it not left to the judg­ment of every Physician so to tem­per his Medicines, that they may answer to all Indications? 'Tis hard, I confess, to do that when [Page 99]the latent disease appears not in its own colours; for De non apparen­tibus & non existentibas eadem est ratio: and I confess, I shall still be of the Opinion, not to believe any disease in that body where I have no reason for it. I confess, it may make the matter suspicious, when the disease shall resist all ordinary remedies methodically applied; but then great care and heed is to be taken that things have been me­thodically done, and not run upon that unstable Notion, All men have the Pox by some of the ways this Author mentions; this may have been in the Father, not appear in the Son, and break out in the Grandchild: therefore if a man break his Shin, or cut his Finger, send for M. N. and he will put you into a course for the Pox. The like may be said for the gene­ration of Worms. Do not all the Ancients almost take notice of them? Is not their generation in [Page 100]the Body? nay, their Perforation of the Belly as ancient as Avicen­na? let him look lib. 3. Fen. 16. cap. 2. Et jam retulerunt quidam, qui viderunt eos perforasse ventrem, & exivisse ex eo. I have in one per­son known the like, and I neither discommend his nor any mans care in taking heed that Worms do no mischief. His Experiments taken out of Kircherus I let pass, perhaps many of them are true, others I doubt much helped by the Fancy, as particularly that of Worms up­on Sage. Pag. 193. His third Experiment. I (not being content with any Glass of my own) May 27. 1665. went on purpose to Mr. Reeves house, a diligent Artist and Maker of those Glasses, but after our di­ligent search neither of us could discern any such thing; 'tis true, we saw very easily and distinctly things long and sharp at one end,

and blunt at another, as this Figure; [Page 101]other little Heaps or Points joyned together pretty near,

but could perceive no motion whatsoever; neither would they at all be either wiped or washed off: so that undoubtedly they were onely the roughnesses of the Herb, which by help of a good Fancy may be supplied with Life and Motion, and so made Worms and Eggs. The later part I easily believe, that out of the Mucor of many Herbs Flies and Worms may be generated; Pag. 181. & alibi. but why doth he call these Animated Worms, Efflu­viums, or Atoms? certainly they are Compounded bodies, those instruments that give them motion are Atoms less than they, and cer­tainly they are represented big enough to be divided.

I have thus done with the Ar­gumentative part of his book, and have shewed his fallacious ways of Argumentation throughout. First, I have shewed that the nature of [Page 102]Man, Beasts, Plants, Herbs, Fruits, and all things conducing to the nourishment of Man, are of the same nature; and therefore Disea­ses, at least those that were known to the Ancients, are not altered in their nature, nor the Method in the curing of them altered. That the discovery of new Remedies, if any have been, do not take away the virtue of those that were known and practised before; but both may be good and stand toge­ther: and that my Lord Bacon, and those other Worthy persons that have encouraged men to make further search into the things of Nature, and those Noble persons that have written and still labour in Experimental Philosophy, do not do it to disparage the Ancients, but search into the Reasons of the works of Nature, and discover new Truths, and establish the old by new Confirmations. I have in the second place shewed that the Pox [Page 103]and Scurvy, which this Author much insists upon, were not new diseases in themselves, though per­haps lately brought into Europe: that their Cures were found out by and upon the Foundation of the ancient Method, which is able to furnish a Physician not onely with means to find out the seat of any disease, but also to apply ap­propriate remedies thereunto. I have shewed in the third place, that the Complication of Diseases cannot alter the general Method of curing them, though it may cause a variation in the application of Remedies. That the variation of Remedies, according to the na­ture of Diseases in their Complica­tion, is the Office of a Physician, who ties not himself to any Reme­dies delivered in Pharmacopoeus, but ordering them pro re nata; and that 'tis impossible to give any ge­neral Method to cure any one complicated Disease, as it is lodg­ed [Page 104]in Peter; because never any such Disease came twice alike in all circumstances, nor can any Reme­dy be found out (I am confident is not by this Undertaker) that shall have that effect. What the Chymists speak of their Sulphur fixum, and their Ʋniversale solvens, which shall have that power; and also with some other help of Art shall six an imperfect Metall into Gold: as I will not deny the truth of it, so will I suspend my judg­ment till I shall be better convin­ced. For all other Remedies, in the preparation whereof Chymists have laboured, I shall give them my ready thanks with much grate­fulness of mind for their pains: they have many of them made their Medicines and Preparations publick, and daily use is made of them; when this unknown M. N. makes us partakers of any of his, bet [...]er than what we know, I shall readily return him my due thanks; [Page 105]but must not believe some few moneths study of Chymistry under Mr. Johnson, set up by the Col­lege of London for their use, have made him so perfect an Artist as to know more than his Teachers in that Art. The pretending to be Masters of great and universal Remedies, and conceal what they are, (a practice now used by Odowd, Manwairing, and some others) is a thing so unworthy a Scholar, that I would not have this Author so like a Mountebank in any thing.

The Examination of the Sixth Chapter.

THus have I with all possible brevity run over his first Five Chapters, which in­deed contain most of what is Ar­gumentative in his book; I come to the Sixth, which begins with a recapitulation of what he had [Page 106]formerly proved. In the former we have had a taste of his Philosophy and Logick, we shall now try his Logick alone, and see whether the Conclusion drawn from the Pre­mises now laid down be answer­able to those of his first Chapter, where he argues thus:

• If Diseases are altered in their na­ture wholly from what they an­ciently were; Then
• New Indagations, new Cau­ses, new Cures must be found, Physick and Surgery must be re­built from the very foundation.
• But Diseases are wholly altered in their nature.

Therefore in his sixth Chapter he argues thus:

• If there be now introduced in Men and Diseases as it were another nature; Then
• The former Rules calculated for Curation from other Cau­ses, or from Causes less impor­tant, are almost, if not quite, out of doors.
• [Page 107]But Men and Diseases are as it were altered in their nature.
• Therefore the former Rules, &c.

Quo teneam tandem mutantem Pro­tea nodo?

In the beginning of his book his premises were universal and gene­ral, in this place they are limited and particular. At the first there was a total alteration of Nature, now a partial, perhaps at the later end we shall find none at all.

But this is not all; we must find other infirm parts of his Argu­ment. Certainly Aristotle, as dull as he was, would never have thus concluded, nor any man that had read or well understood his Ana­lyticks, or the reason why they are so called. Where he first suppo­seth the Conclusion, which is the Res ignota, as known and true; and then infers it ex veris & con­cessis: so that if there be any thing in the premises which is not verum [Page 108]& concessum, then can the Conclu­sion be never truly inferred, and the thing sought concluded. Now (Sir) would I gladly see how you infer the consequence of your Ma­jor; what have we to do to leap from Nature to Causes? You ought thus to have assumed; If there be now introduced as it were in Men and Diseases another na­ture; Then Curations found out for Men and Diseases, which now are as it were of another nature than formerly, must be as it were changed. But Men and Diseases are as it were altered in their na­ture: Ergo.

But in this Syllogism both the sequel of the Major and Minor are neither of them granted; for there may be a partial and circumstantial alteration of a Disease, and if you will of a Man, without any altera­tion at all of the Nature of that Disease in its Cause, or the Nature of the Man in its Cause. (But cer­tainly [Page 109]when we can believe the Nature of Man can be altered in its Cause, the next step will be to be­lieve he may be altered in his spe­cies too.) May not a Fever that invades a Pocky or Scorbutick body have the same Cause, though in respect of the Complication there may be a partial alteration in the Disease, and consequently a circumstantial variation in the Cure? I admit that the Cures of the Ancients were built upon the considerations of Diseases in their Causes, but must not grant that the same Cause may not produce a Disease somewhat altered in cir­cumstances. So that if it were granted him, which he hath no way proved, and is not true, that Diseases anciently known are at all altered in their Nature; yet would it not follow, that they were alter­ed in their Causes. The whole Ar­gument brought into form ought to run thus: [Page 110]

• Major. If there be now introduced in Men and Diseases as it were a new Nature, from rebellion and alterations not known to the Ancients in their Causes, or ta­ken notice of so fully as they ought to be by the later Physi­cians; Then
• The Rules of Curation calcu­lated for Men and Diseases, now as it were of new natures from those alterations, not known to the Ancients in their Causes, or taken notice of so fully as they ought to be by the later Physi­cians, must be as it were altered and changed.
• Minor. But there is now introdu­ced in Men and Diseases as it were a new Nature from malig­nity and alterations not known to the Ancients in their Causes, or taken notice of so fully as they ought by later Physicians.
• Conclusion. Therefore the Rules of Curation calculated for Men [Page 111]and Diseases, now as it were of new natures, from alterations not known to the Ancients in their Causes, or taken notice of so fully as they ought to be by the later Physicians, must be as it were altered and changed.

'Tis evident here, that the whole strength of his Argumenta­tion depends upon the introducti­on of a new Nature into Men and Diseases; so that till that be pro­ved, 'tis not at all material to en­quire into the Causes of this change, nor whether the Ancients knew them or not: but certainly he is very far from having proved either a total or a partial alterati­on of Men or Diseases in their na­tures.

All Ages have produced as great mortality and as great rebellion in Diseases as this, and Complications with other Diseases as dangerous. What Plague was ever more [Page 112]spreading or dangerous than that writ of by Thucidides, brought out of Attiea into Peloponnesus? What Complication now caused by the presence of the Pox or Scurvy in a sick body, can make a greater al­teration in any diseases, than the Complication of the like disease with the Leprosie heretofore? Doth he not believe there is as great a [...] in the bloud by the Leprosie as the Pox? yet those diseases were cured by the ancient Method, why not these? So that for ought I see we need not be put to the necessity of establishing new Doctrines, Pag. 204. new Methods and Rules of Curation, agreeable to the new frame of Humane nature, and to the new Phaenomena of Diseases. The old Notions and old Remedies may be good enough; not that I shall discourage him or any man for increasing the Materia Medica with any new piece of Knowledge, but dislike they should pretend to [Page 113]what they have not, (as many do) to the dishonour of others far more knowing than themselves.

These things being considered, this Chapter is not so hard but it may be read over without a Fe­stuke or spelling-book, and by those that have set up their rest without any new going to school by them; Pag. 206. and yet the saying of pru­dent Celsus the Plagiary of Hippo­crates may be true too, Vix ulla perpetua praecepta ars medicinalis recipit: which saying hath not relation to the Method or Art, but to the Medicine and Person; for though general Precepts may be given curare morbū, they cannot be curare Petrum & Paulum; and I dare confidently averre, that no man has been lost by the adhering to the Precepts of Physick, though some may have by the misapplica­tion of them, in reducing them to use and practice; whereas hundreds daily are cast away by the prepo­sterous [Page 114]use of Remedies, especially Chymical ones slovenly prepared by these Mountebanks, and as im­methodically appli'd at adventure.

In his next Breach he endea­vours to draw to his Cause by the shoulders Mr. Boyle, whom he often quotes, and would fain induce the world to think him of his party; the passage he tells you is in his Experimental Philosophy, part 2. essay 5. he should have done well to have given us a little near­er guess at the place, for that Essay consists of twenty large Chapters, near half the book, and I believe he hath particularly concealed it, lest something might be found not to make for him. Perhaps that Physician might think that Me­thod fair, which in it self was not, and the party not killed by a fair but a foul Method. But this Gen­tleman would from hence have us look upon Mr. Boyle as an Enemy to Method; but pray hear him­self, [Page 115] Exper. Philos. part 2. essay 5. cap. 18. pag. 266. speaking of the nature and causes of Diseases he hath these words, Nor is the Me­thod of curing divers particular diseases more settled and agreed ap­on, that depending chiefly upon the knowledge of those causes, which as I was saying are controverted: 'Tis not that I am an enemy to Method in Physick, or an undervaluer of it; but I fear the generality of Physicians (for I intend not, nor need all along this Essay speak of them all) have as yet but an imperfect Method, and have by the narrow principles they were taught in the Schools, been per­suaded to change their Method ra­ther to the barren principles of the Peripatetick School, than to the full amplitude of Nature. You see with what caution this Learned Gentle­man delivers his sense: First, the Method of curing divers particular diseases, to wit, as they may be in Craso or Celsus; not that the gene­ral [Page 116]Method of curing diseases is unsettled. Secondly, that he in­tends not all but some Physicians, though perhaps what he saith may fall upon the greatest part of them. Thirdly, that himself is no Enemy to Method, though its Precepts do not answer to the sull ampli­tude of Nature. What can be more cautelously laid down? What is here to favour a casting away old Methods, erecting new Foundations, new Aphorisms, and I know not what, which our M. N. drives at?. Touching his opinion of Chymists, and their costly ap­plication of Chymical Medicines in slight cases, see what he saith chap. 6. pag. 147, 148, &c. 152. the words are too long to tran­scribe, but in general he blames the Chymists as well in their unskilful preparations, as not dexterous ap­plications of their Medicines; and is so far from tying up Physick to that Sphere onely, that he pro­pounds [Page 117]many great Cures perfor­med by simple Medicines taken from Vegetables and Animals, with­out any Chymical preparation at all. As to that Noble Person him­self, I must tell the world I have had the honour to have been par­ticularly acquainted with him now upwards of twenty years, that I know him to be a Scholar and Valuer of Learning where he meets it; he hath spent all his time from his very youth amongst Men of Learning, and much of it in our Universities, and therefore I am sure will give him little thanks that endeavours to bring him in as a Patron to those that decry Univer­sities, Degrees, Learning, and Arts, endeavouring to bring in thereby Ignorance in the Professors, and Contempt upon the Professions themselves. I shall further adde, I have frequently been in his La­boratory, seen and been from him made partaker of many of his Pre­parations, [Page 118]before the world knew them in Print, have received from his own hand not onely the man­ner of the Preparations, but the Medicines themselves, which I have often used with success, and have returned to him some of my own, which he hath taken kindly from me. But in all the course of this my knowledge of him, have ever found him Free, of a Commu­nicable and Noble nature, a Friend to Scholars, free from that arro­gance and pride of his Own Know­ledge above Others; whose Pots and Glasses these petty fellows, who with so much boldness cry up themselves, are not worthy to clean after him. To this he hath added the communication of many excellent Preparations and other Medicines; whereas this Writer, and many other of his Complices, pretend onely to a secret and con­cealed kind of Knowledge. And in many other places of his book [Page 119]quotes this Noble Person very lit­tle to the purpose, of which I shall take no further notice, the Cha­racter here by me knowingly gi­ven of him, being able to silence all Calumnies that by Consequen­ces of their own drawing out of his words, contrary to his mean­ing, may be pinn'd upon him; of which 'tis none of the least that by this M. N. who in the quotation of that passage even now recited, leaves out the most material part of the sentence he cites; first alto­gether leaving out that which gave a rise to the discourse, viz. that the Method of curing some parti­cular diseases was not perfectly settled, and then recites the sen­tence he doth cite, lamely; for whereas Mr. Boyle saith what may concern the generality of Physici­ans, (is not intended by him all along that Essay to be spoken of them all) this Parenthesis is left out, because it made not for him, and [Page 120]strook onely at such who rested upon the bare Physiology, where­with Physicians as well as others were wonted to be imbued in the Schools, pag. 236. part 2. without endeavouring to advance that knowledge by new accretions, and neglected the use of Specificks in diseases, because they found in them no sensible Evacuations of the Peccant humour. If the ge­nerality of Physicians should be of that mind, I should blame them as much as he, but it appears he be­lieves not that all are, and I thank God I know none that are so in­clined; for my self, I daily make use of Specificks when I know them, nor ever met in consultation with any Learned person that re­fused the use of them. I find no­thing material in this Chapter that hath not already been answered: the passage out of Hippocrates, pag. 217. that of Riverius learning of a Begger-woman the curing the [Page 121] Haemorrhoides, I approve well; nor will I refuse to learn what I know not of any man; not that this Medicine was the Begger-wo­mans, for you may find it com­mended for stopping Fluxes of bloud both in Matthiolus Com­mentary upon Dioscorides, and in Macasius his Promptuarium: but 'tis not possible any Physician should have such a memory, to carry in his mind whatever he had read. I very well remember a Gentlewoman once told me, she learnt of a Begger-woman that Hollihock flowers boiled in Milk would stop the Fluxus mulierum post partum; 'twas new to me then, but I have since found it com­mended by many Authors for the like effect: and truly I have not yet been so happy to meet with any of those Old Womens receipts, which I have not been able to trace where they had their begin­ning. These Country-women get [Page 122]the Country Houswife, some Eng­lish Herbal, or the like, and some­time light of good things, which to those that know them not pass for their own.

Pag. 222. he enters into com­mendations of Humility: I joyn with him in that, and shall not onely commend his Conversation with those that cure Horses, but would advise the use of his and the rest of that Gangs concealed Me­dicines upon those creatures, be­fore they ventured them upon Men, till the world were better acquainted with their Prepara­tions, or their Abilities there­unto.

I should now give over this Chapter, did I not find it necessary once again to vindicate my Noble Friend Mr. Boyle from the Calum­nies of this bold Assertor and Dis­ingenuous person, who now pag. 226. mangling Mr. Boyle's words, endeavours to make him say, there [Page 123]is no need of Learning (commonly so called) to make a good Physi­cian. I will transcribe his words though they are long. Pag. 394. And in the last place, Pyrophilus, I must advertise you not to expect that every one of the Remedies I com­mend should be Physick and Physician too; I mean, that it should of it self suffice to perform the cures of those diseases against which it is commend­ed. For Medicines are but instru­ments in the hands of the Physician; and though they be never so well edg­ed and tempered, require a skilful hand to manage them: and there­fore I cannot but admire and dis­approve their boldness, that venture upon the practice of Physick, wherein it is so dangerous to commit errours, barely upon the confidence of having good Receipts. For though I dare not deny, but that he may prosperously practise Physick that either ignores or dissents from the receiv'd Doctrine of the Schools, concerning the causes of [Page 124]diseases and some other Pathological particulars; yet I cannot but dislike their boldness who venture to give active Physick either in intricate or acute diseases, without at least a me­diocrity of knowledge in Anatomy, and so much knowledge of the history of diseases, as may suffice to inform them in a competent measure, what are the usual symptoms of such a dis­ease, what course Nature is wont to take in dealing with the peccant mat­ter, and what discernible alterations in the Patients body do commonly fore-run a Crisis, or otherwise the good or bad event of the disease. Then goes on and tells you, he will stand in need of a competent knowledge of the Materia Medi [...]a, and the Method of compounding Reme­dies. Now then let the world judge what ingenuity there is in this Citation, as he has mangled it; and what he saith more than Fer­nelius saith in his Life put out by Plantius; nay, Avicenna himself [Page 125]saith as much, lib. 1. Fen. 1. cap. 1. fol. 8. edit. Venet. 1608. apud Jun­ [...]as, speaking de subjecto Medicinae; Harum verò rerum quaedam sunt, de quibus medico nihil aliud est agen­dum, [nisi ut quid sit tantùm essen­tiali formatione informet] & utrum sint vel non sint, doctori sapientiae physicalis credat: and so goes on to the end of that Chapter. By which it is evident from that lear­ned Arabian, that a Physician is not bound with too great scrupu­lousness to search into every thing, the knowledge whereof may be useful, but not absolutely necessary to him as a Practiser. Of this rank I reckon the too scrupulous inquiry into the nature of all Plants, the too much wading into the niceties and new discoveries in Anatomy, of which, Mr. Boyle well saith, a com­petent knowledge is necessary; not that I discourage or dislike the labours of those that can afford themselves liberty to spend all [Page 126]their time in these Contemplati­ons for the increase of their own knowledge, and the great good of others, but would not have it pre­vent their excellent Abilities in the cure of Diseases and visiting Pati­ents, which is the main end of all their studies. In this number I would also reckon the Doctrine of the Composition of Mixt bodies, the Combination of the four qua­lities, Hot, Cold, Moist, and Dry; the Doctrine of Critical Days, Pulses, Urines, and Temperaments, which is the subject of the rest of his book; in which I hold it more safe for a man to rest upon the Opinion of the Ancients, built up­on great Reason and many years Experience in the curing diseases by Remedies found out upon sup­position of those things, though perhaps in every minute particu­lar not exactly true; than upon whimsies and conceits of our own, not built upon greater Reason and [Page 127]less Experience, to overthrow the Method and Foundation of Phy­sick without first erecting another, upon which we may build with as much safety and assurance.

I might here make a close to his whole book, the rest of his time and ink 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 [Page 128]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, [Page 129]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 [Page 130]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, [Page 131]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 [Page 132]all that have endeavoured to pe­netrate have rather lost themselves then found that out: and 'tis 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, [Page 133]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 [Page 134]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 [Page 135]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. 'Tis 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, that both Plato and Aristotle, who in many things disagreed, yet in this ac­corded, that from this Materia prima were produced the four [Page 136]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, [Page 137] 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. [...]. Then they farther added they were [Page 138] 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 [Page 139]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, [Page 140]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? [Page 141]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 [...]eeds of any thing? that which brought them at first may continue them still. 'Tis 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?

I let pass many arguments drawn from Geometry, viz. That a shorter and a longer line will be equal, that the hypotenuse in a rectangled triangle is equal to [Page 143]the perpendicular; nay indeed, that no triangle can be made.

For let the Trian­gle A B C be equicrural, & let A B consist of any num­ber, for the purpose of three Atoms, A C of the same, let B C be two Atoms, d e, which is shorter then B C, cannot be less then one; let it then be supposed one, then must it follow, that d e and f g are equal, for nothing can be less then one Atom, and d e is but one by supposition, f g is therefore one also, and equal to d e, which is absurd, unless a part be equal to the whole, for that part of d e be­tween the prick'd lines is equal to f g, therefore d e is greater.

Again, if there be any hooked Atoms, it follows demonstrative­ly [Page 144]they cannot be indivisible;

for let b d be a hook­ed Atom, from the term a draw a c, that is shorter then a d c, as is easily demonstrated; then is not that Atom minimum divisibile, for I have given you a less, viz. a c.

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 [Page 145]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 as a thing extended, and so occupying a place.

Perhaps it may be said, that those that assert the doctrine of Atoms are not so rigid as I make them, but will allow, that though all bodies are made of Atoms, yet they are made of fiery, aery, earth­ly and watry Atoms, and that from the discord of these all pas­sions and death comes. If their meaning be this, we shall easily agree. The difference being onely verbal, they calling that an Atom which Aristotle calls an Element, then will not the notion of the [Page 146]four Elements be so frigid as our M. N. makes them, or so easily to be cashiered. But certainly I know none of the Ancients of that Sect have explained their meaning in that manner. You may see in Hippocrates in the place before cited, some held all things were made of fire, others of water, o­thers of earth, but none of the mixture of them all; though per­chance some later Writers, pressed by many absurdities which would otherwise have followed, have ex­pressed their meaning otherwise. vid. Magnen. prop. 28. &c. lib. tertij.

Possibly it may be urged, that some of the inconveniences that follow upon this doctrin of Atoms will fall out likewise upon that of Elements; for who brought them together to make the composi­tum?

The Answer to this is easie to those that believe the Creation. [Page 147] Plato could tell you the beginning of things could not be compre­hended by sense or imagination. Aristotle in several places speaks of [...], something that was Di­vine; so that they had some dark knowledge of the providence and government of God, which De­mocritus and Epicurus derided; though necessity sometime made rather some of their followers then themselves let fall words sounding toward the concession of a Deity.

Another opinion, somewhat different from those before men­tioned, and the commonly recei­ved Aristotelian Principles, is that of Mr. Des Cartes, a person cer­tainly of as sublime a wit and deep reach as any that hath gone be­fore him; he finding that the do­ctrine of Democritus and Epicurus was subject to great difficulties, which required bodies that had both figure and extension, not onely to be indivisible, but also [Page 148]to move in vacuo, both which qua­lities he held absurd and impos­sible: and therefore endeavours, Princip. Phil. pars. 2. to prove there is no difference between spatium extensum & corpus, and that a spa­tium imaginarium immensum fan­cied by some before the Creation, was impossible, because no such space could be without a body to fill it, the nature of Body con­sisting in extension, which in truth is no more then what Aristotle had said long before, that there could be no spatium vacuum, because there could be no terms of it. But from this suppositum Mr. Des Cartes concludes, and Regius his follow­er, that the matter of the whole Creation must needs be one and the same, both of bodies Celestial and Terrestrial, because the es­sence of Matter or Body simply and universally considered, con­sisting onely in extension, that being always the same, the matter [Page 149]must be so also. This you may see laid down by Mr. Des Cartes, Prin. Phil. p. 2. sect. 22. Regii Philo. na­tur. p. 6. And having farther ex­plained local motion and the na­ture thereof, he comes in the third part of his Princ. Philos. to handle the Elements or most simple parts, out of which he conceives this Mundus aspectibilis might have been framed; and this he lays down, not as a truth, but as an hypothesis, from which all ap­pearances may be solved: for be­ing a great Philosopher, and with­all a Christian, he tells you, that 'tis not to be doubted but that God at first created all things in their perfection by his infinite power, not out of Seeds or Ele­ments. Yet for our better under­standing the manner of the Crea­tion, we may well consider how all things might have been made by God, though that they were by him so made we know to he [Page 150]false. v. Phil. p. tent. sect. 45. For the better explication of this, he supposeth, that after all that mat­ter of which the world consists was made, it pleased God to di­vide it into magnitudes near equal to one another, endowed every one of them with that swiftness they now retain and keep, and that every one of these particles move in near a circular motion about its own centre, seperated and divided each of them one from the other. These particles he con­ceives to be of different irregular figures; that by their violent motion, hitting one against the other by Attrition, they did wear off a very thin dust, which by reason of its extraordinary thinness and lightness he makes to be the first Element, and the mat­ter of the third Heaven, which by reason of its infinite subtiltie was capable to insinuate it self, and fill up all vacuities in other bodies; [Page 151]and out of which first light, and after by a congregation of more of that matter the Sun was made. In the next place he supposeth, that by the attrition of these par­ticles a second sort of matter was made, not so subtil as the first, out of this the Stars and Planets mo­ving in their several Vortexes were framed. By this time these irre­gular figures by continual attriti­on wearing off the angles of one another, at last grew round, and what was worn off thicker and grosser, out of this thickest part the Earth & the things contained, he thinks to have been made and composed. So that the matter of all things is still the same, differing onely in densitie and raritie. This I take to be shortly the sense of this Author, and by which as the most simple he conceives the appea­rances of nature may be solved, so that though things were not, yet it might have pleased God to have [Page 152]made them so. I think him thus far in the right, that he makes the Maximum divisibile to be the Ma­teria prima, and divides that into particles, which in my judgment is more reasonable, then to make Atoms concurre of themselves by a volitation in vacuo, because it is more agreeable to reason, that God made all things as they now are at first, and that their dispo­sition by days, first, second, &c. was not that there were days with God, but to teach us the order of the Creation, and that there should be days and times with us: and this seems to be the opinion of Du Hamel pag. 69. de consens. vet. & nov. Philos. and quotes St. Au­gustine to back it. This Hypothe­sis of this great Philosopher seems to me to be subject to many im­probabilities: for why doth he make three Elements? if the matter be the same there is but one. Wheat and Flower is the same sub­stance, [Page 153]though the one be finer then the other. But if it be said he understands densitie in one subject, and rareness in another, which makes a difference in the things themselves as to their effects, the more rare entring into the compo­sition of Light, the Sun and Stars; the more thick and dense to 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 [Page 154]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 [Page 155]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 [Page 156]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, [Page 157]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 [Page 158]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 [Page 159]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. [Page 160]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 'tis very clear out of all their [Page 161]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, Ʋniversale 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 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 [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 Ar­ [...]an. Hermet. Philosoph. Can. 76. [...]e tells you, That the other Ele­ments are circulated in the form of Water. He tells you of Ignis [...]aturae in mixtis, and a Humor ra­ [...]calis, which are both immortal and inseparable from any subject: explains his meaning by the exam­ple of glass made out of ashes, [Page 164]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 'tis enough for the support of that Do­ctrine that there are four, to deduc [...] 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 [Page 165]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 [...]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 eve­ [...]y degree of their Zodiack, and by Mercury the volatil part, which [...]auses that circulation to be made informa aquae, and in ventre aëris, till at last all ends in rupem illumi­ [...]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 [Page 166]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 [Page 167]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 [Page 168]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 [Page 169]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, that all Oyls, Phlegms and Spirits, though very different in their tastes and effects, are the same Ele­ment of Sulphur, Water and Mercury; they, I say, are all comprehended under that one of Water, in regard humidity is in them all most prevalent. Se­condly, in this resolutory way of theirs, many bodies afford a vola­til Salt that ascends with the mat­ter to be resolved, and is different in effects, and not very like in taste [Page 170]to that which is fixed and lies hid in the earthy part of the matter, till by calcination of it into ashes any convenient Menstruum be­comes impregned with it, and that by evaporation of the Menstruum taken out. I see not why these may not be called different Elements as well as Phlegm and Spirit, the one called Water, the other Mer­cury; then in stead of five we have six Elements. Thirdly, in many of those bodies which will be distil­led, all these different Elements will not, I think, be drawn, as out of your Resins, out of which ( Te­rebintine for the purpose) I have never seen any fixed Salt made; Faber tells us of a volatil Salt to be taken out of it. From hence it will follow, that all bodies are not compounded of the same number of Elements. The like may be said of your Pinguedines and many Gums. I think no body will deny that our ordinary Water, or, if [Page 171]you please, May dew is a com­pound, yet will it be found, I be­lieve, past the cunning of these Artists to draw from it either a burning Spirit or inflameable Oyl. I am not ignorant that Faber speaks of a sharp burning Spirit, drawn, as he saith, out of Rain­water, he counts it for a Panacea, and it may, I believe, be so judged, when 'tis attained without sophi­stication. Fourthly, what shall we say to the Tincture taken some­times out of the crude matter, both Vegetable and Mineral, which shall notwithstanding, after they are bereaved of their Tin­ctures, yield the same Salts, Spi­rits, Phlegms and Oyls they did whilst they were full of it? Under what Classis shall we put these Tinctures? why may we not rec­kon them another Element? & then we have gotten seven, viz. Earth, Phlegm, volatil Salt, fixed Salt, Spirit, Oyl and Tincture. If you [Page 172]say that Tincture is but a subtil part of that body out of which 'twas drawn, I admit it, but still 'tis a part of that body endued with a colour taken out of the whole, and of which the whole by that means is bereaved. Nay, what will he say to him that shall shew him a substance drawn out of the ashes of an ordinary Vegetable, after their Salt is taken away, which evidently shews that those very ashes which, according to this Doctrin, should be the pure Element of Earth, are still a com­pound body? Farther, what will he say to the Quintessences drawn by Chymists, what to the Prima entia of many substances both Ve­getable and Mineral, spoken of by Paracelsus in the end of his Tractate De Renovatione & Re­stauratione? what are these? and why may not these be called Prin­cipia as well as any of those named by our Author? So are we not [Page 173]certain at last how many Principia we may come to. Paracelsus him­self is more modest, for he tells you in tractatu de rebus naturali­bus, cap. 4. De sale & sub sale con­tentis. Constat homo ex tribus, Sul­phure, Mercurio, Sale. Ex his etiam constat quiequid ubivis est, & nec paucioribus nec pluribus. And in another place tells you, de tribus principiis, cap. 2. Id quod ardet Sul­phur est, quod effumat est Mercurius, qui cinis relinquitur Sal est. By which words 'tis clear, that under Ashes he comprehends our Au­thor's Earth and Salt, under Sul­phur whatsoever is inflammable; so that our Author's Oyl and Spi­rit are comprehended under the name of Sulphur, and under that of Mercury the parts of any mat­ter that will ascend in a smoke or vapour; by which two things are very manifest. First, that Para­celsus here spake in the sense of other ancient Philosophers, and [Page 174]did not take these substances as things to shoulder out the four Elements, which in another Tra­ctate he particularly defends, and shews how they are in the body under the form of the four hu­mours; so that it seems neither the Doctrine of the Elements nor of the four Humours were look'd upon as fancies by Para­celsus. Secondly, That these sub­stances were look'd upon by him as compounds, and so not as the Elements and most simple parts of the mixt body, contrary to what Mr. De Clave's and our Author, out of Le Febvre, have delivered, for in them all will Mercury be found, for they will all give a smoke if they be set upon the fire and made boil, except the drie Ashes divested of its Salt. Of the same opinion is Dr. Willis, who tells you, he doth indeed find those five substances in bodies, but doth not deliver them as most [Page 175]simple beings altogether uncom­pounded, but onely as such sen­sible parts, by the motion, com­bination, inequality or separation whereof bodies are augmented or perish, and this to the end that men may, in his judgment, better understand by the view of these more gross parts how Fermenta­tion is made, then by the more abstracted notion of the four Ele­ments, which never in their purity come under the senses. In all this there is no absurdity, and let him in God's name enjoy his opinion that conceives he can this way bet­ter explain the appearances of Nature. But the understanding of these substances in this sense can be no part of our M. N.'s meaning, who makes use of them to thrust out of doors the frigid notion of the four Elements, with the fancy of Humours and Qualities; tells you these are the Principles or Elements of natural bodies, in [Page 176]which after their reduction, no­thing heterogeneous can be found; whereas the ancient Philosophers as well as Paracelsus and Dr. Willis do admit these which he calls Ele­ments to be still compounded bodies, and do all, notwithstand­ing this, allow both of Qualities, Humours and four Elements, as I have shewed before, and is yet more cleared, when we consider that in the driving off of the Oils from many acid bodies, Vitriol for the purpose, part of the substance of the Mineral it self comes over with the Oil, which in time will of it self precipitate in the air in the form of that body was drawn off, and, to my understand­ing, in all respects the same, and so not the volatile Salt which perad­venture others might, and my self did at first suppose, till upon trial I was satisfi'd otherwise. I have by me at this present a Balsame of Sul­phur, which I prepared above [Page 177]fifteen years since, which still re­tains as high a tincture to outward appearance as it had at first, and yet hath let fall some of my Sul­phur to the bottom, which could not come thither, had it not in sub­stance first ascended into the Men­struum, for whether it rise three inches or ten is not 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 [Page 178]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 [Page 179]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, [Page 180]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 [Page 181]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 [Page 182]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 [Page 183]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 [Page 184]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 [Page 185]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 evinced. What is new in his ve­ry long ninth and last Chapter, (except his carping at Hippocrates, who is vindicated enough in Dr. Sprackling) is the Doctrin of Critical days, Urines and Pulses. I shall speak very shortly to them all.

As for the hypercritical Doctrin of Critical Days, that he derides, [Page 186]and calls it as childish a conceit, &c. tells you 'tis like children's game called Even and Odd, be­cause, forsooth, the indicatory days fall upon every fourth, the decretory or critical upon every seventh day, saith, this doctrin is useful for two ends; first, to cloak the ignorance of Practisers; and, secondly, to hide the insufficiency of the Art: and yet withal is forced to admit, that this shameful conceit, as he terms it, hath been received in the world for 2000 years, and so indeed hath it ge­nerally been, and the truth of their assertion grounded upon constant experience. So that it must be either conceded that there is truth in the thing, or that the assertors have been all igno­rant, and have used this as a cloak to hide that and the insufficiency of their Art. 'Tis strange that for 2000 years there hath been no learned Physician, but such as have [Page 187]obtruded things false and ridicu­lous, and not onely so, but de­fended with their pens their opi­nions, and given reasons for it, which had it been used as a cloak to ignorance, they needed not have done. But now in this learn­ed Age of ours, M. N. is sprung up to carp at all the Ancients, and yet offers nothing of his own so good as what we have received from them. But he vouchsafes at last, page 313. for the information of his Countrymen, to descend to a view of the odde conceits of the even and odd gamesters about criti­cal days. Is pleased moreover to let us know that in his judgment Hippocrates was wiser then his followers, and that Avicenna ap­proves of Hippocrates in that par­ticular, because he contented him­self onely with experience. Pray, Sir, if he delivered you nothing but observation, why do you de­ride him? Is a man to be scorned [Page 188]because M. N. doth not believe what he saith? He that shall read­him de Principiis, shall find many handsom observations of the Sep­tenary number, as well in the conception, growth and dentition of children, as also of the same Number in acute sicknesses: And in the end of his Book, de Judica­tionibus, tells you, that Fevers are judged the fourth, the seventh, the eleventh, the fourteenth, &c. This that he hath thus delivered hath passed current ever since, onely upon the truth of his and the concurrent observations of others. But he tells you 'tis lawful to ob­ject experience against experience; that in our days things fall out as well upon other days as those he calls Critical. I am glad yet he allows that such changes fall out upon those days Hippocrates called Cri­tical. Who ever said they never fell out upon other? I am sure Hippocrates doth not; nay, he tells [Page 189]you, that those changes will fall out commonly, though no Phy­sick at all be given. He doth not say, the Medicine rightly and duly or unduly administred, may not either hasten or retard the Crisis, which may also happen from ma­ny other causes. From the great leader hippocrates he comes to his followers, the embracers of the Pythagorean fancy of the mysteri­ous power of the number Seven, which, say they, may have effect upon men, though the cause be not known. I will not enter into that high speculation, but remit him to the Jewish Cabalists, to Pla­to and his Ideas of later standing, to Leo, Isaurus, Brentius, Cornelius Agrippa, Trithemius, Gaffarel, and many others, thought in their times learned men, and yet did not think the mystical doctrine of Numbers so vain and idle a con­ceit as M. N. would have us think it. I, but Galen hath confuted that [Page 190]Doctrin well enough, but has lapsed into a worse errour. 'Tis true, Galen hath spoke much against the fancy of the mystery in Numbers, and with becoming gravity and mo­desty, but that he has lapsed into a worse error, by attributing the cause of the Crisis in acute sickness to the motion of the Moon, is more then M. N. will well prove. It cannot with any colour of rea­son be denied, but that the Moon hath very great influence upon sublunary bodies, this is evident enough from many Shell-fishes, Rabbets, and many other crea­tures, who some in their brain, some in other parts, receive in­crease or diminution in such a Phasis of the Moon. Your Lunatici, Epileptici, men bitten with mad dogs, have always their accesses with more vigour, either at the increase or full of the Moon; why therefore it should have no power over the bodies of men, from [Page 191]whence judgment may be made, is past my understanding. Against it he urges, If it were so, then the squares and weeks of the Moon would always concur with the qua­ternions and weeks of the disease, but this very rarely falls out. I am troubled to make sense of these words, viz. what he means by quaternion of the disease, if he mean the fourth day from the de­cubitus, as I think he doth, then he is much in the right, for the square or week of the Moon never did, nor never can concur with the fourth day of the disease, unless the Moon could go above twenty degrees in a day: if he would have the quaternion of the disease an­swer to the square of the Moon, then his words must sound thus, The square and week of the Moon should answer to the square and week of the disease. But who ever heard of the square of a disease? The truth is, the square and week [Page 192]of the Moon is one and the [...] thing, for in the seventh day from the decubitus, the Moon always goes 90 degrees, or thereabout, in her own Orb, and so hath a quartile aspect with that degree of the Zodiack that was ascendant at the time of the decubitus, which is sometime called the square of the Moon, because it is the chord of 90 degrees, and consequently the side of the greatest square can be inscribed in that circle, and comprehends in its four angles the cusps of the first, the fourth, the seventh and tenth Houses. Now the Moon, the fourth day from the decubitus, comes to a sextile of the ascendant, which being an aspect of amity, if the Moon be likewise well aspected by the other Pla­nets, is said by Astrologers to in­dicate a good event of that sick­ness, and so consequently a good Crisis on the seventh day when she comes to quartile, which may [Page 193]decree good or bad according to the nature of those Planets that are then with the Moon, or aspe­cted by her. So on the eleventh, when she comes to a trine, the fourteenth to an opposition, and so of the rest, till she hath ab­solved her Circle, before which time acute sicknesses are common­ly judged. Not that these indica­tory and decretal days do always just meet in that direct number of days to an hour, because the Moon is sometimes velox, some­times tarda cursu; but he that is careful may gather much from them. Again, men are sometime deceived in the time of the Crisis, because they know not from what time precisely to reckon the de­cubitus; but he that shall heed­fully observe the first great muta­tion in a sickness, and accordingly look back from that time, and ac­count the decubitus, he will gene­rally find the mutations happen [Page 194]according to the rules and days before mentioned: I am sure if it be otherwise, the Astrologers are much deceived. So is Argolus, who in his Book De diebus criticis, hath given many observations of the event of sicknesses, which hap­ned according to these grounds. So that for ought I see, the judg­ment of diseases from the motion of the Moon and her aspects is not so frivolous as M. N. would have it, nor perhaps so much to be attended as some others require it should be; onely I would give our Author that advertisement, not hereafter to gainsay those opini­ons that have had long footing in the world, without he were able to give demonstrative reasons against them.

Paracelsus reckons the know­ledg of Astronomy as necessary to a Physician, therefore could be no enemy to critical days. The opi­nion of Fracastorius I let pass, and [Page 195]shall now have done with the do­ctrine of critical days, leaving Asclepiades and Celsus to their opinions, without quarrelling with them, though they dif­fer from Hippocrates and Galen.

The next exception he takes is at Galen's too scrupulous descri­ption of the Pulse, and reduceth its motion to a far lesser number of varieties. He shall not have me his enemy in this matter, I agree with him, the varieties he enume­rates are enough, and more then are generally observed; yet how­ever let us thank Galen for his di­ligence, and if at any time we should light upon any variety in the Pulse not comprehended in this Writers ten varieties, let him remember Galen had taken notice of it before. Sennertus, and out of him Johnstonus, is content with three varieties, viz. Aequalis, & inequalis, velox tardus, validus de­bilis: so that he may see that all [Page 196]the Dogmaticks were not so nice to insist upon all the subtilties of Herophilus.

Touching the judgment of U­rines, I shall refer him to Forestus and Fernelius, from both which Authors it will appear, that the Urine is not sufficient in all dis­eases to make a perfect judgment, though in many it is a great help, especially those sicknesses that are acute, as well as diseases of the Reins, Kidneys, Bladder, Obstru­ctions, and some others. But our Author tells us, he is onely for rectification and improvement of the doctrine of Urins, and pro­pounds out of Dr. Willis ways of resolving them into those he calls the Chymical Principles, that by this means the temperature may be rightly investigated. I shall com­mend his or any man's diligence that shall contribute any thing to the improvement of our Art, where his own time and the dis­ease [Page 197]will give him leave; let us onely be thus far wary, not to mistake and call that an improve­ment which perhaps is none, or not at all conducible to that great end of more speedy and secure curing a disease; to which pur­pose I do not yet find any of our new and learned speculations touching the motion of the Bloud, the carriage of the Chyle, the manner of sanguification, in­jection of Medicines into the veins, have proved hitherto very effectual. In the mean time I would not be thought to take from the due praise of those per­sons that have laboured herein, and candidly imparted their ob­servations for the benefit of the Profession, without upbraiding those Authors to whom the world is beholding for much of that knowledge it now enjoys, by their communication of their labours to those that came after them.

His invectives against Hippo­crates and Galen, which hold him many pages, I shall let pass, till the vindication of them by Dr. Sprackling shall be answered by this undertaker.

Touching bleeding in Scorbu­tick diseases, Fevers, &c. I shall be very short, having had occasion to speak more fully to it in ano­ther part of this Treatise; my mind not being to follow him in his unnecessary repetitions of the same thing. Pag. 383. he gives us caution to be very wary of drawing bloud in our climate, in regard of the universal spreading of the Scor­butical tincture. After that, gives you the judgment of Thonerus, against bleeding in Fevers in the Northern climates, confirms this by the different nature of the bloud of Italians and Germans, that in one 'tis safe, in the other dangerous; out of Zacutus Lusi­tanus. Thus far he and I shall [Page 199]agree, that not onely in the Scor­bute and Fevers in Northern, but Southern climates also, caution is to be used in bleeding, as also in the use of all other Medicines. The want of this is what we blame in our M. N. and others of the same feather, who would make us believe they can cure all mala­dies with some one or two Chy­mical preparations, which they use promiscuously, without any caution or consideration had of the temperature of the party, the prevalency of the peccant hu­mour, or preparation of the body to make it more fit for the re­ception of more potent remedies. As to bleeding in the Scorbute, I see not why it may not safely be administred, provided the Scor­butick pollution be before well corrected, the stomach strength­ned, and the chylification made good, so that a good and whole­some juice be carried (by what [Page 200] ductus is not material) to the heart. Bleeding at this time may be properly made use of, for in regard the whole mass of bloud is infected with that acid saline quality he speaks of; I think it more rational to draw part of the infected bloud away, that the good chyle mingling with the rest, may correct what remains; a part of its burthen being taken away, then to suffer the same Chyle, by a continual and daily supply to correct the whole. To Thonerus I shall onely say what a very learn­ed Physician, yet alive, replied to me, when I told him that Ludo­vicus Septelius disallowed very much the use of Rhubarb in purg­ing choler, and asked his opinion. He bad me not give heed to the opinion of one man against the current of all practisers; this is the ease with Thorenus, and some few others of his side. I am certain, if we believe report, that great Wit [Page 201] Des Cartes died in Sweden of a Plurisie, because he refused to make use of that known remedy of letting bloud. Neither see I any reason why the strong Wines, hot Spices and succulent Meats used in cold countries, may not as easily inflame the bloud as in hotter Climates, where the ex­ternal heat is much alloyed by their constant use of cooling Fruits, Sallets, much Water, and little use of Flesh-meats in their diets, we see Fevers do arise, and are often cured by bleeding.

Touching bleeding in malig­nant Fevers, when safe, when otherwise, I have spoken alrea­dy, nor shall now trouble the Reader, no more then I shall to answer our Author's own obser­vations, page 416. which must stand or fall upon the observers authority; so must that fancy of the difference of the Italian and German bloud. After this, [Page 202] page 432, &c. he makes an insinu­ating digression to the Apothe­caries, Pag. 419. wishes for their ease, that the crude, fulsome, ill-conditioned Messes, and Mixtures, and Liquors may be thrown out of doors, and this out of a supposition that he hath overthrown the trifling no­tions of Elements, Qualities, Tem­peraments, Complexions, &c. toward the confutation whereof he hath not made the least at­tempt, nor answered any reason alledged for them farther then re­viling their Assertors, and a con­fident avowing for undoubted truths the wild fancies of his own brain; but however, the Shops are to be reformed, and all set upon a new basis of Chymical and experimental Physick, and this, forsooth, because the Galenists seeing their own old remedies ve­ry insufficient, fall themselves on the Chymical practise, though they do it by stealth, (as Mr. Le [Page 203]Febvre saith) and the quainter practisers become Semi-chymists, dividing their practise between the Laborator and the Shop. And in this they do well, and want but little of true conversion, seeing the onely thing remains to be done is the throwing aside the old prin­ciples and Methods, &c. and 435. recites out of Mr. Le Febvre his great charity to them, and his en­deavours to advance the dignity of Pharmacy, viz. the Art of the Apo­thecary, that now lies bending to its ruine, &c. Pag. 437. he tells you, that by these words of Mr. Le Febvre, the Apothecary Royal; the other Apothecaries are at a stand, inasmuch as the stream of practise running towards this new way, and the pedantick Galenists and semi-chymists not knowing how to attempt a cure but by prescribing the old stuff. The Apothecaries are bound to have it, lest they lose that sort of practise. His ad­vise [Page 204]therefore is, pag. 439. for the support of so worthy a Society as the Apothecaries, that they should be indulged to make use of their own Medicines at their own discretion among the Sick, seeing the prudent part of them understand the nature of them, and the old rode of pra­ctise belonging to them as well as (if not better then) the Galenists; and this to continue till the old Galenick formalities be laid asleep or reformed, &c. If the Apothe­caries shall be misled by this kind of Sophistry, I should much won­der in which he lays open his de­sign too evidently, which is not at all to benefit them, but himself and those of his brotherhood, and cause the Apothecaries to mutiny both among themselves and that body by which they have hither­to been supported. Why should he otherwise suppose that the stream of practise runs his way; that the pedantick Galenists and [Page 205] Semi-chymists, nay, the Apothe­caries themselves, were not able to prepare their own Chymical remedies, exclusive to all other, if the thing he supposeth were true, and that they found it so? What unknown preparation have they made publick? what new thing are we beholding to the Apothecary Roial for in all his course of Chymistry? have we not Books enough stuffed with Chymical preparations? have we not Libavius, Basilius Valentinus, Quercetane, Faber, Beguin, Crollius, Hartman, Scroderus, Minsichius, Angelus Sala, and many others both French and Dutch Writers? What hath the Apothecary Roial which Dr. French hath not in the English Tongue, before him, or Translations, for the substance of the preparation, out of some of the Books before mentioned? But that 'tis the nature of this sort of Operators, if they make the least [Page 206]alteration, (as for the purpose, from distilled Water to May-dew) to look upon the preparation with such a slight alteration, as wholly their own, without re­turning thanks to him from whom they stole it. Why then must the Apothecaries be indulged a liber­ty of practise, till their old stock of Galenick remedies, and their Messes and Mixtures which they are forced to keep for that sort of practise, are worn out? I tell you why, to the end that by that time this M. N. and those of his party may have set up a Labo­ratory, from which they pretend all preparations after their new model should be made, and the Apothecaries furnished at easie rates from their stock: this is clearly their drift, as in another place is expressed by this Writer. But, pray, how have these men monopolized all Chymical Learn­ing, that the Semi-chymists, pe­dantick [Page 207]Galenists and Apotheca­ries may not be Masters of that part of Learning as well as they? Away, away, M. N. with this dis­ingenuous dealing; if you are Master of any new piece of know­ledge in this kind, make the world partakers of it, and for my part I shall be one of the first shall give you your due praise; otherwise let me tell you, 'tis be­neath a Gentleman, unworthy a Scholar, unbeseeming a man, to affix unhandsom names and re­proaches upon those you know not, and perhaps such as have la­boured more, and seen as much in such as you call Chymical pre­parations as you have done, viz. in several sorts of preparations of Vitriol, Salt, Antimony, Mercury, Sulphur, Salt-peter, and out of every of these made good and ap­propriate remedies, and success­fully used them in many diseases, yet never found that effect that it [Page 208]was fit to make use of them onely to the exclusion of all the rest of the Materia Medica. As for the Apothecaries, I shall leave them to their own judgment, not doubt­ing but the ancient method of Physick will be supported without any other assistance then its own worth. And to you, M. N. I wish more temper and consistence of judgment, for though you strike here at the old Method and Rules, yet in the close of your Book, page 496. you seem to be more moderate, and will be content to allow some more latitude in the use of Simples and single Speci­ficks. I should have look'd upon this as a little retractation of what went before, for how can the na­ture of diseases be changed, and a new method necessarily intro­duced, if the old Simples and Spe­cificks will yet in some cases serve the turn? But the mischief is, you are not long in this mood, for I [Page 209]find your hand subscribed under an engagement entred into by some of your company, to en­deavour the instituting an Incor­poration of Professors of Physick, Onely by Hermetick or Chymical Physick, and in those their endea­vours to be assistant to one another, and never to relinquish that their engagement for any temporal re­spects whatsoever. To let pass the danger of these kinds of engage­ments, and how the best, nay per­haps all Professions, nay Trades, may be capable of improvement in the judgment of some rash un­dertakers; and the manifest un­truth in the supposition upon which all this is built, to wit, That after sufficient experiment it is found most true, that Chymical Me­dicines well prepared, and as well applied, are above all others the safest, pleasantest and most effectual means, both for conservation of health, and cure of all diseases what­soever. [Page 210]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 'tis 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 [Page 211]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. [Page 212]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 [...]e likely to take such an employment, were he such [Page 213]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 [Page 214]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.