This is a modern-English version of The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject., originally written by Boyle, Robert. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

 

Color title-page images were generously provided by the
University of Pennsylvania Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text & Image
(http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti).

 

Transcriber’s Notes

Transcriber’s Notes

Printer errors have also been preserved. Those mentioned in the Errata at the end of the book are hyperlinked to that section. Other obvious printer errors, where the meaning might be unclear without correction, are marked with red dotted underlining; hover the mouse over the underlined word to see a pop-up transcriber’s note. See also the printer’s note containing material omitted from page 191.

Printer errors have also been kept. Those listed in the Errata at the end of the book are linked to that section. Other obvious printer errors, where the meaning might be unclear without correction, are highlighted with red dotted underlining; hover your mouse over the underlined word to see a pop-up transcription note. Also, check out the printer’s note that includes material missing from page 191.

Some of the page numbers in the original are misnumbered, though the text itself is in the proper order. The original page numbers have been preserved, and incorrect numbers are marked with red dotted underlining and a mouse-hover pop-up with the correct number.

Some of the page numbers in the original are misnumbered, but the text itself is in the correct order. The original page numbers have been kept, and incorrect numbers are highlighted with red dotted underlining and a mouse-hover pop-up showing the correct number.

This e-text contains some Greek and Hebrew characters, which may not display properly in all browsers. Diacriticals have been omitted. Hover the mouse over the characters to see a pop-up transliteration, e.g., βιβλος.

This e-text includes some Greek and Hebrew characters that might not show up correctly in every browser. Diacritical marks have been removed. Hover your mouse over the characters to see a pop-up transliteration, for example, book.

A table of contents has been provided for the reader’s convenience.

A table of contents has been provided for the reader's convenience.

 


 


Title Page


Title Page

THE

Skeptical Chemist:

OR

Chemical-Physical

Doubts & Paradoxes,

Touching the

SPAGYRIST’S PRINCIPLES

Commonly call’d

HYPOSTATICAL,

As they are wont to be Propos’d and
Defended by the Generality of

ALCHEMISTS.

Whereunto is præmis’d Part of another Discourse
relating to the same Subject.


BY

The Honourable ROBERT BOYLE, Esq;


LONDON

Printed by J. Cadwell for J. Crooke, and are to be
Sold at the Ship in St. Paul’s Church-Yard.

MDCLXI.


CONTENTS



A

Preface

INTRODUCTION

To the following Treatise.


TO give the Reader an account, Why the following Treatise is suffer’d to pass abroad so maim’d and imperfect, I must inform him that ’tis now long since, that to gratify an ingenious Gentleman, I set down some of the Reasons that kept me from fully acquiescing either in the Peripatetical, or in the Chymical Doctrine, of the Material Principles of mixt Bodies. This Discourse some years after falling into the hands of some Learned men, had the good luck to be so favourably receiv’d, and advantageously spoken of by them, that having had more then ordinary Invitations given me to make it publick, I thought fit to review it, that I might retrench some things that seem’d not so fit to be shewn to every Reader, And substitute some of those other things that occurr’d to me of the trials and observations I had since made. What became of my papers, I elsewhere mention in a Preface where I complain of it: But since I writ That, I found many sheets that belong’d to the subjects I am now about to discourse of. Wherefore seeing that I had then in my hands as much of the first Dialogue as was requisite to state the Case, and serve for an Introduction as well to the conference betwixt Carneades and Eleutherius, as to some other Dialogues, which for certain reasons are not now herewith publish’d, I resolv’d to supply, as well as I could, the Contents of a Paper belonging to the second of the following Discourses, which I could not possibly retrive, though it were the chief of them all. And having once more try’d the Opinion of Friends, but not of the same, about this imperfect work, I found it such, that I was content in complyance with their Desires; that not only it should be publish’d, but that it should be publish’d as soon as conveniently might be. I had indeed all along the Dialogues spoken of my self, as of a third Person; For, they containing Discourses which were among the first Treatises that I ventur’d long ago to write of matters Philosophical, I had reason to desire, with the Painter, to latere pone tabulam, and hear what men would say of them, before I own’d my self to be their Author. But besides that now I find, ’tis not unknown to many who it is that writ them, I am made to believe that ’tis not inexpedient, they should be known to come from a Person not altogether a stranger to Chymical Affairs. And I made the lesse scruple to let them come abroad uncompleated, partly, because my affairs and Præ-ingagements to publish divers other Treatises allow’d me small hopes of being able in a great while to compleat these Dialogues. And partly, because I am not unapt to think, that they may come abroad seasonably enough, though not for the Authors reputation, yet for other purposes. For I observe, that of late Chymistry begins, as indeed it deserves, to be cultivated by Learned Men who before despis’d it; and to be pretended to by many who never cultivated it, that they may be thought not to ignore it: Whence it is come to passe, that divers Chymical Notions about Matters Philosophical are taken for granted and employ’d, and so adopted by very eminent Writers both Naturalists and Physitians. Now this I fear may prove somewhat prejudicial to the Advancement of solid Philosophy: For though I am a great Lover of Chymical Experiments, and though I have no mean esteem of divers Chymical Remedies, yet I distinguish these from their Notions about the causes of things, and their manner of Generation. And for ought I can hitherto discern, there are a thousand Phænomena in Nature, besides a Multitude of Accidents relating to the humane Body, which will scarcely be clearly & satisfactorily made out by them that confine themselves to deduce things from Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, and the other Notions peculiar to the Chymists, without taking much more Notice than they are wont to do, of the Motions and Figures, of the small Parts of Matter, and the other more Catholick and Fruitful affections of Bodies. Wherefore it will not perhaps be now unseasonable to let our Carneades warne Men, not to subscribe to the grand Doctrine of the Chymists touching their three Hypostatical Principles, till they have a little examin’d it, and consider’d, how they can clear it from his Objections, divers of which ’tis like they may never have thought on; since a Chymist scarce would, and none but a Chymist could propose them. I hope also it will not be unacceptable to several Ingenious Persons, who are unwilling to determine of any important Controversie, without a previous consideration of what may be said on both sides, and yet have greater desires to understand Chymical Matters, than Opportunities of learning them, to find here together, besides several Experiments of my own purposely made to Illustrate the Doctrine of the Elements, divers others scarce to be met with, otherwise then Scatter’d among many Chymical Books. And to Find these Associated Experiments so Deliver’d as that an Ordinary Reader, if he be but Acquainted with the usuall Chymical Termes, may easily enough Understand Them; and even a wary One may safely rely on Them. These Things I add, because a Person any Thing vers’d in the Writings of Chymists cannot but Discern by their obscure, Ambiguous, and almost Ænigmatical Way of expressing what they pretend to Teach, that they have no Mind, to be understood at all, but by the Sons of Art (as they call them) nor to be Understood even by these without Difficulty And Hazardous Tryalls. Insomuch that some of Them Scarce ever speak so candidly, as when they make use of that known Chymical Sentence; Ubi palam locuti fumus, ibi nihil diximus. And as the obscurity of what some Writers deliver makes it very difficult to be understood; so the Unfaithfulness of too many others makes it unfit to be reli’d on. For though unwillingly, Yet I must for the truths sake, and the Readers, warne him not to be forward to believe Chymical Experiments when they are set down only by way of Prescriptions, and not of Relations; that is, unless he that delivers them mentions his doing it upon his own particular knowledge, or upon the Relation of some credible person, avowing it upon his own experience. For I am troubled, I must complain, that even Eminent Writers, both Physitians and Philosophers, whom I can easily name, if it be requir’d, have of late suffer’d themselves to be so far impos’d upon, as to Publish and Build upon Chymical Experiments, which questionless they never try’d; for if they had, they would, as well as I, have found them not to be true. And indeed it were to be wish’d, that now that those begin to quote Chymical Experiments that are not themselves Acquainted with Chymical Operations, men would Leave off that Indefinite Way of Vouching the Chymists say this, or the Chymists affirme that, and would rather for each Experiment they alledge name the Author or Authors, upon whose credit they relate it; For, by this means they would secure themselves from the suspition of falshood (to which the other Practice Exposes them) and they would Leave the Reader to Judge of what is fit for him to Believe of what is Deliver’d, whilst they employ not their own great names to Countenance doubtfull Relations; and they will also do Justice to the Inventors or Publishers of true Experiments, as well as upon the Obtruders of false ones. Whereas by that general Way of quoting the Chymists, the candid Writer is Defrauded of the particular Praise, and the Impostor escapes the Personal Disgrace that is due to him.


TTo give the reader an explanation of why the following treatise is allowed to be published in such a flawed and incomplete state, I need to inform them that for quite some time, to satisfy an insightful gentleman, I wrote down some of the reasons that prevented me from fully agreeing with either the Aristotelian or the chemical theories about the material principles of mixed bodies. This discourse, some years later, ended up in the hands of some learned individuals who received it so positively and spoke well of it that, having received more than the usual invitations to publish it, I decided to review it. I aimed to remove some parts that didn’t seem appropriate for every reader and to include additional insights based on the experiments and observations I had made since then. What happened to my original papers I mentioned elsewhere in a preface where I expressed my concerns about it. However, since I wrote that, I found many sheets relating to the topics I am now discussing. Therefore, since I had enough of the first dialogue to outline the case and serve as an introduction for the discussions between Carneades and Eleutherius, as well as for some other dialogues, which for certain reasons are not published here, I resolved to fill in, as best as I could, the contents of a paper belonging to the second of the following discourses, which I could not retrieve, although it was the most significant of them all. Having once more sought the opinions of friends about this incomplete work, I found it to be such that I agreed, in compliance with their wishes, to publish it and to do so as soon as it was feasible. I had indeed always referred to myself in the dialogues as if I were a third person; since they contain discussions that were among the first philosophical treatises I ventured to write long ago, I had reason to want, like a painter, to latere pone tabulam, and hear what people would say about them before I acknowledged myself as their author. But besides the fact that I now find many people already know who wrote them, I believe it’s beneficial for them to be known as coming from someone not entirely unfamiliar with chemical matters. I felt less hesitation to let them go out incomplete, partly because my other commitments to publish various other treatises gave me little hope of being able to complete these dialogues for a long time. And partly because I tend to think that they may still be timely, not necessarily for the author’s reputation, but for other reasons. I’ve noticed recently that chemistry is starting to be taken seriously by learned individuals who previously dismissed it, and it’s being claimed by many who have never practiced it, just so they can appear knowledgeable about it. As a result, various chemical ideas related to philosophical matters are being accepted and employed, and consequently adopted by very prominent authors, both naturalists and physicians. Now I fear that this may somewhat harm the advancement of solid philosophy: for although I’m a great lover of chemical experiments, and I hold various chemical remedies in high regard, I distinguish these from their ideas about the causes of things and their modes of generation. And for anything I can discern so far, there are a multitude of phenomena in nature, as well as numerous accidents relating to the human body, that will hardly be clearly and satisfactorily explained by those who limit themselves to deducing things from salt, sulfur, and mercury, and the other notions specific to chemists, without taking much more notice than they usually do of the motions and configurations of the minute parts of matter and the other broader and more fruitful properties of bodies. Therefore, it may not be out of place now to let our Carneades warn people not to accept the grand doctrine of the chemists regarding their three hypostatical principles until they have examined it a bit and considered how they can defend it against his objections, many of which they likely have never thought of, since a chemist hardly would, and no one but a chemist could pose them. I also hope it will not be unwelcome to several insightful individuals who are unwilling to settle any important controversy without first considering what can be said on both sides, and yet have a stronger desire to understand chemical matters than opportunities to learn about them, to find here, along with several of my own experiments specifically designed to illustrate the doctrine of the elements, many others that are hard to come by except scattered across multiple chemical books. And to find these associated experiments presented in such a way that an ordinary reader, if they are at least familiar with common chemical terms, can easily understand them; and even a cautious reader can rely on them with confidence. I add these things because someone somewhat experienced in the writings of chemists cannot help but notice from their obscure, ambiguous, and almost enigmatic way of expressing what they claim to teach, that they do not want to be understood at all, except by the sons of art (as they call them) nor to be understood, even by them, without difficulty and risky trials. So much so that some of them hardly ever speak so candidly as when they use that well-known chemical saying; Ubi palam locuti fumus, ibi nihil diximus. And just as the obscurity of what some writers present makes it very difficult to understand, so the unreliability of too many others makes it unfit to be relied upon. For although unwillingly, I must, for the sake of the truth and the reader, warn against being too quick to believe chemical experiments when they are presented merely as prescriptions and not as accounts; that is, unless the person presenting them states he is doing so based on his own knowledge or based on the account of someone trustworthy, affirming it from his personal experience. For I’m troubled, I must complain, that even prominent writers, both physicians and philosophers, whom I can easily name if required, have recently allowed themselves to be so deceived as to publish and rely on chemical experiments that they undoubtedly never tested; because if they had, they would, like me, have found them not to be true. Indeed, it would be preferable that, now that those who begin to reference chemical experiments that are not familiar with chemical operations do that, people stop using the indefinite way of stating that chemists say this, or chemists assert that, and instead name the specific author or authors for each experiment they mention. For by doing so, they would protect themselves from the suspicion of falsehood (to which the other practice exposes them) and allow the reader to judge what is appropriate for him to believe regarding what is presented, while they do not use their own prominent names to endorse dubious claims; and they will also do justice to the inventors or publishers of genuine experiments, as well as to the intruders of false ones. However, by that general way of citing chemists, the honest writer is robbed of specific praise, and the impostor escapes the personal disgrace that is due to him.

The remaining Part of this Præface must be imploy’d in saying something for Carneades, and something for my Self.

The rest of this preface should be used to say something for Carneades, and something for myself.

And first, Carneades hopes that he will be thought to have disputed civilly and Modestly enough for one that was to play the Antagonist and the Sceptick. And if he any where seem to sleight his Adversaries Tenents and Arguments, he is willing to have it look’d upon as what he was induc’d to, not so much by his Opinion of them, as the Examples of Themistius and Philoponus, and the custom of such kind of Disputes.

And first, Carneades hopes that he will be seen as having argued fairly and respectfully enough for someone who was supposed to be the opponent and the skeptic. And if he appears to dismiss his opponents' beliefs and arguments at any point, he wants it to be viewed as something he was driven to do, not so much because of his opinion of them, but because of the examples set by Themistius and Philoponus, and the tradition of these kinds of debates.

Next, In case that some of his Arguments shall not be thought of the most Cogent sort that may be, he hopes it will be consider’d that it ought not to be Expected, that they should be So. For, his Part being chiefly but to propose Doubts and Scruples, he does enough, if he shews that his Adversaries Arguments are not strongly Concluding, though his own be not so neither. And if there should appear any disagreement betwixt the things he delivers in divers passages, he hopes it will be consider’d, that it is not necessary that all the things a Sceptick Proposes, should be consonant; since it being his work to Suggest doubts against the Opinion he questions, it is allowable for him to propose two or more severall Hypotheses about the same thing: And to say that it may be accounted for this way, or that way, or the other Way, though these wayes be perhaps inconsistent among Themselves. Because it is enough for him, if either of the proposed Hypotheses be but as probable as that he calls a question. And if he proposes many that are Each of them probable, he does the more satisfie his doubts, by making it appear the more difficult to be sure, that that which they alwayes differ from is the true. And our Carneades by holding the Negative, he has this Advantage, that if among all the Instances he brings to invalidate all the Vulgar Doctrine of those he Disputes with, any one be Irrefragable, that alone is sufficient to overthrow a Doctrine which Universally asserts what he opposes. For, it cannot be true, that all Bodies whatsoever that are reckon’d among the Perfectly mixt Ones, are Compounded of such a Determinate Number of such or such Ingredients, in case any one such Body can be produc’d, that is not so compounded; and he hopes too, that Accurateness will be the less expected from him, because his undertaking obliges him to maintain such Opinions in Chymistry, and that chiefly by Chymical Arguments, as are Contrary to the very Principles of the Chymists; From whose writings it is not Therefore like he should receive any intentionall Assistance, except from some Passages of the Bold and Ingenious Helmont, with whom he yet disagrees in many things (which reduce him to explicate Divers Chymical Phænomena, according to other Notions;) And of whose Ratiocinations, not only some seem very Extravagant, but even the Rest are not wont to be as considerable as his Experiments. And though it be True indeed, that some Aristotelians have occasionally written against the Chymical Doctrine he Oppugnes, yet since they have done it according to their Principles, And since our Carneades must as well oppose their Hypothesis as that of the Spagyrist, he was fain to fight his Adversaries with their own Weapons, Those of the Peripatetick being Improper, if not hurtfull for a Person of his Tenents; besides that those Aristotelians, (at Least, those he met with,) that have written against the Chymists, seem to have had so little Experimental Knowledge in Chymical Matters, that by their frequent Mistakes and unskilfull Way of Oppugning, they have too often expos’d Themselves to the Derision of their Adversaries, for writing so Confidently against what they appear so little to understand.

Next, if some of his arguments are not seen as the strongest possible, he hopes it will be understood that it shouldn't be expected for them to be. His main role is to raise doubts and questions, and he's done enough if he shows that his opponents' arguments aren't conclusive, even if his own aren't either. If there seems to be any inconsistency in what he says in different sections, he hopes it will be noted that it's not necessary for all a skeptic proposes to agree; since his job is to suggest doubts about the opinion he challenges, it's acceptable for him to propose multiple hypotheses about the same issue. He might say that it could be explained this way, or that way, or another way, even if these explanations might contradict each other. It's sufficient for him if any of the proposed hypotheses is as probable as the one he's questioning. If he proposes many hypotheses, each being likely, he further addresses his doubts by making it more difficult to conclusively assert that what they consistently oppose is the truth. And our Carneades, by taking the negative stance, has this advantage: if any of the examples he presents can disprove all the common beliefs of those he debates with, that alone is enough to dismantle a doctrine that universally asserts what he opposes. It cannot be true that all bodies classified as perfectly mixed are made up of a specific number of certain ingredients if even one such body can be created that is not composed that way. He also hopes that people will expect less precision from him since his task requires him to defend views in chemistry, primarily with chemical arguments, that contradict the very principles of chemists; from whose writings it is unlikely he will receive any intentional help, except for some bold and ingenious passages from Helmont, with whom he disagrees on many points (which makes him explain various chemical phenomena according to different ideas); and of whose reasoning not only some seem quite far-fetched but even the rest are often not as relevant as his experiments. While it is true that some Aristotelians have occasionally criticized the chemical doctrine he opposes, they have done so according to their principles, and since our Carneades must also challenge their hypotheses as well as those of the Chymists, he has been forced to confront his opponents with their own weapons, as the arguments of the Peripatetics are inappropriate, if not harmful, for someone with his beliefs. Moreover, those Aristotelians (at least the ones he encountered) who have written against chemists seem to have had such limited experimental knowledge in chemical matters that their frequent mistakes and unskilled ways of opposing have often exposed them to the ridicule of their opponents for writing so confidently about things they seem to understand so little.

And Lastly, Carneades hopes, he shall doe the Ingenious this Piece of service, that by having Thus drawn the Chymists Doctrine out of their Dark and Smoakie Laboratories, and both brought it into the open light, and shewn the weakness of their Proofs, that have hitherto been wont to be brought for it, either Judicious Men shall henceforth be allowed calmly and after due information to disbelieve it, or those abler Chymists, that are zealous for the reputation of it, will be oblig’d to speak plainer then hitherto has been done, and maintain it by better Experiments and Arguments then Those Carneades hath examin’d: so That he hopes, the Curious will one Way or other Derive either satisfaction or instruction from his endeavours. And as he is ready to make good the profession he makes in the close of his Discourse, he being ready to be better inform’d, so he expects either to be indeed inform’d, or to be let alone. For Though if any Truly knowing Chymists shall Think fit in a civil and rational way to shew him any truth touching the matter in Dispute That he yet discernes not, Carneades will not refuse either to admit, or to own a Conviction: yet if any impertinent Person shall, either to get Himself a Name, or for what other end soever, wilfully or carelesly mistake the State of the Controversie, or the sence of his Arguments, or shall rail instead of arguing, as hath been done of Late in Print by divers Chymists;G. and F. and H. and others, in their books against one another. or lastly, shall write against them in a canting way; I mean, shall express himself in ambiguous or obscure termes, or argue from experiments not intelligibly enough Deliver’d, Carneades professes, That he values his time so much, as not to think the answering such Trifles worth the loss of it.

And Lastly, Carneades hopes to provide an important service to the clever by bringing the Chemists' theories out of their dark and smoky labs into the light. He aims to expose the weaknesses of their arguments that have traditionally supported these theories, so that either wise individuals can choose to disbelieve it after careful consideration, or more competent Chemists, who are passionate about its credibility, will have to communicate more clearly than before and support it with better experiments and arguments than those Carneades has examined. He trusts that the curious will gain either satisfaction or insight from his efforts. Since he is eager to uphold the commitment he makes at the end of his discussion, being open to better information, he either expects to be genuinely informed or to be left alone. If any knowledgeable Chemists choose to civilly and rationally clarify any truths about the disputed issue that he has yet to grasp, Carneades will not hesitate to accept or acknowledge a correction. However, if any irrelevant person tries, whether to gain attention for themselves or for any other reason, to misinterpret the state of the controversy, the meaning of his arguments, or to criticize instead of argue, as has recently been seen in print by various Chemists;G., F., H., and others, in their books attacking each other. or, finally, if someone writes against them in a preachy manner; I mean using vague or unclear language, or arguing based on experiments that aren't explained clearly enough, Carneades states that he values his time too much to consider responding to such trivialities worth the effort.

And now having said thus much for Carneades, I hope the Reader will give me leave to say something too for my self.

And now having said this much for Carneades, I hope the reader will allow me to say something for myself.

And first, if some morose Readers shall find fault with my having made the Interlocutors upon occasion complement with one another, and that I have almost all along written these Dialogues in a stile more Fashionable then That of meer scholars is wont to be, I hope I shall be excus’d by them that shall consider, that to keep a due decorum in the Discourses, it was fit that in a book written by a Gentleman, and wherein only Gentlemen are introduc’d as speakers, the Language should be more smooth, and the Expressions more civil than is usual in the more Scholastick way of writing. And indeed, I am not sorry to have this Opportunity of giving an example how to manage even Disputes with Civility; whence perhaps some Readers will be assisted to discern a Difference betwixt Bluntness of speech and Strength of reason, and find that a man may be a Champion for Truth, without being an Enemy to Civility; and may confute an Opinion without railing at Them that hold it; To whom he that desires to convince and not to provoke them, must make some amends by his Civility to their Persons, for his severity to their mistakes; and must say as little else as he can, to displease them, when he says that they are in an error.

First of all, if some grumpy readers are upset that I've had the characters compliment each other and that I’ve mostly written these dialogues in a style that’s fancier than what pure scholars usually use, I hope they’ll understand that to maintain a proper decorum in the discussions, it makes sense for a book written by a gentleman, featuring only gentlemen as speakers, to have smoother language and more polite expressions than what’s common in stricter scholarly writing. Honestly, I’m glad to have this chance to show how to handle even disagreements with civility; perhaps some readers will learn to tell the difference between blunt speech and strong reasoning and see that a person can stand up for the truth without being rude. One can refute an opinion without insulting those who hold it. Anyone who wants to convince rather than provoke should balance their criticism of mistakes with politeness towards the people making them and should say as little else as possible to upset them when pointing out that they’re wrong.

But perhaps other Readers will be less apt to find fault with the Civility of my Disputants, than the Chymists will be, upon the reading of some Passages of the following Dialogue, to accuse Carneades of Asperity. But if I have made my Sceptick sometimes speak sleightingly of the Opinions he opposes, I hope it will not be found that I have done any more, than became the Part he was to act of an Opponent: Especially, if what I have made him say be compar’d with what the Prince of the Romane Orators himself makes both great Persons and Friends say of one anothers Opinions, in his excellent Dialogues, De Natura Deorum: And I shall scarce be suspected of Partiality, in the case, by them that take Notice that there is full as much (if not far more) liberty of sleighting their Adversaries Tenents to be met with in the Discourses of those with whom Carneades disputes. Nor needed I make the Interlocutors speak otherwise then freely in a Dialogue, wherein it was sufficiently intimated, that I meant not to declare my own Opinion of the Arguments propos’d, much lesse of the whole Controversy it self otherwise than as it may by an attentive Reader be guess’d at by some Passages of Carneades: (I say, some Passages, because I make not all that he says, especially in the heat of Disputation, mine,) partly in this Discourse, and partly in some other Dialogues betwixt the same speakers (though they treat not immediately of the Elements) which have long layn by me, and expect the Entertainment that these present Discourses will meet with. And indeed they will much mistake me, that shall conclude from what I now publish, that I am at Defyance with Chymistry, or would make my Readers so. I hope the Specimina I have lately publish’d of an attempt to shew the usefulness of Chymical Experiments to Contemplative Philosophers, will give those that shall read them other thoughts of me: & I had a design (but wanted opportunity) to publish with these Papers an Essay I have lying by me, the greater part of which is Apologetical for one sort of Chymists. And at least, as for those that know me, I hope the pain I have taken in the fire will both convince them, that I am far from being an Enemy to the Chymists Art, (though I am no friend to many that disgrace it by professing it,) and perswade them to believe me when I declare that I distinguish betwixt those Chymists that are either Cheats, or but Laborants, and the true Adepti; By whom, could I enjoy their Conversation, I would both willingly and thankfully be instructed; especially concerning the Nature and Generation of Metals: And possibly, those that know how little I have remitted of my former addictedness to make Chymical Experiments, will easily believe, that one of the chief Designes of this Sceptical Discourse was, not so much to discredit Chymistry, as to give an occasion and a kind of necessity to the more knowing Artists to lay aside a little of their over-great Reservedness, & either explicate or prove the Chymical Theory better than ordinary Chymists have done, or by enriching us with some of their nobler secrets to evince that Their art is able to make amends even for the deficiencies of their Theory: And thus much I shall here make bold to add, that we shall much undervalue Chymistry, if we imagine, that it cannot teach us things farr more useful, not only to Physick but to Philosophy, than those that are hitherto known to vulgar Chymists. And yet as for inferiour Spagyrists themselves, they have by their labours deserv’d so well of the Common-wealth of Learning, that methinks ’tis Pity they should ever misse the Truth which they have so industriously sought. And though I be no Admirer of the Theorical Part of their Art, yet my conjectures will much deceive me, if the Practical Part be not much more cultivated than hitherto it has been, and do not both employ Philosophy and Philosophers, and help to make men such. Nor would I that have been diverted by other Studies as well as affairs, be thought to pretend being a profound Spagyrist, by finding so many faults in the Doctrine wherein the Generality of Chymists scruples not to Acquiesce: For besides that ’tis most commonly far easier to frame Objections against any propos’d Hypothesis, than to propose an Hypothesis not lyable to Objections (besides this I say) ’tis no such great matter, if whereas Beginners in Chymistry are commonly at once imbu’d with the Theory and Operations of their profession, I who had the good Fortune to Learn the Operations from illiterate Persons, upon whose credit I was not Tempted to take up any opinion about them, should consider things with lesse prejudice, and consequently with other Eyes than the Generality of Learners; And should be more dispos’d to accommodate the Phænomena that occur’d to me to other Notions than to those of the Spagyrists. And having at first entertain’d a suspition That the Vulgar Principles were lesse General and comprehensive, or lesse considerately Deduc’d from Chymical Operations, than was believ’d; it was not uneasie for me both to Take notice of divers Phænomena, overlook’d by prepossest Persons, that seem’d not to suite so well with the Hermetical Doctrine; and, to devise some Experiments likely to furnish me with Objections against it, not known to many, that having practis’d Chymistry longer perchance then I have yet liv’d, may have far more Experience, Than I, of particular processes.

But maybe other readers won't be as quick to criticize the manners of my opponents as chemists will be when they read certain parts of the following dialogue and accuse Carneades of being harsh. If I've made my skeptic speak dismissively about the opinions he challenges, I hope it won’t be seen as anything more than what’s expected of an opponent. Especially when you compare what I've made him say to what the great Roman orator himself lets both important individuals and friends say about each other's opinions in his excellent dialogues, De Natura Deorum: I doubt anyone will suspect me of bias, especially those who notice that there's just as much (if not more) freedom to criticize their adversaries’ views in the discussions of those with whom Carneades argues. I also didn't need to make the speakers express themselves any differently in a dialogue, where it was clearly stated that I didn't intend to reveal my own opinion about the arguments presented, much less about the entire controversy itself apart from what an attentive reader can guess through some passages from Carneades: (I say some passages because I don't claim everything he says, especially in the heat of dispute, as my own), partly in this discussion, and partly in other dialogues between the same speakers (even though they don’t directly deal with the elements) that have long been set aside and await the reception that these current discussions will hopefully find. Indeed, those who conclude from what I'm publishing now that I am at odds with chemistry, or want to make my readers feel that way, will be misled. I hope the Specimina I've recently published, attempting to show the usefulness of chemical experiments to contemplative philosophers, will give those who read them a different impression of me: & I had a plan (but lacked the opportunity) to publish with these papers an essay I have prepared, most of which is a defense of one type of chemists. And certainly, for those who know me, I hope the effort I've put into the subject will convince them that I am far from being an enemy of the art of chemistry, (even though I’m no friend to many who disgrace it by practicing it), and persuade them to believe me when I declare that I differentiate between those chemists who are either frauds or just laborers, and the true Adepti; with whom, if I could have the pleasure of their conversation, I would both willingly and gratefully be taught, especially regarding the nature and generation of metals: And perhaps those who know how committed I’ve remained to pursuing chemical experiments will easily believe that one of the main purposes of this skeptical discourse was not so much to discredit chemistry, but to create an opportunity and a sort of necessity for the more knowledgeable artisans to ease a bit of their excessive reserve, & either explain or prove the chemical theory better than ordinary chemists have done, or by sharing some of their more noble secrets to demonstrate that their art can compensate for even the shortcomings of their theory: And I will add that we will greatly undervalue chemistry if we think it can't teach us things that are far more useful, not only for medicine but for philosophy, than those currently known to ordinary chemists. And yet, as for lesser spagyrists themselves, they have earned so much from their labors for the collective knowledge that I think it’s a shame they should ever miss the truths they’ve worked so hard to discover. And while I am not a fan of the theoretical part of their art, my guesses will greatly deceive me if the practical part hasn't been much more developed than it has been so far, and does not both employ philosophy and philosophers, and help to make people into such. Nor would I, who have been diverted by other studies as well as responsibilities, want to be seen as pretending to be a profound spagyrist by pointing out so many flaws in the doctrine in which the majority of chemists find no issue: For besides the fact that it is usually much easier to formulate objections against any proposed hypothesis, than to put forward an hypothesis that isn’t subject to objections (besides this I say) it's not such a big deal, if whereas beginners in chemistry are normally simultaneously immersed in both the theory and operations of their profession, I who was fortunate enough to learn the operations from uneducated individuals, on whose credibility I was not tempted to form any opinion about them, should consider things with less bias, and therefore with a different perspective than the generality of learners; And I should be more inclined to fit the phenomena that occurred to me to other notions than to those of the spagyrists. And having initially entertained a suspicion that the common principles were less general and comprehensive, or less thoughtfully deduced from chemical operations, than was believed, it wasn’t hard for me to notice various phenomena, overlooked by those already convinced, that didn’t seem to align perfectly with the Hermetical doctrine; and to devise some experiments likely to provide me with objections against it, that were not known to many who might have been practicing chemistry longer than I have lived, and may have much more experience than I in specific processes.

To conclude, whether the Notions I have propos’d, and the Experiments I have communicated, be considerable, or not, I willingly leave others to Judge; and This only I shall say for my Self, That I have endeavour’d to deliver matters of Fact, so faithfully, that I may as well assist the lesse skilful Readers to examine the Chymical Hypothesis, as provoke the Spagyrical Philosophers to illustrate it: which if they do, and that either the Chymical opinion, or the Peripatetick, or any other Theory of the Elements differing from that I am most inclin’d to, shall be intelligibly explicated, and duly prov’d to me; what I have hitherto discours’d will not hinder it from making a Proselyte of a Person that Loves Fluctuation of Judgment little enough to be willing to be eas’d of it by any thing but Error.

In conclusion, whether the ideas I've proposed and the experiments I've shared are significant or not, I’ll leave that for others to judge. All I can say for myself is that I’ve tried to present facts so accurately that I can help less skilled readers examine the chemical hypothesis, as well as challenge the Spagyric philosophers to explain it. If they do, and if either the chemical viewpoint, the Aristotelian perspective, or any other theory about the elements that differs from the one I'm inclined to is clearly explained and properly proven to me, what I’ve discussed so far won’t stop me from being convinced by someone who likes to change their mind enough to want to let go of it through anything but error.

PHYSICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

Touching

The experiments wont to be employed to evince either the IV Peripatetick Elements, or the III Chymical Principles of Mixt Bodies.

The experiments are usually used to demonstrate either the IV Peripatetic Elements or the III Chemical Principles of Mixed Bodies.


Part of the First Dialogue.



I Perceive that divers of my Friends have thought it very strange to hear me speak so irresolvedly, as I have been wont to do, concerning those things which some take to be the Elements, and others to be the Principles of all mixt Bodies. But I blush not to acknowledge that I much lesse scruple to confess that I Doubt, when I do so, then(2) to profess that I Know what I do not: And I should have much stronger Expectations then I dare yet entertain, to see Philosophy solidly establish’t, if men would more carefully distinguish those things that they know, from those that they ignore or do but think, and then explicate clearly the things they conceive they understand, acknowledge ingenuously what it is they ignore, and profess so candidly their Doubts, that the industry of intelligent persons might be set on work to make further enquiries, and the easiness of less discerning Men might not be impos’d on. But because a more particular accompt will probably be expected of my unsatisfyedness not only with the Peripatetick, but with the Chymical Doctrine of the Primitive Ingredients of Bodies: It may possibly serve to satisfy others of the excusableness of my disatisfaction to peruse the ensuing Relation of what passed a while since at a meeting of persons of several opinions, in a place that need not here be named; where the subject whereof we have been speaking, was amply and variously discours’d of.(3)


I I've noticed that many of my friends find it strange to hear me speak so indecisively about what some consider the Elements and others call the Principles of all mixed Bodies. But I'm not embarrassed to admit that I doubt things much less than I hesitate to claim knowledge of what I don't understand. I would have much higher expectations, if I dared to, for the solid establishment of Philosophy, if people would more thoughtfully distinguish between what they truly know and what they merely assume or think, clearly explain what they believe they understand, honestly acknowledge what they don't know, and openly express their doubts. This way, the efforts of knowledgeable individuals could be directed towards further inquiries, and those who are less discerning wouldn't be misled. However, since a more detailed account of my dissatisfaction with both the Peripatetic and the Chemical theories regarding the fundamental components of Bodies may be expected, I think it might help clarify my frustrations to read the following account of a recent meeting with people of various opinions, at a place that doesn't need to be named, where we discussed the topic we have been exploring at length and in different ways.(3)

It was on one of the fairest dayes of this Summer that the inquisitive Eleutherius came to invite me to make a visit with him to his friend Carneades. I readily consented to this motion, telling him that if he would but permit me to go first and make an excuse at a place not far off, where I had at that hour appointed to meet, but not about a business either of moment, or that could not well admit of a delay, I would presently wait on him, because of my knowing Carneades to be so conversant with nature and with Furnaces, and so unconfin’d to vulgar Opinions, that he would probably by some ingenious Paradox or other, give our mindes at least a pleasing Exercise, and perhaps enrich them with some solid instruction. Eleutherius then first going with me to the place where my Apology was to be made, I accompanied him to the lodging of Carneades, where when we were come, we were told by the Servants, that he was retired with a couple of Friends (whose names they also told us) to one of the Arbours in his Garden, to enjoy under its coole shades a delightful protection from the yet troublesome heat of the Sun.(4)

It was on one of the most beautiful days of this summer that the curious Eleutherius came to invite me to visit his friend Carneades. I happily agreed, telling him that if he would let me go first to make an excuse at a nearby place where I had plans to meet, but nothing urgent or that couldn't wait, I would join him right afterward. I knew Carneades was so knowledgeable about nature and furnaces and so far removed from common beliefs that he would likely share some clever paradox or idea that would at least entertain us and maybe even provide some solid insight. Eleutherius then accompanied me to where I needed to make my excuse, and we headed to Carneades' place. When we arrived, the servants informed us that he had gone to one of the garden's arbors with a couple of friends (who they also named) to enjoy the cool shade and escape the still bothersome heat of the sun.(4)

Eleutherius being perfectly acquainted with that Garden immediately led me to the Arbour, and relying on the intimate familiarity that had been long cherish’d betwixt him and Carneades; in spight of my Reluctancy to what might look like an intrusion upon his privacy, drawing me by the hand, he abruptly entered the Arbour, where we found Carneades, Philoponus, and Themistius, sitting close about a little round Table, on which besides paper, pen, and inke, there lay two or three open Books; Carneades appeared not at all troubled at this surprise, but rising from the Table, received his Friend with open looks and armes, and welcoming me also with his wonted freedom and civility, invited us to rest our selves by him, which, as soon as we had exchanged with his two Friends (who were ours also) the civilities accustomed on such occasions, we did. And he presently after we had seated our selves, shutting the Books that lay open, and turning to us with a smiling countenance seemed ready to begin some such unconcerning discourse as is wont to pass or rather waste the time in promiscuous companies.(5)

Eleutherius, fully familiar with that Garden, led me directly to the Arbour. Based on the close relationship he had shared with Carneades, despite my hesitation about possibly intruding on their privacy, he took my hand and suddenly entered the Arbour. There we found Carneades, Philoponus, and Themistius, gathered closely around a small round table. On the table were some paper, a pen, ink, and a few open books. Carneades seemed unfazed by our unexpected arrival. He stood up from the table, greeted his friend warmly, and welcomed me with his usual friendliness and politeness, inviting us to sit with him. After we exchanged the customary pleasantries with his two friends (who were also ours), we settled down. Soon after we sat, he closed the open books and turned to us with a smile, seeming ready to start some light conversation typical of casual gatherings.(5)

But Eleutherius guessing at what he meant to do, prevented him by telling him, I perceive Carneades by the books that you have been now shutting, and much more by the posture wherein I found Persons qualifi’d to discourse of serious matters; and so accustom’d to do it, that you three were before our coming, engag’d in some Philosophical conference, which I hope you will either prosecute, and allow us to be partakers of, in recompence of the freedome we have us’d in presuming to surprise you, or else give us leave to repair the injury we should otherwise do you, by leaving you to the freedom we have interrupted, and punishing our selves for our boldness by depriving our selves of the happiness of your company. With these last words he and I rose up, as if we meant to be gone, But Carneades suddenly laying hold on his arme, and stopping him by it, smileingly told him, We are not so forward to lose good company as you seem to imagine; especially since you are pleas’d to desire to be present at what we shall say, about such a Subject as that You found us considering. For that, being(6) the number of the Elements, Principles, or Materiall Ingredients of Bodies, is an enquiry whose truth is of that Importance, and of that Difficulty, that it may as well deserve as require to be searched into by such skilfull Indagators of Nature as your selves. And therefore we sent to invite the bold and acute Leucippus to lend us some light by his Atomical Paradox, upon which we expected such pregnant hints, that ’twas not without a great deal of trouble that we had lately word brought us that he was not to be found; and we had likewise begg’d the Assistance of your presence and thoughts, had not the messenger we employ’d to Leucippus inform’d us, that as he was going, he saw you both pass by towards another part of the Town; And this frustrated expectation of Leucippus his company, who told me but last night that he would be ready to give me a meeting where I pleas’d to day, having very long suspended our conference about the freshly mention’d Subject, it was so newly begun when you came in, that we shall scarce need to repeat any thing to acquaint you with what has pass’d betwixt us before(7) your arrival, so that I cannot but look upon it as a fortunate Accident that you should come so seasonably, to be not hearers alone, but we hope Interlocutors at our conference. For we shall not only allow of your presence at it, but desire your Assistance in it; which I adde both for other reasons, and because though these learned Gentlemen (sayes he, turning to his two friends) need not fear to discourse before any Auditory, provided it be intelligent enough to understand them, yet for my part (continues he with a new smile,) I shall not dare to vent my unpremeditated thoughts before two such Criticks, unless by promising to take your turnes of speaking, You will allow me mine of quarrelling, with what has been said. He and his friends added divers things to convince us that they were both desirous that we should hear them, and resolved against our doing so, unless we allowed them sometimes to hear us. Elutherius after having a while fruitlesly endeavoured to obtain leave to be silent promis’d he would not be so alwayes, provided that he were permitted according to the freedom of his(8) Genious and Principles to side with one of them in the managing of one Argument, and, if he saw cause, with his Antagonist, in the Prosecution of another, without being confin’d to stick to any one party or Opinion, which was after some debate accorded him. But I conscious to my own Disability’s told them resolutely that I was as much more willing as more fit to be a hearer then a speaker, among such knowing Persons, and on so abstruse a Subject. And that therefore I beseeched them without necessitating me to proclaim my weaknesses, to allow me to lessen them by being a silent Auditor of their Discourses: to suffer me to be at which I could present them no motive, save that their instructions would make them in me a more intelligent Admirer. I added, that I desir’d not to be idle whilst they were imploy’d, but would if they pleas’d, by writing down in short hand what should be delivered, preserve Discourses that I knew would merit to be lasting. At first Carneades and his two friends utterly rejected this motion; and all that my Resoluteness to make use of my ears, not(9) tongue, at their debates, could do, was to make them acquiesce in the Proposition of Eleutherius, who thinking himself concern’d, because he brought me thither, to afford me some faint assistance, was content that I should register their Arguments, that I might be the better able after the conclusion of their conference to give them my sence upon the Subject of it, (The number of Elements or Principles:) which he promis’d I should do at the end of the present Debates, if time would permit, or else at our next meeting. And this being by him undertaken in my name, though without my consent, the company would by no means receive my Protestation against it, but casting, all at once, their eyes on Carneades, they did by that and their unanimous silence, invite him to begin; which (after a short pause, during which he turn’d himself to Eleutherius and me) he did in this manner.

But Eleutherius, guessing what he was about to do, stopped him by saying, “I see Carneades by the books you’ve just closed, and even more by the way I found you discussing serious matters. You’ve been so accustomed to it that you three were engaged in some philosophical discussion before we arrived. I hope you’ll either continue this conversation and let us join you as a way to make up for the freedom we took in surprising you, or allow us to repair the disruption we caused by leaving you to your uninterrupted discussion and punishing ourselves for our boldness by missing out on your company. With these last words, both he and I stood up as if we intended to leave. But Carneades suddenly grabbed his arm, stopping him, and with a smile said, “We’re not so eager to lose good company as you might think, especially since you want to be part of our discussion about the topic we were just considering. This topic, being the number of the Elements, Principles, or Material Ingredients of Bodies, is an inquiry so important and challenging that it definitely deserves the investigation of skilled explorers of nature like yourselves. Therefore, we invited the bold and insightful Leucippus to share his Atomical Paradox with us, expecting significant insights, but we were recently informed that he is unavailable. We also sought your input and presence, but the messenger we sent to Leucippus reported that as he was leaving, he saw you both headed toward another part of town. This missed opportunity for Leucippus’s company, who assured me last night he would be available for a meeting today, has left our conversation about the recently mentioned topic so unrealized that when you arrived, we hardly need to repeat anything that happened before you got here. So, I can’t help but see it as a fortunate coincidence that you came at such an ideal time, not just as listeners, but we hope as participants in our discussion. We’ll not only welcome your presence but also request your input. I mention this for various reasons, and because, although these learned gentlemen (he said, turning to his two friends) shouldn’t be concerned about discussing their ideas in front of any audience intelligent enough to understand them, for my part (he continued with a new smile), I wouldn’t dare share my unprepared thoughts in front of two such critics unless, by agreeing to take turns speaking, you allow me space to question what has been said. He and his friends added several points to convince us they were eager for us to hear them, yet resolute against us doing so unless we let them occasionally hear us. Elutherius, after trying for a while without success to remain silent, promised he wouldn’t always do so, provided he was allowed, in the spirit of his principles and beliefs, to side with one of them on one argument and, if needed, with his opponent on another, without being restricted to one party or opinion, which was agreed upon after some discussion. But I, aware of my own limitations, firmly told them I was more than willing, as I was more suited to be a listener than a speaker among such knowledgeable people and on such a complex subject. Therefore, I pleaded with them not to force me to reveal my weaknesses but to allow me to reduce them by being a silent auditor of their discussions, letting me be one who, while I couldn’t offer them a motive, would become a more informed admirer through their teachings. I added that I didn’t want to be idle while they were working; if they allowed me, I could keep notes of what was said to preserve discussions I believed deserved to last. Initially, Carneades and his two friends completely rejected this suggestion; all my resolve to use my ears rather than my voice during their debates could only persuade them to agree to Eleutherius’s proposition, who felt it was his duty, since he brought me there, to give me some faint assistance. He agreed that I could record their arguments so that I would be better able, after their discussion concluded, to share my thoughts on the topic (the number of Elements or Principles). He promised I would do this at the end of the current debates, if time allows, or else at our next meeting. Since this was undertaken in my name, though without my approval, the group would not accept my objections to it, and all at once, they turned their eyes to Carneades, inviting him to start by their silence and gaze, which he did after a brief pause, during which he looked over at Eleutherius and me.

Notwithstanding the subtile reasonings I have met with in the books of the Peripateticks, and the pretty experiments that have been shew’d me in the Laboratories of Chymists, I am of so(10) diffident, or dull a Nature, as to think that if neither of them can bring more cogent arguments to evince the truth of their assertion then are wont to be brought; a Man may rationally enough retain some doubts concerning the very number of those materiall Ingredients of mixt bodies, which some would have us call Elements, and others principles. Indeed when I considered that the Tenents concerning the Elements are as considerable amongst the Doctrines of natural Philosophy as the Elements themselves are among the bodies of the Universe, I expected to find those Opinions solidly establish’d, upon which so many others are superstructed. But when I took the pains impartially to examine the bodies themselves that are said to result from the blended Elements, and to torture them into a confession of their constituent Principles, I was quickly induc’d to think that the number of the Elements has been contended about by Philosophers with more earnestness then success. This unsatisfiedness of mine has been much wonder’d at, by these two Gentlemen (at which words he pointed at Themisti(11)us and Philoponus) who though they differ almost as much betwixt themselves about the question we are to consider, as I do from either of them, yet they both agree very well in this, that there is a determinate number of such ingredients as I was just now speaking of, and that what that number is, I say not, may be, (for what may not such as they perswade?) but is wont to be clearly enough demonstrated both by Reason and Experience. This has occasion’d our present Conference. For our Discourse this afternoon, having fallen from one subject to another, and at length setl’d on this, they proffer’d to demonstrate to me, each of them the truth of his opinion, out of both the Topicks that I have freshly nam’d. But on the former (that of Reason strictly so taken) we declin’d insisting at the present, lest we should not have time enough before supper to go thorough the Reasons and Experiments too. The latter of which we unanimously thought the most requisite to be seriously examin’d. I must desire you then to take notice Gentlemen (continued Carneades) that my present business doth not(12) oblige me so to declare my own opinion on the Subject in question, as to assert or deny the truth either of the Peripatetick, or the Chymical Doctrine concerning the number of the Elements, but only to shew you that neither of these Doctrines hath been satisfactorily proved by the arguments commonly alledged on its behalfe. So that if I really discern (as perhaps I think I do) that there may be a more rational account then ordinary, given of one of these opinions, I am left free to declare my self of it, notwithstanding my present engagement, it being obvious to all your observation, that a solid truth may be generally maintained by no other, then incompetent Arguments. And to this Declaration I hope it will be needless to add, that my task obliges me not to answer the Arguments that may be drawn either for Themistius or Philoponus’s Opinion from the Topick of reason, as opposed to experiments; since ’tis these only that I am to examine and not all these neither, but such of them alone as either of them shall think fit to insist on, and as have hitherto been wont to be brought either to prove that ’tis(13) the four Peripatetick Elements, or that ’tis the three Chymical Principles that all compounded bodies consist of. These things (adds Carneades) I thought my self obliged to premise, partly lest you should do these Gentlemen (pointing at Themistius and Philoponus, and smiling on them) the injury of measuring their parts by the arguments they are ready to propose, the lawes of our Conference confining them to make use of those that the vulgar of Philosophers (for even of them there is a vulgar) has drawn up to their hands; and partly, that you should not condemn me of presumption for disputing against persons over whom I can hope for no advantage, that I must not derive from the nature, or rules of our controversy, wherein I have but a negative to defend, and wherein too I am like on several occasions to have the Assistance of one of my disagreeing adversaries against the other.

Despite the subtle arguments I've encountered in the works of the Peripatetics and the interesting experiments shown to me in chemists' labs, I'm of such a doubtful or slow nature that I believe if neither group can provide stronger evidence to support their claims than they usually do, a person can reasonably hold some doubts about the very number of the material ingredients of mixed bodies—what some call elements, while others refer to them as principles. To be honest, when I thought about how significant the ideas regarding elements are in natural philosophy, just as elements themselves are in the universe, I expected to find those opinions solidly established upon which so many other beliefs are built. However, when I took the time to examine the actual bodies claimed to result from these blended elements and tried to extract their constituent principles, I quickly started to think that philosophers have debated the number of elements with more passion than success. This dissatisfaction of mine has puzzled these two gentlemen (at these words, he pointed at Themistius and Philoponus), who, while they differ greatly on the issue at hand just as I do from either of them, both agree on the fact that there is a fixed number of the ingredients I've just mentioned, and what that number is, I won't say (since what can't they persuade?), but it's usually demonstrated adequately enough by reason and experience. This has led to our current discussion. This afternoon, our conversation shifted from one topic to another until we focused on this issue, and they offered to show me the truth of their views, each using the two topics I've just named. However, regarding the first topic (that of strict reason), we decided to hold off for now since we might run out of time before dinner to cover both the reasons and the experiments. We all agreed that the latter needed serious examination. So, I must ask you, gentlemen (continued Carneades), to note that my current task doesn’t require me to express my own opinion on the matter we are discussing, nor to affirm or deny the truth of either the Peripatetic or the chemical doctrine about the number of elements. Instead, I only aim to show you that neither of these doctrines has been satisfactorily proven by the commonly cited arguments on their behalf. Thus, if I genuinely perceive (as I think I do) that there could be a more rational explanation for one of these opinions, I remain free to express my thoughts on it, regardless of my current obligation, as it’s obvious to everyone that a solid truth can often be supported by nothing but inadequate arguments. And to this statement, I believe it's unnecessary to add that my task does not require me to counter the arguments that may arise for Themistius or Philoponus's opinions from the reasoning topic, in contrast to experiments, since I'm only to examine those experiments, and not all of them, but only those that either of them chooses to discuss and that have typically been presented to prove either that it is the four Peripatetic elements or that it is the three chemical principles from which all compound bodies are made. These points (adds Carneades) I felt I had to mention, partly to avoid doing these gentlemen (pointing at Themistius and Philoponus, smiling at them) the disservice of measuring their contributions by the arguments they are ready to present, while the rules of our discussion limit them to using those introduced by the common philosophers (and there is indeed a common group among them); and partly, so you won’t think me presumptuous for arguing against people I can’t hope to outmaneuver since I must not draw any advantage from the nature or rules of our debate, in which I am only defending a negative, and where I might even find the assistance of one of my disagreeing opponents against the other on several occasions.

Philoponus and Themistius soon returned this complement with civilities of the like nature, in which Eleutherius perceiving them engaged, to prevent the further loss of that time of which they were not like to have very much to spare, he(14) minded them that their present businesse was not to exchange complements, but Arguments: and then addressing his speech to Carneades, I esteem it no small happinesse (saies he) that I am come here so luckily this Evening. For I have been long disquieted with Doubts concerning this very subject which you are now ready to debate. And since a Question of this importance is to be now discussed by persons that maintain such variety of opinions concerning it, and are both so able to enquire after truth, and so ready to embrace it by whomsoever and on what occasion soever it is presented them; I cannot but promise my self that I shall before we part either lose my Doubts or the hopes of ever finding them resolved; Eleutherius paused not here; but to prevent their answer, added almost in the same breath; and I am not a little pleased to find that you are resolved on this occasion to insist rather on Experiments then Syllogismes. For I, and no doubt You, have long observed, that those Dialectical subtleties, that the Schoolmen too often employ about Physiological Mysteries, are wont much more to declare the wit of him(15) that uses them, then increase the knowledge or remove the doubts of sober lovers of truth. And such captious subtleties do indeed often puzzle and sometimes silence men, but rarely satisfy them. Being like the tricks of Jugglers, whereby men doubt not but they are cheated, though oftentimes they cannot declare by what slights they are imposed on. And therefore I think you have done very wisely to make it your businesse to consider the Phænomena relating to the present Question, which have been afforded by experiments, especially since it might seem injurious to our senses, by whose mediation we acquire so much of the knowledge we have of things corporal, to have recourse to far-fetched and abstracted Ratiocination, to know what are the sensible ingredients of those sensible things that we daily see and handle, and are supposed to have the liberty to untwist (if I may so speak) into the primitive bodies they consist of. He annexed that he wished therefore they would no longer delay his expected satisfaction, if they had not, as he feared they had, forgotten something preparatory to their debate; and that was to(16) lay down what should be all along understood by the word Principle or Element. Carneades thank’d him for his admonition, but told him that they had not been unmindful of so requisite a thing. But that being Gentlemen and very far from the litigious humour of loving to wrangle about words or terms or notions as empty; they had before his coming in, readily agreed promiscuously to use when they pleased, Elements and Principles as terms equivalent: and to understand both by the one and the other, those primitive and simple Bodies of which the mixt ones are said to be composed, and into which they are ultimately resolved. And upon the same account (he added) we agreed to discourse of the opinions to be debated, as we have found them maintained by the Generality of the assertors of the four Elements of the one party, and of those that receive the three Principles on the other, without tying our selves to enquire scrupulously what notion either Aristotle or Paracelsus, or this or that Interpreter, or follower of either of those great persons, framed of Elements or Principles; our design being to examine, not what these(17) or those writers thought or taught, but what we find to be the obvious and most general opinion of those, who are willing to be accounted Favourers of the Peripatetick or Chymical Doctrine, concerning this subject.

Philoponus and Themistius quickly returned the compliment with similar pleasantries, which Eleutherius, noticing they were engaged in, interrupted to prevent wasting precious time, reminding them that their focus should be on arguments, not pleasantries. Then he directed his speech to Carneades, saying, “I think it's quite fortunate that I am here this evening. I have been troubled for a long time by doubts about the very topic you are about to discuss. Since a question of such significance is going to be debated by people who hold a wide range of opinions and are both capable of seeking truth and open to embracing it, regardless of who presents it or when, I can’t help but hope that before we leave, I will either resolve my doubts or lose hope of ever having them answered.” Eleutherius didn’t stop there; to prevent their response, he quickly added, “I’m also pleased to see that you’re planning to focus on experiments rather than syllogisms. I, like you, have long noticed that those dialectical subtleties that scholars often use about physiological mysteries tend to showcase the cleverness of the person using them rather than increase knowledge or eliminate doubts for those who genuinely seek the truth. Such tricky subtleties often confuse or silence people, but rarely satisfy them. They are like the tricks of magicians, where people know they are being fooled, yet often can’t pinpoint how they’re being deceived. Therefore, I think it’s wise of you to focus on the Phænomena relevant to our current discussion, as demonstrated by experiments. It seems unfair to our senses, through which we gain so much understanding of the physical world, to rely on obscure and abstract concepts to grasp the tangible components of things we encounter daily and are expected to be able to break down (if I may put it that way) into the basic elements they are made of. He added that he hoped they wouldn’t delay his anticipated satisfaction any longer and feared they might have forgotten something essential for their debate: to clearly define what should be understood by the terms Principle or Element. Carneades thanked him for the reminder but assured him they hadn’t overlooked such an important matter. As gentlemen who are quite distant from the contentious nature of arguing about words or concepts deemed trivial, they had previously agreed to use the terms Elements and Principles interchangeably, and to understand both to mean the simple and fundamental bodies that mixed substances are said to comprise and into which they can ultimately be broken down. On the same note, he added, they agreed to discuss the opinions relevant to the debate based on what they have observed among the majority of proponents of the four Elements on one side, and those supporting the three Principles on the other. They would not restrict themselves to examining the definitions of Elements or Principles as envisioned by either Aristotle or Paracelsus, or this or that interpreter or follower of those renowned figures. Their aim is to explore not what various authors have thought or taught, but rather the most apparent and widely accepted views among those who wish to be seen as supporters of either the Peripatetic or Chemical doctrine regarding this subject.

I see not (saies Eleutherius) why you might not immediately begin to argue, if you were but agreed which of your two friendly Adversaries shall be first heard. And it being quickly resolv’d on that Themistius should first propose the Proofs for his Opinion, because it was the antienter, and the more general, he made not the company expect long before he thus addressed himself to Eleutherius, as to the Person least interessed in the dispute.

I don't see (says Eleutherius) why you couldn't start arguing right away, as long as you decide which of your two friendly opponents will go first. Since it was quickly agreed that Themistius would present the arguments for his view first, because it was the older and more widely accepted one, he didn't keep everyone waiting long before he turned to Eleutherius, as the person least involved in the debate.

If you have taken sufficient notice of the late Confession which was made by Carneades, and which (though his Civility dressed it up in complementall Expressions) was exacted of him by his Justice, I suppose You will be easily made sensible, that I engage in this Controversie with great and peculiar Disadvantages, besides those which his Parts and my Personal Disabilities would bring to any other cause to be(18) maintained by me against him. For he justly apprehending the force of truth, though speaking by no better a tongue then mine, has made it the chief condition of our Duell, that I should lay aside the best Weapons I have, and those I can best handle; Whereas if I were allowed the freedom, in pleading for the four Elements, to employ the Arguments suggested to me by Reason to demonstrate them, I should almost as little doubt of making You a Proselyte to those unsever’d Teachers, Truth and Aristotle, as I do of your Candour and your Judgment. And I hope you will however consider, that that great Favorite and Interpreter of Nature, Aristotle, who was (as his Organum witnesses) the greatest Master of Logick that ever liv’d, disclaim’d the course taken by other petty Philosophers (Antient and Modern) who not attending the Coherence and Consequences of their Opinions, are more sollicitous to make each particular Opinion plausible independently upon the the rest, then to frame them all so, as not only to be consistent together, but to support each other. For that great(19) Man in his vast and comprehensive Intellect, so fram’d each of his Notions, that being curiously adapted into one Systeme, they need not each of them any other defence then that which their mutuall Coherence gives them: As ’tis in an Arch, where each single stone, which if sever’d from the rest would be perhaps defenceless, is sufficiently secur’d by the solidity and entireness of the whole Fabrick of which it is a part. How justly this may be apply’d to the present case, I could easily shew You, if I were permitted to declare to You, how harmonious Aristotles Doctrine of the Elements is with his other Principles of Philosophy; and how rationally he has deduc’d their number from that of the combinations of the four first Qualities from the kinds of simple Motion belonging to simple bodies, and from I know not how many other Principles and Phænomena of Nature, which so conspire with his Doctrine of the Elements, that they mutually strengthen and support each other. But since ’tis forbidden me to insist on Reflections of this kind, I must proceed to tell You, that though the(20) Assertors of the four Elements value Reason so highly, and are furnish’d with Arguments enough drawn from thence, to be satisfi’d that there must be four Elements, though no Man had ever yet made any sensible tryal to discover their Number, yet they are not destitute of Experience to satisfie others that are wont to be more sway’d by their senses then their Reason. And I shall proceed to consider the testimony of Experience, when I shall have first advertis’d You, that if Men were as perfectly rational as ’tis to be wish’d they were, this sensible way of Probation would be as needless as ’tis wont to be imperfect. For it is much more high and Philosophical to discover things a priore, then a posteriore. And therefore the Peripateticks have not been very sollicitous to gather Experiments to prove their Doctrines, contenting themselves with a few only, to satisfie those that are not capable of a Nobler Conviction. And indeed they employ Experiments rather to illustrate then to demonstrate their Doctrines, as Astronomers use Sphæres of pastboard, to descend to the capaci(21)ties of such as must be taught by their senses, for want of being arriv’d to a clear apprehension of purely Mathematical Notions and Truths. I speak thus Eleutherius (adds Themistius) only to do right to Reason, and not out of Diffidence of the Experimental proof I am to alledge. For though I shall name but one, yet it is such a one as will make all other appear as needless as it self will be found Satisfactory. For if You but consider a piece of green-Wood burning in a Chimney, You will readily discern in the disbanded parts of it the four Elements, of which we teach It and other mixt bodies to be compos’d. The fire discovers it self in the flame by its own light; the smoke by ascending to the top of the chimney, and there readily vanishing into air, like a River losing it self in the Sea, sufficiently manifests to what Element it belongs and gladly returnes. The water in its own form boyling and hissing at the ends of the burning Wood betrayes it self to more then one of our senses; and the ashes by their weight, their firiness, and their dryness, put it past doubt that they belong to the Element(22) of Earth. If I spoke (continues Themistius) to less knowing Persons, I would perhaps make some Excuse for building upon such an obvious and easie Analysis, but ’twould be, I fear, injurious, not to think such an Apology needless to You, who are too judicious either to think it necessary that Experiments to prove obvious truths should be farr fetch’d, or to wonder that among so many mixt Bodies that are compounded of the four Elements, some of them should upon a slight Analysis manifestly exhibite the Ingredients they consist of. Especially since it is very agreeable to the Goodness of Nature, to disclose, even in some of the most obvious Experiments that Men make, a Truth so important, and so requisite to be taken notice of by them. Besides that our Analysis by how much the more obvious we make it, by so much the more suittable it will be to the Nature of that Doctrine which ’tis alledged to prove, which being as clear and intelligible to the Understanding as obvious to the sense, tis no marvail the learned part of Mankind should so long and so generally imbrace it. For this Doctrine(23) is very different from the whimseys of Chymists and other Modern Innovators, of whose Hypotheses we may observe, as Naturalists do of less perfect Animals, that as they are hastily form’d, so they are commonly short liv’d. For so these, as they are often fram’d in one week, are perhaps thought fit to be laughed at the next; and being built perchance but upon two or three Experiments are destroyed by a third or fourth, whereas the doctrine of the four Elements was fram’d by Aristotle after he had leasurely considered those Theories of former Philosophers, which are now with great applause revived, as discovered by these latter ages; And had so judiciously detected and supplyed the Errors and defects of former Hypotheses concerning the Elements, that his Doctrine of them has been ever since deservedly embraced by the letter’d part of Mankind: All the Philosophers that preceded him having in their several ages contributed to the compleatness of this Doctrine, as those of succeeding times have acquiesc’d in it. Nor has an Hypothesis so deliberately and maturely established been called in Questi(24)on till in the last Century Paracelsus and some few other sooty Empiricks, rather then (as they are fain to call themselves) Philosophers, having their eyes darken’d, and their Brains troubl’d with the smoke of their own Furnaces, began to rail at the Peripatetick Doctrine, which they were too illiterate to understand, and to tell the credulous World, that they could see but three Ingredients in mixt Bodies; which to gain themselves the repute of Inventors, they endeavoured to disguise by calling them, instead of Earth, and Fire, and Vapour, Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury; to which they gave the canting title of Hypostatical Principles: but when they came to describe them, they shewed how little they understood what they meant by them, by disagreeing as much from one another, as from the truth they agreed in opposing: For they deliver their Hypotheses as darkly as their Processes; and ’tis almost as impossible for any sober Man to find their meaning, as ’tis for them to find their Elixir. And indeed nothing has spread their Philosophy, but their great Brags and undertakings; notwithstanding all which, (sayes Themisti(25)us smiling) I scarce know any thing they have performed worth wondering at, save that they have been able to draw Philoponus to their Party, and to engage him to the Defence of an unintelligible Hypothesis, who knowes so well as he does, that Principles ought to be like Diamonds, as well very clear, as perfectly solid.

If you've paid enough attention to the recent Confession made by Carneades, which, even though he wrapped it in polite language, was really pushed by his sense of Justice, I think you'll quickly realize that I'm taking on this Debate with significant and unique disadvantages, beyond those that his talent and my personal limitations would impose on any other argument I could maintain against him. For he, accurately sensing the power of truth, even when using no better words than mine, has made it a primary condition of our duel that I must set aside my best resources and those I'm most skilled in using; whereas if I were allowed to freely argue for the four Elements, using the Arguments suggested by Reason to prove them, I'd have little doubt about making you a follower of those inseparable masters, Truth and Aristotle, as I do about your fairness and judgment. And I hope you'll consider that the great advocate and interpreter of Nature, Aristotle, who was (as his Organum shows) the greatest master of logic ever, rejected the approach of other lesser philosophers (both ancient and modern) who, without considering the coherence and consequences of their views, are more anxious to make each individual opinion seem plausible on its own than to integrate them in a way that ensures they are consistent and support one another. That great(19) thinker shaped each of his concepts so that when skillfully assembled into one system, they need no defense besides the mutual coherence they offer: Like an arch, where each stone, if separated from the others, might be defenseless, is sufficiently supported by the integrity and entirety of the whole structure. I could easily illustrate how relevant this is to the current issue if I were allowed to explain how harmoniously Aristotle's Doctrine of the Elements aligns with his other philosophical principles; and how logically he derived their number from the combinations of the four primary qualities based on types of simple motion in simple bodies, and from countless other principles and phenomena of Nature that align with his Doctrine of the Elements, so they mutually reinforce and uphold each other. But since I can't focus on these kinds of reflections, I must tell you that although the(20) supporters of the four Elements hold Reason in high regard and have plenty of arguments drawn from it to convince themselves that there must be four Elements, even if no one has ever practically tested to find out their number, they do have experiences that can convince others who are more influenced by their senses than their Reason. And I will consider the evidence of Experience after first reminding you that if people were as perfectly rational as we might wish, this sensory way of proving things would be as unnecessary as it is often incomplete. Because it's much more profound and philosophical to discover things a priori than a posteriori. Thus, the Peripatetics haven't been overly concerned with gathering experiments to prove their doctrines, contenting themselves with just a few to satisfy those who aren't capable of a higher form of conviction. In reality, they use experiments more to illustrate than to prove their doctrines, similar to how astronomers use cardboard spheres to make complex ideas accessible to those who haven't grasped purely mathematical concepts and truths. I'm stating this, Eleutherius (adds Themistius), not out of a lack of confidence in the experimental evidence I'm about to mention but to be fair to Reason. For even though I'll mention just one, it is such a strong example that it will render all others seemingly unnecessary and will be satisfying in itself. If you consider a piece of green wood burning in a fireplace, you'll easily notice in its burning parts the four Elements that we say it and other mixed bodies are made of. The fire reveals itself in the flame by its own light; the smoke ascends to the top of the chimney and quickly disappears into the air, like a river merging with the sea, clearly shows to which Element it belongs and happily returns. The water, in its boiling and hissing state at the ends of the burning wood, betrays itself to more than one of our senses; and the ashes, by their weight, their heat, and their dryness, unmistakably confirm that they belong to the Element(22) of Earth. If I were speaking to less knowledgeable individuals, I might make some excuse for relying on such an obvious and simple analysis, but I fear that it would be unjust not to consider such an apology unnecessary for you, who are too discerning to think that experiments proving obvious truths should be far-fetched, or to be surprised that among so many mixed bodies made of the four Elements, some would, upon a brief analysis, clearly exhibit the ingredients they are composed of. Especially since it fits well with the goodness of Nature to reveal, even in some of the simplest experiments that people conduct, a truth so significant and essential for them to notice. Moreover, the more obvious our analysis is, the more suitable it will be to the nature of the doctrine we are trying to prove, which is as clear and understandable to the mind as it is obvious to the senses, so it’s no wonder that educated individuals have so long and widely embraced it. For this doctrine(23) is very different from the whims of chemists and other modern innovators, whose hypotheses we can observe, much like naturalists do with lesser animals, that are hastily formed and tend to be short-lived. These ideas, often created in a week, could very well be laughed at the next; and often based on just two or three experiments, they can be obliterated by a third or fourth. In contrast, Aristotle developed the doctrine of the four Elements after carefully considering the theories of earlier philosophers, which are now being praised as discoveries of later times; and he astutely identified and corrected the errors and shortcomings of earlier hypotheses regarding the Elements, ensuring that his doctrine has been justifiably accepted by the educated populace ever since. All the philosophers before him contributed to the completeness of this doctrine, just as those that came later have accepted it. Nor has any hypothesis so thoughtfully and maturely established been questioned until the last century when Paracelsus and a few other ignorant empirics, rather than (as they like to call themselves) philosophers, having their vision clouded and their minds troubled by the smoke of their own furnaces, started to disparage the Peripatetic doctrine that they were too illiterate to comprehend, insisting to the gullible public that they could only see three ingredients in mixed bodies; to gain respect as inventors, they tried to mask their claims by renaming them salt, sulfur, and mercury instead of earth, fire, and vapor, giving them the pretentious title of hypostatical principles. But when they attempted to describe them, they revealed how little they understood their own terms, disagreeing with each other as much as they did with the truth they opposed. They present their hypotheses as obscured as their processes; and it’s nearly impossible for any clear-headed person to grasp their meaning, just as it’s impossible for them to discover their elixir. In fact, nothing has spread their philosophy more than their grand promises and undertakings; nevertheless, (says Themistius with a smile) I hardly know of anything they've achieved that's worth marveling at, except that they've managed to recruit Philoponus to their side and to engage him in defending an unintelligible hypothesis, who knows better than anyone that principles should ideally be transparent like diamonds, as clear as they are solid.

Themistius having after these last words declared by his silence, that he had finished his Discourse, Carneades addressing himself, as his Adversary had done, to Eleutherius, returned this Answer to it, I hop’d for Demonstration, but I perceive Themistius hopes to put me off with a Harangue, wherein he cannot have given me a greater Opinion of his Parts, then he has given me Distrust for his Hypothesis, since for it even a Man of such Learning can bring no better Arguments. The Rhetorical part of his Discourse, though it make not the least part of it, I shall say nothing to, designing to examine only the Argumentative part, and leaving it to Philoponus to answer those passages wherein either Paracelsus or Chymists are concern’d: I shall observe to You, that in what he has said(26) besides, he makes it his Business to do these two things. The one to propose and make out an Experiment to demonstrate the common Opinion about the four Elements; And the other, to insinuate divers things which he thinks may repair the weakness of his Argument, from Experience, and upon other Accounts bring some credit to the otherwise defenceless Doctrine he maintains.

Themistius, after his last remarks, remained silent, indicating that he had finished his speech. Carneades, addressing Eleutherius as his opponent had done, replied, "I expected a solid demonstration, but I see Themistius hopes to distract me with a long speech that has given me more doubt about his ideas than confidence in them, especially since even someone as knowledgeable as him can offer no stronger arguments for his hypothesis. I won’t comment on the rhetorical aspects of his speech, as they aren’t my focus; I aim to analyze only the argumentative part, leaving Philoponus to address the sections concerning Paracelsus or the Chymists. I want to point out that in what he has said(26), he tries to achieve two things: first, to propose and establish an experiment to support the common belief about the four elements, and second, to suggest various points that he thinks might strengthen his argument from experience and add some credibility to the otherwise unsupported doctrine he defends."

To begin then with his Experiment of the burning Wood, it seems to me to be obnoxious to not a few considerable Exceptions.

To start with his experiment of burning wood, I think it faces several significant objections.

And first, if I would now deal rigidly with my Adversary, I might here make a great Question of the very way of Probation which he and others employ, without the least scruple, to evince, that the Bodies commonly call’d mixt, are made up of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire, which they are pleas’d also to call Elements; namely that upon the suppos’d Analysis made by the fire, of the former sort of Concretes, there are wont to emerge Bodies resembling those which they take for the Elements. For not to Anticipate here what I foresee I(27) shall have occasion to insist on, when I come to discourse with Philoponus concerning the right that fire has to pass for the proper and Universal Instrument of Analysing mixt Bodies, not to Anticipate that, I say, if I were dispos’d to wrangle, I might alledge, that by Themistius his Experiment it would appear rather that those he calls Elements, are made of those he calls mixt Bodies, then mix’d Bodies of the Elements. For in Themistius’s Analyz’d Wood, and in other Bodies dissipated and alter’d by the fire, it appears, and he confesses, that which he takes for Elementary Fire and Water, are made out of the Concrete; but it appears not that the Concrete was made up of Fire and Water. Nor has either He, or any Man, for ought I know, of his perswasion, yet prov’d that nothing can be obtained from a Body by the fire that was not Pre-existent in it.

And first, if I were to be strict with my opponent, I could question the very method of proof that he and others use, without any hesitation, to demonstrate that the bodies commonly called mixtures are made up of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire, which they also refer to as Elements. Specifically, they claim that upon the supposed Analysis performed by fire on the earlier types of Concretes, bodies similar to those they consider Elements emerge. Without anticipating what I foresee I(27) will need to discuss when I talk with Philoponus about the legitimacy of fire as the appropriate and universal tool for analyzing mixed bodies—without anticipating that, I say, if I wanted to argue, I could claim that according to Themistius's experiment, it seems more likely that what he calls Elements are made from what he considers mixed bodies, rather than mixed bodies coming from the Elements. For in Themistius’s analyzed wood and in other substances altered by fire, it is clear, and he admits, that what he counts as Elementary Fire and Water is derived from the Concrete; but it is not evident that the Concrete was composed of Fire and Water. Neither does he, nor anyone else I know of in his camp, have yet proven that nothing can be obtained from a body by fire that was not Pre-existent in it.

At this unexpected objection, not only Themistius, but the rest of the company appear’d not a little surpriz’d; but after a while Philoponus conceiving his opinion, as well as that of Aristotle, concern’d in that Objection, You cannot sure(28) (sayes he to Carneades) propose this Difficulty; not to call it Cavill, otherwise then as an Exercise of wit, and not as laying any weight upon it. For how can that be separated from a thing that was not existent in it. When, for instance, a Refiner mingles Gold and Lead, and exposing this Mixture upon a Cuppell to the violence of the fire, thereby separates it into pure and refulgent Gold and Lead (which driven off together with the Dross of the Gold is thence call’d Lithargyrium Auri) can any man doubt that sees these two so differing substances separated from the Mass, that they were existent in it before it was committed to the fire.

At this unexpected objection, not only did Themistius, but the rest of the group also seem quite surprised; however, after a while, Philoponus, understanding his viewpoint as well as that of Aristotle regarding that objection, said to Carneades, "You can't really bring up this issue; if we’re not calling it a quibble, it's just a clever play on words and shouldn't be taken too seriously. How can something be separated from a thing that didn't exist within it? For example, when a refiner mixes gold and lead, then exposes this mixture to the intense heat of the fire, it separates into pure, shining gold and lead (which, together with the gold's dross, is called Lithargyrium Auri). Can anyone doubt, upon seeing these two very different substances separated from the bulk, that they existed in it before it was put into the fire?"

I should (replies Carneades) allow your Argument to prove something, if, as Men see the Refiners commonly take before hand both Lead and Gold to make the Mass you speak of, so we did see Nature pull down a parcell of the Element of Fire, that is fancy’d to be plac’d I know not how many thousand Leagues off, contiguous to the Orb of the Moon, and to blend it with a quantity of each of the three other Elements, to compose every mixt Body, upon whose Resolution the(29) Fire presents us with Fire, and Earth, and the rest. And let me add, Philoponus, that to make your Reasoning cogent, it must be first prov’d, that the fire do’s only take the Elementary Ingredients asunder, without otherwise altering them. For else ’tis obvious, that Bodies may afford substances which were not pre-existent in them; as Flesh too long kept produces Magots, and old Cheese Mites, which I suppose you will not affirm to be Ingredients of those Bodies. Now that fire do’s not alwayes barely separate the Elementary parts, but sometimes at least alter also the Ingredients of Bodies, if I did not expect ere long a better occasion to prove it, I might make probable out of your very Instance, wherein there is nothing Elementary separated by the great violence of the Refiners fire: the Gold and Lead which are the two Ingredients separated upon the Analysis being confessedly yet perfectly mixt Bodies, and the Litharge being Lead indeed; but such Lead as is differing in consistence and other Qualities from what it was before. To which I must add that I have sometimes seen, and so questionlesse have you(30) much oftener, some parcells of Glasse adhering to the Test or Cuppel, and this Glass though Emergent as well as the Gold or Litharge upon your Analysis, you will not I hope allow to have been a third Ingredient of the Mass out of which the fire produc’d it.

I should (replies Carneades) allow your argument to prove something if, like how refineries usually take both lead and gold beforehand to create the substance you mention, we have seen nature pull down a portion of the element of fire, believed to be positioned who knows how many thousands of leagues away, next to the orbit of the moon, and mix it with some amount of each of the three other elements to form every mixed body, upon whose resolution the(29) fire presents us with fire, earth, and the rest. And let me add, Philoponus, that to make your reasoning convincing, it must first be proved that fire only separates the elementary ingredients without changing them. Otherwise, it's obvious that bodies can yield substances that didn’t originally exist within them; for instance, flesh kept too long produces maggots, and old cheese produces mites, which I assume you wouldn’t claim are ingredients of those bodies. Now, if I didn’t expect a better opportunity soon to prove that fire doesn’t always merely separate the elementary parts but sometimes alters the ingredients of bodies as well, I could use your own example to illustrate this point. In your example, nothing elementary is separated by the intense heat of the refiner's fire: the gold and lead, which are the two ingredients separated upon the analysis, are acknowledged to still be perfectly mixed bodies, and the litharge is indeed lead, but it differs in consistency and other qualities from what it was before. I must also add that I have sometimes seen, and surely you have too(30) much more often, some pieces of glass sticking to the test or crucible, and this glass, although emerging alongside the gold or litharge during your analysis, you surely wouldn’t claim was a third ingredient of the mass from which the fire produced it.

Both Philoponus and Themistius were about to reply, when Eleutherius apprehending that the Prosecution of this Dispute would take up time, which might be better employ’d, thought fit to prevent them by saying to Carneades: You made at least half a Promise, when you first propos’d this Objection, that you would not (now at least) insist on it, nor indeed does it seem to be of absolute necessity to your cause, that you should. For though you should grant that there are Elements, it would not follow that there must be precisely four. And therefore I hope you will proceed to acquaint us with your other and more considerable Objections against Themistius’s Opinion, especially since there is so great a Disproportion in Bulke betwixt the Earth, Water and Air, on the one part, and those little parcells of resembling substances, that the fire sepa(31)rates from Concretes on the other part, that I can scarce think that you are serious, when to lose no advantage against your Adversary, you seem to deny it to be rational, to conclude these great simple Bodies to be the Elements, and not the Products of compounded ones.

Both Philoponus and Themistius were about to respond when Eleutherius, realizing that continuing this debate would take time that could be better used, decided to interrupt them by saying to Carneades: You at least made a partial promise when you first brought up this objection, that you wouldn’t (at least not now) insist on it, nor does it seem absolutely necessary for your argument to do so. For even if you accept that there are Elements, it wouldn’t follow that there must be exactly four. Therefore, I hope you will share with us your other, more significant objections against Themistius’s viewpoint, especially since there is such a huge imbalance in bulk between the Earth, Water, and Air on one side, and the small amounts of similar substances that fire separates from Concretes on the other side, that I can barely believe you’re being serious when, to avoid giving your opponent any advantage, you seem to dismiss it as unreasonable to conclude that these large simple Bodies are the Elements and not the results of combined ones.

What you alledge (replies Carneades) of the Vastness of the Earth and Water, has long since made me willing to allow them to be the greatest and chief Masses of Matter to be met with here below: But I think I could shew You, if You would give me leave, that this will prove only that the Elements, as You call them, are the chief Bodies that make up the neighbouring part of the World, but not that they are such Ingredients as every mixt Body must consist of. But since You challenge me of something of a Promise, though it be not an entire one, Yet I shall willingly perform it. And indeed I intended not when I first mention’d this Objection, to insist on it at present against Themistius, (as I plainly intimated in my way of proposing it:) being only desirous to let you see, that though I discern’d my Advantages, yet(32) I was willing to forego some of them, rather then appear a rigid Adversary of a Cause so weak, that it may with safety be favourably dealt with. But I must here profess, and desire You to take Notice of it, that though I pass on to another Argument, it is not because I think this first invalid. For You will find in the Progress of our Dispute, that I had some reason to question the very way of Probation imploy’d both by Peripateticks and Chymists, to evince the being and number of the Elements. For that there are such, and that they are wont to be separated by the Analysis made by Fire, is indeed taken for granted by both Parties, but has not (for ought I know) been so much as plausibly attempted to be proved by either. Hoping then that when we come to that part of our Debate, wherein Considerations relating to this Matter are to be treated of, you will remember what I have now said, and that I do rather for a while suppose, then absolutely grant the truth of what I have question’d, I will proceed to another Objection.

What you claim, replies Carneades, about the vastness of the Earth and water, has long made me willing to accept them as the largest and primary masses of matter we find here below. However, I believe I could show you, if you allow me, that this only proves that the elements, as you refer to them, are the main bodies making up the nearby part of the world, but not that they are the essential components that every mixed body must consist of. Since you challenge me on fulfilling a promise, even if it’s not a full one, I will gladly do it. When I first mentioned this objection, I didn't mean to press it against Themistius at this moment, as I clearly indicated in how I brought it up; I merely wanted to show you that even though I see my advantages, I was willing to set some aside rather than appear as a strict opponent of a cause so weak that it can safely be treated with leniency. I must state here, and I want you to note this, that although I move on to another argument, it is not because I see this first one as invalid. You will find in the course of our debate that I had reasons to question the very method of proof used by both the Peripatetics and chemists to demonstrate the existence and number of the elements. That such elements exist and are usually separated through analysis by fire is indeed taken for granted by both sides, but as far as I know, it hasn't even been plausibly proven by either. So, hoping that when we reach the part of our discussion concerning these matters, you will remember what I have just said, and that I am currently supposing, rather than absolutely granting the truth of what I have questioned, I will proceed to another objection.

And hereupon Eleutherius having(33) promis’d him not to be unmindfull, when time should serve, of what he had declar’d.

And then Eleutherius promised him that he wouldn’t forget what he had said when the right moment came.

I consider then (sayes Carneades) in the next place, that there are divers Bodies out of which Themistius will not prove in haste, that there can be so many Elements as four extracted by the Fire. And I should perchance trouble him if I should ask him what Peripatetick can shew us, (I say not, all the four Elements, for that would be too rigid a Question, but) any one of them extracted out of Gold by any degree of Fire whatsoever. Nor is Gold the only Bodie in Nature that would puzzle an Aristotelian, that is no more to analyze by the Fire into Elementary Bodies, since, for ought I have yet observ’d, both Silver and calcin’d Venetian Talck, and some other Concretes, not necessary here to be nam’d, are so fixt, that to reduce any of them into four Heterogeneous Substances has hitherto prov’d a Task much too hard, not only for the Disciples of Aristotle, but those of Vulcan, at least, whilst the latter have employ’d only Fire to make the Analysis.

I then consider (says Carneades) that there are various materials that Themistius won't quickly prove can be reduced to only four elements extracted by fire. I might even confuse him if I ask what a Peripatetic can demonstrate, (I’m not saying all four elements, because that would be too strict a question, but) any one of them taken from gold through any degree of fire. Gold isn’t the only substance in nature that would baffle an Aristotelian trying to analyze it by fire into elemental bodies. As far as I can see, both silver and calcined Venetian talc, along with some other materials not necessary to name here, are so stable that breaking any of them down into four distinct substances has so far proven to be a task far too difficult, not just for the followers of Aristotle, but also for those of Vulcan, at least while the latter have relied solely on fire for Analysis.

The next Argument (continues Car(34)neades) that I shall urge against Themistius’s Opinion shall be this, That as there are divers Bodies whose Analysis by Fire cannot reduce them into so many Heterogeneous Substances or Ingregredients as four, so there are others which may be reduc’d into more, as the Blood (and divers other parts) of Men and other Animals, which yield when analyz’d five distinct Substances, Phlegme, Spirit, Oyle, Salt and Earth, as Experience has shewn us in distilling Mans Blood, Harts-Horns, and divers other Bodies that belonging to the Animal-Kingdom abound with not uneasily sequestrable Salt.

The next argument (continues Car(34)neades) I will present against Themistius’s opinion is this: just as there are different bodies that cannot be broken down by fire into more than four distinct substances, there are also others that can be reduced to more. For example, blood (and several other parts) of humans and other animals can yield five distinct substances when analyzed: phlegm, spirit, oil, salt, and earth. This has been demonstrated through the distillation of human blood, hart's horns, and various other animal-based materials that contain easily separable salt.



second title page



second title page

THE

Skeptical Chemist:

OR

Chemico-physical

Doubts & Paradoxes,

Touching the

EXPERIMENTS

WHEREBY

Vulgar spagyrists

Are wont to Endeavour to Evince their

SALT, SULFUR

AND

MERCURY,

BE

The True Principles of Things.

Utinam jam tenerentur omnia, & inoperta ac confessa
Veritas esset! Nihil ex Decretis mutaremus. Nunc
Veritatem cum eis qui docent, quærimus.
Sen.

If only everything were held firmly, and the truth were clear and revealed! We would change nothing about the decrees. Now we search for the truth with those who teach. Sen.


LONDON,

Printed for J. Crooke, and are to be sold at the
Ship in St. Pauls Church-Yard. 1661.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.


The First Part.



I Am (sayes Carneades) so unwilling to deny Eleutherius any thing, that though, before the rest of the Company I am resolv’d to make good the part I have undertaken of a Sceptick; yet I shall readily, since you will have it so, lay aside for a while the Person of an Adversary to the Peripateticks and Chymists; and before I acquaint you with my Objections against their Opinions, acknowledge to you what may be (whether truly or not) tollerably enough added, in favour of a certain number of Principles of mixt Bodies, to that grand and known Argument from the Analysis(36) of compound Bodies, which I may possibly hereafter be able to confute.


I Am (says Carneades) so reluctant to deny Eleutherius anything, that even though I’m determined, in front of the rest of the group, to fulfill my role as a skeptic, I will gladly, since you insist, put aside the persona of an opponent to the Peripatetics and Chemists for a while. Before I share my objections to their views, I want to acknowledge what might be (whether true or not) reasonably added in support of certain principles of mixed bodies to that major and well-known argument from the Analysis(36) of compound bodies, which I may be able to challenge later on.

And that you may the more easily Examine, and the better Judge of what I have to say, I shall cast it into a pretty number of distinct Propositions, to which I shall not premise any thing; because I take it for granted, that you need not be advertis’d, that much of what I am to deliver, whether for or against a determinate number of Ingredients of mix’d Bodies, may be indifferently apply’d to the four Peripatetick Elements, and the three Chymical Principles, though divers of my Objections will more peculiarly belong to these last nam’d, because the Chymical Hypothesis seeming to be much more countenanc’d by Experience then the other, it will be expedient to insist chiefly upon the disproving of that; especially since most of the Arguments that are imploy’d against it, may, by a little variation, be made to conclude, at least as strongly against the less plausible, Aristotelian Doctrine.

And to make it easier for you to examine and judge what I have to say, I will break it down into a series of clear propositions, without any preliminary remarks. I assume you already know that a lot of what I’m going to present, whether in favor or against a specific number of components of mixed bodies, can also apply to the four classical elements and the three chemical principles. However, many of my objections will more specifically relate to the latter, because the chemical hypothesis seems to be much better supported by experience than the other. Therefore, it will be more effective to focus primarily on disproving that hypothesis, especially since many arguments against it can be adjusted to also strongly challenge the less believable Aristotelian doctrine.

To proceed then to my Propositions, I shall begin with this. That(37)

To move on to my suggestions, I'll start with this. That(37)

Propos. I.It seems not absurd to conceive that at the first Production of mixt Bodies, the Universal Matter whereof they among other Parts of the Universe consisted, was actually divided into little Particles of several sizes and shapes variously mov’d.

Proposal I.It doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that when mixed bodies were first created, the universal matter that they, along with other parts of the universe, were made of, was actually broken down into tiny particles of different sizes and shapes moving in various ways.

This (sayes Carneades) I suppose you will easily enough allow. For besides that which happens in the Generation, Corruption, Nutrition, and wasting of Bodies, that which we discover partly by our Microscopes of the extream littlenesse of even the scarce sensible parts of Concretes; and partly by the Chymical Resolutions of mixt Bodies, and by divers other Operations of Spagyrical Fires upon them, seems sufficiently to manifest their consisting of parts very minute and of differing Figures. And that there does also intervene a various local Motion of such small Bodies, will scarce be denied; whether we chuse to grant the Origine of Concretions assign’d by Epicurus, or that related by Moses. For the first, as you well know, supposes not only all(38) mixt Bodies, but all others to be produc’d by the various and casual occursions of Atomes, moving themselves to and fro by an internal Principle in the Immense or rather Infinite Vacuum. And as for the inspir’d Historian, He, informing us that the great and Wise Author of Things did not immediately create Plants, Beasts, Birds, &c. but produc’d them out of those portions of the pre-existent, though created, Matter, that he calls Water and Earth, allows us to conceive, that the constituent Particles whereof these new Concretes were to consist, were variously moved in order to their being connected into the Bodies they were, by their various Coalitions and Textures, to compose.

This (says Carneades) I assume you will readily agree with. Besides what happens during the creation, decay, nourishment, and destruction of bodies, what we observe partly through our Microscopes—showing even the barely visible tiny parts of substances—and partly through the chemical breakdown of mixed bodies, along with various other processes of spagyric fires on them, seems to clearly show that they are made up of very small parts with different shapes. It would be hard to deny that there is a variety of local motion among these tiny bodies, whether we choose to accept the origin of substances proposed by Epicurus or that presented by Moses. The first, as you know, suggests that not only all (38) mixed bodies but all others are produced by the random and various collisions of atoms, moving back and forth due to an internal principle in the vast or rather infinite vacuum. As for the inspired historian, he tells us that the great and wise creator of all things did not make plants, animals, birds, etc., directly, but formed them from portions of pre-existing, albeit created, matter, which he calls water and earth. This allows us to understand that the fundamental particles of these new substances were variously moved in order to be connected into the bodies they formed, through their different combinations and structures.

But (continues Carneades) presuming that the first Proposition needs not be longer insisted on, I will pass on to the second, and tell you that

But (continues Carneades) assuming that the first Proposition doesn't need further discussion, I'll move on to the second and inform you that

Propos. II.Neither is it impossible that of these minute Particles divers of the smallest and neighbouring ones were here and there associated into minute Masses or Clusters, and did by their Coalitions constitute great store of such little primary Concre(39)tions or Masses as were not easily dissipable into such Particles as compos’d them.

Proposition II.It’s also possible that some of these tiny particles occasionally came together to form small masses or clusters, and that their combinations created many of these little primary formations or masses that weren't easily broken down into the particles that made them up.

To what may be deduc’d, in favour of this Assertion, from the Nature of the Thing it self, I will add something out of Experience, which though I have not known it used to such a purpose, seems to me more fairly to make out that there May be Elementary Bodies, then the more questionable Experiments of Peripateticks and Chymists prove that there Are such. I consider then that Gold will mix and be colliquated not only with Silver, Copper, Tin and Lead, but with Antimony, Regulus Martis and many other Minerals, with which it will compose Bodies very differing both from Gold, and the other Ingredients of the resulting Concretes. And the same Gold will also by common Aqua Regis, and (I speak it knowingly) by divers other Menstruums be reduc’d into a seeming Liquor, in so much that the Corpuscles of Gold will, with those of the Menstruum, pass through Cap-Paper, and with them also coagulate into a Crystalline Salt. And I have further try’d, that(40) with a small quantity of a certain Saline Substance I prepar’d, I can easily enough sublime Gold into the form of red Crystalls of a considerable length; and many other wayes may Gold be disguis’d, and help to constitute Bodies of very differing Natures both from It and from one another, and neverthelesse be afterward reduc’d to the self-same Numerical, Yellow, Fixt, Ponderous and Malleable Gold it was before its commixture. Nor is it only the fixedst of Metals, but the most fugitive, that I may employ in favour of our Proposition: for Quicksilver will with divers Metals compose an Amalgam, with divers Menstruums it seems to be turn’d into a Liquor, with Aqua fortis will be brought into either a red or white Powder or precipitate, with Oyl of Vitriol into a pale Yellow one, with Sulphur it will compose a blood-red and volatile Cinaber, with some Saline Bodies it will ascend in form of a Salt which will be dissoluble in water; with Regulus of Antimony and Silver I have seen it sublim’d into a kinde of Crystals, with another Mixture I reduc’d it into a malleable Body, into a hard and brittle Substance by another: And(41) some there are who affirm, that by proper Additaments they can reduce Quicksilver into Oyl, nay into Glass, to mention no more. And yet out of all these exotick Compounds, we may recover the very same running Mercury that was the main Ingredient of them, and was so disguis’d in them. Now the Reason (proceeds Carneades) that I have represented these things concerning Gold and Quicksilver, is, That it may not appear absurd to conceive, that such little primary Masses or Clusters, as our Proposition mentions, may remain undissipated, notwithstanding their entring into the composition of various Concretions, since the Corpuscle of Gold and Mercury, though they be not primary Concretions of the most minute Particles or matter, but confessedly mixt Bodies, are able to concurre plentifully to the composition of several very differing Bodies, without losing their own Nature or Texture, or having their cohæsion violated by the divorce of their associated parts or Ingredients.

To support this claim from the nature of the subject itself, I will add some experiential evidence, which, although I haven’t seen used for this purpose, seems to me to more convincingly suggest that there might be fundamental building blocks than the more questionable experiments of philosophers and chemists demonstrate that there are such. I note that gold can mix and melt not only with silver, copper, tin, and lead, but also with antimony, Regulus Martis, and many other minerals, forming substances very different from gold and the other components of the resulting mixtures. Moreover, the same gold can be transformed into a liquid by common Aqua Regis and (I say this knowingly) by various other Menstruums, so much so that the particles of gold, along with those of the Menstruum, can pass through filtering paper and subsequently coagulate into a crystalline salt. I have also tested that(40) with a small amount of a certain saline substance I prepared, I can easily sublime gold into the form of red crystals of considerable length; and there are many other ways gold can be disguised, contributing to the formation of substances that are quite different from both itself and from one another, yet can be returned to the exact same yellow, fixed, heavy, and malleable gold it was before mixing. Not only is it the most stable of metals, but also the most volatile that I could use to support our proposition: mercury can create an Amalgam with various metals, and it seems to turn into a liquid with different Menstruums; with Aqua fortis, it can be formed into either a red or white powder or precipitate, with oil of vitriol into a pale yellow one, and with sulfur, it can form a blood-red and volatile cinnabar. It can ascend in the form of a salt that dissolves in water when mixed with certain saline bodies; I've seen it sublimed into a kind of crystals with Regulus of antimony and silver, reduced into a malleable form with another mixture, and into a hard and brittle substance with yet another. Additionally, some claim that with the right additives, they can transform mercury into oil, or even into glass, not to mention more. And yet from all these exotic compounds, we can recover the very same liquid mercury that was the main ingredient of them, which was so disguised within them. Now the reason (as Carneades argues) that I have presented these facts regarding gold and mercury is to show that it is not unreasonable to think that such small primary masses or clusters, as our proposition describes, can remain undissolved despite entering into the composition of various mixtures, since the particles of gold and mercury, though not the primary formations of the smallest particles or matter but rather acknowledged mixed bodies, can significantly contribute to the composition of many very different substances without losing their own nature or texture, or having their cohesion disrupted by the separation of their associated parts or ingredients.

Give me leave to add (sayes Eleutherius) on this occasion, to what you now observ’d, that as confidently as some(42) Chymists, and other modern Innovators in Philosophy are wont to object against the Peripateticks, That from the mixture of their four Elements there could arise but an inconsiderable variety of compound Bodies; yet if the Aristotelians were but half as well vers’d in the works of Nature as they are in the Writings of their Master, the propos’d Objection would not so calmly triumph, as for want of Experiments they are fain to suffer it to do. For if we assigne to the Corpuscles, whereof each Element consists, a peculiar size and shape, it may easily enough be manifested, That such differingly figur’d Corpuscles may be mingled in such various Proportions, and may be connected so many several wayes, that an almost incredible number of variously qualified Concretes may be compos’d of them. Especially since the Corpuscles of one Element may barely, by being associated among themselves, make up little Masses of differing size and figure from their constituent parts: and since also to the strict union of such minute Bodies there seems oftentimes nothing requisite, besides the bare Contact of a great part of their Surfaces.(43) And how great a variety of Phænomena the same matter, without the addition of any other, and only several ways dispos’d or contexed, is able to exhibit, may partly appear by the multitude of differing Engins which by the contrivances of skilful Mechanitians, and the dexterity of expert Workmen, may be made of Iron alone. But in our present case being allow’d to deduce compound Bodies from four very differently qualified sorts of matter, he who shall but consider what you freshly took notice of concerning the new Concretes resulting from the mixture of incorporated Minerals, will scarce doubt but that the four Elements mannag’d by Natures Skill may afford a multitude of differing Compounds.

Allow me to add (says Eleutherius) on this occasion to what you just pointed out, that as confidently as some(42) chemists and other modern innovators in philosophy like to argue against the Peripatetics, claiming that from the mixture of their four elements there could only arise a limited variety of compound bodies; if the Aristotelians were at least half as knowledgeable about the workings of nature as they are about the writings of their master, the objection raised would not so easily prevail, as their lack of experiments causes them to let it do. If we assign unique sizes and shapes to the particles that each element consists of, it can be clearly demonstrated that these differently shaped particles can be combined in various proportions and can connect in multiple ways, resulting in an almost unbelievable number of variously formed substances. Especially since the particles of one element may, just by associating with each other, create small masses that differ in size and shape from their individual components: and also, the strong bonding of such tiny bodies often requires nothing more than the simple contact of a large part of their surfaces.(43) And the great variety of phenomena that the same matter, without the addition of any other, can display simply by being arranged or connected in different ways can be partially seen in the many different machines that skilled mechanics and expert craftsmen can create from iron alone. But in our current situation, considering that we can derive compound bodies from four very differently qualified types of matter, anyone who reflects on what you just mentioned about the new substances formed from the mixture of combined minerals will hardly doubt that the four elements, managed by nature's skill, can provide a multitude of different compounds.

I am thus far of your minde (sayes Carneades) that the Aristotelians might with probability deduce a much greater number of compound Bodies from the mixture of their four Elements, than according to their present Hypothesis they can, if instead of vainly attempting to deduce the variety and properties of all mixt Bodies from the Combinations and Temperaments of the four Elements, as they are (among them) endowd(44) with the four first Qualities, they had endeavoured to do it by the Bulk and Figure of the smallest parts of those supposed Elements. For from these more Catholick and Fruitfull Accidents of the Elementary matter may spring a great variety of Textures, upon whose Account a multitude of compound Bodies may very much differ from one another. And what I now observe touching the four Peripatetick Elements, may be also applyed, mutatis mutandis, (as they speak) to the Chymical Principles. But (to take notice of that by the by) both the one and the other, must, I fear, call in to their assistance something that is not Elementary, to excite or regulate the motion of the parts of the matter, and dispose them after the manner requisite to the Constitution of particular Concretes. For that otherwise they are like to give us but a very imperfect account of the Origine of very many mixt Bodies, It would, I think, be no hard matter to perswade you, if it would not spend time, and were no Digression, to examine, what they are wont to alledge of the Origine of the Textures and Qualities of mixt Bodies,(45) from a certain substantial Form, whose Origination they leave more obscure than what it is assum’d to explicate.

I currently agree with your viewpoint (says Carneades) that the Aristotelians could probably derive a much larger variety of complex bodies from mixing their four elements than what they can based on their current Hypothesis. Instead of ineffectually trying to explain the variety and properties of all mixed bodies purely from the combinations and qualities of the four elements, as they are (endowed with the four primary qualities), they should focus on the size and shape of the smallest parts of those supposed elements. From these broader and more productive properties of elemental matter, a great variety of structures can emerge, leading to many different complex bodies. What I’m observing about the four Aristotelian elements can also be applied, mutatis mutandis, (as the saying goes) to the chemical principles. However, (just to note this) both must, I fear, rely on something non-elementary to help initiate or regulate the movement of the parts of the matter and arrange them in the way necessary for forming specific compounds. Otherwise, they are likely to provide us with only a very incomplete understanding of the origin of many mixed bodies. I think it wouldn’t be hard to convince you, if it weren’t too time-consuming and considered a digression, to explore what they typically claim about the origin of the structures and qualities of mixed bodies,(45) based on a certain substantial form, which they leave more unclear than what it is supposed to explain.

But to proceed to a new Proposition.

But let’s move on to a new point.

Propos. III.I shall not peremptorily deny, that from most of such mixt Bodies as partake either of Animal or Vegetable Nature, there may by the Help of the Fire, be actually obtain’d a determinate number (whether Three, Four or Five, or fewer or more) of Substances, worthy of differing Denominations.

Proposition III.I'm not going to outright deny that from many of these mixed substances that have either animal or plant characteristics, it is possible to actually obtain a specific number (whether it's three, four, five, or even fewer or more) of substances that deserve different names with the help of fire.

Of the Experiments that induce me to make this Concession, I am like to have occasion enough to mention several in the prosecution of my Discourse. And therefore, that I may not hereafter be oblig’d to trouble You and my self with needless Repetitions, I shall now only desire you to take notice of such Experiments, when they shall be mention’d, and in your thoughts referre them hither.

Of the experiments that lead me to make this concession, I will have plenty of opportunities to mention several as I continue my discussion. So, to avoid bothering you and myself with unnecessary repetitions later, I simply ask you to pay attention to those experiments when they come up and remember to link them back to this point.

To these three Concessions I have but this Fourth to add, That(46)

To these three Concessions, I just have this Fourth to add, That(46)

Propos. IV.It may likewise be granted, that those distinct Substances, which Concretes generally either afford or are made up of, may without very much Inconvenience be call’d the Elements or Principles of them.

Proposal IV.It can also be accepted that the different substances that composites generally provide or consist of can be referred to as their elements or principles without much trouble.

When I said, without very much Inconvenience, I had in my Thoughts that sober Admonition of Galen, Cum de re constat, de verbis non est Litigandum. And therefore also I scruple not to say Elements or Principles, partly because the Chymists are wont to call the Ingredients of mixt Bodies, Principles, as the Aristotelians name them Elements; I would here exclude neither. And, partly, because it seems doubtfull whether the same Ingredients may not be call’d Principles? as not being compounded of any more primary Bodies: and Elements, in regard that all mix’d Bodies are compounded of them. But I thought it requisite to limit my Concession by premising the words, very much, to the word Inconvenience, because that though the Inconvenience of calling the distinct Substances, mention’d in the Proposition Elements or Principles, be not very great,(47) yet that it is an Impropriety of Speech, and consequently in a matter of this moment not to be altogether overlook’d, You will perhaps think, as well as I, by that time you shall have heard the following part of my Discourse, by which you will best discern what Construction to put upon the former Propositions, and how far they may be look’d upon, as things that I concede as true, and how far as things I only represent as specious enough to be fit to be consider’d.

When I said, without very much inconvenience, I was thinking of that sober warning from Galen, Cum de re constat, de verbis non est Litigandum. So I don’t hesitate to use the terms Elements or Principles, partly because chemists often refer to the components of mixed substances as Principles, just as Aristotelians call them Elements; I won’t exclude either. Also, it seems uncertain whether those same components can be called Principles, since they are not made up of anything more basic, and Elements, because all mixed substances are made from them. However, I thought it necessary to limit my concession by adding the word very much before inconvenience, because while the inconvenience of calling the distinct substances mentioned in the proposition Elements or Principles isn’t significant,(47) it is still an improper way to speak. In an issue this important, that can't be completely ignored. You may agree with me when you hear the next part of my discussion, which will help you understand how to interpret the earlier propositions and how far they should be seen as things I accept as true and how far as things I merely present as plausible enough to consider.

And now Eleutherius (continues Carneades) I must resume the person of a Sceptick, and as such, propose some part of what may be either dislik’t, or at least doubted of in the common Hypothesis of the Chymists: which if I examine with a little the more freedom, I hope I need not desire you (a Person to whom I have the Happinesse of being so well known) to look upon it as something more suitable to the Employment whereto the Company has, for this Meeting, doom’d me; then either to my Humour or my Custom.

And now Eleutherius (continues Carneades), I have to take on the role of a skeptic and, in that light, address some aspects that might be disliked or at least questioned in the common understanding of the Hypothesis of the chemists. If I analyze this with a bit more freedom, I hope I don't need to ask you (a person I’m fortunate to know so well) to consider it as more fitting for the role that the group has assigned me for this meeting than either my personal style or my usual practice.

Now though I might present you many things against the Vulgar Chymical Opinion of the three Principles, and the(48) Experiments wont to be alledg’d as Demonstrations of it, yet those I shall at present offer you may be conveniently enough comprehended in four Capital Considerations; touching all which I shall only premise this in general, That since it is not my present Task so much to assert an Hypothesis of my own, as to give an Account wherefore I suspect the Truth of that of the Chymists, it ought not to be expected that all my Objections should be of the most cogent sort, since it is reason enough to Doubt of a propos’d Opinion, that there appears no cogent Reason for it.

Now, while I could present many arguments against the common chemical belief in the three principles and the experiments usually cited as proof of it, the points I'll offer can be conveniently grouped into four main considerations. I’ll just mention upfront that my goal here isn’t to propose my own hypothesis, but rather to explain why I question the truth of the chemists' views. Therefore, it shouldn’t be assumed that all my objections will be the most compelling, since it’s reasonable enough to doubt a suggested theory when there is no strong reason to support it.

To come then to the Objections themselves; I consider in the first place, That notwithstanding what common Chymists have prov’d or taught, it may reasonably enough be Doubted, how far, and in what sence, Fire ought to be esteem’d the genuine and universal Instrument of analyzing mixt Bodies.

To get to the objections themselves; I’ll first point out that despite what common chemists have proven or taught, we can reasonably question how much and in what sense fire should be regarded as the true and universal tool for analyzing mixed substances.

This Doubt, you may remember, was formerly mention’d, but so transiently discours’d of, that it will now be fit to insist upon it; And manifest that it was not so inconsiderately propos’d as our Adversaries then imagin’d.(49)

This doubt, as you might recall, was mentioned before, but it was discussed so briefly that it makes sense to revisit it now; and to show that it wasn't brought up so thoughtlessly as our opponents then believed.(49)

But, before I enter any farther into this Disquisition, I cannot but here take notice, that it were to be wish’d, our Chymists had clearly inform’d us what kinde of Division of Bodies by Fire must determine the number of the Elements: For it is nothing near so easy as many seem to think, to determine distinctly the Effects of Heat, as I could easily manifest, if I had leasure to shew you how much the Operations of Fire may be diversify’d by Circumstances. But not wholly to pass by a matter of this Importance, I will first take notice to you, that Guajacum (for Instance) burnt with an open Fire in a Chimney, is sequestred into Ashes and Soot, whereas the same Wood distill’d in a Retort does yield far other Heterogeneities, (to use the Helmontian expression) and is resolv’d into Oyl, Spirit, Vinager, Water and Charcoal; the last of which to be reduc’d into Ashes, requires the being farther calcin’d then it can be in a close Vessel: Besides having kindled Amber, and held a clean Silver Spoon, or some other Concave and smooth Vessel over the Smoak of its Flame, I observ’d the Soot into which that Fume condens’d,(50) to be very differing from any thing that I had observ’d to proceed from the steam of Amber purposely (for that is not usual) distilled per se in close Vessels. Thus having, for Tryals sake, kindled Camphire, and catcht the Smoak that copiously ascended out of the Flame, it condens’d into a Black and unctuous Soot, which would not have been guess’d by the Smell or other Properties to have proceeded from Camphire: whereas having (as I shall otherwhere more fully declare) expos’d a quantity of that Fugitive Concrete to a gentle heat in a close Glass-Vessel, it sublim’d up without seeming to have lost any thing of its whiteness, or its Nature, both which it retain’d, though afterwards I so encreased the Fire as to bring it to Fusion. And, besides Camphire, there are divers other Bodies (that I elsewhere name) in which the heat in close Vessels is not wont to make any separation of Heterogeneities, but only a comminution of Parts, those that rise first being Homogeneal with the others, though subdivided into smaller Particles: whence Sublimations have been stiled, The Pestles of the Chymists. But not here(51) to mention what I elsewhere take notice of, concerning common Brimstone once or twice sublim’d, that expos’d to a moderate Fire in Subliming-Pots, it rises all into dry, and almost tastless, Flowers; Whereas being expos’d to a naked Fire it affords store of a Saline and Fretting Liquor: Not to mention this, I say, I will further observe to you, that as it is considerable in the Analysis of mixt Bodies, whether the Fire act on them when they are expos’d to the open Air, or shut up in close Vessels, so is the degree of Fire by which the Analysis is attempted of no small moment. For a milde Balneum will sever unfermented Blood (for Instance) but into Phlegme and Caput mortuum, the later whereof (which I have sometimes had) hard, brittle, and of divers Colours, (transparent almost like Tortoise-shell) press’d by a good Fire in a Retort yields a Spirit, an Oyl or two, and a volatile Salt, besides a Caput mortuum. It may be also pertinent to our present Designe, to take notice of what happens in the making and distilling of Sope; for by one degree of Fire the Salt, the Water and the Oyl or Grease, whereof that factitious(52) Concrete is made up, being boyl’d up together are easily brought to mingle and incorporate into one Mass; but by another and further degree of Heat the same Mass may be again divided into an oleagenous, an aqueous, a Saline, and an Earthy part. And so we may observe that impure Silver and Lead being expos’d together to a moderate Fire, will thereby be colliquated into one Mass, and mingle per minima, as they speak, whereas a much vehementer Fire will drive or carry off the baser Metals (I mean the Lead, and the Copper or other Alloy) from the Silver, though not, for ought appears, separate them from one another. Besides, when a Vegetable abounding in fixt Salt is analyz’d by a naked Fire, as one degree of Heat will reduce it into Ashes, (as the Chymists themselves teach us) so, by only a further degree of Fire, those Ashes may be vitrified and turn’d into Glass. I will not stay to examine how far a meere Chymist might on this occasion demand, If it be lawful for an Aristotelian to make Ashes, (which he mistakes for meere Earth) pass for an Element, because by one degree of Fire it may be(53) produc’d, why a Chymist may not upon the like Principle argue, that Glass is one of the Elements of many Bodies, because that also may be obtain’d from them, barely by the Fire? I will not, I say, lose time to examine this, but observe, that by a Method of applying the Fire, such similar Bodies may be obtain’d from a Concrete, as Chymists have not been able to separate; either by barely burning it in an open Fire, or by barely distilling it in close Vessels. For to me it seems very considerable, and I wonder that men have taken so little notice of it, that I have not by any of the common wayes of Distillation in close Vessels, seen any separation made of such a volatile Salt as is afforded us by Wood, when that is first by an open Fire divided into Ashes and Soot, and that Soot is afterwards plac’d in a strong Retort, and compell’d by an urgent Fire to part with its Spirit, Oyl and Salt; for though I dare not peremptorily deny, that in the Liquors of Guajacum and other Woods distill’d in Retorts after the common manner, there may be Saline parts, which by reason of the Analogy may pretend to the name of some kinde of(54) volatile Salts; yet questionless there is a great disparity betwixt such Salts and that which we have sometimes obtain’d upon the first Distillation of Soot (though for the most part it has not been separated from the first or second Rectification, and sometimes not till the third) For we could never yet see separated from Woods analyz’d only the vulgar way in close vessels any volatile Salt in a dry and Saline form, as that of Soot, which we have often had very Crystalline and Geometrically figur’d. And then, whereas the Saline parts of the Spirits of Guajacum, &c. appear upon distillation sluggish enough, the Salt of Soot seems to be one of the most volatile Bodies in all Nature; and if it be well made will readily ascend with the milde heat of a Furnace, warm’d only by the single Wieck of a Lamp, to the top of the highest Glass Vessels that are commonly made use of for Distillation: and besides all this, the taste and smell of the Salt of Soot are exceeding differing from those of the Spirits of Guajacum, &c. and the former not only smells and tastes much less like a vegetable Salt, than like that of Harts-horn, and other(55) Animal Concretes; but in divers other Properties seems more of Kinne to the Family of Animals, than to that of vegetable Salts, as I may elsewhere (God permitting) have an occasion more particularly to declare. I might likewise by some other Examples manifest, That the Chymists, to have dealt clearly, ought to have more explicitly and particularly declar’d by what Degree of Fire, and in what manner of Application of it, they would have us Judge a Division made by the Fire to be a true Analysis into their Principles, and the Productions of it to deserve the name of Elementary Bodies. But it is time that I proceed to mention the particular Reasons that incline me to Doubt, whether the Fire be the true and universal Analyzer of mixt Bodies; of which Reasons what has been already objected may pass for one.

But before I go any further into this discussion, I must point out that it would be helpful if our chemists clearly explained what kind of division of bodies by fire determines the number of elements. It is not nearly as easy as many seem to think to clearly identify the effects of heat, as I could easily demonstrate if I had the time to show you how much the operations of fire can vary based on circumstances. However, not wanting to completely overlook this important matter, let me first note that Guajacum (for example) burned in an open fire in a chimney turns into ashes and soot, whereas the same wood distilled in a retort yields very different substances (to use the Helmontian term) and is broken down into oil, spirit, vinegar, water, and charcoal; the last of which requires further calcination to turn into ashes beyond what can happen in a closed vessel. Additionally, after igniting amber and holding a clean silver spoon, or some other concave and smooth vessel over the smoke of its flame, I observed that the soot formed by that fume condensate(50) to be quite different from anything I had seen from the steam of amber distilled on purpose (since that is not typical) in closed vessels. Similarly, when I ignited camphor and captured the copious smoke that rose from the flame, it condensed into a black and oily soot, which would not have been guessed by its smell or other properties to have come from camphor. In contrast, exposing a quantity of that volatile substance to gentle heat in a closed glass vessel, it sublimed without seeming to lose any of its whiteness or its nature, both of which it retained, even after I increased the fire to the point of fusion. Besides camphor, there are several other substances (which I name elsewhere) where heat in closed vessels doesn't often cause any separation of heterogeneous elements, but just a breakdown of parts, with those rising first being homogeneous with the others, just in smaller particles: hence sublimations have been dubbed The Pestles of the Chemists. Yet, without bringing up what I mention elsewhere about common brimstone, which, when sublimed once or twice and exposed to moderate fire in sublimation pots, rises into dry, almost tasteless flowers; when exposed to a naked flame, it produces a lot of a saline and corrosive liquid: Not to mention this, I will also point out that it matters whether fire acts on mixtures when they are exposed to open air or confined in closed vessels, and the degree of heat used in the analysis is also crucial. For instance, a mild Balneum will separate unfermented blood into phlegm and Caput mortuum, the latter of which (which I have had in the past) is hard, brittle, and various colors, almost transparent like tortoiseshell. Pressed with sufficient heat in a retort, it yields spirit, one or two oils, and a volatile salt, besides a Caput mortuum. It may also be relevant to our current discussion to consider what happens in making and distilling soap; with one degree of heat, the salt, water, and oil or grease that make up this man-made(52) mixture can easily be boiled together to combine into one mass; but with another and higher degree of heat, that same mass may be re-divided into oily, aqueous, saline, and earthy parts. Similarly, we can observe that impure silver and lead exposed together to moderate heat will melt into a single mass and mix per minima, as the saying goes, whereas a much stronger fire will drive away the baser metals (meaning lead, copper, or other alloys) from silver, though they don't seem to be separated from each other. Additionally, when a plant rich in fixed salt is analyzed by a naked flame, one degree of heat will turn it into ashes (as chemists tell us), while just a further degree of heat can vitrify those ashes and turn them into glass. I will not stop to examine how far a mere chemist might ask if it’s permissible for an Aristotelian to consider ashes (which they mistakenly see as mere earth) as an element because they can be produced by one degree of fire; why then a chemist can't argue on similar grounds that glass is one of the elements of many bodies, since it can also be obtained from them solely by fire? I won't waste time examining this, but I will note that by a method of applying fire, similar substances could be obtained from a mixture that chemists have not been able to separate; whether by merely burning it in an open fire or by merely distilling it in closed vessels. To me, this seems quite significant, and I’m surprised that people have taken so little notice of it, as I have never seen any separation of a volatile salt, like that obtained from wood, when it is first divided into ashes and soot by open fire, followed by placing that soot in a strong retort and forcing it with intense heat to release its spirit, oil, and salt; even though I wouldn't definitively deny that the liquids from Guajacum and other woods distilled in common ways in closed vessels may have saline parts which could be seen as some kind of(54) volatile salts; there is unquestionably a significant difference between such salts and what we have sometimes obtained from the first distillation of soot (though often it hasn’t been separated until the first, second, or even the third rectification). We have never seen any volatile salt in a dry and saline form, like that of soot, from woods analyzed only through common methods in closed vessels, which we have often found to be very crystalline and geometrically shaped. And regarding the saline parts of the spirits of Guajacum etc., they appear sluggish during distillation, while the salt from soot seems to be one of the most volatile substances in nature; if well-prepared, it will quickly ascend with mild heat from a furnace warmed only by a single wick of a lamp to the top of the tallest glass vessels typically used for distillation. Additionally, the taste and smell of the salt from soot are vastly different from those of the spirits of Guajacum and others; the former smells and tastes much less like a vegetable salt and more like that of hartshorn and other(55) animal substances; but in various other properties, it seems more related to the animal family than to that of vegetable salts, as I may have the opportunity to explain more specifically elsewhere (God permitting). I could also use other examples to demonstrate that chemists, to have been clear, should have more explicitly and specifically declared by what degree of fire and in what manner of application they want us to judge a division made by fire to be a true analysis into their principles, and for the products to be deserving of the name of elementary bodies. But it’s time for me to mention the specific reasons that lead me to doubt whether fire is the true and universal analyzer of mixed bodies; what has already been raised may serve as one of those reasons.

In the next place I observe, That there are some mixt Bodies from which it has not been yet made appear, that any degree of Fire can separate either Salt or Sulphur or Mercury, much less all the Three. The most obvious Instance of this Truth is Gold, which is a Body so fix’d, and wherein the Elementary(56) Ingredients (if it have any) are so firmly united to each other, that we finde not in the operations wherein Gold is expos’d to the Fire, how violent soever, that it does discernably so much as lose of its fixednesse or weight, so far is it from being dissipated into those Principles, whereof one at least is acknowledged to be Fugitive enough; and so justly did the Spagyricall Poet somewhere exclaim,

In addition, I point out that there are some mixed substances from which it's not yet shown that any level of heat can separate either salt, sulfur, or mercury, let alone all three. The most obvious example of this truth is gold, which is a substance that is so stable, and in which the elemental ingredients (if it has any) are so tightly bound together, that we do not observe in the processes where gold is subjected to fire, no matter how intense, any noticeable loss of its stability or weight. In fact, far from being broken down into those components, at least one of which is known to be quite volatile; and so the alchemical poet rightly exclaimed somewhere,

Cuncta adeo miris illic compagibus harent.

Everything there is held together by amazing connections.

And I must not omit on this occasion to mention to you, Eleutherius, the memorable Experiment that I remember I met with in Gasto ClaveusGasto Claveus Apolog. Argur. & Chrysopera., who, though a Lawyer by Profession, seems to have had no small Curiosity and Experience in Chymical affairs: He relates then, that having put into one small Earthen Vessel an Ounce of the most pure Gold, and into another the like weight of pure Silver, he plac’d them both in that part of a Glass-house Furnace wherein the Workmen keep their Metal, (as our English Artificers call their Liquid Glass) continually melted, and that having there kept both the Gold and(57) the Silver in constant Fusion for two Moneths together, he afterwards took them out of the Furnace and the Vessels, and weighing both of them again, found that the Silver had not lost above a 12th part of its weight, but the Gold had not of his lost any thing at all. And though our Author endeavours to give us of this a Scholastick Reason, which I suppose you would be as little satisfied with, as I was when I read it; yet for the matter of Fact, which will serve our present turne, he assures us, that though it be strange, yet Experience it self taught it him to be most true.

And I can't let this opportunity go by without mentioning to you, Eleutherius, the interesting experiment I came across in Gasto ClaveusGasto Claveus Apolog. Argur. & Chrysopera.. Although he was a lawyer by profession, he had a strong curiosity and experience in chemical processes. He shared that he placed one ounce of pure gold into a small earthen vessel and the same amount of pure silver into another. He then put both vessels into a portion of a glasshouse furnace where the workers keep their metal—what our English craftsmen call liquid glass—constantly melted. After keeping the gold and silver in continuous fusion for two months, he took them out of the furnace and the vessels. Upon weighing them again, he found that the silver had lost only about a twelfth of its weight, while the gold lost nothing at all. Although our author attempts to explain this with a scholarly justification, which I imagine you wouldn't find satisfactory, just as I didn't when I read it, he assures us that the matter of fact is true, and though it's strange, experience taught him this reality.

And though there be not perhaps any other Body to be found so perfectly fix’d as Gold, yet there are divers others so fix’d or compos’d, at least of so strictly united parts, that I have not yet observ’d the Fire to separate from them any one of the Chymists Principles. I need not tell you what Complaints the more Candid and Judicious of the Chymists themselves are wont to make of those Boasters that confidently pretend, that they have extracted the Salt or Sulphur of Quicksilver, when they have disguis’d it by Additaments, wherewith it re(58)sembles the Concretes whose Names are given it; whereas by a skilful and rigid Examen, it may be easily enough stript of its Disguises, and made to appear again in the pristine form of running Mercury. The pretended Salts and Sulphurs being so far from being Elementary parts extracted out of the Bodie of Mercurie, that they are rather (to borrow a terme of the Grammarians) De-compound Bodies, made up of the whole Metal and the Menstruum or other Additaments imploy’d to disguise it. And as for Silver, I never could see any degree of Fire make it part with any of its three Principles. And though the Experiment lately mentioned from Claveus may beget a Suspition that Silver may be dissipated by Fire, provided it be extreamly violent and very lasting: yet it will not necessarily follow, that because the Fire was able at length to make the Silver lose a little of its weight, it was therefore able to dissipate it into its Principles. For first I might alledge that I have observ’d little Grains of Silver to lie hid in the small Cavities (perhaps glas’d over by a vitrifying heat) in Crucibles, wherein Silver has been long kept in Fusion,(59) whence some Goldsmiths of my Acquaintance make a Benefit by grinding such Crucibles to powder, to recover out of them the latent particles of Silver. And hence I might argue, that perhaps Claveus was mistaken, and imagin’d that Silver to have been driven away by the Fire, that indeed lay in minute parts hid in his Crucible, in whose pores so small a quantity as he mist of so ponderous a Bodie might very well lie conceal’d.

And while there may not be any other substance as perfectly stable as gold, there are several others that are just as stable or composed, at least with parts that are so tightly united, that I haven't seen fire separate any of the chemical elements from them. I don't need to tell you about the complaints that the more honest and discerning chemists often express about those who boastfully claim they've extracted the salt or sulfur from mercury, only to have disguised it with additives, making it resemble the compounds it's been given names for. A skilled and thorough examination can easily strip it of these disguises and reveal it again as liquid mercury. The so-called salts and sulfurs are so far from being elementary parts extracted from mercury that they are more like, to borrow a term from grammarians, de-compounded bodies, made up of the entire metal and the solvent or other additives used to disguise it. As for silver, I've never seen any level of heat ever make it lose any of its three elements. Although the experiment recently mentioned from Claveus might raise suspicion that silver could be dissipated by fire if it's extremely violent and prolonged, it doesn't necessarily mean that just because the fire managed to make the silver lose a bit of weight, it could also break it down into its elements. For one, I could point out that I've noticed tiny grains of silver hidden in small cavities (perhaps sealed over by a vitrifying heat) in crucibles, where silver has been kept melted for a long time. Some goldsmiths I know benefit from grinding these crucibles to powder to recover the hidden particles of silver. From this, I could argue that perhaps Claveus was mistaken and thought silver had been driven away by the fire, when in fact it was lying in tiny parts hidden in his crucible, in which such a small quantity could easily remain concealed.

But Secondly, admitting that some parts of the Silver were driven away by the violence of the Fire, what proof is there that it was either the Salt, the Sulphur, or the Mercury of the Metal, and not rather a part of it homogeneous to what remain’d? For besides, that the Silver that was left seem’d not sensibly alter’d, which probably would have appear’d, had so much of any one of its Principles been separated from it: We finde in other Mineral Bodies of a less permanent nature than Silver, that the Fire may divide them into such minute parts, as to be able to carry them away with its self, without at all destroying their Nature. Thus we see that in the re(60)fining of Silver, the Lead that is mix’d with it (to carry away the Copper or other ignoble Mineral that embases the Silver) will, if it be let alone, in time evaporate away upon the Test; but if (as is most usual amongst those that refine great quantities of Metals together) the Lead be blown off from the Silver by Bellowes, that which would else have gone away in the Form of unheeded steams, will in great part be collected not far from the Silver, in the Form of a darkish Powder or Calx, which, because it is blown off from Silver, they call Litharge of Silver. And thus AgricolaAgricola de Natura Fossil. Lib. 9. Cap. 11. & 12. in divers places informs us, when Copper, or the Oare of it is colliquated by the violence of the Fire with Cadmia, the Sparks that in great multitudes do fly upwards do, some of them, stick to the vaulted Roofs of the Furnaces, in the form of little and (for the most part) White Bubbles, which therefore the Greeks, and, in Imitation of them, our Drugsters call Pompholix: and others more heavy partly adhere to the sides of the Furnace, and partly (especially if the Covers be not kept upon the Pots) fall to the Ground, and by reason of their Ashy(61) Colour as well as Weight were called by the same Greeks σποδος, which, I need not tell you, in their Language signifies Ashes. I might add, that I have not found that from Venetian Talck (I say Venetian, because I have found other kinds of that Mineral more open) from the Lapis Ossifragus, (which the Shops call Ostiocolla) from Muscovia Glass, from pure and Fusible Sand, to mention now no other Concretes; those of my Acquaintance that have try’d have been able by the Fire to separate any one of the Hypostatical Principles, which you will the less scruple to believe, if you consider that Glass may be made by the bare Colliquation of the Salt and Earth remaining in the Ashes of a burnt Plant, and that yet common Glass, once made, does so far resist the violence of the Fire, that most Chymists think it a Body more undestroyable then Gold it self. For if the Artificer can so firmly unite such comparative gross Particles as those of Earth and Salt that make up common Ashes, into a Body indissoluble by Fire; why may not Nature associate in divers Bodies the more minute Elementary Corpuscles she has at hand too firmly to(62) let them be separable by the Fire? And on this Occasion, Eleutherius, give me leave to mention to you two or three sleight Experiments, which will, I hope, be found more pertinent to our present Discourse, than at first perhaps they will appear. The first is, that, having (for Tryals sake) put a quantity of that Fugitive Concrete, Camphire, into a Glass Vessel, and plac’d it in a gentle Heat, I found it (not leaving behinde, according to my Estimate, not so much as one Grain) to sublime to the Top of the Vessel into Flowers: which in Whiteness, Smell, &c. seem’d not to differ from the Camphire it self. Another Experiment is that of Helmont, who in several places affirms, That a Coal kept in a Glass exactly clos’d will never be calcin’d to Ashes, though kept never so long in a strong Fire. To countenance which I shall tell you this Tryal of my own, That having sometimes distilled some Woods, as particularly Box, whilst our Caput mortuum remain’d in the Retort, it continued black like Charcoal, though the Retort were Earthen, and kept red-hot in a vehement Fire; but as soon as ever it was brought out of the candent(63) Vessel into the open Air, the burning Coals did hastily degenerate or fall asunder, without the Assistance of any new Calcination, into pure white Ashes. And to these two I shall add but this obvious and known Observation, that common Sulphur (if it be pure and freed from its Vinager) being leasurely sublim’d in close Vessels, rises into dry Flowers, which may be presently melted into a Bodie of the same Nature with that which afforded them. Though if Brimstone be burnt in the open Air it gives, you know, a penetrating Fume, which being caught in a Glass-Bell condenses into that acid Liquor called Oyl of Sulphur per Campanam. The use I would make of these Experiments collated with what I lately told you out of Agricola is this, That even among the Bodies that are not fixt, there are divers of such a Texture, that it will be hard to make it appear, how the Fire, as Chymists are wont to imploy it, can resolve them into Elementary Substances. For some Bodies being of such a Texture that the Fire can drive them into the cooler and less hot part of the Vessels wherein they are included, and if need be, remove them from place(64) to place to fly the greatest heat, more easily than it can divorce their Elements (especially without the Assistance of the Air) we see that our Chymists cannot Analyze them in close Vessels, and of other compound Bodies the open Fire can as little separate the Elements. For what can a naked Fire do to Analyze a mixt Bodie, if its component Principles be so minute, and so strictly united, that the Corpuscles of it need less heat to carry them up, than is requisite to divide them into their Principles. So that of some Bodies the Fire cannot in close Vessels make any Analysis at all, and others will in the open Air fly away in the Forms of Flowers or Liquors, before the Heat can prove able to divide them into their Principles. And this may hold, whether the various similar parts of a Concrete be combin’d by Nature or by Art; For in factitious Sal Armoniack we finde the common and the Urinous Salts so well mingled, that both in the open Fire, and in subliming Vessels they rise together as one Salt, which seems in such Vessels irresoluble by Fire alone. For I can shew you Sal Armoniack which after the ninth Sublimation does still retain its(65) compounded Nature. And indeed I scarce know any one Mineral, from which by Fire alone Chymists are wont to sever any Substance simple enough to deserve the name of an Element or Principle. For though out of native Cinnaber they distill Quicksilver, and though from many of those Stones that the Ancients called Pyrites they sublime Brimstone, yet both that Quicksilver and this Sulphur being very often the same with the common Minerals that are sold in the Shops under those names, are themselves too much compounded Bodies to pass for the Elements of such. And thus much, Eleutherius, for the Second Argument that belongs to my First Consideration; the others I shall the lesse insist on, because I have dwelt so long upon this.

But secondly, even if some of the silver was carried away by the intense heat of the fire, how can we be sure it was the salt, sulfur, or mercury from the metal and not just a part of the silver that was the same as what remained? Moreover, the silver that was left didn’t seem noticeably altered, which likely would have been the case if any significant part of its nature had been separated from it. We find in other mineral substances that are less stable than silver that the fire can break them down into such tiny parts that they can be carried away without destroying their basic nature. For instance, when refining silver, the lead mixed in (to remove the copper or other impurities that reduce the silver's quality) will eventually evaporate on the test if left alone; however, if the lead is blown off from the silver using bellows (a common process in large-scale refining), the material that would have escaped as unnoticed fumes is mostly collected nearby, as a dark powder or calx, which, because it comes from silver, is referred to as litharge of silver. Similarly, AgricolaAgricola on the Nature of Fossils. Book 9. Chapters 11 and 12. tells us in various places that when copper or its ore melts due to the intensity of the fire with cadmia, sparks fly up in great numbers, and some stick to the arches of the furnaces as tiny, mostly white bubbles, which the Greeks, and subsequently our apothecaries, call pompholix; others, which are denser, stick to the sides of the furnace or fall to the ground (especially if the lids are off the pots), and because of their ashy color and weight, the Greeks named them σποδος, which translates to ashes in their language. I might also mention that I haven't found any examples where Venetian talc (I state Venetian because I've found other kinds of that mineral to be more porous), Lapis Ossifragus (known in shops as ostiocolla), Muscovia glass, or pure and fusible sand have been successfully separated by fire into any of the fundamental principles. You'll find this easier to believe when you realize that glass can be made from just the melting of the salts and earth found in the ashes of burnt plants, and yet common glass, once created, can withstand the fire's intensity so well that many chemists believe it to be more indestructible than gold. If an artisan can so firmly bond together such comparatively coarse particles like the earth and salt that make up ordinary ashes into a substance that fire cannot dissolve, why can't nature also unite the finer elementary particles into various objects so firmly that they can't be separated by fire? On this note, Eleutherius, allow me to share a couple of minor experiments which I hope will be more relevant to our current discussion than they might seem at first. First, when I placed a quantity of the volatile compound camphor into a glass vessel and subjected it to gentle heat, I found it sublimed to the top of the vessel into flowers, leaving behind almost no residue according to my estimate. These flowers were indistinguishable in whiteness and smell from the camphor itself. Another experiment is that of Helmont, who states in several places that a coal kept in a sealed glass container will never turn to ashes, regardless of how long it is in a strong fire. To support this, I'll share my own experience: after distilling some woods, specifically boxwood, while the remaining residue in the retort stayed black like charcoal, even though the retort was earthen and red-hot in intense fire; but as soon as it was removed from the heated vessel into the open air, the glowing coals quickly crumbled into pure white ashes without any new calcination occurring. Alongside this, I'll add a well-known observation that common sulfur (if it's pure and free from its vinegar) slowly sublimed in sealed vessels forms dry flowers that can instantly melt back into a substance of the same nature. However, if brimstone is burned in open air, it produces a powerful fume that condenses into the acidic liquid known as oil of sulfur per campanam. The point I want to make with these experiments combined with what I highlighted from Agricola is this: even among substances that aren't fixed, there are many that are structured in such a way that it's difficult to demonstrate how fire, as chemists often use it, can break them down into elementary substances. Some substances have a structure that allows the fire to push them to the cooler parts of the vessel they're in, and if necessary, to move them around to escape the heat, without easily separating their elements (especially without air's help). We see that chemists cannot analyze them in sealed vessels, and in other compound substances, open fire can similarly fail to separate the elements. What can an open flame do to analyze a mixed substance if its components are so tiny and tightly bound that the heat needed to lift them is less than what's required to break them down into their principles? Thus, there are some substances that fire cannot analyze at all in sealed containers, and others will escape as flowers or liquids before the heat can sufficiently separate them into their principles. This remains true regardless of whether the similar parts of a mixture are bonded by nature or by man-made means; in artificial sal armoniack, we find common and urine salts mixed so well that they rise together as a single salt in both open fire and sublimation vessels, appearing indissoluble by fire alone in such vessels. I can show you sal armoniack that, after nine sublimations, still maintains its(65) composite nature. In fact, I hardly know any mineral from which chemists can isolate a substance simple enough to be classified as an element or principle solely through fire. Although they derive mercury from natural cinnabar and suffer sulfur from many of those stones that the ancients called pyrites, both the mercury and sulfur are often the same as the common minerals sold in shops under those names and are too composite to be deemed the elements of those substances. And this concludes what I wanted to discuss, Eleutherius, concerning the second argument related to my first consideration; I will be brief on the others since I have spent so much time on this one.

Proceed we then in the next place to consider, That there are divers Separations to be made by other means, which either cannot at all, or else cannot so well be made by the Fire alone. When Gold and Silver are melted into one Mass, it would lay a great Obligation upon Refiners and Goldsmiths to teach them the Art of separating them(66) by the Fire, without the trouble and charge they are fain to be at to sever them. Whereas they may be very easily parted by the Affusion of Spirit of Nitre or Aqua fortis (which the French therefore call Eau de Depart:) so likewise the Metalline part of Vitriol will not be so easily and conveniently separated from the Saline part even by a violent Fire, as by the Affusion of certain Alkalizate Salts in a liquid Form upon the Solution of Vitriol made in common water. For thereby the acid Salt of the Vitriol, leaving the Copper it had corroded to joyn with the added Salts, the Metalline part will be precipitated to the bottom almost like Mud. And that I may not give Instances only in De-compound Bodies, I will add a not useless one of another kinde. Not only Chymists have not been able (for ought is vulgarly known) by Fire alone to separate true Sulphur from Antimony; but though you may finde in their Books many plausible Processes of Extracting it, yet he that shall make as many fruitlesse Tryals as I have done to obtain it by, most of them will, I suppose, be easily perswaded, that the Productions of such(67) Processes are Antimonial Sulphurs rather in Name than Nature. But though Antimony sublim’d by its self is reduc’d but to a volatile Powder, or Antimonial Flowers, of a compounded Nature like the Mineral that affords them: yet I remember that some years ago I sublim’d out of Antimony a Sulphur, and that in greater plenty then ever I saw obtain’d from that Mineral, by a Method which I shall therefore acquaint you with, because Chymists seem not to have taken notice of what Importance such Experiments may be in the Indagation of the Nature, and especially of the Number of the Elements. Having then purposely for Tryals sake digested eight Ounces of good and well powder’d Antimony with twelve Ounces of Oyl of Vitriol in a well stopt Glas-Vessel for about six or seven Weeks; and having caus’d the Mass (grown hard and brittle) to be distill’d in a Retort plac’d in Sand, with a strong Fire; we found the Antimony to be so opened, or alter’d by the Menstruum wherewith it had been digested, That whereas crude Antimony, forc’d up by the Fire, arises only in Flowers, our Antimony thus handled afforded us(68) partly in the Receiver, and partly in the Neck and at the Top of the Retort, about an Ounce of Sulphur, yellow and brittle like common Brimstone, and of so Sulphureous a smell, that upon the unluting the Vessels it infected the Room with a scarce supportable stink. And this Sulphur, besides the Colour and Smell, had the perfect Inflamability of common Brimstone, and would immediately kindle (at the Flame of a Candle) and burn blew like it. And though it seem’d that the long digestion wherein our Antimony and Menstruum were detain’d, did conduce to the better unlocking of the Mineral, yet if you have not the leasure to make so long a Digestion, you may by incorporating with powder’d Antimony a convenient Quantity of Oyl of Vitriol, and committing them immediately to Distillation, obtain a little Sulphur like unto the common one, and more combustible than perhaps you will at first take notice of. For I have observ’d, that though (after its being first kindled) the Flame would sometimes go out too soon of its self, if the same Lump of Sulphur were held again to the Flame of a Candle, it would be(69) rekindled and burn a pretty while, not only after the second, but after the third or fourth accension. You, to whom I think I shewed my way of discovering something of Sulphureous in Oyl of Vitriol, may perchance suspect, Eleutherius, either that this Substance was some Venereal Sulphur that lay hid in that Liquor, and was by this operation only reduc’d into a manifest Body; or else that it was a compound of the unctuous parts of the Antimony, and the Saline ones of the Vitriol, in regard that (as GuntherLib. 1. Observat. Cap. 6. informs us) divers learned men would have Sulphur to be nothing but a mixture made in the Bowels of the Earth of Vitriolate Spirits and a certain combustible Substance. But the Quantity of Sulphur we obtain’d by Digestion was much too great to have been latent in the Oyl of Vitriol. And that Vitriolate Spirits are not necessary to the Constitution of such a Sulphur as ours, I could easily manifest, if I would acquaint you with the several wayes by which I have obtain’d, though not in such plenty, a Sulphur of Antimony, colour’d and combustible like common Brimstone. And though I am not now minded(70) to discover them, yet I shall tell you, that to satisfie some Ingenious Men, that distill’d Vitriolate Spirits are not necessary to the obtaining of such a Sulphur as we have been considering, I did by the bare distillation of only Spirit of Nitre, from its weight of crude Antimony separate, in a short time, a yellow and very inflamable Sulphur, which, for ought I know, deserves as much the name of an Element, as any thing that Chymists are wont to separate from any Mineral by the Fire. I could perhaps tell you of other Operations upon Antimony, whereby That may be extracted from it, which cannot be forc’d out of it by the Fire; but I shall reserve them for a fitter Opportunity, and only annex at present this sleight, but not impertinent Experiment. That whereas I lately observed to you, that the Urinous and common Salts whereof Sal Armoniack consists, remain’d unsever’d by the Fire in many successive Sublimations, they may be easily separated, and partly without any Fire at all, by pouring upon the Concrete finely powder’d, a Solution of Salt of Tartar, or of the Salt of Wood-Ashes; for upon your diligently mixing(71) of these you will finde your Nose invaded with a very strong smell of Urine, and perhaps too your Eyes forc’d to water by the same subtle and piercing Body that produces the stink; both these effects proceeding from hence, that by the Alcalizate Salt, the Sea Salt that enter’d the composition of the Sal Armoniack is mortify’d and made more fixt, and thereby a divorce is made between it and the volatile Urinous Salt, which being at once set at liberty, and put into motion, begins presently to fly away, and to offend the Nostrils and Eyes it meets with by the way. And if the operation of these Salts be in convenient Glasses promoted by warmth, though but by that of a Bath, the ascending Steams may easily be caught and reduc’d into a penetrant Spirit, abounding with a Salt, which I have sometimes found to be separable in a Crystalline Form. I might add to these Instances, that whereas Sublimate, consisting, as you know, of Salts & Quicksilver combin’d and carried up together by Heat, may be Sublim’d, I know not how often, by a like degree of Fire, without suffering any divorce of the component Bodies, the Mercury may be ea(72)sily sever’d from the adhering Salts, if the Sublimate be distill’d from Salt of Tartar, Quick Lime, or such Alcalizate Bodies. But I will rather observe to you, Eleutherius, what divers ingenious men have thought somewhat strange; that by such an Additament that seems but only to promote the Separation, there may be easily obtain’d from a Concrete that by the Fire alone is easily divisible into all the Elements that Vegetables are suppos’d to consist of, such a similar Substance as differs in many respects from them all, and consequently has by many of the most Intelligent Chymists been denied to be contain’d in the mixt Body. For I know a way, and have practis’d it, whereby common Tartar, without the addition of any thing that is not perfectly a Mineral except Salt-petre, may by one Distillation in an Earthen Retort be made to afford good store of real Salt, readily dissoluble in water, which I found to be neither acid, nor of the smell of Tartar, and to be almost as volatile as Spirit of Wine it self, and to be indeed of so differing a Nature from all that is wont to be separated by Fire from Tartar, that divers(73) Learned Men, with whom I discours’d of it, could hardly be brought to beleeve, that so fugitive a Salt could be afforded by Tartar, till I assur’d it them upon my own Knowledge. And if I did not think you apt to suspect me to be rather too backward than too forward to credit or affirm unlikely things, I could convince you by what I have yet lying by me of that anomalous Salt.

Let's move on to the next point. There are different separations that can be made by means other than just fire, which either can't be done at all or can't be done as effectively with fire alone. When gold and silver are melted together, it would help refiners and goldsmiths a lot to learn how to separate them by fire without the hassle and costs they usually face to do so. However, they can be easily separated using spirit of nitre or aqua fortis (which the French call Eau de Depart). Similarly, the metallic part of vitriol isn't easily separated from the saline part even with intense fire, as it is by pouring certain alkaline salts in liquid form onto a solution of vitriol made in regular water. This way, the acid salt of vitriol, which has corroded copper, joins with the added salts, causing the metallic part to precipitate to the bottom almost like mud. And I won't just provide examples concerning compound bodies; I’ll mention a useful example of another kind. Not only have chemists not been able (as far as commonly known) to separate true sulfur from antimony using only fire, but even though you can find many plausible processes in their books for extracting it, anyone who conducts as many fruitless trials as I have to obtain it through most of them will likely be easily persuaded that the results of such processes are antimonial sulfurs more in name than in nature. But while antimony sublimed on its own turns into a volatile powder or antimonial flowers, which are of a mixed nature like the mineral that produces them, I recall that a few years ago, I sublimed out a sulfur from antimony in greater quantities than I had ever seen obtained from that mineral, using a method I want to share with you because chemists seem to overlook how significant such experiments can be in understanding the nature, especially of the number of elements. So, for the sake of testing, I purposely digested eight ounces of good, finely powdered antimony with twelve ounces of oil of vitriol in a well-stopped glass vessel for about six or seven weeks. After causing the hard and brittle mass to be distilled in a retort placed in sand with a strong fire, we found the antimony had reacted so much, or altered by the menstruum it had been digested with, that while crude antimony, when heated, turns into flowers, our treated antimony yielded us about an ounce of sulfur, yellow and brittle like common brimstone, partly in the receiver and partly in the neck and top of the retort. It had such a sulfurous smell that when we opened the vessels, it filled the room with an almost unbearable stench. This sulfur, besides its color and smell, had the perfect flammability of common brimstone and would ignite immediately (at the flame of a candle) and burn blue just like it. Although it seemed that the long digestion time with our antimony and menstruum helped unlock the mineral better, if you don't have the time for such a lengthy process, you can mix powdered antimony with a suitable amount of oil of vitriol and proceed directly to distillation to obtain a little sulfur like the common one, which may be more combustible than you initially notice. I've observed that even though the flame may sometimes go out too quickly after first being ignited, holding the same lump of sulfur back to the flame of a candle would rekindle it, allowing it to burn for quite a while, not just after the second, but also after the third or fourth relighting. You, whom I believe I showed my method for detecting something sulfurous in oil of vitriol, may suspect, Eleutherius, that this substance was a hidden venereal sulfur in that liquid, revealed through this operation, or that it was a compound of the oily parts of the antimony and the saline parts of the vitriol. This suspicion arises because (as Gunther informs us) several learned individuals have claimed that sulfur is merely a mixture formed in the earth from vitriolate spirits and a certain combustible substance. However, the quantity of sulfur we obtained through digestion was far too substantial to have been hidden in the oil of vitriol. And it’s easy to show that vitriolate spirits aren't necessary for forming sulfur like ours if I were to share the various methods I've used to obtain, though not in such large quantities, a sulfur of antimony that is colored and combustible like common brimstone. Although I'm not inclined right now to reveal them, I will mention that, to satisfy some clever individuals, distilled vitriolate spirits are not necessary for obtaining such sulfur as we've been discussing. I managed to separate, in a short time, a yellow and very flammable sulfur simply through the distillation of spirit of nitre from its weight of crude antimony, which, as far as I know, deserves the label of an element just as much as anything else that chemists typically separate from a mineral by fire. I could probably inform you of other operations involving antimony that can extract substances that can't be released through fire alone, but I will save those for a more appropriate time and will currently only share this simple but relevant experiment. Recently, I noted that the uranious and common salts of which Sal Armoniack is composed remained unseparated by fire during many successive sublimations. Still, they can be easily separated, partly without fire at all, by pouring a solution of salt of tartar or the salt of wood ashes onto the finely powdered concrete. By thoroughly mixing these, you will find your nose invaded by a strong odor of urine, and perhaps your eyes will water from the same subtle and sharp substance that causes the stink; both effects result from the alkaline salt, which fixes the sea salt in Sal Armoniack, causing a separation between it and the volatile uranious salt. Once this volatile salt is released and set into motion, it begins to escape and irritate the noses and eyes it encounters along the way. If the action of these salts is promoted by warmth in suitable glassware, even by a water bath, the rising vapors can be easily collected and turned into a penetrative spirit, rich with a salt that I have sometimes found to crystallize. I might add that while sublime, which consists of salts and quicksilver combined and carried up together by heat, can be sublimed repeatedly at the same degree of fire without any separation of the components, mercury can be easily separated from the attached salts if the sublime is distilled with salt of tartar, quicklime, or similar alkaline substances. But I would rather point out to you, Eleutherius, that many clever individuals have found it somewhat strange that such an additive, which seems merely to promote separation, can easily yield from a concrete that can otherwise be easily divided into all the elements that vegetables are thought to consist of, a similar substance that differs in many respects from all of them, which many of the most knowledgeable chemists have denied as being contained in the mixed body. I know a method, and I have practiced it, whereby common tartar, without adding anything that isn't purely mineral except saltpeter, can yield in one distillation within an earthen retort a good amount of real salt that dissolves readily in water, which I found to be neither acidic nor have the odor of tartar and to be almost as volatile as spirit of wine itself. It is indeed so different in nature from everything that is usually separated by fire from tartar that various learned individuals I spoke with about it were hardly persuaded that such a fleeting salt could come from tartar until I assured them based on my own experience. And if I didn't think you might suspect me of being more reserved than eager to claim or assert unlikely things, I could convince you with what I still have on hand of that unusual salt.

The Fourth thing that I shall alledge to countenance my first Consideration is, That the Fire even when it divides a Body into Substances of divers Consistences, does not most commonly analyze it into Hypostatical Principles, but only disposes its parts into new Textures, and thereby produces Concretes of a new indeed, but yet of a compound Nature. This Argument it will be requisite for me to prosecute so fully hereafter, that I hope you will then confess that ’tis not for want of good Proofs that I desire leave to suspend my Proofs till the Series of my Discourse shall make it more proper and seasonable to propose them.

The fourth point I want to make to support my first consideration is that fire, even when it breaks a body into substances of different consistencies, usually doesn’t break it down into fundamental principles but merely rearranges its parts into new structures. This process produces new compounds that are indeed new but still of a mixed nature. I will need to discuss this argument in more detail later, and I hope you will agree that it’s not due to a lack of solid evidence that I’d like to hold off on presenting my proofs until the Series of my discourse makes it more appropriate and timely to do so.

It may be further alledg’d on the behalf of my First Consideration, That some such distinct Substances may be ob(74)tain’d from some Concretes without Fire, as deserve no less the name of Elementary, than many that Chymists extort by the Violence of the Fire.

It may also be argued for my First Consideration, that some distinct substances can be obtained from certain mixtures without fire, which deserve just as much to be called Elementary as many that chemists extract through the extreme heat of fire.

We see that the Inflamable Spirit, or as the Chymists esteem it, the Sulphur of Wine, may not only be separated from it by the gentle heat of a Bath, but may be distill’d either by the help of the Sun-Beams, or even of a Dunghill, being indeed of so Fugitive a Nature, that it is not easy to keep it from flying away, even without the Application of external heat. I have likewise observ’d that a Vessel full of Urine being plac’d in a Dunghill, the Putrefaction is wont after some weeks so to open the Body, that the parts disbanding the Saline Spirit, will within no very long time, if the Vessel be not stopt, fly away of it self; Insomuch that from such Urine I have been able to distill little or nothing else than a nauseous Phlegme, instead of the active and piercing Salt and Spirit that it would have afforded, when first expos’d to the Fire, if the Vessel had been carefully stopt.

We see that the flammable spirit, or what chemists call the sulfur of wine, can be separated from it using a gentle water bath. It can also be distilled with sunlight or even by using a compost heap, as it is so volatile that it’s hard to keep it from escaping, even without any heat. I've also noticed that when a container full of urine is placed in a compost heap, the decomposition process after a few weeks opens the mixture so much that the parts releasing the saline spirit will soon escape on their own if the container isn't sealed. As a result, from that urine, I've only been able to distill a disgusting phlegm, instead of the active and sharp salt and spirit that it would have produced when first heated, if the container had been carefully sealed.

And this leads me to consider in the Fifth place, That it will be very hard to(75) prove, that there can no other Body or way be given which will as well as the Fire divide Concretes into several homogeneous Substances, which may consequently be call’d their Elements or Principles, as well as those separated or produc’d by the Fire. For since we have lately seen, that Nature can successefully employ other Instruments than the Fire to separate distinct Substances from mixt Bodies, how know we, but that Nature has made, or Art may make, some such Substance as may be a fit Instrument to Analyze mixt Bodies, or that some such Method may be found by Humane Industry or Luck, by whose means compound Bodies may be resolv’d into other Substances, than such as they are wont to be divided into by the Fire. And why the Products of such an Analysis may not as justly be call’d the component Principles of the Bodies that afford them, it will not be easy to shew, especially since I shall hereafter make it evident, that the Substances which Chymists are wont to call the Salts, and Sulphurs, and Mercuries of Bodies, are not so pure and Elementary as they presume, and as their Hypothesis requires. And this may(76) therefore be the more freely press’d upon the Chymists, because neither the Paracelsians, nor the Helmontians can reject it without apparent Injury to their respective Masters. For Helmont do’s more than once Inform his Readers, that both Paracelsus and Himself were Possessors of the famous Liquor, Alkahest, which for its great power in resolving Bodies irresoluble by Vulgar Fires, he somewhere seems to call Ignis Gehennæ. To this Liquor he ascribes, (and that in great part upon his own Experience) such wonders, that if we suppose them all true, I am so much the more a Friend to Knowledge than to Wealth, that I should think the Alkahest a nobler and more desireable Secret than the Philosophers Stone it self. Of this Universal Dissolvent he relates, That having digested with it for a competent time a piece of Oaken Charcoal, it was thereby reduc’d into a couple of new and distinct Liquors, discriminated from each other by their Colour and Situation, and that the whole body of the Coal was reduc’d into those Liquors, both of them separable from his Immortal Menstruum, which remain’d as fit for such Operati(77)ons as before. And he moreover tells us in divers places of his Writings, that by this powerful, and unwearied Agent, he could dissolve Metals, Marchasites, Stones, Vegetable and Animal Bodies of what kinde soever, and even Glass it self (first reduc’d to powder,) and in a word, all kinds of mixt Bodies in the World into their several similar Substances, without any Residence or Caput mortuum. And lastly, we may gather this further from his Informations, That the homogeneous Substances obtainable from compound Bodies by his piercing Liquor, were oftentimes different enough both as to Number and as to Nature, from those into which the same Bodies are wont to be divided by common Fire. Of which I shall need in this place to mention no other proof, then that whereas we know that in our common Analysis of a mixt Body, there remains a terrestrial and very fixt Substance, oftentimes associated with a Salt as fixt; Our Author tells us, that by his way he could Distill over all Concretes without any Caput mortuum, and consequently could make those parts of the Concrete volatile, which in the Vulgar Analysis would have(78) been fixt. So that if our Chymists will not reject the solemn and repeated Testimony of a Person, who cannot but be acknowledg’d for one of the greatest Spagyrists that they can boast of, they must not deny that there is to be found in Nature another Agent able to Analyze compound Bodies less violently, and both more genuinely and more universally than the Fire. And for my own part, though I cannot but say on this Occasion what (you know) our Friend Mr. Boyle is wont to say, when he is askt his Opinion of any strange Experiment; That He that hath seen it hath more Reason to beleeve it, than He that hath not; yet I have found Helmont so faithful a Writer, even in divers of his improbable Experiments (I alwayes except that Extravagant Treatise De Magnetica Vulnerum Curatione, which some of his Friends affirm to have been first publish’d by his Enemies) that I think it somewhat harsh to give him the Lye, especially to what he delivers upon his own proper Tryal. And I have heard from very credible Eye-witnesses some things, and seen some others my self, which argue so strongly, that a circulated Salt, or a Menstruum(79) (such as it may be) may by being abstracted from compound Bodies, whether Mineral, Animal, or Vegetable, leave them more unlockt than a wary Naturalist would easily beleeve, that I dare not confidently measure the Power of Nature and Art by that of the Menstruums, and other Instruments that eminent Chymists themselves are as yet wont to Empoly about the Analyzing of Bodies; nor Deny that a Menstruum may at least from this or that particular Concrete obtain some apparently similar Substance, differing from any obtainable from the same Body by any degree or manner of Application of the Fire. And I am the more backward to deny peremptorily, that there may be such Openers of compound Bodies, because among the Experiments that make me speak thus warily, there wanted not some in which it appear’d not, that one of the Substances not separable by common Fires and Menstruums could retain any thing of the Salt by which the separation was made.

And this makes me think, in the fifth place, that it's going to be really hard to(75) prove that there can't be any other substance or method that can divide mixed materials into various homogeneous substances, which could be called their elements or principles, just as effectively as fire does. Recently, we've seen that nature can successfully use instruments other than fire to separate distinct substances from mixtures, so how do we know if nature has created, or if people might create, some substance that could effectively analyze mixed materials, or if some method could be found through human effort or luck, allowing complex materials to break down into substances that they don't typically divide into using fire? It's not easy to show why the products of such an analysis shouldn't equally be called the basic principles of the materials that produce them, especially since I'll later demonstrate that the substances chemists often refer to as the salts, sulfurs, and mercuries of materials are not as pure and elemental as they believe or as their hypothesis suggests. This can therefore be more easily pressed upon chemists because neither the Paracelsians nor the Helmontians can reject it without obviously harming their respective teachings. Helmont mentions more than once to his readers that both Paracelsus and he himself possessed the famous liquid, Alkahest, which he seems to call Ignis Gehennæ due to its great power in dissolving bodies that ordinary fires cannot. He attributes to this liquid, largely based on his own experience, such wonders that if we assume they are all true, I am more of a friend to knowledge than wealth, and I would consider Alkahest a more noble and desirable secret than the Philosopher's Stone itself. He describes how, after digesting a piece of oak charcoal with it for a reasonable time, it turned into two new and distinct liquids that were different in color and position, and that the entire body of the coal was transformed into those liquids, both of which were separable from his immortal Menstruum, which remained as suitable for such operations as before. He also tells us in various parts of his writings that with this powerful, tireless agent, he could dissolve metals, marcasites, stones, and both plant and animal materials of any kind, even glass (when first reduced to powder), and essentially, all kinds of mixed materials in the world into their various similar substances, without any residue or caput mortuum. Finally, we can infer from his statements that the homogeneous substances obtained from mixed materials through his penetrating liquid were often quite different in both number and nature from those into which the same materials are typically divided by common fire. I only need to mention that in our usual analysis of a mixed material, a solid and very fixed substance often remains, sometimes associated with a fixed salt; our author claims that by his method, he could distill all mixed bodies without any caput mortuum, and therefore could make those parts of the mixture volatile, which in conventional analysis would have remained fixed. So if our chemists will not disregard the solemn and repeated testimony of a person acknowledged as one of the greatest spagyrists they can boast of, they cannot deny that there exists in nature another agent capable of analyzing mixed materials less violently and both more genuinely and more universally than fire. And for my part, although I must say on this occasion what (you know) our friend Mr. Boyle often says when asked his opinion about any strange experiment; That those who have seen it have more reason to believe it than those who have not; I have found Helmont to be such a reliable writer, even in several of his improbable experiments (I always except that extravagant treatise De Magnetica Vulnerum Curatione, which some of his friends claim was first published by his enemies) that I think it somewhat harsh to outright deny him, especially regarding what he presents based on his own trials. I've heard from very credible eyewitnesses some things, and seen others myself, that strongly suggest a circulated salt, or a Menstruum(79) (whatever it may be) could, when abstracted from mixed materials, whether mineral, animal, or vegetable, leave them more unlocked than a cautious naturalist would easily believe, that I dare not confidently assess the power of nature and art by that of the Menstruums, and other instruments that notable chemists themselves still tend to Empoly about analyzing bodies; nor deny that a Menstruum could at least obtain some clearly similar substance from this or that particular mixture, differing from any obtainable from the same material by any application of fire. And I'm more hesitant to deny peremptorily that there might be such methods for opening up mixed materials because among the experiments that make me speak so cautiously, there were some where it didn't appear that one of the substances that ordinary fires and Menstruums couldn't separate could retain any trace of the salt that facilitated the separation.

And here, Eleutherius, (sayes Carneades) I should conclude as much of my Discourse as belongs to the first Con(80)sideration I propos’d, but that I foresee, that what I have delivered will appear liable to two such specious Objections, that I cannot safely proceed any further till I have examin’d them.

And here, Eleutherius, (says Carneades) I would conclude what I have to say about the first point I raised, but I realize that what I’ve said may face two convincing objections, so I can’t move on until I’ve looked into them.

And first, one sort of Opposers will be forward to tell me, That they do not pretend by Fire alone to separate out of all compound Bodies their Hypostatical Principles; it being sufficient that the Fire divides them into such, though afterwards they employ other Bodies to collect the similar parts of the Compound; as ’tis known, that though they make use of water to collect the Saline parts of Ashes from the Terrestrial wherewith they are blended, yet it is the Fire only that Incinerates Bodies, and reduces the fix’d part of them into the Salt and Earth, whereof Ashes are made up. This Objection is not, I confess, inconsiderable, and I might in great part allow of it, without granting it to make against me, if I would content my self to answer, that it is not against those that make it that I have been disputing, but against those Vulgar Chymists, who themselves believe, and would fain make others do so, That the Fire is not only(81) an universal, but an adæquate and sufficient Instrument to analyze mixt Bodies with. For as to their Practice of Extracting the fix’d Salt out of Ashes by the Affusion of Water, ’tis obvious to alleadge, that the Water does only assemble together the Salt the Fire had before divided from the Earth: as a Sieve does not further break the Corn, but only bring together into two distinct heaps the Flour and the Bran, whose Corpuscles before lay promiscuously blended together in the Meal. This I say I might alleadge, and thereby exempt my self from the need of taking any farther notice of the propos’d Objection. But not to lose the Rise it may afford me of Illustrating the matter under Consideration, I am content briefly to consider it, as far forth as my present Disquisition may be concern’d in it.

And first, some opponents will readily tell me that they don't claim that fire alone can separate all composite substances into their essential principles; it is enough that fire divides them into such, even though they later use other substances to gather the similar parts of the compound. It’s well-known that while they use water to extract the saline components from the ashes mixed with earth, it is fire alone that incinerates materials, breaking down the fixed part into the salt and earth that make up ashes. I admit this objection is not trivial, and I could largely agree with it without conceding it undermines my argument, if I were to clarify that I am not debating those who make this claim but rather the common chemists who believe, and want others to believe, that fire is not only a universal but also an sufficient and sufficient tool for analyzing mixed substances. Regarding their method of extracting fixed salt from ashes through the addition of water, it is clear to state that water merely collects the salt that fire had already separated from the earth; just as a sieve doesn’t break the grain further but only separates flour and bran into two distinct piles that were previously mixed together in the meal. I say this to highlight my point and relieve myself from needing to address the proposed objection any further. However, rather than overlook the opportunity this gives me to clarify the matter at hand, I am willing to briefly consider it, as far as my current discussion may pertain to it.

Not to repeat then what has been already answer’d, I say farther, that though I am so civil an Adversary, that I will allow the Chymists, after the Fire has done all its work, the use of fair Water to make their Extractions with, in such cases wherein the Water does not cooperate with the Fire to make the Ana(82)lysis; yet since I Grant this but upon Supposition that the Water does only wash off the Saline Particles, which the Fire Alone has Before Extricated in the Analyz’d Body, it will not be Reasonable, that this Concession should Extend to other Liquors that may Add to what they Dissolve, nor so much as to other Cases than those Newly Mentioned: Which Limitation I Desire You would be Pleas’d to Bear in Mind till I shall Anon have Occasion to make Use of it. And This being thus Premis’d, I shall Proceed to Observe,

Not to repeat what has already been answered, I want to add that although I am a courteous opponent and will allow chemists to use clean water for their extractions after fire has done its work, only in cases where the water does not interact with the fire to create the Ana(82)lysis. However, I only allow this under the assumption that the water simply rinses off the saline particles that the fire alone has already extracted from the analyzed substance. Therefore, it wouldn’t be reasonable for this allowance to apply to other liquids that could add to what they dissolve, nor to any cases beyond those just mentioned. I hope you will keep this limitation in mind until I find a chance to reference it again. With that established, I will proceed to note,

First, That Many of the Instances I Propos’d in the Preceding Discourse are Such, that the Objection we are Considering will not at all Reach Them. For Fire can no more with the Assistance of Water than without it Separate any of the Three Principles, either from Gold, Silver, Mercury, or some Others of the Concretes named Above.

First, many of the examples I mentioned in the previous discussion are such that the objection we are considering won't affect them at all. Fire cannot, with or without the help of water, separate any of the three principles from gold, silver, mercury, or some of the other substances I mentioned earlier.

Hence We may Inferre, That Fire is not an Universal Analyzer of all Mixt Bodies, since of Metals and Minerals, wherein Chymists have most Exercis’d Themselves, there Appear scarce Any which they are able to Analyze by Fire,(83) Nay, from which they can Unquestionably Separate so much as any One of their Hypostatical Principles; Which may well Appear no small Disparagement as well to their Hypothesis as to their Pretensions.

Therefore, we can conclude that fire is not a universal analyzer for all mixed substances, as there are hardly any metals and minerals, which chemists have studied the most, that they can successfully analyze with fire,(83) nor can they unarguably separate even one of their fundamental principles. This certainly seems like a significant drawback both to their theory and to their claims.

It will also remain True, notwithstanding the Objection, That there may be Other Wayes than the wonted Analysis by Fire, to Separate from a Compound Body Substances as Homogeneneous as those that Chymists Scruple not to Reckon among their Tria Prima (as some of them, for Brevity Sake, call their Three Principles.)

It will also remain true, despite the objection, that there may be other ways besides the usual Analysis by fire to separate substances that are as uniform as those that chemists don’t hesitate to classify among their Tria Prima (as some of them, for the sake of brevity, call their three principles).

And it Appears, That by Convenient Additaments such Substances may be Separated by the Help of the Fire, as could not be so by the Fire alone: Witness the Sulphur of Antimony.

And it seems that with the right tools, these substances can be separated with fire, something that can't be done with fire alone: just look at the sulfur of antimony.

And Lastly, I must Represent, That since it appears too that the Fire is but One of the Instruments that must be Employ’d in the Resolution of Bodies, We may Reasonably Challenge the Liberty of doing Two Things. For when ever any Menstruum or other Additament is Employ’d, together with the Fire to Obtain a Sulphur or a Salt from(84) a Body, We may well take the Freedom to Examine, whether or no That Menstruum do barely Help to Separate the Principle Obtain’d by It, or whether there Intervene not a Coalition of the Parts of the Body Wrought upon with Those of the Menstruum, whereby the Produc’d Concrete may be Judg’d to Result from the Union of Both. And it will be farther Allowable for Us to Consider, how far any Substance, Separated by the Help of such Additaments, Ought to pass for one of the Tria Prima; since by One Way of Handling the same Mixt Body it may according to the Nature of the Additaments, and the Method of Working upon it, be made to Afford differing Substances from those Obtainable from it by other Additaments, and another Method, nay and (as may appear by what I Formerly told You about Tartar) Differing from any of the Substances into which a Concrete is Divisible by the Fire without Additaments, though perhaps those Additaments do not, as Ingredients, enter the Composition of the Obtained Body, but only Diversify the Operation of the Fire upon the Concrete; and though that(85) Concrete by the Fire alone may be Divided into a Number of Differing Substances, as Great as any of the Chymists that I have met with teach us that of the Elements to be. And having said thus much (sayes Carneades) to the Objection likely to be Propos’d by some Chymists, I am now to Examine that which I Foresee will be Confidently press’d by Divers Peripateticks, who, to Prove Fire to be the true Analyzer of Bodies, will Plead, That it is the very Definition of Heat given by Aristotle, and Generally Received, Congregare Homogenea, & Heterogenea Segregare, to Assemble Things of a Resembling, and Disjoyn those of a Differing Nature. To this I answer, That this Effect is far from being so Essential to Heat, as ’tis Generally Imagin’d; for it rather Seems, that the True and Genuine Property of Heat is, to set a Moving, and thereby to Dissociate the parts of Bodies, and Subdivide them into Minute Particles, without regard to their being Homogeneous or Heterogeneous, as is apparent in the Boyling of Water, the Distillation of Quicksilver, or the Exposing of Bodies to the action of the Fire, whose Parts(86) either Are not (at least in that Degree of Heat Appear not) Dissimilar, where all that the Fire can do, is to Divide the Body into very Minute Parts which are of the same Nature with one another, and with their Totum, as their Reduction by Condensation Evinces. And even when the Fire seems most so Congregare Homogenea, & Segregare Heterogenea, it Produces that Effect but by Accident; For the Fire does but Dissolve the Cement, or rather Shatter the Frame, or [tructure that kept the Heterogeneous Parts of Bodies together, under one Common Form; upon which Dissolution the Component Particles of the Mixt, being Freed and set at Liberty, do Naturally, and oftentimes without any Operation of the Fire, Associate themselves each with its Like, or rather do take those places which their Several Degrees of Gravity and Levity, Fixedness or Volatility (either Natural, or Adventitious from the Impression of the Fire) Assigne them. Thus in the Distillation (for Instance) of Man’s Blood, the Fire do’s First begin to Dissolve the Nexus or Cement of the Body; and then the Water, being the most(87) Volatile, and Easy to be Extracted, is either by the Igneous Atomes, or the Agitation they are put into by the Fire, first carried up, till Forsaken by what carried it up, its Weight sinks it down into the Receiver: but all this while the other Principles of the Concrete Remain Unsever’d, and Require a stronger Degree of Heat to make a Separation of its more Fixt Elements; and therefore the Fire must be Increas’d which Carries over the Volatile Salt and the Spirit, they being, though Beleev’d to be Differing Principles, and though Really of Different Consistency, yet of an almost Equal Volatility. After them, as less Fugitive, comes over the Oyl, and leaves behinde the Earth and the Alcali, which being of an Equal Fixednesse, the Fire Severs them not, for all the Definition of the Schools. And if into a Red-hot Earthen or Iron Retort you cast the Matter to be Distill’d, You may Observe, as I have often done, that the Predominant Fire will Carry up all the Volatile Elements Confusedly in one Fume, which will afterwards take their Places in the Receiver, either according to the Degree of their Gravity, or ac(88)cording to the Exigency of their respective Textures; the Salt Adhering, for the most part, to the Sides and Top, and the Phlegme Fastening it self there too in great Drops, the Oyle and Spirit placing themselves Under, or Above one another, according as their Ponderousness makes them Swim or Sink. For ’tis Observable, that though Oyl or Liquid Sulphur be one of the Elements Separated by this Fiery Analysis, yet the Heat which Accidentally Unites the Particles of the other Volatile Principles, has not alwayes the same Operation on this, there being divers Bodies which Yield Two Oyls, whereof the One sinks to the Bottom of that Spirit on which the other Swims; as I can shew You in some Oyls of the same Deers Blood, which are yet by Me: Nay I can shew you Two Oyls carefully made of the same Parcel of Humane Blood, which not only Differ extreamly in Colour, but Swim upon one another without Mixture, and if by Agitation Confounded will of themselves Divorce again.

And lastly, I have to point out that since it looks like fire is just one of the tools we must use to break down substances, we can reasonably justify doing two things. Whenever any Menstruum or other additive is used along with fire to extract sulfur or salt from(84) a substance, we can confidently investigate whether that Menstruum merely helps to separate the principle obtained from it or if there's actually a combination of the parts of the substance being acted upon and those of the Menstruum, leading to the produced compound being judged as a result of their union. Additionally, we can consider how far any substance that’s separated using such additives should be regarded as one of the Tria Prima; since depending on how the same mixture is handled, it may produce different substances based on the nature of the additives and the method used, and (as I previously mentioned regarding tartar), it can differ from any of the substances into which a compound can be broken down by fire alone without additives, even if those additives don't actually enter the composition of the obtained substance, but rather just alter the fire's operation on the compound. This(85) compound can be divided by fire alone into as many different substances as any chemist I’ve encountered claims about the elements. Having said that (says Carneades) in response to the objection likely to be raised by some chemists, I now want to address the point I anticipate will be confidently pressed by various Peripatetics, who will argue that fire is the true analyzer of substances, citing the very definition of heat given by Aristotle, which is widely accepted, Congregare Homogenea, & Heterogenea Segregare, to gather similar things and separate those of a different nature. My response is that this effect is far from being as essential to heat as is commonly believed; it seems that the true and genuine property of heat is to initiate motion, thereby separating the parts of substances and breaking them down into tiny particles, regardless of whether they are homogeneous or heterogeneous, as is evident in the boiling of water, the distillation of quicksilver, or the exposure of substances to the action of fire, where the parts(86) may not (at least at that degree of heat) appear dissimilar, as all the fire can do is break the substance into very small parts that are similar to each other and to their Totum, as shown by their reduction through condensation. Even when the fire appears to Congregare Homogenea, & Segregare Heterogenea, it achieves that effect only by accident; for the fire merely dissolves the bonds or rather shatters the structure that kept the heterogeneous parts of substances together under one common form; upon this dissolution, the component particles of the mixture, being freed and set free, naturally and often without any action from the fire, group themselves with similar types, or rather they take positions based on their various degrees of heaviness and lightness, stability or volatility (either natural or induced by the fire's influence). Take, for example, the distillation of human blood: the fire first begins to dissolve the Nexus or bond of the body; then the water, being the most(87) volatile and easy to extract, is carried up by the fiery particles or the agitation caused by the heat until, once separated from what was carrying it up, its weight causes it to sink down into the receiver. However, all this time, the other principles of the compound remain unseparated and require a higher temperature to free their more fixed elements; therefore, the fire must be increased to carry over the volatile salt and spirit, even though they are believed to be different principles and are indeed of different consistencies, they have almost equal volatility. After that, the oil comes over, being less volatile, leaving behind the earth and the Alcali, which, being of equal stability, the fire doesn’t separate, despite the teachings of the schools. If you throw the matter to be distilled into a red-hot earthen or iron retort, you may observe, as I often have, that the dominant fire will carry up all the volatile elements together in one fume, which will later settle in the receiver according to their weight or based on their respective textures; the salt sticking mostly to the sides and top, and the phlegm accumulating there in large drops, while the oil and spirit position themselves under or over one another, depending on their density, making them float or sink. It’s notable that even though oil or liquid sulfur is one of the elements separated by this fiery Analysis, the heat that accidentally binds the particles of the other volatile principles does not always have the same effect on this, as there are different substances that yield two oils, one of which sinks beneath the spirit while the other floats; I can show you some oils derived from the same deer’s blood that I have here with me. Furthermore, I can show you two oils carefully made from the same portion of human blood, which not only differ greatly in color but also float on top of one another without mixing, and if agitated, they will separate again on their own.

And that the Fire doth oftentimes divide Bodies, upon the account that some(89) of their Parts are more Fixt, and some more Volatile, how far soever either of these Two may be from a pure Elementary Nature is Obvious enough, if Men would but heed it in the Burning of Wood, which the Fire Dissipates into Smoake and Ashes: For not only the latter of these is Confessedly made up of two such Differing Bodies as Earth and Salt; but the Former being condens’d into that Soot which adheres to our Chimneys, Discovers it self to Contain both Salt and Oyl, and Spirit and Earth, (and some Portion of Phlegme too) which being, all almost, Equally Volatile to that Degree of Fire which Forces them up, (the more Volatile Parts Helping perhaps, as well as the Urgency of the Fire, to carry up the more Fixt ones, as I have often Try’d in Dulcify’d Colcothar, Sublim’d by Sal Armoniack Blended with it) are carried Up together, but may afterwards be Separated by other Degrees of Fire, whose orderly Gradation allowes the Disparity of their Volatileness to Discover it self. Besides, if Differing Bodies United into one Mass be both sufficiently Fixt, the Fire finding no Parts Volatile(90) enough to be Expell’d or carried up, makes no Separation at all; as may appear by a Mixture of Colliquated Silver and Gold, whose Component Metals may be easily Sever’d by Aqua Fortis, or Aqua Regis (according to the Predominancy of the Silver or the Gold) but in the Fire alone, though vehement, the Metals remain unsever’d, the Fire only dividing the Body into smaller Particles (whose Littlenesse may be argu’d from their Fluidity) in which either the little nimble Atoms of Fire, or its brisk and numberless strokes upon the Vessels, hinder Rest and Continuity, without any Sequestration of Elementary Principles. Moreover, the Fire sometimes does not Separate, so much as Unite, Bodies of a differing Nature; provided they be of an almost resembling Fixedness, and have in the Figure of their Parts an Aptness to Coalition, as we see in the making of many Plaisters, Oyntments, &c. And in such Metalline Mixtures as that made by Melting together two parts of clean Brass with one of pure Copper, of which some Ingenious Trades-men cast such curious Patterns (for Gold and Silver Works)(91) as I have sometimes taken great Pleasure to Look upon. Sometimes the Bodies mingled by the Fire are Differing enough as to Fixidity and Volatility, and yet are so combin’d by the first Operation of the Fire, that it self does scarce afterwards Separate them, but only Pulverize them; whereof an Instance is afforded us by the Common Preparation of Mercurius Dulcis, where the Saline Particles of the Vitriol, Sea Salt, and sometimes Nitre, Employ’d to make the Sublimate, do so unite themselves with the Mercurial Particles made use of, first to Make Sublimate, and then to Dulcifie it, that the Saline and Metalline Parts arise together in many successive Sublimations, as if they all made but one Body. And sometimes too the Fire does not only not Sever the Differing Elements of a Body, but Combine them so firmly, that Nature her self does very seldom, if ever, make Unions less Dissoluble. For the Fire meeting with some Bodies exceedingly and almost equally Fixt, instead of making a Separation, makes an Union so strict, that it self, alone, is unable to Dissolve it; As we see, when an Alca(92)lizate Salt and the Terrestrial Residue of the Ashes are Incorporated with pure Sand, and by Vitrification made one permanent Body, (I mean the course or greenish sort of Glass) that mocks the greatest Violence of the Fire, which though able to Marry the Ingredients of it, yet is not able to Divorce them. I can shew you some pieces of Glass which I saw flow down from an Earthen Crucible purposely Expos’d for a good while, with Silver in it, to a very vehement Fire. And some that deal much in the Fusion of Metals Informe me, that the melting of a great part of a Crucible into Glass is no great Wonder in their Furnaces. I remember, I have Observ’d too in the Melting of great Quantities of Iron out of the Oar, by the Help of store of Charcoal (for they Affirm that Sea-Coal will not yield a Flame strong enough) that by the prodigious Vehemence of the Fire, Excited by vast Bellows (made to play by great Wheels turn’d about by Water) part of the Materials Expos’d to it was, instead of being Analyz’d, Colliquated, and turn’d into a Dark, Solid and very Ponderous Glass, and that in such Quan(93)tity, that in some places I have seen the very High-wayes, neer such Iron-works, mended with Heaps of such Lumps of Glasse, instead of Stones and Gravel. And I have also Observ’d, that some kind of Fire-stone it Self, having been employ’d in Furnaces wherein it was expos’d to very strong and lasting Fires, has had all its Fixt Parts so Wrought on by the Fire, as to be Perfectly Vitrifi’d, which I have try’d by Forcing from it Pretty large Pieces of Perfect and Transparent Glass. And lest You might think, Eleutherius, that the Question’d Definition of Heat may be Demonstrated, by the Definition which is wont to be given and Acquiesc’d in, of its contrary Quality, Cold, whose property is taught to be tam Homogenea, quam Heterogenea congregare; Give me leave to represent to You, that neither is this Definition unquestionable; for not to Mention the Exceptions, which a Logician, as such, may Take at it, I Consider that the Union of Heterogeneous Bodies which is Suppos’d to be the Genuine Production of Cold, is not Perform’d by every Degree of Cold. For we see for Instance that in the Urine of(94) Healthy Men, when the Liquor has been Suffer’d a while to stand, the Cold makes a Separation of the Thinner Part from the Grosser, which Subsides to the Bottom, and Growes Opacous there; whereas if the Urinal be Warme, these Parts readily Mingle again, and the whole Liquor becomes Transparent as before. And when, by Glaciation, Wood, Straw, Dust, Water, &c. are Suppos’d to be United into one Lump of Ice, the Cold does not Cause any Real Union or Adunation, (if I may so Speak) of these Bodies, but only Hardening the Aqueous Parts of the Liquor into Ice, the other Bodies being Accidentally Present in that Liquor are frozen up in it, but not Really United. And accordingly if we Expose a Heap of Mony Consisting of Gold, Silver and Copper Coynes, or any other Bodies of Differing Natures, which are Destitute of Aqueous Moisture, Capable of Congelation, to never so intense a Cold, we find not that these Differing Bodies are at all thereby so much as Compacted, much less United together; and even in Liquors Themselves we find Phænomena(95) which Induce us to Question the Definition which we are examining. If Paracelsus his Authority were to be look’t upon as a Sufficient Proof in matters of this Nature, I might here insist on that Process of his, whereby he Teaches that the Essence of Wine may be Sever’d from the Phlegme and Ignoble Part by the Assistance of Congelation: and because much Weight has been laid upon this Process, not only by Paracelsians, but other Writers, some of whom seem not to have perus’d it themselves, I shall give You the entire Passage in the Authors own Words, as I lately found them in the sixth Book of his Archidoxis, an Extract whereof I have yet about me; and it sounds thus. De Vino sciendum est, fæcem phlegmaque ejus esse Mineram, & Vini substantiam esse corpus in quo conservatur Essentia, prout auri in auro latet Essentia. Juxta quod Practicam nobis ad Memoriam ponimus, ut non obliviscamur, ad hunc modum: Recipe Vinum vetustissimum & optimum quod habere poteris, calore saporeque ad placitum, hoc in vas vitreum infundas ut tertiam ejus partem impleat, & sigillo Hermetis occlusum(96) in equino ventre mensibus quatuor, & in continuato calore teneatur qui non deficiat. Quo peracto, Hyeme cum frigus & gelu maxime sæviunt, his per mensem exponatur ut congeletur. Ad hunc modum frigus vini spiritum una cum ejus substantia protrudit in vini centrum, ac separat a phlegmate: Congelatum abjice, quod vero congelatum non est, id Spiritum cum substantia esse judicato. Hunc in Pelicanum positum in arenæ digestione non adeo calida per aliquod tempus manere finito; Postmodum eximito vini Magisterium, de quo locuti sumus.

And that fire often divides bodies because some of their parts are more fixed and some more volatile, it is pretty clear, especially if people would pay attention to it when wood burns, which fire turns into smoke and ashes. For not only is the latter made up of two different bodies, earth and salt, but the former, when condensed into the soot that sticks to our chimneys, shows that it contains both salt and oil, spirit and earth (and some phlegm too). These parts are almost all equally volatile at the degree of fire that forces them up, with the more volatile parts perhaps helping, along with the fire's intensity, to carry the more fixed ones up, as I have often tried with dulcified colcothar, sublimed by sal armoniack mixed with it. They get carried up together but can later be separated by different degrees of fire, whose gradual intensity allows the difference in their volatility to show. Besides, if different bodies combined into one mass are both sufficiently fixed, the fire finds no volatile parts to be expelled or carried up, and thus makes no separation at all. This can be seen in a mixture of melted silver and gold, whose constituent metals can easily be separated by aqua fortis or aqua regis (depending on whether silver or gold predominates), but in the fire alone, even though intense, the metals stay unsplit, with the fire only dividing the body into smaller particles (the smallness of which can be argued from their fluidity), where either the tiny, nimble atoms of fire, or its quick and countless strikes against the vessels, prevent rest and continuity, without any separation of elementary principles. Moreover, fire sometimes unifies bodies of different natures; provided they have almost similar fixedness and a shape that is conducive to combining, as we see in the making of many plasters, ointments, etc. In such metallic mixtures, like that made by melting two parts of clean brass with one part of pure copper, some clever tradesmen cast beautiful patterns (for gold and silver work) (91) that I’ve sometimes enjoyed looking at. Sometimes, the bodies mixed by fire are quite different regarding fixedness and volatility, and yet they are combined so well by the initial action of the fire that it hardly separates them afterward, just pulverizes them; a good example of this is the common preparation of mercurius dulcis, where the saline particles of vitriol, sea salt, and sometimes nitre used to make the sublime, unite with the mercurial particles used first to make sublime and then to dulcify it, so that the saline and metalline parts rise together in many successive sublimations, as if they all formed one body. Sometimes, the fire does not just fail to separate the different elements of a body, but combines them so firmly that nature herself very rarely, if ever, makes unions less soluble. For when fire encounters some bodies that are extremely and almost equally fixed, instead of making a separation, it creates an union so strong that the fire alone is unable to dissolve it. This can be seen when an alkaline salt and the terrestrial residue from ashes are incorporated with pure sand, becoming one permanent body (I mean the coarse or greenish type of glass) that withstands the most intense fire, which, although it can mix the ingredients, cannot separate them. I can show you some pieces of glass that I saw flow down from an earthen crucible purposefully exposed for a long time with silver in it to a very intense fire. Those who work a lot with metal fusion inform me that having part of a crucible melt into glass is no great wonder in their furnaces. I remember observing in the melting of large quantities of iron from the ore, aided by a lot of charcoal (since they say sea-coal doesn't produce a flame strong enough) that due to the enormous intensity of the fire, excited by vast bellows (operated by large wheels turned by water), part of the exposed materials was not analyzed but melted and turned into a dark, solid, and very heavy glass, so much so that in some places I have seen the very roads near ironworks repaired with heaps of such glass lumps instead of stones and gravel. I have also observed that some types of firestone, having been used in furnaces exposed to extremely strong and lasting fires, had all their fixed parts so altered by the fire that they became completely vitrified, which I tried by forcing out fairly large pieces of perfect and transparent glass. And lest you think, Eleutherius, that the questioned definition of heat can be demonstrated by the definition usually given and accepted regarding its opposite quality, cold, whose property is said to be tam homogenea, quam heterogenea congregare; let me show you that this definition is also questionable. Not to mention the exceptions that a logician might take with it, I consider that the union of heterogeneous bodies which is supposed to be the genuine production of cold is not accomplished by every degree of cold. For instance, we see that in the urine of healthy men, when the liquid has been allowed to sit for a while, the cold separates the thinner part from the thicker, which settles at the bottom and becomes opaque; whereas if the urine is warm, these parts readily mix again, and the entire liquid becomes transparent as before. When wood, straw, dust, water, etc., are supposed to unite into one lump of ice by freezing, the cold does not create any real union or adhesion (if I may put it that way) of these bodies but only hardens the aqueous parts of the liquid into ice, while the other bodies are accidentally present in the liquid and freeze within it but are not truly united. Accordingly, if we expose a pile of coins made of gold, silver, and copper, or any other bodies of differing natures, which lack aqueous moisture capable of freezing, to even the most intense cold, we find that these differing bodies are not compacted together, much less united. Even in liquids themselves, we find phenomena (95) that lead us to question the definition we are examining. If Paracelsus' authority were to be viewed as sufficient proof in matters like this, I could emphasize his process, whereby he teaches that the essence of wine can be separated from the phlegm and the base part with the help of freezing. And because much weight has been placed on this process, not only by Paracelsians but other authors, some of whom seem not to have read it themselves, I shall give you the entire passage in the author's own words, as I recently found it in the sixth book of his Archidoxis, an extract of which I still have; and it goes like this. About wine, it should be noted that its sediment and phlegm are the dross, and that the essence of wine is the body in which the essence is preserved, just as the essence of gold lies hidden in gold. Accordingly, we must remember this practical note so that we do not forget: Take the oldest and best wine you can find, based on heat and flavor to your liking, pour it into a glass vessel until it fills a third of it, and seal it hermetically for four months in the uterine belly, keeping it at a constant heat. When this is done, during winter when the cold and frost are particularly harsh, expose it for a month so that it freezes. In this manner, the cold extracts the spirit of the wine along with its body and separates it from the phlegm: discard the frozen part, and judge that what is not frozen is the spirit with the body. Place this in a pelican during sand digestion at a not-so-hot temperature for some time; then separately take the master of the wine, which we have discussed.

But I dare not Eleu. lay much Weight upon this Process, because I have found that if it were True, it would be but seldom Practicable in this Country upon the best Wine: for Though this present Winter hath been Extraordinary Cold, yet in very Keen Frosts accompanied with lasting Snowes, I have not been able in any Measure to Freeze a thin Vial full of Sack; and even with Snow and Salt I could Freeze little more then the Surface of it; and I suppose Eleu. that tis not every Degree of Cold that is Capable of Congealing Liquors, which is able to make such an Analysis(97) (if I may so call it) of them by Separating their Aqueous and Spirituous Parts; for I have sometimes, though not often, frozen severally, Red-wine, Urine and Milk, but could not Observe the expected Separation. And the Dutch-Men that were forc’d to Winter in that Icie Region neer the Artick Circle, call’d Nova Zembla, although they relate, as we shall see below, that there was a Separation of Parts made in their frozen Beer about the middle of November, yet of the Freezing of their Back in December following they give but this Account: Yea and our Sack, which is so hot, was Frozen very hard, so that when we were every Man to have his part, we were forc’d to melt it in the Fire; which we shar’d every second Day, about half a Pinte for a Man, wherewith we were forc’d to sustain our selves. In which words they imply not, that their Back was divided by the Frost into differing Substances, after such manner as their Beer had been. All which notwithstanding, Eleu. suppose that it may be made to appear, that even Cold sometimes may Congregare Homogenea, & Heterogenea Segregare: and to Manifest this I may tell you, that I did once, pur(98)posely cause to be Decocted in fair Water a Plant abounding with Sulphureous and Spirituous Parts, and having expos’d the Decoction to a keen North-Wind in a very Frosty Night, I observ’d, that the more Aqueous Parts of it were turn’d by the next Morning into Ice, towards the innermost part of which, the more Agile and Spirituous parts, as I then conjectur’d, having Retreated, to shun as much as might be their Environing Enemy, they had there preserv’d themselves unfrozen in the Form of a high colour’d Liquor, the Aqueous and Spirituous parts having been so sleightly (Blended rather than) United in the Decoction, that they were easily Separable by such a Degree of Cold as would not have been able to have Divorc’d the Parts of Urine or Wine, which by Fermentation or Digestion are wont, as Tryal has inform’d me, to be more intimately associated each with other. But I have already intimated, Eleutherius, that I shall not Insist on this Experiment, not only because, having made it but once I may possibly have been mistaken in it; but also (and that principally) because of that much more full and eminent(99) Experiment of the Separative Virtue of extream Cold, that was made, against their Wills, by the foremention’d Dutch men that Winter’d in Nova Zembla; the Relation of whose Voyage being a very scarce Book, it will not be amiss to give you that Memorable part of it which concerns our present Theme, as I caus’d the Passage to be extracted out of the Englished Voyage it self.

But I don’t want to put too much emphasis on this process, because I've learned that if it were true, it would rarely be practical in this country with the best wine. Even though this winter has been exceptionally cold, during severe frosts with lasting snow, I have not been able to freeze a thin vial full of sack at all; and even using snow and salt, I could only freeze the surface. I suppose it's not every degree of cold that can freeze liquids enough to separate their watery and spirituous parts; though I have sometimes frozen red wine, urine, and milk separately, I couldn’t see the expected separation. The Dutch men who had to winter in that icy region near the Arctic Circle called Nova Zembla, although they report, as we will see below, that there was a separation of parts in their frozen beer around mid-November, still describe the freezing of their _Back_ in December with this account: "Yes, and our sack, which is so hot, froze very hard, so that when we were all to have our share, we had to melt it in the fire; which we shared every other day, about half a pint for each person, with which we had to sustain ourselves." In this, they imply that their _Back_ was not divided by the frost into different substances, as their beer was. Nonetheless, I believe it can be shown that even cold can sometimes gather homogeneous substances and separate heterogeneous ones: and to demonstrate this, I can tell you that I once intentionally boiled a plant rich in sulfurous and spirituous parts in clear water, and after exposing the decoction to a sharp north wind on a very frosty night, I noticed that the more watery parts had turned into ice by the next morning. Towards the innermost part of the ice, the more agile and spirituous parts, as I then guessed, had retreated to avoid as much as possible their surrounding enemy, and they preserved themselves unfrozen in the form of a highly colored liquid. The aqueous and spirituous parts had been so slightly blended rather than united in the decoction that they were easily separable by a degree of cold that wouldn't have divorced the parts of urine or wine, which are usually more intimately associated through fermentation or digestion, as I’ve been informed through trial. But I have already mentioned, Eleutherius, that I won’t insist on this experiment, not only because I’ve done it only once and may have been mistaken, but also (and primarily) because of that much more complete and notable experiment of the separating power of extreme cold, which was done against their will by the previously mentioned Dutch men who wintered in Nova Zembla; the account of whose voyage, being a very rare book, I think it’s worth sharing the memorable part concerning our present topic, as I had the passage extracted from the English version of the voyage itself.

Gerard de Veer, John Cornelyson and Others, sent out of Amsterdam, Anno Dom. 1596. being forc’d by unseasonable Weather to Winter in Nova Zembla, neer Ice-Haven; on the thirteenth of October, Three of us (sayes the Relation) went aboard the Ship, and laded a Sled with Beer; but when we had laden it, thinking to go to our House with it, suddenly there arose such a Winde, and so great a Storm and Cold, that we were forc’d to go into the Ship again, because we were not able to stay without; and we could not get the Beer into the Ship again, but were forc’d to let it stand without upon the Sled: the Fourteenth, as we came out of the Ship, we found the Barrel of Beer(100) standing upon the Sled, but it was fast frozen at the Heads; yet by reason of the great Cold, the Beer that purg’d out froze as hard upon the Side of the Barrel, as if it had been glu’d thereon: and in that sort we drew it to our House, and set the Barrel an end, and drank it up; but first we were forc’d to melt the Beer, for there was scarce any unfrozen Beer in the barrel; but in that thick Yiest that was unfrozen lay the Strength of the Beer, so that it was too strong to drink alone, and that which was frozen tasted like Water; and being melted we Mix’d one with the other, and so drank it; but it had neither Strength nor Taste.”

Gerard de Veer, John Cornelyson, and others, sent out from Amsterdam, Anno Dom. 1596, were forced by bad weather to spend the winter in Nova Zembla, near Ice-Haven. On the thirteenth of October, three of us (as the account states) went aboard the ship and loaded a sled with beer. However, after loading it, we intended to take it to our house, but suddenly a strong wind and a severe storm hit, forcing us back into the ship because we couldn't stay outside. We couldn’t get the beer back onto the ship and had to leave it outside on the sled. On the fourteenth, when we came out of the ship, we found the barrel of beer(100) still sitting on the sled, but it was frozen solid at the ends. Due to the extreme cold, the beer that had spilled out froze to the side of the barrel as if it were glued there. We then pulled it to our house, set the barrel upright, and drank it; but first, we had to melt it because hardly any beer was left unfrozen in the barrel. The thick yeast that remained unfrozen contained the strength of the beer, making it too strong to drink on its own, while the frozen part tasted like water. Once melted, we mixed the two together and drank it, but it had neither strength nor flavor.

And on this Occasion I remember, that having the last very Sharp Winter purposely try’d to Freeze, among other Liquors, some Beer moderately strong, in Glass Vessels, with Snow and Salt, I observ’d, that there came out of the Neck a certain thick Substance, which, it seems, was much better able then the rest of the Liquor (that I found turn’d into Ice) to resist a Frost, and which, by its Colour and consistence seem’d ma(101)festly enough to be Yiest, whereat, I confess, I somewhat marvail’d, because I did not either discerne by the Taste, or find by Enquiry, that the Beer was at all too New to be very fit to be Drank. I might confirm the Dutchmens Relation, by what happen’d a while since to a neere Friend of mine, who complained to me, that having Brew’d some Beer or Ale for his own drinking in Holland (where he then dwelt) the Keenness of the late bitter Winter froze the Drink so as to reduce it into Ice, and a small Proportion of a very Strong and Spirituous Liquor. But I must not entertain you any longer concerning Cold, not onely because you may think I have but lost my way into a Theme which does not directly belong to my present Undertaking; but because I have already enlarg’d my self too much upon the first Consideration I propos’d, though it appears so much a Paradox, that it seem’d to Require that I should say much to keep it from being thought a meere Extravagance; yet since I Undertook but to make the common Assumption(102) of our Chymists and Aristotelians appear Questionable, I hope I have so Perform’d that Task, that I may now Proceed to my Following Considerations, and Insist lesse on them than I have done on the First.

And on this occasion, I remember that during the last very harsh winter, I purposely tried to freeze some moderately strong beer in glass containers using snow and salt. I noticed that a thick substance came out of the neck of the bottles, which seemed much better able than the rest of the liquid (which I found had turned into ice) to resist the cold. Its color and consistency appeared to be yeast, which surprised me because I couldn't tell by the taste and found out through inquiry that the beer was not too new to be drinkable. I could back up what the Dutchman said with something that happened recently to a close friend of mine, who told me that after brewing some beer or ale for himself in Holland (where he was living at the time), the harshness of the recent bitter winter froze the drink to the point of turning it into ice, leaving only a small amount of very strong and spirited liquor. But I shouldn’t keep you any longer on the subject of cold, not only because you might think I’ve strayed from a topic that doesn’t directly relate to my current task, but also because I’ve already gone on too long about the first point I raised. It seems so much like a paradox that I felt I had to say a lot to prevent it from being seen as mere nonsense. However, since my aim was just to make the common assumptions of our chemists and Aristotelians questionable, I hope I’ve accomplished that well enough to move on to my next points and spend less time on them than I did on the first.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.


The Second Part.



THe Second Consideration I Desire to have Notice Taken of, is This, That it is not so Sure, as Both Chymists and Aristotelians are wont to Think it, that every Seemingly Similar or Distinct Substance that is Separated from a Body by the Help of the Fire, was Pre existent in it as a Principle or Element of it.


The second thing I want to point out is that it’s not as certain, as both chemists and Aristotelians tend to believe, that every substance that appears similar or distinct, which is separated from a body using fire, was originally present in it as a principle or element.

That I may not make this Paradox a Greater then I needs must, I will First Briefly Explain what the Proposition means, before I proceed to Argue for it.

That I won’t make this Paradox any greater than it has to be, I will first briefly explain what the Proposition means before I move on to argue for it.

And I suppose You will easily Believe(104) That I do not mean that any thing is separable from a Body by Fire, that was not Materially pre-existent in it; for it Far Exceeds the power of Meerly Naturall Agents, and Consequently of the Fire, to produce anew, so Much as one Atome of Matter, which they can but Modifie and Alter, not Create; which is so Obvious a Truth, that almost all Sects of Philosophers have Deny’d the Power of producing Matter to Second Causes; and the Epicureans and some Others have Done the Like, in Reference to their Gods themselves.

And I guess you'll easily believe(104) that I don’t mean anything can be separated from a body by fire that wasn’t already physically present in it; because it far exceeds the ability of merely natural forces—and therefore of fire—to create even a single atom of matter. They can only modify and change it, not create it. This is such an obvious truth that nearly all schools of philosophers have denied that second causes can produce matter; and the Epicureans and some others have done the same regarding their own gods.

Nor does the Proposition peremptorily Deny but that some Things Obtain’d by the Fire from a Mixt Body, may have been more then barely Materially pre-existent in it, since there are Concretes, which before they be Expos’d to the Fire afford us several Documents of their abounding, some with Salt, and Others with Sulphur. For it will serve the present Turn, if it appear that diverse things Obtain’d from a Mixt Body expos’d to the Fire, were not its Ingredients Before: for if this be made to appear it, will be Rationall e(105)nough to suspect that Chymists may Decieve themselves, and Others, in concluding Resolutely and Universally, those Substances to be the Elementary Ingredients of Bodies barely separated by the Fire, of which it yet may be Doubted Whether there be such or No; at least till some other Argument then that drawn from the Analysis be Brought to resolve the Doubt.

Nor does the proposition completely deny that some things obtained from a mixed substance might have existed in more than just a material form before being exposed to fire. There are compounds that, before being exposed to fire, provide us with evidence of their richness—some containing salt and others containing sulfur. It suffices to show that various things obtained from a mixed substance exposed to fire were not its original ingredients. This leads us to be rational enough to suspect that chemists can mislead themselves and others by definitively concluding that these substances are the elemental ingredients of bodies that have simply been separated by fire, especially when it's still uncertain whether such ingredients exist or not. At the very least, we need to have a stronger argument than just an analysis to resolve this doubt.

That then which I Mean by the Proposition I am Explaining, is, That it may without Absurdity be Doubted whether or no the Differing Substances Obtainable from a Concrete Dissipated by the Fire were so Exsistent in it in that Forme (at least as to their minute Parts) wherein we find them when the Analysis is over, that the Fire did only Dis-joyne and Extricate the Corpuscles of one Principle from those of the other wherewith before they were Blended.

What I mean by the proposition I'm explaining is that it can be reasonably questioned whether the different substances obtained from a material broken down by fire were actually present in that form (at least regarding their tiny parts) when we find them after the analysis is complete, and that the fire simply separated and released the particles of one principle from those of the other with which they were previously mixed.

Having thus Explain’d my Proposition, I shall endeavour to do two things, to prove it; The first of which is to shew that such Substances as Chymists call Principles May be produc’d De novo (as they speak.) And the other is to(106) make it probable that by the Fire we may Actually obtain from some Mixt Bodies such Substances as were not in the Newly Expounded sence, pre-existent in them.

Having explained my proposition, I will try to do two things: first, to prove it; and the second is to make it likely that substances, which chemists call principles, can be produced De novo (as they say). The other point is to(106) show that through fire, we can actually obtain substances from certain mixed bodies that were not pre-existing in them in the newly explained sense.

To begin then with the First of these, I Consider that if it be as true as ’tis probable, that Compounded Bodies Differ from One Another but in the Various Textures Resulting from the Bigness, Shape, Motion, and contrivance of their smal parts, It will not be Irrationall to conceive that one and the same parcel of the Universal Matter may by Various Alterations and Contextures be brought to Deserve the Name, somtimes of a Sulphureous, and sometimes of a Terrene, or Aqueous Body. And this I could more largely Explicate, but that our Friend Mr. Boyle has promis’d us something about Qualities, wherein the Theme I now willingly Resign him, Will I Question not be Studiously Enquired into. Wherefore what I shall now advance in favour of what I have lately Deliver’d shall be Deduc’d from Experiments made Divers Years since. The first of which would have been much more(107) considerable, but that by some intervening Accidents I was Necessitated to lose the best time of the year, for a trial of the Nature of that I design’d; it being about he middle of May before I was able to begin an Experiment which should have then been two moneths old; but such as it was, it will not perhaps be impertinent to Give You this Narrative of it. At the time newly Mention’d, I caus’d My Gardiner (being by Urgent Occasions Hinder’d from being present myself) to dig out a convenient quantity of good Earth, and dry it well in an Oven, to weigh it, to put it in an Earthen pot almost level with the Surface of the ground, and to set in it a selected seed he had before received from me, for that purpose, of Squash, which is an Indian kind of Pompion, that Growes apace; this seed I Ordered Him to Water only with Rain or Spring Water. I did not (when my Occasions permitted me to visit it) without delight behold how fast it Grew, though unseasonably sown; but the Hastning Winter Hinder’d it from attaining any thing neer its due and Wonted magnitude; (for I found(108) the same Autumn, in my Garden, some of those plants, by Measure, as big about as my Middle) and made me order the having it taken Up; Which about the Middle of October was carefully Done by the same Gardiner, who a while after sent me this account of it; I have Weighed the Pompion with the Stalk and Leaves, all which Weighed three pound wanting a quarter; Then I took the Earth, baked it as formerly, and found it just as much as I did at First, which made me think I had not dry’d it Sufficiently: then I put it into the Oven twice More, after the Bread was Drawn, and Weighed it the Second time, but found it Shrink little or nothing.

To start with the first point, I consider that if it's as true as it seems likely that combined bodies differ from one another only in the various textures created by the size, shape, movement, and arrangement of their small parts, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that one and the same piece of universal matter could, through various changes and arrangements, earn the name sometimes of a sulfurous body and other times of a earthy or watery body. I could explain this in more detail, but our friend Mr. Boyle has promised us something about qualities, so I will gladly leave this topic to him, as I have no doubt it will be thoroughly examined. Therefore, what I will now present to support what I have recently stated will be based on experiments I conducted several years ago. The first of these would have been far more noteworthy, but due to some unexpected circumstances, I was forced to lose the best time of year for the trial I intended; it was only around the middle of May that I was able to start an experiment that should have been two months old by then; however, as it is, it may not be irrelevant to share the narrative of it. At the time mentioned, I had my gardener (as I was unable to be present myself due to urgent matters) dig up a suitable amount of good soil, dry it thoroughly in an oven to weigh it, place it in an earthen pot almost level with the ground, and plant a chosen seed he had previously received from me for this purpose, which was squash, a type of pumpkin that grows quickly; I instructed him to water it only with rain or spring water. When I could visit it, I took pleasure in seeing how quickly it grew, despite being sown at the wrong time; however, the hastening winter prevented it from reaching anything near its usual size (for that autumn, I found some of those plants in my garden were about as big around as my middle), and I instructed him to dig it up. This was carefully done around the middle of October, and a little later, he sent me this report: I have weighed the pumpkin with the stalk and leaves, which all weighed three pounds minus a quarter. Then I took the soil, baked it as before, and found it weighed exactly the same as it did at first, which made me think I hadn’t dried it sufficiently: then I put it in the oven two more times after the bread was taken out, and I weighed it a second time, but found it shrank little or not at all.

But to deal Candidly with You, Eleutherius, I must not conceal from You the Event of another Experiment of this Kind made this present Summer, wherein the Earth seems to have been much more Wasted; as may appear by the following account, Lately sent me by the same Gardiner, in these Words. To give You an Account of your Cucumbers, I have Gain’d two Indifferent Fair Ones, the Weight of them is ten Pound and a Halfe, the Branches with the(109) Roots Weighed four Pounds wanting two Ounces; and when I had weighed them I took the Earth, and bak’d it in several small Earthen Dishes in an Oven; and when I had so done, I found the Earth wanted a Pound and a halfe of what it was formerly; yet I was not satisfi’d, doubting the Earth was not dry: I put it into an Oven the Second Time, (after the Bread was drawn) and after I had taken it out and weighed it, I found it to be the Same Weight: So I Suppose there was no Moisture left in the Earth. Neither do I think that the Pound and Halfe that was wanting was Drawn away by the Cucumber but a great Part of it in the Ordering was in Dust (and the like) wasted: (the Cucumbers are kept by themselves, lest You should send for them.) But yet in this Tryal, Eleutherius, it appears that though some of the Earth, or rather the dissoluble Salt harbour’d in it, were wasted, the main Body of the Plant consisted of Transmuted Water. And I might add, that a year after I caus’d the formerly mentioned Experiment, touching large Pompions, to be reiterated, with so good success, that if my memory does not much mis-inform me, it did not only much surpass any(110) that I made before, but seem’d strangely to conclude what I am pleading for; though (by reason I have unhappily lost the particular Account my Gardiner writ me up of the Circumstances) I dare not insist upon them. The like Experiment may be as conveniently try’d with the seeds of any Plant, whose growth is hasty, and its size Bulky. If Tobacco will in These Cold Climates Grow well in Earth undung’d, it would not be amiss to make a Tryal with it; for ’tis an annual Plant, that arises where it prospers, sometimes as high as a Tall Man; and I have had leaves of it in my Garden neer a Foot and a Halfe broad. But the next time I Try this Experiment, it shall be with several seeds of the same sort, in the same pot of Earth, that so the event may be the more Conspicuous. But because every Body has not Conveniency of time and place for this Experiment neither, I made in my Chamber, some shorter and more Expeditions Tryals. I took a Top of Spearmint, about an Inch Long, and put it into a good Vial full of Spring water, so as the upper part of the Mint was above the neck of the Glass, and(111) the lower part Immers’d in the Water; within a few Dayes this Mint began to shoot forth Roots into the Water, and to display its Leaves, and aspire upwards; and in a short time it had numerous Roots and Leaves, and these very strong and fragrant of the Odour of the Mint: but the Heat of my Chamber, as I suppose, kill’d the Plant when it was grown to have a pretty thick Stalk, which with the various and ramified Roots, which it shot into the Water as if it had been Earth, presented in its Transparent Flower-pot a Spectacle not unpleasant to behold. The like I try’d with sweet Marjoram, and I found the Experiment succeed also, though somewhat more slowly, with Balme and Peniroyal, to name now no other Plants. And one of these Vegetables, cherish’d only by Water, having obtain’d a competent Growth, I did, for Tryals sake, cause to be Distill’d in a small Retort, and thereby obtain’d some Phlegme, a little Empyreumaticall Spirit, a small Quantity of adust Oyl, and a Caput mortuum; which appearing to be a Coal concluded it to consist of Salt and Earth: but(112) the Quantity of it was so small that I forbore to Calcine it. The Water I us’d to nourish this Plant was not shifted nor renewed; and I chose Spring-water rather than Rain-water, because the latter is more discernably a kinde of πανσπερμια, which, though it be granted to be freed from grosser Mixtures, seems yet to Contain in it, besides the Steams of several Bodies wandering in the Air, which may be suppos’d to impregnate it, a certain Spirituous Substance, which may be Extracted out of it, and is by some mistaken for the Spirit of the World Corporify’d, upon what Grounds, and with what Probability, I may elsewhere perchance, but must not now, Discourse to you.

But to be honest with you, Eleutherius, I can't hide from you the outcome of another experiment of this kind I conducted this summer, where the soil seems to have been used up much more; as the following account recently sent to me by the same gardener shows, in these words: To update you on your cucumbers, I managed to get two decent-sized ones, weighing ten and a half pounds. The branches with the (109) roots weighed four pounds short of two ounces; and after weighing them, I took the soil and baked it in several small earthen dishes in an oven. After doing that, I found the soil was missing a pound and a half of what it had been initially; yet I wasn't satisfied, doubting that the soil wasn't dry enough. I put it in the oven a second time (after removing the bread), and after weighing it again, I found it was the same weight. So I assume there was no moisture left in the soil. I also doubt that the pound and a half that was missing was taken away by the cucumber; rather, a significant part of it was wasted in dust (and similar things) during the handling. (The cucumbers are kept separately, in case you want to send for them.) However, in this trial, Eleutherius, it shows that although some soil, or rather the soluble salt contained in it, was wasted, the main part of the plant consisted of transformed water. I should mention that a year after, I had the earlier mentioned experiment regarding large pumpkins repeated, with such good results that, if my memory isn’t too faulty, it not only surpassed any (110) I did before but also seemed to oddly conclude what I'm arguing for; though (unfortunately, as I have lost the specific details my gardener wrote about the circumstances), I can't emphasize those. A similar experiment can easily be tried with the seeds of any plant that grows quickly and is bulky. If tobacco can grow well in these cold climates in untreated soil, it would be worthwhile to try that out; it's an annual plant that can rise as high as a tall man, and I've had leaves in my garden close to a foot and a half wide. But next time I try this experiment, I will use several seeds of the same type in the same pot of soil so the results can be clearer. However, since not everyone has the time and place to do this experiment either, I made some shorter and more convenient trials in my room. I took a top of spearmint about an inch long and put it in a good vial full of spring water, so the upper part of the mint was above the neck of the glass, and (111) the lower part was immersed in the water; within a few days, this mint began to sprout roots into the water and displayed its leaves, pushing upwards; and in a short time, it developed numerous strong and fragrant roots and leaves. But the heat in my room, I assume, killed the plant when it had grown a fairly thick stalk, which, along with the various and branching roots it put into the water as if it were soil, presented a sight that wasn't unpleasant to look at in its transparent flower pot. I tried a similar approach with sweet marjoram, and while it succeeded too, it grew a bit slower, and I also tried it with balm and pennyroyal, to name a few other plants. And one of these plants, nourished only by water, having grown sufficiently, I had distilled in a small retort for trial purposes, yielding some phlegm, a little empyreumatic spirit, a small amount of burnt oil, and a caput mortuum; which, appearing as coal, seemed to consist of salt and earth. But (112) the quantity was so small that I refrained from calcining it. The water I used to nourish this plant wasn’t changed or renewed; and I chose spring water over rainwater because the latter is distinctly a type of sperm diversity, which, although it's acknowledged to be free from coarser mixtures, still seems to contain, aside from the vapors of various bodies wandering in the air that may impregnate it, a certain spirit-like substance that can be extracted from it, and is mistakenly thought by some to be the spirit of the world made corporeal, about what grounds, and with what probability, I may discuss with you elsewhere, but I can't do so now.

But perhaps I might have sav’d a great part of my Labour. For I finde that Helmont (an Author more considerable for his Experiments than many Learned men are pleas’d to think him) having had an Opportunity to prosecute an Experiment much of the same nature with those I have been now speaking of, for five Years together, obtain’d at the end of that time so notable a Quantity of Transmuted Water,(113) that I should scarce Think it fit to have his Experiment, and Mine Mention’d together, were it not that the Length of Time Requisite to this may deterr the Curiosity of some, and exceed the leasure of Others; and partly, that so Paradoxical a Truth as that which these Experiments seem to hold forth, needs to be Confirm’d by more Witnesses then one, especially since the Extravagancies and Untruths to be met with in Helmonts Treatise of the Magnetick Cure of Wounds, have made his Testimonies suspected in his other Writings, though as to some of the Unlikely matters of Fact he delivers in them, I might safely undertake to be his Compurgator. But that Experiment of his which I was mentioning to You, he sayes, was this. He took 200 pound of Earth dry’d in an Oven, and having put it into an Earthen Vessel and moisten’d it with Raine water he planted in it the Trunk of a Willow tree of five pound Weight; this he Water’d, as need required, with Rain or with Distill’d Water; and to keep the Neighbouring Earth from getting into the Vessell, he employ’d a plate of Iron tinn’d over and per(114)forated with many holes. Five years being efflux’d, he took out the Tree and weighed it, and (with computing the leaves that fell during four Autumnes) he found it to weigh 169 pound, and about three Ounces. And Having again Dry’d the Earth it grew in, he found it want of its Former Weight of 200 Pound, about a couple only of Ounces; so that 164 pound of the Roots, Wood, and Bark, which Constituted the Tree, seem to have Sprung from the Water. And though it appears not that Helmont had the Curiosity to make any Analysis of this Plant, yet what I lately told You I did to One of the Vegetables I nourish’d with Water only, will I suppose keep You from Doubting that if he had Distill’d this Tree, it would have afforded him the like Distinct Substances as another Vegetable of the same kind. I need not Subjoyne that I had it also in my thoughts to try how Experiments to the same purpose with those I related to You would succeed in other Bodies then Vegetables, because importunate Avocations having hitherto hinder’d me from putting my Design in Practise, I(115) can yet speak but Confecturally of the Success: but the best is, that the Experiments already made and mention’d to you need not the Assistance of new Ones, to Verifie as much as my present task makes it concern me to prove by Experiments of this Nature.

But I might have saved a lot of my effort. I find that Helmont (an author more significant for his experiments than many learned people care to admit) had the chance to conduct a similar experiment for five years. At the end of that time, he obtained such a remarkable quantity of transformed water,(113) that I wouldn’t think it right to mention his experiment alongside mine, except for the fact that the lengthy duration required for this might discourage some curiosity and exceed the free time of others. Also, such a paradoxical truth as these experiments suggest needs to be confirmed by more than one witness, especially since the extravagances and untruths found in Helmont's treatise on the magnetic cure of wounds have cast doubt on his testimonies in other writings, although I could safely defend him regarding some of the unlikely facts he presents. The experiment I mentioned was this: He took 200 pounds of earth dried in an oven, placed it in an earthen vessel, and moistened it with rainwater. He then planted a willow tree trunk weighing five pounds in it. He watered it as needed with either rain or distilled water, and to prevent nearby soil from entering the vessel, he used a tinned plate of iron that was perforated with many holes. After five years, he removed the tree and weighed it, and (accounting for the leaves that fell over four autumns) he found it weighed 169 pounds and about three ounces. After drying the soil it grew in again, he discovered it had lost only a couple of ounces from its original weight of 200 pounds, indicating that 164 pounds of the roots, wood, and bark that made up the tree seemed to have come from the water. And while it appears that Helmont wasn’t curious enough to analyze this plant, what I recently told you about what I did with one of the plants I nourished solely with water should keep you from doubting that if he had distilled this tree, it would have produced similar distinct substances as another plant of the same kind. I should mention that I also considered testing how experiments with similar goals would work on other bodies besides plants. However, since pressing demands have prevented me from putting my plan into action, I can only speak conjecturally about the success. But the good news is that the experiments already conducted and mentioned to you don't require new ones to verify what I'm trying to prove through experiments of this kind.

One would suspect (sayes Eleutherius after his long silence) by what You have been discoursing, that You are not far from Helmonts Opinion about the Origination of Compound Bodies, and perhaps too dislike not the Arguments which he imployes to prove it.

One might guess (says Eleutherius after his long silence) from what you’ve been discussing that you’re not far from Helmont’s opinion on the origin of compound bodies, and perhaps you also don’t mind the arguments he uses to support it.

What Helmontian Opinion, and what Arguments do you mean (askes Carneades.)

What do you mean by Helmontian opinion and what arguments are you referring to? (asks Carneades.)

What You have been Newly Discoursing (replies Eleutherius) tells us, that You cannot but know that this bold and Acute Spagyrist scruples not to Assert that all mixt Bodies spring from one Element; and that Vegetables, Animals, Marchasites, Stones, Metalls, &c. are Materially but simple Water disguis’d into these Various Formes, by the plastick or Formative Virtue of their seeds. And as for his Reasons you may find divers of them scatter’d up and(216) down his writings; the considerabl’st of which seem to be these three; The Ultimate Reduction of mixt Bodies into Insipid Water, the Vicissitude of the supposed Elements, and the production of perfectly mixt Bodies out of simple Water. And first he affirmes that the Sal circulatus Paracelsi, or his Liquor Alkahest, does adequately resolve Plants, Animals, and Mineralls into one Liquor or more, according to their several internall Disparities of Parts (without Caput Mortuum, or the Destruction of their seminal Virtues;) and that the Alkahest being abstracted from these Liquors in the same weight and Virtue wherewith it Dissolv’d them, the Liquors may by frequent Cohobations from chalke or some other idoneous matter, be Totally depriv’d of their seminal Endowments, and return at last to their first matter, Insipid Water; some other wayes he proposes here and there, to divest some particular Bodies of their borrow’d shapes, and make them remigrate to their first Simplicity. The second Topick whence Helmont drawes his Arguments, to prove Water to be the Material cause of Mixt Bodies, I told(117) You was this, that the other suppos’d Elements may be transmuted into one another. But the Experiments by him here and there produc’d on this Occasion, are so uneasie to be made and to be judg’d of, that I shall not insist on them; not to mention, that if they were granted to be true, his Inference from them is somewhat disputable; and therefore I shall pass on to tell You, That as, in his First Argument, our Paradoxical Author endeavours to prove Water the Sole Element of Mixt Bodies, by their Ultimate Resolution, when by his Alkahest, or some other conquering Agent, the Seeds have been Destroy’d, which Disguis’d them, or when by time those seeds are Weari’d or Exantlated or unable to Act their Parts upon the Stage of the Universe any Longer: So in His Third Argument he Endeavours to evince the same Conclusion, by the constitution of Bodies which he asserts to be nothing but Water Subdu’d by Seminal Virtues. Of this he gives here and there in his Writings several Instances, as to Plants and Animals; but divers of them being Difficult either to be try’d or to be Understood, and others of them being(118) not altogether Unobnoxious to Exceptions, I think you have singl’d out the Principal and less Questionable Experiment when you lately mention’d that of the Willow Tree. And having thus, Continues Eleutherius, to Answer your Question, given you a Summary Account of what I am Confident You know better then I do, I shall be very glad to receive Your Sence of it, if the giving it me will not too much Divert You from the Prosecution of your Discourse.

What you’ve recently been discussing (replies Eleutherius) tells us that you must know that this bold and clever Spagyrist isn’t shy about claiming that all mixed bodies come from one element, and that plants, animals, minerals, stones, metals, etc. are essentially just simple water transformed into these various forms by the shaping power of their seeds. As for his reasons, you can find various ones scattered throughout his writings; the most significant seem to be these three: the ultimate breakdown of mixed bodies into tasteless water, the changeability of the supposed elements, and the creation of perfectly mixed bodies from simple water. First, he asserts that the Sal circulatus Paracelsi, or his liquor Alkahest, can adequately dissolve plants, animals, and minerals into one or more liquids, depending on their internal differences (without creating Caput Mortuum or destroying their essential virtues); and that the Alkahest, when taken from these liquids with the same weight and virtue it used to dissolve them, can, through repeated cohabitation with chalk or some other suitable substance, completely strip the liquids of their essential qualities and return them to their original state, tasteless water. He suggests various ways here and there to remove the borrowed shapes of some particular bodies and make them revert to their original simplicity. The second point from which Helmont draws his arguments to prove water as the material cause of mixed bodies is that the other supposed elements can change into one another. However, the experiments he presents for this purpose are so difficult to conduct and to assess that I won’t dwell on them; not to mention that even if they were accepted as true, his conclusions from them are somewhat debatable. Therefore, I’ll move on to tell you that, as in his first argument, our paradoxical author tries to prove water is the sole element of mixed bodies by their ultimate resolution when the seeds that disguised them have been destroyed by his Alkahest or another conquering agent, or when, over time, those seeds become worn out or incapable of performing their roles in the universe: so in his third argument, he tries to support the same conclusion by claiming that bodies are nothing but water subdued by seminal virtues. He provides several examples of this in his writings concerning plants and animals; however, many of them are difficult to test or understand, and others are not entirely free from exceptions. I believe you’ve highlighted the main and less questionable experiment when you recently mentioned that of the willow tree. And having given you a summary of what I’m confident you already know better than I do, I would be very glad to hear your thoughts on it if sharing them won’t distract you too much from continuing your discussion.

That If (replies Carneades) was not needlessly annex’d: for thorowly to examine such an Hypothesis and such Arguments would require so many Considerations, and Consequently so much time, that I should not now have the Liesure to perfect such a Digression, and much less to finish my Principle Discourse. Yet thus much I shall tell You at present, that you need not fear my rejecting this Opinion for its Novelty; since, however the Helmontians may in complement to their Master pretend it to be a new Discovery, Yet though the Arguments be for the most part his, the Opinion it self is very Antient: For Di(119)ogenes Laertius and divers other Authors speak of Thales, as the first among the Græcians that made disquisitions upon nature. And of this Thales, I Remember, TullyDe Natura Deorum. informes us, that he taught all things were at first made of Water. And it seems by Plutarch and Justin Martyr, that the Opinion was Ancienter then he: For they tell us that he us’d to defend his Tenet by the Testimony of Homer. And a Greek Author, (the Scholiast of Apollonius) upon these Words

That If (replies Carneades) wasn’t unnecessarily added: examining such a hypothesis and such arguments would require so many considerations, and therefore so much time, that I wouldn’t have the Liesure to complete such a digression, let alone finish my Principle discourse. However, I will tell you right now that you need not worry about me rejecting this opinion because it’s new; even though the Helmontians might claim it’s a new discovery out of respect for their master, the arguments are mostly his, but the opinion itself is very old. Di(119)ogenes Laertius and various other authors mention Thales as the first among the Greeks to explore natural phenomena. And regarding Thales, I recall that TullyOn the Nature of the Gods. informs us that he believed everything was originally made of water. And it seems, according to Plutarch and Justin Martyr, that the idea was even older than him: they say he used to defend his belief by referencing Homer. And a Greek author, the Scholiast of Apollonius, upon these words

Εξ ιλιου εβλαϛησε χθων αυτη,Argonaut. 4.

Εξ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ εβλαϛησε χθων αυτη, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

The Earth of Slime was made,

The Earth of Slime was created,

Affirms (out of Zeno) that the Chaos, whereof all things were made, was, according to Hesiod, Water; which, settling first, became Slime, and then condens’d into solid Earth. And the same Opinion about the Generation of Slime seems to have been entertain’d by Orpheus, out of whom one of the AntientsAthenagoras. cites this Testimony,

Affirms (from Zeno) that the Chaos, from which everything was created, was, according to Hesiod, Water; which, after settling, turned into Slime, and then solidified into Earth. The same view about the formation of Slime appears to have been held by Orpheus, from whom one of the ancientsAthenagoras. cites this testimony,

Εκ του ὑδατος ιλυι κατιϛη.

Εκ του ὑδατος ιλυι κατιϛη.

Of Water Slime was made.

Water Slime was created.

It seems also by what is delivered in StraboUniversarum rerum primordia diverta esse, faciendi autem mundi initium aquam. Strabo. Geograp. lib. 15. circa medium. out of another Author, concerning the Indians, That they likewise held that all things had differing Beginnings, but that of which the World was made, was Water. And the like Opinion has been by some of the Antients ascrib’d to the Phœnicians, from whom Thales himself is conceiv’d to have borrow’d it; as probably the Greeks did much of their Theologie, and, as I am apt to think, of their Philosophy too; since the Devising of the Atomical Hypothesis commonly ascrib’d to Lucippus and his Disciple Democritus, is by Learned Men attributed to one Moschus a Phœnician. And possibly the Opinion is yet antienter than so; For ’tis known that the Phœnicians borrow’d most of their Learning from the Hebrews. And among those that acknowledge the Books of Moses, many have been inclin’d to think Water to have been the Primitive and Universal Matter, by perusing the Beginning of Genesis, where the Waters seem to be mention’d as the Material Cause, not only of Sublunary Compounded Bodies, but of all those that make up the Universe; whose Component Parts did orderly, as(121) it were, emerge out of that vast Abysse, by the Operation of the Spirit of God, who is said to have been moving Himself as hatching Females do (as the Original םרחפת, MeracephetDeuter. 32. 11. is said to Import, and as it seems to signifie in one of the two other places, wherein alone I have met with it in the Hebrew Bible)Jerem. 23. 9. upon the Face of the Waters; which being, as may be suppos’d, Divinely Impregnated with the seeds of all things, were by that productive Incubation qualify’d to produce them. But you, I presume, Expect that I should Discourse of this Matter like a Naturalist, not a Philologer. Wherefore I shall add, to Countenance Helmont’s Opinion, That whereas he gives not, that I remember, any Instance of any Mineral Body, nor scarce of any Animal, generated of Water, a French Chymist, Monsieur de Rochas, has presented his Readers an Experiment, which if it were punctually such as he has deliver’d it, is very Notable. He then, Discoursing of the Generation of things according to certain Chymical and Metaphorical Notions (which I confess are not to me Intelligible) sets down, among divers Speculations not(122) pertinent to our Subject, the following Narrative, which I shall repeat to you the sence of in English, with as little variation from the Literal sence of the French words, as my memory will enable me. Having (sayes he) discern’d such great Wonders by the Natural Operation of Water, I would know what may be done with it by Art Imitating Nature. Wherefore I took Water which I well knew not to be compounded, nor to be mix’d with any other thing than that Spirit of Life (whereof he had spoken before;) and with a Heat Artificial, Continual and Proportionate, I prepar’d and dispos’d it by the above mention’d Graduations of Coagulation, Congelation, and Fixation, untill it was turn’d into Earth, which Earth produc’d Animals, Vegetables and Minerals. I tell not what Animals, Vegetables and Minerals, for that is reserv’d for another Occasion: but the Animals did Move of themselves, Eat, &c.—and by the true Anatomie I made of them, I found that they were compos’d of much Sulphur, little Mercury, and less Salt.—The Minerals began to grow and encrease by converting into their own Nature one part of the Earth thereunto dispos’d; they were solid and(123) heavy. And by this truly Demonstrative Science, namely Chymistry, I found that they were compos’d of much Salt, little Sulphur, and less Mercury.

It appears, based on what is stated in StraboThe origins of all things are different, but the beginning of the world was with water. Strabo. Geography, Book 15, around the middle., from another source discussing the Indians, that they also believed that everything had different beginnings, but the fundamental substance of the world was Water. A similar belief has been attributed by some ancient thinkers to the Phœnicians, from whom Thales is thought to have borrowed this idea, just as the Greeks likely derived much of their theology and, in my opinion, their philosophy as well. The concept of the atomic Hypothesis, typically credited to Lucippus and his disciple Democritus, is believed by scholars to have originated from one Moschus, a Phœnician. This belief could be even older, since it’s known that the Phœnicians acquired most of their knowledge from the Hebrews. Among those who acknowledge the books of Moses, many have inclined to think of Water as the original and universal matter by examining the beginning of Genesis, where the Waters are noted as the material cause not just of earthly compounds but of everything in the universe. Its components seem to have orderly emerged from that vast abyss through the action of the Spirit of God, described as moving like a bird hatching its eggs (as suggested by the original Droning, MeracephetDeut. 32:11, and it appears to mean in one of the other two places where I've found it in the Hebrew Bible)Jeremiah 23:9 over the surface of the waters; which, as might be supposed, were divinely impregnated with the seeds of all things and were prepared to produce them through that effective incubation. But I assume you expect that I should discuss this matter like a naturalist, not a philologist. Therefore, to support Helmont’s theory, while I don’t recall him giving an example of any mineral body, or hardly any animal, produced from Water, a French chemist, Monsieur de Rochas, has offered a notable experiment to his readers, if it is indeed as he has described. He states that after observing such great wonders from the natural power of water, he wanted to see what could be done with it through art imitating nature. Thus, he took water that he knew was not mixed with anything other than that Spirit of Life (which he mentioned previously); and using a consistent and appropriate artificial heat, he prepared and processed it through the previously mentioned stages of coagulation, congelation, and fixation until it transformed into Earth, which subsequently produced Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals. I won't specify what Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals were created, as that will be discussed another time; but the Animals were able to move on their own, eat, etc.—and through the anatomical analysis I conducted of them, I discovered they were composed of a lot of Sulphur, a little Mercury, and even less Salt.—The Minerals started to grow and increase by changing part of the Earth into their own nature. They were solid and(123) heavy. And through this truly demonstrative science, known as Chemistry, I found they consisted of a lot of Salt, a bit of Sulphur, and even less Mercury.

But (sayes Carneades) I have some Suspitions concerning this strange Relation, which make me unwilling to Declare an Opinion of it, unless I were satisfied concerning divers Material Circumstances that our Author has left unmentioned; though as for the Generation of Living Creatures, both Vegetable and Sensitive, it needs not seem Incredible, since we finde that our common water (which indeed is often Impregnated with Variety of Seminal Principles and Rudiments) being long kept in a quiet place will putrifie and stink, and then perhaps too produce Moss and little Worms, or other Insects, according to the nature of the Seeds that were lurking in it. I must likewise desire you to take Notice, that as Helmont gives us no Instance of the Production of Minerals out of Water, so the main Argument that he employ’s to prove that they and other Bodies may be resolv’d into water, is drawn from the Operations of his Alkahest, and consequently cannot(124) be satisfactorily Examin’d by You and Me.

But (says Carneades) I have some suspicions about this strange relationship, which makes me reluctant to share my opinion on it unless I’m sure about several important details that our author hasn’t mentioned. As for the generation of living creatures, both plants and animals, it shouldn’t seem unbelievable since we find that our common water (which is often mixed with various seminal principles and beginnings) that is kept in a calm place for a long time will rot and smell bad, and then might also produce moss and tiny worms or other insects, depending on the nature of the seeds that were hidden in it. I also want to point out that Helmont doesn’t provide any examples of minerals being produced from water, so the main argument he uses to prove that minerals and other bodies can be broken down into water is based on the operations of his Alkahest, and therefore it cannot(124) be satisfactorily examined by you and me.

Yet certainly (sayes Eleutherius) You cannot but have somewhat wonder’d as well as I, to observe how great a share of Water goes to the making up of Divers Bodies, whose Disguises promise nothing neere so much. The Distillation of Eeles, though it yielded me some Oyle, and Spirit, and Volatile Salt, besides the Caput mortuum, yet were all these so disproportionate to the Phlegm that came from them (and in which at first they boyl’d as in a Pot of Water) that they seem’d to have bin nothing but coagulated Phlegm, which does likewise strangely abound in Vipers, though they are esteem’d very hot in Operation, and will in a Convenient Aire survive some dayes the loss of their Heads and Hearts, so vigorous is their Vivacity. Mans Bloud it self as Spirituous, and as Elaborate a Liquor as ’tis reputed, does so abound in Phlegm, that, the other Day, Distilling some of it on purpose to try the Experiment (as I had formerly done in Deers Bloud) out of about seven Ounces and a half of pure Bloud we drew neere six Ounces of Phlegm, before any of the(125) more operative Principles began to arise, and Invite us to change the Receiver. And to satisfie my self that some of these Animall Phlegms were void enough of Spirit to deserve that Name, I would not content my self to taste them only, but fruitlesly pour’d on them acid Liquors, to try if they contain’d any Volatile Salt or Spirit, which (had there been any there) would probably have discover’d it self by making an Ebullition with the affused Liquor. And now I mention Corrosive Spirits, I am minded to Informe you, That though they seem to be nothing else but Fluid Salts, yet they abound in Water, as you may Observe, if either you Entangle, and so Fix their Saline Part, by making them Corrode some idoneous Body, or else if you mortifie it with a contrary Salt; as I have very manifestly Observ’d in the making a Medecine somewhat like Helmont’s Balsamus Samech, with Distill’d Vinager instead of Spirit of Wine, wherewith he prepares it: For you would scarce Beleeve (what I have lately Observ’d) that of that acid Spirit, the Salt of Tartar, from which it is Distill’d, will by mortifying and re(126)taining the acid Salt turn into worthless Phlegm neere twenty times its weight, before it be so fully Impregnated as to rob no more Distill’d Vinager of its Salt. And though Spirit of Wine Exquisitely rectify’d seem of all Liquors to be the most free from Water, it being so Igneous that it will Flame all away without leaving the least Drop behinde it, yet even this Fiery Liquor is by Helmont not improbably affirm’d, in case what he relates be True, to be Materially Water, under a Sulphureous Disguise: For, according to him, in the making that excellent Medecine, Paracelsus his Balsamus Samech, (which is nothing but Sal Tartari dulcify’d by Distilling from it Spirit of Wine till the Salt be sufficiently glutted with its Sulphur, and suffer the Liquor to be drawn off, as strong as it was pour’d on) when the Salt of Tartar from which it is Distill’d hath retain’d, or depriv’d it of the Sulphureous parts of the Spirit of Wine, the rest, which is incomparably the greater part of the Liquor, will remigrate into Phlegm. I added that Clause [In case what he Relates be True] because I have not as yet sufficiently try’d it my(127) self. But not only something of Experiment keeps me from thinking it, as many Chymists do, absurd, (though I have, as well as they, in vain try’d it with ordinary Salt of Tartar;) but besides that Helmont often Relates it, and draws Consequences from it; A Person noted for his Sobernesse and Skill in Spagyrical Preparations, having been askt by me, Whether the Experiment might not be made to succeed, if the Salt and Spirit were prepar’d according to a way suitable to my Principles, he affirm’d to me, that he had that way I propos’d made Helmont’s Experiment succeed very well, without adding any thing to the Salt and Spirit. But our way is neither short nor Easie.

Yet certainly (says Eleutherius) you must have wondered, just like I did, to see how much water is involved in forming various bodies that look nothing like that. The process of distilling eels, while it did give me some oil, spirit, and volatile salt, along with the Caput mortuum, still resulted in a yield that was hugely disproportionate to the phlegm produced from them (which boiled as if in a pot of water). It seemed like it was just coagulated phlegm, which is also abundant in vipers, even though they're considered very hot in their effects, and can survive for days in a suitable environment after losing their heads and hearts, thanks to their remarkable vitality. Human blood itself, as spirited and refined a liquid as it's reputed to be, has so much phlegm in it that when I distilled some recently to run an experiment (just like I had done with deer blood), from about seven and a half ounces of pure blood, we collected almost six ounces of phlegm before any of the more active components began to emerge, prompting us to switch containers. To confirm to myself that some of these animal phlegms were devoid of spirit to warrant that title, I didn’t just taste them but also poured acidic liquids over them to see if they contained any volatile salt or spirit, which would have revealed itself by bubbling with the added liquid if it was present. Now that I mention corrosive spirits, I want to inform you that even though they appear to be nothing but fluid salts, they’re actually rich in water, as you can observe if you either bind their saline part by making them corrode a suitable body or if you neutralize it with a contrary salt; I observed this clearly when preparing a medicine somewhat similar to Helmont’s Balsamus Samech, using distilled vinegar instead of spirit of wine, with which he prepares it: You would hardly believe (based on what I’ve recently noticed) that the acidic spirit, the salt of tartar, from which it is distilled, will turn into nearly twenty times its weight in worthless phlegm by neutralizing and holding onto the acidic salt before it’s fully saturated to the point that it no longer extracts salt from the distilled vinegar. And although highly refined spirit of wine seems to be the least water-containing of all liquids, burning away completely without leaving a drop behind, even this fiery liquid is asserted by Helmont, not improbably, to materially contain water under a sulphurous disguise: because, according to him, in the making of that excellent medicine, Paracelsus’s Balsamus Samech, (which is simply Sal Tartari sweetened by distilling it with spirit of wine until the salt is sufficiently saturated with its sulphur, and suffer to draw it off as strong as it was poured on), when the salt of tartar, from which it is distilled, has retained or deprived it of the sulphurous components of the spirit of wine, the remaining portion, which is far greater than the liquor, will revert back into phlegm. I included that clause [In case what he relates is true] because I haven't yet sufficiently tested it myself. But it's not just experimental insight that keeps me from considering it absurd, as many chemists do (even though I have, like them, fruitlessly tested it with ordinary salt of tartar); besides that, Helmont frequently mentions it and draws conclusions from it. A person known for his sobriety and skill in spagyrical preparations, when I asked him whether the experiment might not succeed if the salt and spirit were prepared according to methods compatible with my principles, confirmed to me that he had successfully implemented Helmont’s experiment using the method I suggested without adding anything to the salt and spirit. However, our method is neither quick nor easy.

I have indeed (sayes Carneades) sometimes wonder’d to see how much Phlegme may be obtain’d from Bodies by the Fire. But concerning that Phlegme I may anon have Occasion to note something, which I therefore shall not now anticipate. But to return to the Opinion of Thales, and of Helmont, I consider, that supposing the Alkahest could reduce all Bodies into water, yet whether that water, because insipid, must be Ele(128)mentary, may not groundlesly be doubted; For I remember the Candid and Eloquent Petrus Laurembergius in his Notes upon Sala’s Aphorismes affirmes, that he saw an insipid Menstruum that was a powerfull Dissolvent, and (if my Memory do not much mis-informe me) could dissolve Gold. And the water which may be Drawn from Quicksilver without Addition, though it be almost Tastless, You will I believe think of a differing Nature from simple Water, especially if you Digest in it Appropriated Mineralls. To which I shall add but this, that this Consideration may be further extended. For I see no Necessity to conceive that the Water mention’d in the Beginning of Genesis, as the Universal Matter, was simple and Elementary Water; since though we should Suppose it to have been an Agitated Congeries or Heap consisting of a great Variety of Seminal Principles and Rudiments, and of other Corpuscles fit to be subdu’d and Fashion’d by them, it might yet be a Body Fluid like Water, in case the Corpuscles it was made up of, were by their Creator made small enough, and put into such an(129) actuall Motion as might make them Glide along one another. And as we now say, the Sea consists of Water, notwithstanding the Saline, Terrestrial, and other Bodies mingl’d with it,) such a Liquor may well enough be called Water, because that was the greatest of the known Bodies whereunto it was like; Though, that a Body may be Fluid enough to appear a Liquor, and yet contain Corpuscles of a very differing Nature, You will easily believe, if You but expose a good Quantity of Vitriol in a strong Vessel to a Competent Fire. For although it contains both Aqueous, Earthy, Saline, Sulphureous, and Metalline Corpuscles, yet the whole Mass will at first be Fluid like water, and boyle like a seething pot.

I have often wondered (says Carneades) how much phlegm can be extracted from substances using fire. But I may have the chance to note more about that phlegm later, so I won’t get into it now. Returning to the views of Thales and Helmont, I believe that even if the Alkahest could turn all substances into water, we might still question whether that water, being tasteless, must necessarily be elemental. I recall that the candid and eloquent Petrus Laurembergius, in his notes on Sala’s Aphorisms, states that he observed a tasteless Menstruum that was a powerful solvent, and if I remember correctly, it could dissolve gold. The water that can be extracted from quicksilver without any additives, though nearly tasteless, I believe you would consider to be different from simple water, especially if you digest minerals in it. I would add that this idea can be taken further. There’s no need to assume that the water mentioned at the beginning of Genesis, as the universal matter, was just simple, elemental water; we could imagine it as a stirred mass made up of a variety of seminal principles and other particles ready to be shaped by them. It could still be a fluid substance like water if the particles it consists of were made small enough by their creator and placed in such a motion that allowed them to slide past one another. Just as we say that the sea is made of water, along with saline, terrestrial, and other bodies mixed in, such a liquid could easily be called water because that was the largest known substance it resembled. However, you would easily believe that a substance could be fluid enough to seem like a liquid and still contain particles of very different natures, if you simply heat a good quantity of vitriol in a strong vessel. Although it contains aqueous, earthy, saline, sulfurous, and metallic particles, the entire mass would initially be fluid like water and boil like a bubbling pot.

I might easily (Continues Carneades) enlarge my self on such Considerations, if I were Now Oblig’d to give You my Judgment of the Thalesian, and Helmontian, Hypothesis. But Whether or no we conclude that all things were at first Generated of Water, I may Deduce from what I have try’d Concerning the Growth of Vegetables, nourish’d with water, all that I now propos’d to my Self(130) or need at present to prove, namely that Salt, Spirit, Earth, and ev’n Oyl (though that be thought of all Bodies the most opposite to Water) may be produc’d out of Water; and consequently that a Chymical Principle as well as a Peripatetick Element, may (in some cases) be Generated anew, or obtain’d from such a parcel of Matter as was not endow’d with the form of such a principle or Element before.

I could easily (continues Carneades) elaborate on such thoughts if I were now required to give you my opinion on the Thalesian and Helmontian hypotheses. But whether or not we conclude that everything was initially created from water, I can infer from my experiences regarding the growth of plants nourished by water, everything I intended to establish for myself(130) or need to prove right now. Specifically, that salt, spirit, earth, and even oil (though oil is considered the most contrary to water of all substances) can be produced from water; and therefore, a chemical principle as well as a philosophical element can (in some cases) be generated anew or obtained from a piece of matter that did not previously possess the form of such a principle or element.

And having thus, Eleutherius, Evinc’d that ’tis possible that such Substances as those that Chymists are wont to call their Tria Prima, may be Generated, anew: I must next Endeavour to make it Probable, that the Operation of the Fire does Actually (sometimes) not only divide Compounded Bodies into smal Parts, but Compound those Parts after a new Manner; whence Consequently, for ought we Know, there may Emerge as well Saline and Sulphureous Substances, as Bodies of other Textures. And perhaps it will assist us in our Enquiry after the Effects of the Operations of the Fire upon other Bodies, to Consider a little, what it does to those Mixtures which being Productions of the Art of Man, We best know the Com(131)position of. You may then be pleas’d to take Notice that though Sope is made up by the Sope-Boylers of Oyle or Grease, and Salt, and Water Diligently Incorporated together, yet if You expose the Mass they Constitute to a Graduall Fire in a Retort, You shall then indeed make a Separation, but not of the same Substances that were United into Sope, but of others of a Distant and yet not an Elementary Nature, and especially of an Oyle very sharp and Fætid, and of a very Differing Quality from that which was Employ’d to make the Sope: fo if you Mingle in a due Proportion, Sal Armoniack with Quick-Lime, and Distill them by Degrees of Fire, You shall not Divide the Sal Armoniack from the Quick-Lime, though the one be a Volatile, and the other a Fix’d Substance, but that which will ascend will be a Spirit much more Fugitive, Penetrant, and stinking, then Sal Armoniack; and there will remain with the Quick-Lime all or very near all the Sea Salt that concurr’d to make up the Sal Armoniack; concerning which Sea Salt I shall, to satisfie You how well it was United to the(132) Lime, informe You, that I have by making the Fire at length very Vehement, caus’d both the Ingredients to melt in the Retort it self into one Mass and such Masses are apt to Relent in the Moist Air. If it be here Objected, that these Instances are taken from factitious Concretes which are more Compounded then those which Nature produces; I shall reply, that besides that I have Mention’d them as much to Illustrate what I propos’d, as to prove it, it will be Difficult to Evince that Nature her self does not make Decompound Bodies, I mean mingle together such mixt Bodies as are already Compounded of Elementary, or rather of more simple ones. For Vitriol (for Instance) though I have sometimes taken it out of Minerall Earths, where Nature had without any assistance of Art prepar’d it to my Hand, is really, though Chymists are pleas’d to reckon it among Salts, a De-compounded Body Consisting (as I shall have occasion to declare anon) of a Terrestriall Substance, of a Metal, and also of at least one Saline Body, of a peculiar and not Elementary Nature. And we see also in Animals, that their(133) blood may be compos’d of Divers very Differing Mixt Bodies, since we find it observ’d that divers Sea-Fowle tast rank of the Fish on which they ordinarily feed; and Hipocrates himself Observes, that a Child may be purg’d by the Milke of the Nurse, if she have taken Elaterium; which argues that the purging Corpuscles of the Medicament Concurr to make up the Milke of the Nurse; and that white Liquor is generally by Physitians suppos’d to be but blanch’d and alter’d Blood. And I remember I have observ’d, not farr from the Alps, that at a certain time of the Year the Butter of that Country was very Offensive to strangers, by reason of the rank tast of a certain Herb, whereon the Cows were then wont plentifully to feed. But (proceeds Carneades) to give you Instances of another kind, to shew that things may be obtain’d by the Fire from a Mixt Body that were not Pre-existent in it, let Me Remind You, that from many Vegetables there may without any Addition be Obtain’d Glass, a Body, which I presume You will not say was Pre-existent in it, but produc’d by the Fire. To which I shall(134) add but this one Example more, namely that by a certain Artificial way of handling Quicksilver, You may without Addition separate from it at least a 5th. or 4th. part of a clear Liquor, which with an Ordinary Peripatetick would pass for Water, and which a Vulgar Chymist would not scruple to call Phlegme, and which, for ought I have yet seen or heard, is not reducible into Mercury again, and Consequently is more then a Disguise of it. Now besides that divers Chymists will not allow Mercury to have any or at least any Considerable Quantity of either of the Ignoble Ingredients, Earth and Water; Besides this, I say, the great Ponderousness of Quicksilver makes it very unlikely that it can have so much Water in it as may be thus obtain’d from it, since Mercury weighs 12 or 14 times as much as water of the same Bulk. Nay for a further Confirmation of this Argument, I will add this Strange Relation, that two Friends of mine, the one a Physitian, and the other a Mathematician, and both of them Persons of unsuspected Credit, have Solemnly assured me, that after many Tryals they made, to reduce(135) Mercury into Water, in Order to a Philosophicall Work, upon Gold (which yet, by the way, I know prov’d Unsuccesfull) they did once by divers Cohobations reduce a pound of Quicksilver into almost a pound of Water, and this without the Addition of any other Substance, but only by pressing the Mercury by a Skillfully Manag’d Fire in purposely contriv’d Vessels. But of these Experiments our Friend (sayes Carneades, pointing at the Register of this Dialogue) will perhaps give You a more Particular Account then it is necessary for me to do: Since what I have now said may sufficiently evince, that the Fire may sometimes as well alter Bodies as divide them, and by it we may obtain from a Mixt Body what was not Pre-existent in it. And how are we sure that in no other Body what we call Phlegme is barely separated, not Produc’d by the Action of the Fire: Since so many other Mixt Bodies are of a much less Constant, and more alterable Nature, then Mercury, by many Tricks it is wont to put upon Chymists, and by the Experiments I told You of, about an hour(136) since, Appears to be. But because I shall ere long have Occasion to resume into Consideration the Power of the Fire to produce new Concretes, I shall no longer insist on this Argument at present; only I must mind You, that if You will not dis-believe Helmonts Relations, You must confess that the Tria Prima are neither ingenerable nor incorruptible Substances; since by his Alkahest some of them may be produc’d of Bodies that were before of another Denomination; and by the same powerfull Menstruum all of them may be reduc’d into insipid Water.

And so, Eleutherius, after showing that it’s possible for substances like those that chemists call their Tria Prima to be generated anew, I must now try to show that the operation of fire can actually (sometimes) not only break down complex bodies into smaller parts but also recombine those parts in a new way. Consequently, for all we know, substances of both saline and sulfurous nature, as well as bodies of other textures, may emerge. It might also help us in our investigation of the effects of fire on other materials to consider what it does to those mixtures that are products of human art, which we know the composition of best. You might notice that even though soap is made by soap-makers from oil or grease, salt, and water mixed together thoroughly, if you expose the resulting mass to gradual heat in a retort, you will indeed separate something, but not the same substances that were combined to create the soap. Instead, you will get entirely different substances that are complex and not elementary in nature, especially a very sharp and foul-smelling oil, distinct from the one used to make the soap: fo if you mix Sal Armoniack with quick-lime in the right proportion and distill them with gradual heat, you won’t separate Sal Armoniack from the quick-lime, even though one is volatile and the other is fixed. What will rise will be a spirit that is much more fleeting, penetrating, and smelly than Sal Armoniack; and almost all the sea salt that was involved in making the Sal Armoniack will remain with the quick-lime. Regarding that sea salt, I will inform you, to satisfy your curiosity about how well it was bonded to the(131) lime, that I have caused both components to melt into one mass by finally heating the fire very intensely in the retort itself. If it is objected that these examples come from artificial concretes, which are more complex than those found in nature, I would reply that I mentioned them both to illustrate my point and to prove it. It will be difficult to show that nature itself does not create decompounded bodies, meaning that it combines together those mixed bodies that are already made up of more elementary or simpler ones. For instance, though I have sometimes obtained vitriol from mineral earths where nature has prepared it for me without any artificial help, it is, despite what chemists like to categorize it as among salts, actually a decompounded body made up of a terrestrial substance, metal, and at least one saline body that is distinctly non-elementary. We also see that in animals, their(133) blood can be composed of various different mixed bodies, as it has been observed that different seabirds taste strongly of the fish they usually feed on. Moreover, Hippocrates himself noted that a child can be purged by the milk of the nurse if she has consumed Elaterium; this indicates that the purging particles of the medicine contribute to the composition of the nurse’s milk, which is generally thought by physicians to be merely bleached and altered blood. I also recall observing, not far from the Alps, that during certain times of the year, the butter from that region had an offensive taste to strangers due to the rank flavor of a particular herb that the cows were then feeding on. But now, Carneades continues, giving you examples of another kind to show that things can be obtained from a mixed body through fire that didn't pre-exist in it, let me remind you that glass can be obtained from many vegetables with no additives, a substance that I presume you wouldn't argue was pre-existing in them, but produced by fire. I will add just one more example: by using a certain artificial method on mercury, you can separate from it at least a fifth or fourth part of a clear liquid that, in the eyes of a typical Aristotelian, would pass for water, and which a common chemist wouldn’t hesitate to call phlegm, and which, from what I've seen or heard, cannot be converted back into mercury, making it more than just a disguise. Besides the fact that various chemists will not accept that mercury contains any substantial quantity of the less noble elements, earth, and water; I say this because the great weight of mercury makes it very unlikely that it could hold as much water as can be gained from it, since mercury weighs 12 or 14 times as much as the same volume of water. In fact, for further confirmation of this argument, I will share this strange story: two friends of mine, one a physician and the other a mathematician, both reputable individuals, have solemnly assured me that after many trials to convert mercury into water for a philosophical work on gold (which, by the way, I know turned out unsuccessful), they once managed, after several iterations, to convert a pound of mercury into almost a pound of water, and this was done without adding any other substances, just by skillfully managing the heat applied to the mercury in specially designed vessels. But regarding these experiments, our friend (says Carneades, pointing at the record of this dialogue) will likely give you a more detailed account than I need to provide: what I have now said may sufficiently demonstrate that fire can sometimes alter bodies just as much as it can divide them, and through it, we can obtain from a mixed body what didn’t pre-exist in it. And how can we be sure that in no other body what we call phlegm is simply separated rather than produced by the action of fire? Since so many other mixed bodies are less stable and more changeable than mercury, as many tricks it is known to play on chemists, and as I just pointed out in previous experiments about an hour(136) ago. But since I will soon have the opportunity to revisit the power of fire to produce new concretes, I won't dwell on this argument for now; I only want to remind you that if you won’t disbelieve Helmont’s accounts, you must acknowledge that the Tria Prima are neither unproduced nor incorruptible substances; since through his Alkahest, some of them can be produced from bodies that were previously categorized differently, and by the same powerful Menstruum, they can all be reduced to tasteless water.

Here Carneades was about to pass on to his Third Consideration, when Eleutherius being desirous to hear what he could say to clear his second General Consideration from being repugnant to what he seem’d to think the true Theory of Mistion, prevented him by telling him, I somewhat wonder, Carneades, that You, who are in so many Points unsatisfied with the Peripatetick Opinion touching the Elements and Mixt Bodies, should also seem averse to that Notion touching the manner of Mistion, wherein the Chymists (though perhaps with(137)out knowing that they do so) agree with most of the Antient Philosophers that preceded Aristotle, and that for Reasons so considerable, that divers Modern Naturalists and Physitians, in other things unfavourable enough to the Spagyrists, do in this case side with them against the common Opinion of the Schools. If you should ask me (continues Eleutherius) what Reasons I mean? I should partly by the Writings of Sennertus and other learned Men, and partly by my own Thoughts, be supply’d with more, then ’twere at present proper for me to Insist largely on. And therefore I shall mention only, and that briefly, three or four. Of these, I shall take the First from the state of the Controversie itself, and the genuine Notion of Mistion, which though much intricated by the Schoolmen, I take in short to be this, Aristotle, at least as many of his Interpreters expound him, and as indeed he Teaches in some places, where he professedly Dissents from the Antients, declares Mistion to be such a mutual Penetration, and perfect Union of the mingl’d Elements, that there is no Portion of the mixt Body, how Minute soever, which does not(140) contain All, and Every of the Four Elements, or in which, if you please, all the Elements are not. And I remember, that he reprehends the Mistion taught by the Ancients, as too sleight or gross, for this Reason, that Bodies mixt according to their Hypothesis, though they appear so to humane Eyes, would not appear such to the acute Eyes of a Lynx, whose perfecter Sight would discerne the Elements, if they were no otherwise mingled, than as his Predecessors would have it, to be but Blended, not United; whereas the Antients, though they did not all Agree about what kind of Bodies were Mixt, yet they did almost unanimously hold, that in a compounded Bodie, though the Miscibilia, whether Elements, Principles, or whatever they pleas’d to call them, were associated in such small Parts, and with so much Exactness, that there was no sensible Part of the Mass but seem’d to be of the same Nature with the rest, and with the whole; Yet as to the Atomes, or other Insensible Parcels of Matter, whereof each of the Miscibilia consisted, they retain’d each of them its own Nature, being but by Apposition or Juxta-Position uni(141)ted with the rest into one Bodie. So that although by virtue of this composition the mixt Body did perhaps obtain Divers new Qualities, yet still the Ingredients that Compounded it, retaining their own Nature, were by the Destruction of the Compositum separable from each other, the minute Parts disingag’d from those of a differing Nature, and associated with those of their own sort returning to be again, Fire, Earth, or Water, as they were before they chanc’d to be Ingredients of that Compositum. This may be explain’d (Continues Eleutherius,) by a piece of Cloath made of white and black threds interwoven, wherein though the whole piece appear neither white nor black, but of a resulting Colour, that is gray, yet each of the white and black threds that compose it, remains what it was before, as would appear if the threds were pull’d asunder, and sorted each Colour by it self. This (pursues Eleutherius) being, as I understand it, the State of the Controversie, and the Aristotelians after their Master Commonly Defining, that Mistion is Miscibilium alteratorum Unio, that seems to comport much(140) better with the Opinion of the Chymists, then with that of their Adversaries, since according to that as the newly mention’d Example declares, there is but a Juxta-position of separable Corpuscles, retaining each its own Nature, whereas according to the Aristotelians, when what they are pleas’d to call a mixt Body results from the Concourse of the Elements, the Miscibilia cannot so properly be said to be Alter’d, as Destroy’d, since there is no Part in the mixt Body, how small soever, that can be call’d either Fir, or Air, or Water, or Earth.

Here Carneades was about to move on to his Third Consideration when Eleutherius, eager to hear how he would reconcile his second General Consideration with what he believed to be the true Theory of Mixtion, interrupted him by saying, "I’m a bit surprised, Carneades, that you, who are so critical of the Peripatetic view on the Elements and Mixt Bodies, also seem to disagree with that perspective on the nature of Mixtion. The Chemists, although maybe unknowingly, align with many ancient philosophers who preceded Aristotle, for reasons so significant that various modern naturalists and physicians—who are otherwise not very supportive of the Spagyrists—agree with them in this instance against the common views held in schools. If you were to ask me (continues Eleutherius) what reasons I’m referring to, I could draw from the writings of Sennertus and other scholars, as well as my own thoughts, but I won’t go into too much detail right now. So let me briefly mention three or four reasons. The first one comes from the nature of the controversy itself and the true meaning of Mixtion, which has been complicated by the Schoolmen. I summarize it as follows: Aristotle—at least as many of his interpreters explain him and as he indeed teaches in some passages where he clearly diverges from the Ancients—claims that Mixtion is a mutual penetration and perfect union of the mixed elements, such that no part of the mixed body, no matter how tiny, lacks all four elements or in which, if you prefer, all the elements are present. I recall that he criticizes the Mixtion depicted by the Ancients as being too simple or crude, arguing that bodies mixed according to their theory, while they may seem that way to human eyes, would not appear so to the sharp sight of a Lynx, whose superior vision would discern the elements if they were mingled only as his predecessors suggested, being merely blended but not united. Though the Ancients did not all agree on the types of bodies that were mixed, they nearly unanimously believed that in a compounded body, even if the Miscibilia, whether elements, principles, or whatever they chose to call them, are associated in such small parts and with such precision that no sensible part of the mass appears different from the rest and from the whole; still, concerning the atoms or other insensible particles of matter that each Miscibilia consists of, they each retained their own nature, being united with the rest into one body only by juxtaposition. So although, due to this composition, the mixed body might acquire various new qualities, the ingredients that formed it, retaining their own nature, could still be separated after the Compositum was destroyed, with the minute parts disengaging from those of a different nature and rejoining those of their own kind, returning to being Fire, Earth, or Water as they were before they became ingredients of that Compositum. This can be illustrated (continues Eleutherius) by a piece of cloth made of white and black threads woven together, where, although the entire piece appears neither white nor black, but a mix of both colors—gray—each of the white and black threads that make it remains unchanged, as would be evident if the threads were pulled apart and sorted by color. This (pursues Eleutherius) represents, as I see it, the state of the controversy, with the Aristotelians, following their master, typically defining Mixtion as Miscibilium alteratorum Unio, which seems to align much better with the Chemists' perspective than with their opponents, since, as the previously mentioned example suggests, there is merely a juxtaposition of separable corpuscles, each retaining its own nature; whereas, according to the Aristotelians, when what they deem a mixed body results from the interaction of elements, the Miscibilia cannot be more accurately said to be altered than destroyed, since there is no part in the mixed body, no matter how small, that can be called Fire, Air, Water, or Earth.

Nor indeed can I well understand, how Bodies can be mingl’d other wayes then as I have declar’d, or at least how they can be mingl’d, as our Peripateticks would have it. For whereas Aristotle tells us, that if a Drop of Wine be put into ten thousand Measures of Water, the Wine being Overpower’d by so Vast a Quantity of Water will be turn’d into it, he speaks to my Apprehension, very improbably; For though One should add to that Quantity of Water as many Drops of Wine as would a Thousand times exceed it all,(141) yet by his Rule the whole Liquor should not be a Crama, a Mixture of Wine and Water, wherein the Wine would be Predominant, but Water only; Since the Wine being added but by a Drop at a time would still Fall into nothing but Water, and Consequently would be turn’d into it. And if this would hold in Metals too, ’twere a rare secret for Goldsmiths, and Refiners; For by melting a Mass of Gold, or Silver, and by but casting into it Lead or Antimony, Grain after Grain, they might at pleasure, within a reasonable Compass of time, turn what Quantity they desire, of the Ignoble into the Noble Metalls. And indeed since a Pint of wine, and a pint of water, amount to about a Quart of Liquor, it seems manifest to sense, that these Bodies doe not Totally Penetrate one another, as one would have it; but that each retains its own Dimensions; and Consequently, that they are by being Mingl’d only divided into minute Bodies, that do but touch one another with their Surfaces, as do the Grains, of Wheat, Rye, Barley, &c. in a heap of severall sorts of Corn: And unless we say, that as(144) when one measure of wheat, for Instance, is Blended with a hundred measures of Barley, there happens only a Juxta-position and Superficial Contact betwixt the Grains of wheat, and as many or thereabouts of the Grains of Barley. So when a Drop of wine is mingl’d with a great deal of water, there is but an Apposition of so many Vinous Corpuscles to a Correspondent Number of Aqueous ones; Unless I say this be said, I see not how that Absurdity will be avoyded, whereunto the Stoical Notion of mistion (namely by συνχυσις, or Confusion) was Liable, according to which the least Body may be co-extended with the greatest: Since in a mixt Body wherein before the Elements were Mingl’d there was, for Instance, but one pound of water to ten thousand of Earth, yet according to them there must not be the least part of that Compound, that Consisted not as well of Earth, as water. But I insist, Perhaps, too long (sayes Eleutherius) upon the proofs afforded me by the Nature of Mistion: Wherefore I will but name Two or Three other Arguments; whereof the first shall be,(145) that according to Aristotle himself, the motion of a mixt Body followes the Nature of the Predominant Element, as those wherein the Earth prevails, tend towards the Centre of heavy Bodies. And since many things make it Evident, that in divers Mixt Bodies the Elementary Qualities are as well Active, though not altogether so much so as in the Elements themselves, it seems not reasonable to deny the actual Existence of the Elements in those Bodies wherein they Operate.

I really can't comprehend how bodies can mix in any way other than what I've explained, or at least how they can mix as our Peripatetics suggest. Aristotle claims that if a drop of wine is added to ten thousand measures of water, the wine, being overwhelmed by such a vast quantity of water, will be transformed into it. To me, this idea seems very unlikely. Even if you added as many drops of wine as would a thousand times exceed that amount of water, according to his rule, the entire liquid shouldn't be a mixture of wine and water, where the wine would be dominant, but just water. Since the wine is added drop by drop, it would merely turn into water, and consequently disappear. If this principle also applied to metals, it would be a remarkable secret for goldsmiths and refiners. By melting a mass of gold or silver and slowly adding lead or antimony grain by grain, they could transform an arbitrary amount of base metals into noble ones within a reasonable timeframe. Indeed, considering that a pint of wine plus a pint of water equals about a quart of liquid, it seems evident that these bodies do not completely penetrate one another as one might think; instead, each retains its own dimensions. This means that when mixed, they only divide into tiny bodies that just touch each other's surfaces, similar to how grains of wheat, rye, barley, etc., sit in a heap of different types of corn. Unless we state that when one measure of wheat, for example, is blended with a hundred measures of barley, there is only a juxtaposition and superficial contact between the grains of wheat and those of barley. So, when a drop of wine is mixed with a lot of water, there is merely an apposition of numerous wine corpuscles to a corresponding number of water ones. Unless I say this, I don't see how we can avoid that absurdity tied to the Stoic concept of mixing (namely through confusion), which suggests that the smallest body can extend alongside the largest. Since in a mixed body where there was previously just one pound of water to ten thousand pounds of earth, according to them, there shouldn’t be any part of that compound that isn’t made up of both earth and water. But perhaps I’m dwelling too long (says Eleutherius) on the proofs provided by the nature of mixing: therefore, I’ll just mention two or three other arguments. The first one is that according to Aristotle himself, the motion of a mixed body follows the nature of the predominant element, as those where earth predominates tend towards the center of heavy bodies. Since many things make it clear that in various mixed bodies, the elemental qualities are active, even if not as much as in the elements themselves, it doesn’t seem reasonable to deny the actual existence of the elements in those bodies where they operate.

To which I shall add this Convincing Argument, that Experience manifests, and Aristotle Confesses it, that the Miscibilia may be again separated from a mixt Body, as is Obvious in the Chymical Resolutions of Plants and Animalls, which could not be unless they did actually retain their formes in it: For since, according to Aristotle, and I think according to truth, there is but one common Mass of all things, which he has been pleas’d to call Materia Prima; And since tis not therefore the Matter but the Forme that Constitutes and Discriminates Things, to say that the Elements remain not in a Mixt Bo(144)dy, according to their Formes, but according to their Matter, is not to say that they remain there at all; Since although those Portions of Matter were Earth and water, &c. before they concurr’d, yet the resulting Body being once Constituted, may as well be said to be simple as any of the Elements, the Matter being confessedly of the same Nature in all Bodies, and the Elementary Formes being according to this Hypothesis perish’d and abolish’d.

To which I will add this convincing argument: experience shows, and Aristotle agrees, that the components can be separated again from a mixed body, as is clear in the chemical decomposition of plants and animals, which wouldn't be possible if they didn't still retain their forms within it. According to Aristotle, and I believe according to truth, there is only one common mass of all things, which he has called materia prima. Since it is not the matter but the form that constitutes and differentiates things, saying that the elements do not remain in a mixed body according to their forms, but only according to their matter, implies they don't remain there at all. Even if those portions of matter were earth and water, etc., before they came together, once the resulting body is formed, it could just as easily be considered simple as any of the elements, since the matter is undeniably of the same nature in all bodies, and the elementary forms, according to this hypothesis, have perished and been abolished.

And lastly, and if we will Consult Chymical Experiments, we shall find the Advantages of the Chymical Doctrine above the Peripatetick Title little less then Palpable. For in that Operation that Refiners call Quartation, which they employ to purifie Gold, although three parts of Silver be so exquisitely mingl’d by Fusion with a fourth Part of Gold (whence the Operation is Denominated) that the resulting Mass acquires severall new Qualities, by virtue of the Composition, and that there is scarce any sensible part of it that is not Compos’d of both the metalls; Yet if You cast this mixture into Aqua Fortis, the Silver will be dissolv’d in the(145) Menstruum, and the Gold like a dark or black Powder will fall to the Bottom of it, and either Body may be again reduc’d into such a Metal as it was before, which shews: that it retain’d its Nature, notwithstanding its being mixt per Minima with the other: We likewise see, that though one part of pure Silver be mingled with eight or ten Parts, or more, of Lead, yet the Fire will upon the Cuppel easily and perfectly separate them again. And that which I would have you peculiarly Consider on this Occasion is, that not only in Chymicall Anatomies there is a Separation made of the Elementary Ingredients, but that some Mixt Bodies afford a very much greater Quantity of this or that Element or Principle than of another; as we see, that Turpentine and Amber yield much more Oyl and Sulphur than they do Water, whereas Wine, which is confess’d to be a perfectly mixt Bodie, yields but a little Inflamable Spirit, or Sulphur, and not much more Earth; but affords a vast proportion of Phlegm or water: which could not be, if as the Peripateticks suppose, every, even of the minutest Particles, were of the same(146) nature with the whole, and consequently did contain both Earth and Water, and Aire, and Fire; Wherefore as to what Aristotle principally, and almost only Objects, that unless his Opinion be admitted, there would be no true and perfect Mistion, but onely Aggregates or Heaps of contiguous Corpuscles, which, though the Eye of Man cannot discerne, yet the Eye of a Lynx might perceive not to be of the same Nature with one another and with their Totum, as the Nature of Mistion requires, if he do not beg the Question, and make Mistion to consist in what other Naturalists deny to be requisite to it, yet He at least objects That as a great Inconvenience which I cannot take for such, till he have brought as Considerable Arguments as I have propos’d to prove the contrary, to evince that Nature makes other Mistions than such as I have allowed, wherein the Miscibilia are reduc’d into minute Parts, and United as farr as sense can discerne: which if You will not grant to be sufficient for a true Mistion, he must have the same Quarrel with Nature her self, as with his Adversaries.(147)

And finally, if we look at chemical experiments, we will clearly see the advantages of the chemical theory over the Aristotelian view. In the process known as quartation, which refiners use to purify gold, they mix three parts of silver through fusion with one part of gold (hence the name of the process) so thoroughly that the resulting mixture takes on several new qualities due to this composition. It's hardly noticeable that any part of it is not made of both metals; however, when you pour this mixture into Aqua Fortis, the silver dissolves in the(145) menstruum, while the gold settles to the bottom as a dark or black powder. Each metal can be reverted to its original form, demonstrating that it retains its nature, despite being mixed per Minima with the other. We also see that even if one part of pure silver is mixed with eight or ten parts, or more, of lead, the fire will easily and completely separate them again during the process. What I want you to particularly consider here is that not only in chemical analyses is there a separation of the basic elements, but certain mixtures yield a much greater quantity of this or that element or principle than another. For instance, turpentine and amber produce far more oil and sulfur than water, whereas wine, which is known to be a perfectly mixed substance, produces only a small amount of flammable spirit or sulfur and not much more earth, but a large amount of phlegm or water. This wouldn't happen if, as the Aristotelians believe, every particle, even the tiniest, was of the same(146) nature as the whole, thus containing earth, water, air, and fire. Therefore, in regards to what Aristotle mainly and almost solely argues—that without his view, there wouldn't be true and perfect mixing, only aggregates or heaps of adjacent particles which, although invisible to the human eye, might be distinguishable by a lynx—these particles would not be similar to each other or to their totum, as mixing requires. If he does not beg the question and claims mixing consists of what other naturalists deny is required for it, he at least argues that this presents a significant inconvenience, which I cannot accept as such until he provides as substantial arguments as I have offered to prove the opposite; to demonstrate that nature creates other mixtures than those I have accepted, wherein the miscibilia are reduced into tiny parts and unified as far as the senses can perceive. If you do not agree that this suffices for true mixing, he must take up the same issue with nature herself as he does with his opponents.(147)

Wherefore (Continues Eleutherius) I cannot but somewhat marvail that Carneades should oppose the Doctrine of the Chymist in a Particular, wherein they do as well agree with his old Mistress, Nature, as dissent from his old Adversary, Aristotle.

Wherefore (Continues Eleutherius) I can't help but marvel a bit that Carneades would challenge the Chymist's doctrine on a point where they align with his old teacher, Nature, as much as they disagree with his longtime opponent, Aristotle.

I must not (replies Carneades) engage my self at present to examine thorowly the Controversies concerning Mistion: And if there were no third thing, but that I were reduc’d to embrace absolutely and unreservedly either the Opinion of Aristotle, or that of the Philosophers that went before him, I should look upon the latter, which the Chymists have adopted, as the more defensible Opinion: But because differing in the Opinions about the Elements from both Parties, I think I can take a middle Course, and Discourse to you of Mistion after a way that does neither perfectly agree, nor perfectly disagree with either, as I will not peremptorily define, whether there be not Cases wherein some Phænomena of Mistion seem to favour the Opinion that the Chymists Patrons borrow’d of the Antients, I shall only endeavour to shew You that there(148) are some cases which may keep the Doubt, which makes up my second General Consideration from being unreasonable.

I shouldn't (replies Carneades) commit to thoroughly examining the controversies surrounding Motion right now. If I had to choose absolutely and completely between the views of Aristotle and those of the philosophers before him, I would consider the latter, which the chemists have adopted, to be the more defensible perspective. However, since I have a different view on the Elements from both sides, I think I can take a middle ground and discuss Motion in a way that neither fully agrees nor fully disagrees with either position. I won’t insist on whether there are cases where some Phenomena of Motion seem to support the view that the chemists’ advocates borrowed from the ancients. I will simply try to show you that there(148) are some cases that may keep the doubt—which makes up my second general consideration—from being unreasonable.

I shall then freely acknowledge to You (sayes Carneades) that I am not over well satisfi’d with the Doctrine that is ascribed to Aristotle, concerning Mistion, especially since it teaches that the four Elements may again be separated from the mixt Body; whereas if they continu’d not in it, it would not be so much a Separation as a Production. And I think the Ancient Philosophers that Preceded Aristotle, and Chymists who have since receiv’d the same Opinion, do speak of this matter more intelligibly, if not more probably, then the Peripateticks: but though they speak Congruously enough, to their believing, that there are a certain Number of Primogeneal Bodies, by whose Concourse all those we call Mixts are Generated, and which in the Destruction of mixt Bodies do barely part company, and recede from one another, just such as they were when they came together; yet I, who meet with very few Opinions that I can entirely Acquiesce in,(149) must confess to You that I am inclin’d to differ not only from the Aristotelians, but from the old Philosophers and the Chymists, about the Nature of Mistion: And if You will give me leave, I shall Briefly propose to you my present Notion of it, provided you will look upon it, not so much as an Assertion as an Hypothesis; in talking of which I do not now pretend to propose and debate the whole Doctrine of Mistion, but to shew that ’tis not Improbable, that sometimes mingl’d substances may be so strictly united, that it doth not by the usuall Operations of the Fire, by which Chymists are wont to suppose themselves to have made the Analyses of mixt Bodies, sufficiently appear, that in such Bodies the Miscibilia that concurr’d to make them up do each of them retain its own peculiar Nature: and by the Spagyrists Fires may be more easily extricated and Recover’d, than Alter’d, either by a Change of Texture in the Parts of the same Ingredient, or by an Association with some parts of another Ingredient more strict than was that of the parts of this or that Miscibile among themselves. At these words Eleu.(150) having press’d him to do what he propos’d, and promis’d to do what he desir’d;

I will then openly admit to you (says Carneades) that I’m not entirely convinced by the theory attributed to Aristotle regarding mixture, especially since it suggests that the four elements can be separated from the mixed body; if they were not present in it, that wouldn’t really be separation but rather creation. I believe the ancient philosophers who came before Aristotle, as well as the chemists who have since adopted the same view, express this matter in a way that is more understandable, if not more credible, than the Peripatetics do. Although they make sense in their belief that there is a certain number of primordial bodies through which all the mixtures we know are created, and which merely part ways and separate from one another during the destruction of these mixed bodies, just as they were when they came together; I, who seldom find opinions I can fully agree with,(149) must confess to you that I’m inclined to disagree not only with the Aristotelians, but also with the ancient philosophers and chemists about the nature of mixtures. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to briefly share my current idea on this, provided you view it not so much as a statement of fact but as an hypothesis; in discussing this, I don’t intend to put forth and debate the entire doctrine of mixtures but rather to show that it’s not implausible that sometimes mixed substances can be so closely unified that the usual actions of fire, which chemists believe have led them to perform analyses of mixed bodies, do not sufficiently demonstrate that in such bodies the miscibilia that came together each retain their own unique nature. And by the fires of the spagyrists, they can be more easily separated and recovered than altered, whether by a change in texture in the parts of the same ingredient or by a bond with parts of another ingredient that is more stringent than that of the parts of this or that miscibile among themselves. At these words, Eleu.(150) urged him to proceed as he proposed and promised to fulfill his wish;

I consider then (resumes Carneades) that, not to mention those improper Kinds of mistion, wherein Homogeneous Bodies are Joyn’d, as when Water is mingl’d with water, or two Vessels full of the same kind of Wine with one another, the mistion I am now to Discourse of seems, Generally speaking, to be but an Union per Minima of any two or more Bodies of differing Denominations; as when Ashes and Sand are Colliquated into Glass or Antimony, and Iron into Regulus Martis, or Wine and Water are mingl’d, and Sugar is dissolv’d in the Mixture. Now in this general notion of Mistion it does not appear clearly comprehended, that the Miscibilia or Ingredients do in their small Parts so retain their Nature and remain distinct in the Compound, that they may thence by the Fire be again taken asunder: For though I deny not that in some Mistions of certain permanent Bodies this Recovery of the same Ingredients may be made, yet I am not convinc’d that it will hold in all or even in most, or that it is necessarily deducible from Chy(151)micall Experiments, and the true Notion of Mistion. To explain this a little, I assume, that Bodies may be mingl’d, and that very durably, that are not Elementary or resolv’d into Elements or Principles that they may be mingl’d; as is evident in the Regulus of Colliquated Antimony, and Iron newly mention’d; and in Gold Coyne, which lasts so many ages; wherein generally the Gold is alloy’d by the mixture of a quantity, greater or lesser, (in our Mints they use about a 12th. part) of either silver, or Copper, or both. Next, I consider, that there being but one Universal matter of things, as ’tis known that the Aristotelians themselves acknowledge, who call it Materia Prima (about which nevertheless I like not all their Opinions,) the Portions of this matter seem to differ from One Another, but in certain Qualities or Accidents, fewer or more; upon whose Account the Corporeal Substance they belong to receives its Denomination, and is referr’d to this or that particular sort of Bodies; so that if it come to lose, or be depriv’d of those Qualities, though it ceases not to be a body, yet it ceases(152) from being that kind of Body as a Plant, or Animal; or Red, Green, Sweet, Sowre, or the like. I consider that it very often happens that the small parts of Bodies cohere together but by immediate Contact and Rest; and that however, there are few Bodies whose minute Parts stick so close together, to what cause soever their Combination be ascrib’d, but that it is possible to meet with some other Body, whose small Parts may get between them, and so dis-joyn them; or may be fitted to cohere more strongly with some of them, then those some do with the rest; or at least may be combin’d so closely with them, as that neither the Fire, nor the other usual Instruments of Chymical Anatomies will separate them. These things being promis’d, I will not peremptorily deny, but that there may be some Clusters of Particles, wherein the Particles are so minute, and the Coherence so strict, or both, that when Bodies of Differing Denominations, and consisting of such durable Clusters, happen to be mingl’d, though the Compound Body made up of them may be very Differing from either of(153) the Ingredients, yet each of the little Masses or Clusters may so retain its own Nature, as to be again separable, such as it was before. As when Gold and Silver being melted together in a Due Proportion (for in every Proportion, the Refiners will tell You that the Experiment will not succeed) Aqua Fortis will dissolve the Silver, and leave the Gold untoucht; by which means, as you lately noted, both the Metalls may be recover’d from the mixed Mass. But (Continues Carneades) there are other Clusters wherein the Particles stick not so close together, but that they may meet with Corpuscles of another Denomination, which are dispos’d to be more closely United with some of them, then they were among themselves. And in such case, two thus combining Corpuscles losing that Shape, or Size, or Motion, or other Accident, upon whose Account they were endow’d with such a Determinate Quality or Nature, each of them really ceases to be a Corpuscle of the same Denomination it was before; and from the Coalition of these there may emerge a new Body, as really one, as either of the Corpuscles was before(154) they were mingl’d, or, if you please, Confounded: Since this Concretion is really endow’d with its own Distinct qualities, and can no more by the Fire, or any other known way of Analysis, be divided again into the Corpuscles that at first concurr’d to make it, than either of them could by the same means be subdivided into other Particles. But (sayes Eleutherius) to make this more intelligible by particular examples; If you dissolve Copper in Aqua Fortis, or Spirit of Nitre, (for I remember not which I us’d, nor do I think it much Material) You may by Crystalizing the Solution Obtain a goodly Vitriol; which though by Virtue of the Composition it have manifestly diverse Qualities, not to be met with in either of the Ingredients, yet it seems that the Nitrous Spirits, or at least many of them, may in this Compounded Mass retain their former Nature; for having for tryal sake Distill’d this Vitrioll Spirit, there came over store of Red Fumes, which by that Colour, by their peculiar stinke, and by their Sourness, manifested themselves to be, Nitrous Spirits; and that the remaining Calx continu’d Copper,(155) I suppose you’l easily beleeve. But if you dissolve Minium, which is but Lead Powder’d by the Fire, in good Spirit of Vinager, and Crystalize the Solution, you shall not only have a Saccharine Salt exceedingly differing from both its Ingredients; but the Union of some Parts of the Menstruum with some of those of the Metal is so strict, that the Spirit of Vinager seems to be, as such, destroy’d, since the Saline Corpuscles have quite lost that acidity, upon whose Account the Liquor was call’d Spirit of Vinager; nor can any such Acid Parts as were put to the Minium be Separated by any known way from the Saccharum Saturni resulting from them both; for not only there is no Sowrness at all, but an admirable Sweetness to be tasted in the Concretion; and not only I found not that Spirit of Wine, which otherwise will immediately hiss when mingl’d with strong Spirit of Vinager, would hiss being pour’d upon Saccharum Saturni, wherein yet the Acid Salt of Vinager, did it Survive, may seem to be concentrated; but upon the Distillation of Saccharum Saturni by its Self I found indeed a Liquor very Pe(156)netrant, but not at all Acid, and differing as well in smell and other Qualities, as in tast, from the Spirit of Vinager; which likewise seem’d to have left some of its Parts very firmly united to the Caput Mortuum, which though of a Leaden Nature was in smell, Colour, &c. differing from Minium; which brings into my mind, that though two Powders, the one Blew, and the other Yellow, may appear a Green mixture, without either of them losing its own Colour, as a good Microscope has sometimes inform’d me; yet having mingl’d Minium and Sal Armoniack in a requisite Proportion, and expos’d them in a Glass Vessel to the Fire, the whole Mass became White, and the Red Corpuscles were destroy’d; for though the Calcin’d Lead was separable from the Salt, yet you’l easily beleeve it did not part from it in the Forme of a Red Powder, such as was the Minium, when it was put to the Sal Armoniack. I leave it also to be consider’d, whether in Blood, and divers other Bodies, it be probable, that each of the Corpuscles that concurr to make a Compound Body doth, though some of them in(157) some Cases may, retain its own Nature in it, so that Chymsts may Extricate each sort of them from all the others, wherewith it concurr’d to make a Body of one Denomination.

I think then (continues Carneades) that, not to mention those improper types of mixtures, where Homogeneous bodies are combined, like when water mixes with water, or two vessels full of the same kind of wine with each other, the mixture I’m going to discuss seems, generally speaking, to be just a union per Minima of two or more bodies of different kinds; as when ashes and sand are melted into glass, or antimony and iron into Regulus Martis, or wine and water are combined, and sugar dissolves in the mixture. In this general idea of mixture, it doesn't seem clear that the Miscibilia or ingredients retain their nature and remain distinct in the compound in such a way that they can be separated by fire again. While I acknowledge that in certain mixtures of permanent bodies, the recovery of the same ingredients can be done, I’m not convinced it will apply to all or even most cases, nor that it is necessarily derived from chymical experiments and the true notion of mixture. To clarify this a bit, I assume that bodies may be mixed, and that very durable bodies can be combined without being elemental or resolv’d into elements or principles, as seen with the Regulus of melted antimony and iron just mentioned; and in gold coins, which last for ages; where the gold is typically alloyed with a greater or lesser amount (in our mints, they use about 1/12) of either silver, copper, or both. Next, I note that since there’s only one universal matter of things, as the Aristotelians themselves admit, calling it Materia Prima (although I don’t agree with all their views), the portions of this matter seem to differ from one another only in certain qualities or accidents, more or less; based on which the corporeal substance they belong to receives its name and is classified into this or that specific type of body; so that if it loses or is deprived of those qualities, although it ceases to be a specific type of body like a plant or animal, or red, green, sweet, sour, etc. I observe that it often happens that the small parts of bodies stick together only by immediate contact and rest; and that, however, there are few bodies whose minute parts adhere so closely, regardless of the reason for their combination, that it is impossible to find another body whose small parts can fit between them, separating them; or may stick together more strongly with some of them than those some do with the rest; or at least may be combined so closely that neither fire nor other common methods of chymical analysis can separate them. With these things noted, I won't flatly deny that there may be some clusters of particles where the particles are so tiny and the cohesion so strong, or both, that when bodies of different kinds, consisting of such durable clusters, happen to mix, even though the compound body made from them might be very different from either of (153) the ingredients, each of the small masses or clusters might still preserve its own nature enough to be separable again, just as it was before. Such as when gold and silver are melted together in the right proportion (for in every proportion, refiners will tell you the experiment won't work), Aqua Fortis will dissolve the silver, leaving the gold untouched; thus, as you noted recently, both metals can be recovered from the mixed mass. But (continues Carneades) there are other clusters where the particles do not stick together so tightly, allowing them to meet corpuscles of a different type that are more prone to combine closely with some of them than they were among themselves. In this case, if two combining corpuscles lose that shape, size, motion, or other property that gave them such a definite quality or nature, each of them genuinely ceases to be a corpuscle of the same kind it was before; and from this combination, a new body can emerge, as unified as either of the corpuscles were before (154) they were mixed or, if you prefer, confused: since this clay is truly endowed with its own distinct qualities and cannot be divided again into the corpuscles that originally came together to form it by fire or any other known method of Analysis, any more than either of them could be subdivided into other particles. But (says Eleutherius) to make this clearer with specific examples; if you dissolve copper in Aqua Fortis or spirit of nitrate (I don’t remember which I used, nor do I think it matters much) you can obtain a beautiful vitriol by crystallizing the solution; and although it has obviously different qualities that aren't found in either ingredient due to the composition, it seems that the nitrous spirits, or at least many of them, can still retain their previous nature in this compound mass; for after distilling this vitriolic spirit for testing, a lot of red fumes came over, which by that color, peculiar smell, and sourness, indicated themselves to be nitrous spirits; and that the remaining calx continued to be copper, (155) I suppose you’ll easily believe. However, if you dissolve Minium, which is just lead powdered by fire, in good spirit of vinegar and crystallize the solution, you will not only obtain a sugary salt that is exceedingly different from both ingredients, but the union of some parts of the Menstruum with some of those of the metal is so strong that the spirit of vinegar seems to be, as such, destroyed, since the saline corpuscles have completely lost that acidity for which the liquid was called spirit of vinegar; nor can any acidic parts that were added to the Minium be separated from the resulting Saccharum Saturni by any known method; for not only is there no sourness at all, but there is an incredible sweetness in the compound; and not only did I find that the spirit of wine, which ordinarily will immediately hiss when mixed with strong spirit of vinegar, would not hiss when poured onto Saccharum Saturni, where the acidic salt of vinegar, if it had survived, might seem to be concentrated; but upon distilling Saccharum Saturni by itself, I found indeed a liquid that was very penetrating, but not at all acidic, and differing in smell and other qualities, as well as in taste, from the spirit of vinegar; which also seemed to have left some of its parts very firmly bonded to the Caput Mortuum, which, although lead in nature, was different in smell, color, etc. from Minium; which brings to mind that although two powders, one blue and the other yellow, may look like a green mixture without either losing its original color, as a good microscope has sometimes shown me; yet when I mixed Minium and Sal Armoniack in the right proportion and exposed them in a glass vessel to fire, the whole mass turned white, and the red corpuscles were destroyed; for although the calcined lead could be separated from the salt, you’ll easily believe it did not separate in the form of a red powder, like that of the Minium, when it was added to Sal Armoniack. I also leave it to be considered whether in blood and various other bodies, it is likely that each of the corpuscles that contribute to make a compound body does retain its own nature sometimes, so that Chemists may extract each type from all the others with which it contributed to form a body of one kind.

I know there may be a Distinction betwixt Matter Immanent, when the material Parts remain and retain their own Nature in the things materiated, as some of the Schoolmen speak, (in which sence Wood, Stones and Lime are the matter of a House,) and Transient, which in the materiated thing is so alter’d, as to receive a new Forme, without being capable of re-admitting again the Old. In which sence the Friends of this Distinction say, that Chyle is the matter of Blood, and Blood that of a Humane Body, of all whose Parts ’tis presum’d to be the Aliment. I know also that it may be said, that of material Principles, some are common to all mixt Bodies, as Aristotles four Elements, or the Chymists Tria Prima; others Peculiar, which belong to this or that sort of Bodies; as Butter and a kind of whey may be said to be the Proper Principles of Cream: and I deny not, but that these Distinctions may in some Cases(158) be of Use; but partly by what I have said already, and partly by what I am to say, You may easily enough guess in what sence I admit them, and discerne that in such a sence they will either illustrate some of my Opinions, or at least will not overthrow any of them.

I know there may be a distinction between Immanent Matter, where the material parts stay the same and maintain their own nature in the things formed, as some scholars say (in this sense, wood, stones, and lime are the matter of a house), and Transient Matter, which in the formed object is changed enough to take on a new form, without being able to revert back to the old one. In this sense, those who support this distinction say that Chyle is the matter of blood, and blood is that of a human body, which is presumed to be the nourishment of all its parts. I also acknowledge that it can be said that some material principles are common to all mixed bodies, like Aristotle's four elements or the chemists' Tria Prima; others are Peculiar, which apply to specific types of bodies, such as butter and a certain type of whey being the proper principles of cream. I don't deny that these distinctions can be useful in some cases(158), but based on what I've mentioned already and what I am about to say, you can easily guess how I accept them and see that in this sense they will either support some of my views or at least will not contradict any of them.

To prosecute then what I was saying before, I will add to this purpose, That since the Major part of Chymists Credit, what those they call Philosophers affirme of their Stone, I may represent to them, that though when Common Gold and Lead are mingled Together, the Lead may be sever’d almost un-alter’d from the Gold; yet if instead of Gold a Tantillum of the Red Elixir be mingled with the Saturn, their Union will be so indissoluble in the perfect Gold that will be produc’d by it, that there is no known, nor perhaps no possible way of separating the diffus’d Elixir from the fixed Lead, but they both Constitute a most permanent Body, wherein the Saturne seems to have quite lost its Properties that made it be call’d Lead, and to have been rather transmuted by the Elixir, then barely associated to it. So that it seems not al(159)wayes necessary, that the Bodies that are put together per minima, should each retain its own Nature; So as when the Mass it Self is dissipated by the Fire, to be more dispos’d to re-appear in its Pristine Forme, then in any new one, which by a stricter association of its Parts with those of some of the other Ingredients of the Compositum, then with one another, it may have acquired.

To continue what I was saying earlier, I'd like to add that since most of the trust in alchemists comes from what those they call philosophers say about their Stone, I’d like to point out that even though common gold and lead can be mixed together and the lead can be separated almost unchanged from the gold, if instead of gold, a tiny amount of the red elixir is mixed with the lead, their combination will be so permanently bonded in the perfect gold that will result, that there’s no known or possibly any way to separate the dispersed elixir from the lead. They both form a very stable substance, where the lead seems to have completely lost its properties that identified it as lead and has been rather transformed by the elixir than just mixed with it. So it doesn’t always seem necessary for the substances that are put together in small amounts to retain their own nature; when the mass itself is broken down by fire, it seems more likely to reappear in its original form rather than any new one that it might have gained through a stronger bond with some of the other ingredients in the mixture.

And if it be objected, that unless the Hypothesis I oppose be admitted, in such Cases as I have proposed there would not be an Union but a Destruction of mingled Bodies, which seems all one as to say, that of such Bodies there is no mistion at all; I answer, that though the Substances that are mingl’d remain, only their Accidents are Destroy’d, and though we may with tollerable Congruity call them Miscibilia, because they are Distinct Bodies before they are put together, however afterwards they are so Confounded that I should rather call them Concretions, or Resulting Bodies, than mixt ones; and though, perhaps, some other and better Account may be propos’d, upon which the name(160) of mistion may remain; yet if what I have said be thought Reason, I shall not wrangle about Words, though I think it fitter to alter a Terme of Art, then reject a new Truth, because it suits not with it. If it be also Objected that this Notion of mine, concerning mixtion, though it may be allow’d, when Bodies already Compounded are put to be mingl’d, yet it is not applicable to those mixtions that are immediately made of the Elements, or Principles themselves; I Answer in the first place, that I here Consider the Nature of mixtion somewhat more Generally, then the Chymists, who yet cannot deny that there are oftentimes Mixtures, and those very durable ones, made of Bodies that are not Elementary. And in the next place, that though it may be probably pretended that in those Mixtures that are made immediately of the Bodies that are call’d Principles or Elements, the mingl’d Ingredients may better retain their own Nature in the Compounded Mass, and be more easily separated from thence; yet, besides that it may be doubted, whether there be any such Primary Bodies, I see not why the(161) reason I alleadg’d, of the destructibility of the Ingredients of Bodies in General, may not sometimes be Applicable to Salt Sulphur or Mercury; ’till it be shewn upon what account we are to believe them Priviledged. And however, (if you please but to recall to mind, to what purpose I told you at First, I meant to speak of Mistion at this Time) you will perhaps allow that what I have hitherto Discoursed about it may not only give some Light to the Nature of it in general (especially when I shall have an Opportunity to Declare to you my thoughts on that subject more fully) but may on some Occasions also be Serviceable to me in the Insuing Part of this Discourse.

And if someone argues that without accepting the hypothesis I challenge, in the cases I've mentioned, there would be no unity but rather a destruction of mixed bodies, which seems to suggest there is no mixing at all, I reply that even though the substances that are mixed stay intact, only their properties are destroyed. And although we can reasonably call them "miscible" because they are distinct bodies before they're combined, afterward they become so blended that I would prefer to call them "concretions" or "resulting bodies" instead of mixed ones. And while perhaps a different and better explanation could be put forth that keeps the term of mixing, if what I've said is seen as reasonable, I won't argue over words, even though I think it's better to change a technical term than to reject a new truth just because it doesn't fit. If it is also objected that my idea about mixing, though acceptable when compounded bodies are mixed, does not apply to mixtures made directly from elements or principles themselves, I first point out that I consider the nature of mixing somewhat more generally than chemists do, who cannot deny that there are often mixtures, and very durable ones, made from bodies that are not elementary. Furthermore, even if it's argued that in those mixtures made directly from what are called principles or elements, the mixed ingredients may better preserve their nature within the compound and be more easily separated afterward, I still don't see why the reasoning I mentioned earlier regarding the destructibility of the ingredients of bodies in general shouldn't sometimes apply to salt, sulfur, or mercury, until it's shown why we should believe they are privileged. And however, if you could just remember why I initially said I wanted to discuss mixing at this time, you might agree that what I've talked about so far can not only shed some light on its general nature (especially when I have the chance to share my thoughts on the topic more fully) but may also be useful for me in the following part of this discourse.

But, to look back Now to that part of our Discourse, whence this Excursion concerning Mistion has so long diverted us, though we there Deduc’d, from the differing Substances obtained from a Plant nourished only with Water, and from some other things, that it was not necessary that nature should alwaies compound a Body at first of all such differing bodies as the fire could afterwards make it afford; yet this is not all that may be collected from those Experi(162)ments. For from them there seems also Deducible something that Subverts an other Foundation of the Chymical Doctrine. For since that (as we have seen) out of fair Water alone, not only Spirit, but Oyle, and Salt, and Earth may be Produced; It will follow that Salt and Sulphur are not Primogeneal Bodies, and principles, since they are every Day made out of plain Water by the Texture which the Seed or Seminal principle of plants puts it into. And this would not perhaps seem so strange, if through pride, or negligence, We were not Wont to Overlook the Obvious and Familiar Workings of Nature; For if We consider what slight Qualities they are that serve to denominate one of the Tria Prima, We shall find that Nature do’s frequently enough work as great Alterations in divers parcells of matter: For to be readily dissoluble in water, is enough to make the body that is so, passe for a Salt. And yet I see not why from a new shufling and Disposition of the Component Particles of a body, it should be much harder for Nature to compose a body dissoluble in(163) Water, of a portion of Water that was not so before, then of the Liquid substance of an Egg, which will easily mix with Water, to produce by the bare warmth of a hatching Hen, Membrans, Feathers, Tendons, and other parts, that are not dissoluble in Water as that Liquid Substance was: Nor is the Hardness and Brittleness of Salt more difficult for Nature to introduce into such a yielding body as Water, then it is for her to make the Bones of a Chick out of the tender Substance of the Liquors of an Egg. But instead of prosecuting this consideration, as I easily might, I will proceed, as soon as I have taken notice of an objection that lies in my Way. For I easily foresee it will be alledged, that the above mentioned Examples are all taken from Plants, and Animals, in whom the Matter is Fashioned by the Plastick power of the seed, or something analogous thereunto. Whereas the Fire do’s not act like any of the Seminal Principles, but destroyes them all, when they come within its Reach. But to this I shall need at present to make but this easy Answer, That whether it be a Seminal Principle, or any other which(164) fashions that Matter after those various manners I have mentioned to You, yet ’tis Evident, that either by the Plastick principle Alone, or that and Heat Together, or by some Other cause capable to contex the matter, it is yet possible that the matter may be Anew contriv’d into such Bodies. And ’tis only for the Possibility of this that I am now contending.

But now, let’s return to that part of our discussion where this digression about matter has diverted us for so long. Although we concluded that it wasn’t necessary for nature to initially create a body from all the different substances that fire could later produce from a plant nourished solely with water and some other things, there’s more we can gather from those experiments. It also seems that we can derive something that undermines another fundamental aspect of the chemical doctrine. Since, as we've seen, pure water alone can produce not just spirit but also oil, salt, and earth, it follows that salt and sulfur are not primary substances or principles since they are made daily from plain water through the arrangement that the seed or seminal principle of plants imparts. This might not seem so surprising if we didn’t tend to overlook the obvious and familiar workings of nature due to pride or negligence. If we consider how trivial the qualities are that define one of the Tria Prima, we’ll often find that nature frequently makes significant changes in various matter. Being easily dissolvable in water is enough for a body to be classified as salt. Yet, I don’t see why it should be any more challenging for nature to create a body dissolvable in water from water that wasn’t previously so than it is for the liquid substance of an egg—which mixes easily with water—to produce, by the mere warmth of a hatching hen, membranes, feathers, tendons, and other parts that aren’t dissolvable in water like that liquid was. Moreover, it doesn’t seem any harder for nature to introduce the hardness and brittleness of salt into a yielding body like water than it is to form the bones of a chick from the tender substance of egg fluids. But instead of continuing this line of thought as I easily could, I’ll move on after addressing an objection that I foresee. It will likely be claimed that the examples mentioned are all derived from plants and animals, where the matter is shaped by the plastic power of the seed or something similar. The fire, however, doesn’t operate like any of the seminal principles, as it destroys them all when it comes into contact. To this, I just need to provide a simple answer: whether it’s a seminal principle or another that shapes that matter in the various ways I’ve mentioned, it’s clear that either by the plastic principle alone, or by both that and heat together, or by some other cause capable of arranging the matter, it’s still possible for matter to be newly crafted into such bodies. I'm only arguing for the possibility of this.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.


The Third Part.



WHat I have hitherto Discours’d, Eleutherius, (sayes his Friend to Him) has, I presume, shew’n You, that a Considering Man may very well question the Truth of those very Suppositions which Chymists as well as Peripateticks, without proving, take for granted; and upon which Depends the Validity of the Inferences they draw from their Experiments. Wherefore having dispach’t that, which though a Chymist Perhaps will not, yet I do, look upon as the most Important, as well as Difficult, part of my Task, it will now be Seasonable for me to pro(166)ceed to the Consideration of the Experiments themselves, wherein they are wont so much to Triumph and Glory. And these will the rather deserve a serious Examination, because those that Alledge them are wont to do it with so much Confidence and Ostentation, that they have hitherto impos’d upon almost all Persons, without excepting Philosophers and Physitians themselves, who have read their Books, or heard them talk. For some learned Men have been content rather to beleeve what they so boldly Affirm, then be at the trouble and charge, to try whether or no it be True. Others again, who have Curiosity enough to Examine the Truth of what is Averr’d, want Skill and Opportunity to do what they Desire. And the Generality even of Learned Men, seeing the Chymists (not contenting themselves with the Schools to amuse the World with empty words) Actually Perform’d divers strange things, and, among those Resolve Compound Bodies into several Substances not known by former Philosophers to be contain’d in them: Men I say, seeing these Things, and(167) Hearing with what Confidence Chymists Averr the Substances Obtain’d from Compound Bodies by the Fire to be the True Elements, or, (as they speak) Hypostaticall Principles of them, are forward to think it but Just as well as Modest, that according to the Logicians Rule, the Skilfull Artists should be Credited in their own Art; Especially when those things whose Nature they so Confidently take upon them to teach others are not only Productions of their own Skill, but such as others Know not else what to make of.


What I've discussed so far, Eleutherius, (his friend says to him) has, I assume, shown you that a thoughtful person might question the truth of those very assumptions that chemists and philosophers take for granted without proof; these assumptions are crucial for the validity of the conclusions they draw from their experiments. Now that I've tackled what I see as the most important and challenging part of my task, it’s time for me to move on to the examination of the experiments themselves, where they often achieve much triumph and recognition. These experiments deserve serious scrutiny, especially since those who cite them do so with such confidence and flair that they've managed to impress almost everyone, including philosophers and physicians who have read their works or heard them speak. Some learned individuals have preferred to believe what is so boldly claimed rather than go through the hassle and expense of testing its truth. Others, who are curious enough to investigate the claims, lack the skill and opportunity to pursue their inquiries. Meanwhile, the majority of learned individuals, witnessing chemists—I say this not just to amuse the world with empty words but demonstrating various remarkable feats—seen to resolve compound substances into several elements not previously identified by earlier philosophers, are inclined to view it as fair and reasonable to trust skilled practitioners in their own specialties. This is especially true when the subjects they confidently claim to teach are not only products of their expertise but also things that others aren't quite sure how to interpret.

But though (Continues Carneades) the Chymists have been able upon some or other of the mention’d Acounts, not only to Delight but Amaze, and almost to bewitch even Learned Men; yet such as You and I, who are not unpractis’d in the Trade, must not suffer our Selves to be impos’d upon by hard Names, or bold Assertions; nor to be dazl’d by that Light which should but assist us to discern things the more clearly. It is one thing to be able to help Nature to produce things, and another thing to Understand well the Nature(168) of the things produc’d. As we see, that many Persons that can beget Children, are for all that as Ignorant of the Number and Nature of the parts, especially the internal ones, that Constitute a Childs Body, as they that never were Parents. Nor do I Doubt, but you’l excuse me, if as I thank the Chymists for the things their Analysis shews me, so I take the Liberty to consider how many, and what they are, without being astonish’d at them; as if, whosoever hath Skill enough to shew men some new thing of his own making, had the Right to make them believe whatsoever he pleases to tell them concerning it.

But even though (Continues Carneades) the chemists have been able, for various reasons, to not only delight but also amaze, and almost bewitch even knowledgeable people; those of us, like you and me, who are not inexperienced in the field, should not let ourselves be fooled by complicated terms or bold claims; nor should we be dazzled by that light which is meant to help us see things more clearly. There’s a difference between being able to assist nature in producing things and having a good understanding of the nature(168) of those things produced. We see that many people can have children, yet they are just as ignorant of the number and nature of the parts, especially the internal ones, that make up a child's body, as those who have never been parents. I have no doubt you’ll forgive me if, while I thank the chemists for the insights their analysis provides, I also take the liberty to consider how many and what those insights are, without being astonished by them; as if anyone skilled enough to show people something new they’ve created had the right to make them believe whatever they want to say about it.

Wherefore I will now proceed to my Third General Consideration, which is, That it does not appear, that Three is precisely and Universally the Number of the Distinct Substances or Elements, whereinto mixt Bodies are resoluble by the Fire; I mean that ’tis not prov’d by Chymists, that all the Compound Bodies, which are granted to be perfectly mixt, are upon their Chymical Analysis divisible each of them into just Three Distinct Substances, nei(169)ther more nor less, which are wont to be lookt upon as Elementary, or may as well be reputed so as those that are so reputed. Which last Clause I subjoyne, to prevent your Objecting, that some of the Substances I may have occasion to mention by and by, are not perfectly Homogeneous, nor Consequently worthy of the name of Principles. For that which I am now to consider, is, into how many Differing Substances, that may plausibly pass for the Elementary Ingredients of a mix’d Body, it may be Analyz’d by the Fire; but whether each of these be un-compounded, I reserve to examine, when I shall come to the next General Consideration; where I hope to evince, that the Substances which the Chymists not only allow, but assert to be the Component Principles of the Body resolv’d into them, are not wont to be uncompounded.

Therefore, I will now move on to my Third General Consideration, which is that it doesn’t seem that Three is exactly and universally the number of distinct substances or elements into which mixed bodies can be broken down by fire. I mean, it hasn’t been proven by chemists that all compound bodies, acknowledged to be perfectly mixed, can, through their chemical analysis, be divided into exactly three distinct substances, neither more nor less, which are usually considered elementary or can equally be regarded as such as those that are officially recognized. I add this last point to prevent you from arguing that some of the substances I may mention later are not perfectly homogeneous and therefore not worthy of being called principles. What I am now looking to consider is into how many different substances that might plausibly be thought of as the elementary ingredients of a mixed body it can be analyzed by fire. Whether each of these is uncompounded, I will address when I reach the next General Consideration, where I hope to demonstrate that the substances which chemists not only acknowledge but claim to be the component principles of the body broken down into them are usually not uncompounded.

Now there are two Kind of Arguments (pursues Carneades) which may be brought to make my Third Proposition seem probable; one sort of them being of a more Speculative Nature, and the other drawn from Expe(170)rience. To begin then with the first of these.

Now there are two types of arguments (according to Carneades) that can be used to make my third proposition seem likely; one type is more theoretical, and the other is based on experience. So let's start with the first one.

But as Carneades was going to do as he had said, Eleutherius interrupted him, by saying with a somewhat smiling countenance;

But as Carneades was about to do what he had mentioned, Eleutherius interrupted him with a slight smile on his face;

If you have no mind I should think, that the Proverb, That Good Wits have bad Memories, is Rational and Applicable to You, You must not Forget now you are upon the Speculative Considerations, that may relate to the Number of the Elements; that your Self did not long since Deliver and Concede some Propositions in Favour of the Chymical Doctrine, which I may without disparagement to you think it uneasie, even for Carneades to answer.

If you don't think carefully, I believe the saying, That Good Wits have bad Memories, is relevant to you. Don't forget, now that you're considering theories about the elements, that not long ago you presented and agreed to some ideas that support chemical theory. I think it would be challenging, even for Carneades, to respond to those.

I have not, replies he, Forgot the Concessions you mean; but I hope too, that you have not forgot neither with what Cautions they were made, when I had not yet assumed the Person I am now sustaining. But however, I shall to content You, so discourse of my Third general consideration, as to let You see, That I am not Unmindful of the things you would have me remember.(171)

I haven't forgotten the concessions you're talking about, he replies. But I also hope you haven't forgotten how carefully they were made, before I took on the role I'm currently in. Anyway, to satisfy you, I'll discuss my third major point to show you that I'm not ignoring the things you'd like me to remember.(171)

To talk then again according to such principles as I then made use of, I shall represent, that if it be granted rational to suppose, as I then did, that the Elements consisted at first of certain small and primary Coalitions of the minute Particles of matter into Corpuscles very numerous, and very like each other, It will not be absurd to conceive, that such primary Clusters may be of far more sorts then three or five; and consequently, that we need not suppose, that in each of the compound Bodies we are treating of there should be found just three sorts of such primitive Coalitions, as we are speaking of.

To discuss this again based on the principles I was using, I will suggest that if it's reasonable to think, as I did back then, that the Elements originally consisted of certain small and basic groupings of tiny particles of matter into many similar corpuscles, it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that there could be far more types of these primary clusters than just three or five. Therefore, we shouldn't assume that in each of the compound bodies we’re examining, there would only be three types of these primitive groupings we are referring to.

And if according to this Notion we allow a considerable number of differing Elements, I may add, that it seems very possible, that to the constitution of one sort of mixt Bodies two kinds of Elementary ones may suffice (as I lately Exemplify’d to you, in that most durable Concrete, Glass,) another sort of Mixts may be compos’d of three Elements, another of four, another of five, and another perhaps of many more. So that according to this Notion, there can be no determinate number assign’d, as(172) that of the Elements; of all sorts of compound Bodies whatsoever, it being very probable that some Concretes consist of fewer, some of more Elements. Nay, it does not seem Impossible, according to these Principles, but that there may be two sorts of Mixts, whereof the one may not have any of all the same Elements as the other consists of; as we oftentimes see two words, whereof the one has not any one of the Letters to be met with in the other; or as we often meet with diverse Electuaries, in which no Ingredient (except Sugar) is common to any two of them. I will not here debate whether there may not be a multitude of these Corpuscles, which by reason of their being primary and simple, might be called Elementary, if several sorts of them should convene to compose any Body, which are as yet free, and neither as yet contex’d and entangl’d with primary Corpuscles of other kinds, but remains liable to be subdu’d and fashion’d by Seminal Principles, or the like powerful and Transmuting Agent, by whom they may be so connected among themselves, or with the parts of one of the bodies, as to make the com(173)pound Bodies, whose Ingredients they are, resoluble into more, or other Elements then those that Chymists have hitherto taken notice of.

And if we accept that there are a significant number of differing elements, I’d add that it seems very possible that to create one type of mixed bodies, two kinds of elemental ones might be enough (as I recently showed you with that highly durable material, glass). Another type of mixture might consist of three elements, another of four, another of five, and perhaps even more. So, according to this idea, there can’t be a fixed number assigned, like(172) to the elements; all kinds of compound bodies can vary, with some likely having fewer and some having more elements. In fact, it doesn’t seem impossible, based on these principles, that there might be two types of mixtures where one doesn’t share any of the same elements as the other; just as we often see two words where one has none of the letters found in the other; or like we frequently encounter different formulas where no ingredient (except sugar) is common to any two of them. I won’t debate here whether there could be a multitude of these particles that, being primary and simple, might be called elemental if various kinds come together to form any body, which are still free and not yet entangled with primary particles of other types, but are still subject to being influenced and shaped by seminal principles, or a similar powerful and transformative agent, with which they may be connected among themselves, or with parts of one of the bodies, making the com(173)pound bodies, whose ingredients they are, resolvable into more or different elements than those chemists have recognized so far.

To all which I may add, that since it appears, by what I observ’d to you of the permanency of Gold and Silver, that even Corpuscles that are not of an Elementary but compounded Nature, may be of so durable a Texture, as to remain indissoluble in the ordinary Analysis that Chymists make of Bodies by the Fire; ’Tis not impossible but that, though there were but three Elements, yet there may be a greater number of Bodies, which the wonted wayes of Anatomy will not discover to be no Elementary Bodies.

To all of this, I can add that since I've pointed out to you the permanence of gold and silver, it seems that even particles that aren't elementary but are made up of different materials can be so durable that they don’t break down in the usual analyses that chemists perform on substances using fire. It's possible that even if there are only three elements, there might still be a larger number of substances that traditional methods of anatomy won't reveal as non-elementary bodies.

But, sayes Carneades, having thus far, in compliance to you, talk’t conjecturally of the number of the Elements, ’tis now time to consider, not of how many Elements it is possible that Nature may compound mix’d Bodies, but (at least as farr as the ordinary Experiments of Chymists will informe us) of how many she doth make them up.

But, says Carneades, now that I’ve talked speculatively about the number of Elements to accommodate you, it’s time to think not about how many Elements Nature could use to create mixed Bodies, but (at least as much as the usual experiments of Chemists can tell us) about how many she actually uses to make them.

I say then, that it does not by these sufficiently appear to me, that there is(174) any one determinate number of Elements to be uniformly met with in all the several sorts of Bodies allow’d to be perfectly mixt.

I say then, that it does not seem to me that there is(174) any specific number of elements that can consistently be found in all the different kinds of bodies considered to be perfectly mixed.

And for the more distinct proof of this Proposition, I shall in the first place Represent, That there are divers Bodies, which I could never see by fire divided into so many as three Elementary substances. I would fain (as I said lately to Philoponus) see that fixt and noble Metal we call Gold separated into Salt, Sulphur and Mercury: and if any man will submit to a competent forfeiture in case of failing, I shall willingly in case of prosperous successe pay both for the Materials and the charges of such an Experiment. ’Tis not, that after what I have try’d my self I dare peremptorily deny, that there may out of Gold be extracted a certain substance, which I cannot hinder Chymists from calling its Tincture or Sulphur; and which leaves the remaining Body depriv’d of its wonted colour. Nor am I sure, that there cannot be drawn out of the same Metal a real quick and running Mercury. But for the Salt of Gold, I never could either see it, or be satisfied that there was ever such a thing separa(175)ted, in rerum natura, by the relation of any credible eye witnesse. And for the several Processes that Promise that effect, the materials that must be wrought upon are somewhat too pretious and costly to be wasted upon so groundlesse adventures, of which not only the successe is doubtful, but the very possibility is not yet demonstrated. Yet that which most deterres me from such tryalls, is not their chargeablenesse, but their unsatisfactorinesse, though they should succeed. For the Extraction of this golden Salt being in Chymists Processes prescribed to be effected by corrosive Menstruums, or the Intervention of other Saline Bodies, it will remain doubtful to a wary person, whether the Emergent Salt be that of the Gold it self; or of the Saline Bodies or Spirits employ’d to prepare it; For that such disguises of Metals do often impose upon Artists, I am sure Eleutherius is not so much a stranger to Chymistry as to ignore. I would likewise willingly see the three principles separated from the pure sort of Virgin-Sand, from Osteocolla, from refined Silver, from Quicksilver, freed from its adventitious Sulphur, from Venetian Talk,(176) which by long detention in an extreme Reverberium, I could but divide into smaller Particles, (not the constituent principles,) Nay, which, when I caused it to be kept, I know not how long, in a Glasse-house fire, came out in the Figure it’s Lumps had when put in, though alter’d to an almost Amethystine colour; and from divers other Bodies, which it were now unnecessary to enumerate. For though I dare not absolutely affirme it to be impossible to Analyze these Bodies into their Tria Prima; yet because, neither my own Experiments, nor any competent Testimony hath hitherto either taught me how such an Analysis may be made, or satisfy’d me, that it hath been so, I must take the Liberty to refrain from believing it, till the Chymists prove it, or give us intelligible and practicable Processes to performe what they pretend. For whilst they affect that Ænigmatical obscurity with which they are wont to puzzle the Readers of their divulg’d Processes concerning the Analyticall Preparation of Gold or Mercury, they leave wary persons much unsatisfyed whether or no the differing Substances, they promise to produce, be truly(177) the Hypostatical Principles, or only some intermixtures of the divided Bodies with those employ’d to work upon them, as is Evident in the seeming Crystalls of Silver, and those of Mercury; which though by some inconsiderately supposed to be the Salts of those Metalls, are plainly but mixtures of the Metalline Bodies, with the Saline parts of Aqua fortis or other corrosive Liquors; as is evident by their being reducible into Silver or Quicksilver, as they were before.

And to give clearer proof of this proposition, I'll first mention that there are various substances that I've never seen split by fire into more than three basic elements. I would really like (as I recently told Philoponus) to see that fixed and valuable metal we call gold broken down into salt, sulfur, and mercury. If anyone is willing to risk a reasonable penalty if they fail, I’ll happily cover both the materials and the costs of such an experiment if it succeeds. It’s not that, after what I’ve tried myself, I categorically deny that something can be extracted from gold, which I can't prevent chemists from calling its tincture or sulfur; this leaves the remaining substance lacking its usual color. I’m also not sure that it isn’t possible to draw out of the same metal a true quick and flowing mercury. But for the salt of gold, I’ve never been able to see it or be convinced that such a thing has ever been separated, in rerum natura, based on the accounts of any reliable witness. As for the various processes that claim to achieve this, the materials that need to be worked on are a bit too precious and expensive to waste on such unfounded attempts, where not only the outcome is uncertain, but even the very possibility hasn’t been demonstrated yet. However, what mostly holds me back from such trials is not their cost, but their lack of satisfactory results, even if they were to succeed. Because extracting this golden salt is prescribed by chemists to be done using corrosive menstruums or by involving other saline substances, it remains questionable to a cautious person whether the resulting salt is truly from the gold itself or from the saline bodies or spirits used to prepare it. I'm sure Eleutherius is familiar enough with chemistry not to overlook how such disguises of metals can often deceive artists. I'd also like to see the three principles separated from pure virgin sand, from osteocolla, from refined silver, from quicksilver freed from its unwanted sulfur, from Venetian chat,(176) which, after being kept in an extreme reverberium for a long time, I could only break into smaller particles (not its constituent principles). In fact, when I had it kept in a glasshouse fire for an unknown duration, it came out in the same shape as the lumps had when placed inside, albeit altered to an almost amethystine color, along with various other substances that it’s unnecessary to list now. While I wouldn’t dare to assert that it’s impossible to analyze these substances into their tria prima, since neither my own experiments nor any credible testimony have taught me how such an analysis can be done or satisfied me that it has been achieved, I reserve the right to refrain from believing it until chemists provide proof or give us clear and practical processes to carry out what they claim. As they maintain that ænigmatical obscurity with which they often confuse readers of their published processes regarding the analytical preparation of gold or mercury, they leave cautious individuals feeling quite unsatisfied as to whether the different substances they promise to produce are truly(177) the hypostatical principles or simply mixtures of the divided bodies with those used to work on them, as is evident in the apparent crystals of silver and mercury; which, though some hastily assume to be the salts of those metals, are clearly just mixtures of the metallic bodies with the saline parts of Aqua fortis or other corrosive liquids, as demonstrated by their ability to be reduced back into silver or quicksilver, just as they were before.

I cannot but Confesse (saith Eleutherius) that though Chymists may upon probable grounds affirm themselves Able to obtain their Tria Prima, from Animals and Vegetables, yet I have often wondred that they should so confidently pretend also to resolve all Metalline and other Mineral bodies into Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury. For ’tis a saying almost Proverbial, among those Chymists themselves that are accounted Philosophers; and our famous Countryman Roger Bacon has particularly adopted it; that Facilius est aurum facere quam destruere. And I fear, with You, that Gold is not the only Mineral from which Chymists are wont fruitlessly to attempt the(178) separating of their three Principles. I know indeed (continues Eleutherius) that the Learned Sennertus,Sennert. lib. de cons. & dissens. pag. 147. even in that book where he takes not upon him to play the Advocate for the Chymists, but the Umpier betwixt them and the Peripateticks, expresses himself roundly, thus; Salem omnibus inesse (mixtis scilicet) & ex iis fieri posse omnibus in resolutionibus Chymicis versatis notissimum est. And in the next Page, Quod de sale dixi, saies he, Idem de Sulphure dici potest: but by his favour I must see very good proofs, before I believe such general Assertions, how boldly soever made; and he that would convince me of their truth, must first teach me some true and practicable way of separating Salt and Sulphur from Gold, Silver, and those many different sort of Stones, that a violent Fire does not bring to Lime, but to Fusion; and not only I, for my own part, never saw any of those newly nam’d Bodies so resolved; but Helmont,Helmon. pag. 409. who was much better vers’d in the Chymical Anatomizing of Bodies then either Sennertus or I, has somewhere this resolute passage; Scio (saies he) ex arena, silicibus & saxis, non Calcariis, nunquam Sulphur aut Mercu(179)rium trahi posse; Nay QuercetanusQuercet. apud Billich. in Thessalo redivivo. pag. 99. himself, though the grand stickler for the Tria Prima, has this Confession of the Irresolubleness of Diamonds; Adamas (saith he) omnium factus Lapidum solidissimus ac durissimus ex arctissima videlicet trium principiorum unione ac Cohærentia, quæ nulla arte separationis in solutionem principiorum suorum spiritualium disjungi potest. And indeed, pursues Eleutherius, I was not only glad, but somewhat surprized to find you inclined to Admit that there may be a Sulphur and a running Mercury drawn from Gold; for unlesse you do (as your expression seem’d to intimate) take the word Sulphur in a very loose sence, I must doubt whether our Chymists can separate a Sulphur from Gold: For when I saw you make the experiment that I suppose invited you to speak as you did, I did not judge the golden Tincture to be the true principle of Sulphur extracted from the body, but an aggregate of some such highly colour’d parts of the Gold, as a Chymist would have called a Sulphur incombustible, which in plain English seems to be little better than to call it a Sulphur and no Sulphur. And as for Metalline Mercuries, I had(180) not wondred at it, though you had expressed much more severity in speaking of them: For I remember that having once met an old and famous Artist, who had long been (and still is) Chymist to a great Monarch, the repute he had of a very honest man invited me to desire him to tell me ingenuously whether or no, among his many labours, he had ever really extracted a true and running Mercury out of Metalls; to which question he freely replyed, that he had never separated a true Mercury from any Metal; nor had ever seen it really done by any man else. And though Gold is, of all Metalls, That, whose Mercury Chymists have most endeavoured to extract, and which they do the most brag they have extracted; yet the Experienced Angelus Sala, in his Spagyrical account of the seven Terrestrial Planets (that is the seven metalls) affords us this memorable Testimony, to, our present purpose; Quanquam (saies he) &c. experientia tamen (quam stultorum Magistrum vocamus) certe Comprobavit, Mercurium auri adeo fixum, maturum, & arcte cum reliquis ejusdem corporis substantiis conjungi, ut nullo modo retrogredi possit. To which he sub-joynes,(181) that he himself had seen much Labour spent upon that Design, but could never see any such Mercury produc’d thereby. And I easily beleeve what he annexes; that he had often seen Detected many tricks and Impostures of Cheating Alchymists. For, the most part of those that are fond of such Charlatans, being unskilfull or Credulous, or both, ’tis very easie for such as have some Skill, much craft, more boldness, and no Conscience, to impose upon them; and therefore, though many profess’d Alchymists, and divers Persons of Quality have told me that they have made or seen the Mercury of Gold, or of this or that other Metal; yet I have been still apt to fear that either these persons have had a Design to deceive others; or have not had Skill and circumspection enough to keep themselves from being deceived.

I can't help but admit (says Eleutherius) that while chemists might confidently claim they can obtain their Tria Prima from animals and plants, I have often wondered why they also assert they can break down all metallic and other mineral substances into salt, sulfur, and mercury. It's a saying almost like a proverb among the chemists who are regarded as philosophers; our famous countryman Roger Bacon has particularly embraced it: Facilius est aurum facere quam destruere. And I fear, like you, that gold isn't the only mineral from which chemists futilely try to separate their three principles. I know, in fact (continues Eleutherius), that the learned Sennertus,Sennert, book on consent and dissent, page 147. even in that book where he does not pretend to be an advocate for chemists, but rather an umpire between them and the Peripatetics, clearly states: Salem omnibus inesse (mixtis scilicet) & ex iis fieri posse omnibus in resolutionibus Chymicis versatis notissimum est. And on the next page, Quod de sale dixi, he says, Idem de Sulphure dici potest: but with all due respect, I need to see strong evidence before I believe such sweeping claims, no matter how boldly they're made; and anyone trying to convince me of their truth must first show me a genuine and practical method for separating salt and sulfur from gold, silver, and the many different kinds of stones that a violent fire brings to fusion rather than to lime; and I, for my part, have never seen any of those newly mentioned bodies resolved this way; but Helmont,Helmon, p. 409. who was much more skilled in the chemical analysis of substances than either Sennertus or I, has a decisive statement somewhere: Scio (he says) ex arena, silicibus & saxis, non Calcariis, nunquam Sulphur aut Mercurium trahi posse; Indeed, QuercetanusQuercet. in Billich. in Thessalo redivivo. p. 99. himself, though a strong advocate for the Tria Prima, admits the impossibility of resolving diamonds: Adamas (he says) omnium factus Lapidum solidissimus ac durissimus ex arctissima videlicet trium principiorum unione ac Cohærentia, quæ nulla arte separationis in solutionem principiorum suorum spiritualium disjungi potest. And indeed, Eleutherius continues, I was not only pleased but somewhat surprised to see you open to the idea that there may be a sulfur and a fluid mercury derived from gold; because unless you’re using the term sulfur in a very broad sense (as your expression seems to suggest), I doubt whether our chemists can truly separate sulfur from gold. When I saw you perform the experiment that I assume prompted your comments, I didn't think the golden tincture was the true principle of sulfur extracted from the body, but rather a mix of some such highly colored parts of the gold that a chemist would call sulfur incombustible, which in plain English doesn’t amount to much more than calling it a sulfur that’s not actually sulfur. And as for metallic mercuries, I wouldn’t have been surprised, even if you had spoken more harshly about them: I remember once meeting an old and renowned artist, who had long been (and still is) a chemist to a great monarch, and his reputation as an honest man led me to ask him whether, among his many projects, he had ever managed to truly extract a real and fluid mercury from metals; to which he candidly replied that he had never separated a true mercury from any metal and had never seen it done by anyone else. And although gold is, of all metals, the one whose mercury chemists have tried hardest to extract, and which they boast most about having extracted, yet the experienced Angelus Sala, in his Spagyrical account of the seven Terrestrial planets (which refers to the seven metals), gives us this memorable testimony relevant to our current topic: Quanquam (he says) & c. experientia tamen (quam stultorum Magistrum vocamus) certe Comprobavit, Mercurium auri adeo fixum, maturum, & arcte cum reliquis ejusdem corporis substantiis conjungi, ut nullo modo retrogredi possit. He adds,(181) that he himself has seen much effort put into that endeavor but has never seen such a mercury produced. And I easily believe what he adds; that he has often witnessed many tricks and deceptions by fraudulently alchemists. Most of those who are fond of such charlatans tend to be unskilled, credulous, or both, making it easy for those with some skill, a lot of cunning, greater boldness, and no conscience, to deceive them; so although many self-proclaimed alchemists and various people of quality have told me they’ve made or seen the mercury of gold, or of this or that other metal, I’ve always been inclined to suspect that either these individuals sought to deceive others or lacked the skill and caution to avoid being deceived themselves.

You recall to my mind (sayes Carneades) a certain Experiment I once devis’d, innocently to deceive some persons, and let them and others see how little is to be built upon the affirmation of those that are either unskillfull or unwary, when they tell us they have(182) seen Alchymists make the Mercury of this or that Metal; and to make this the more evident, I made my Experiment much more Slight, Short and Simple, than the Chymists usuall processes to Extract Metalline Mercuries; which Operations being commonly more Elaborate and Intricate, and requiring a much more longer time, give the Alchymists a greater opportunity to Cozen, and Consequently are more Obnoxious to the Spectators suspicion. And that wherein I endeavour’d to make my Experiment look the more like a True Analysis, was, that I not only pretended as well as others to extract a Mercury from the Metal I wrought upon, but likewise to separate a large proportion of manifest and inflamable Sulphur. I take then, of the filings of Copper, about a Drachme or two, of common sublimate, powder’d, the like Weight, and Sal Armoniack near about as much as of Sublimate; these three being well mingl’d together I put into a small Vial with a long neck, or, which I find better, into a Glass Urinall, which (having first stopped it with Cotton) to avoid(183) the Noxious Fumes, I approach by degrees to a competent Fire of well kindled coals, or (which looks better, but more endangers the Glass) to the Flame of a candle; and after a while the bottom of the Glass being held Just upon the Kindled Coals, or in the flame, You may in about a quarter of an Hour, or perchance in halfe that time, perceive in the Bottom of the Glass some running Mercury; and if then You take away the Glass and break it, You shall find a Parcel of Quicksilver, Perhaps altogether, and perhaps part of it in the pores of the Solid Mass; You shall find too, that the remaining Lump being held to the Flame of the Candle will readily burn with a greenish Flame, and after a little while (perchance presently) will in the Air Acquire a Greenish Blew, which being the Colour that is ascrib’d to Copper, when its Body is unlocked, ’Tis easie to perswade Men that this is the True Sulphur of Venus, especially since not only the Salts may be Suppos’d partly to be Flown away, and partly to be Sublim’d to the upper part of the Glass, whose inside (will(184) Commonly appear Whitened by them) but the Metal seems to be quite Destroy’d, the Copper no longer appearing in a Metalline Forme, but almost in that of a Resinous Lump; whereas indeed the Case is only this, That the Saline parts of the Sublimate, together with the Sal Armoniack, being excited and actuated by the Vehement heat, fall upon the Copper, (which is a Metal they can more easily corrode, than silver) whereby the small parts of the Mercury being freed from the Salts that kept them asunder, and being by the heat tumbled up and down after many Occursions, they Convene into a Conspicuous Mass of Liquor; and as for the Salts, some of the more Volatile of them Subliming to the upper part of the Glass, the others Corrode the Copper, and uniting themselves with it do strangely alter and Disguise its Metallick Form, and compose with it a new kind of Concrete inflamable like Sulphur; concerning which I shall not now say any thing, since I can Referr You to the Diligent Observations which I remember Mr. Boyle has made concerning this Odde kind of Verdigrease. But Continues(185) Carneades smiling, you know I was not cut out for a Mountebank, and therefore I will hasten to resume the person of a Sceptick, and take up my discourse where You diverted me from prosecuting it.

You remind me of an experiment I once devised (says Carneades) to innocently fool some people and show them how little can be relied upon the claims of those who are either inexperienced or careless when they say they have(182) seen Alchemists create mercury from this or that metal. To make this clearer, I designed my experiment to be much simpler, quicker, and easier than the usual processes chemists employ to extract metallic mercuries. These typical methods are often more complex and require much more time, giving Alchemists a better chance to deceive and, as a result, making them more suspect to the audience. To make my experiment appear more like a genuine Analysis, I not only claimed to extract mercury from the metal I was working with but also to separate a significant amount of visible and flammable sulfur. So, I take about one or two drachms of copper filings, the same weight of powdered common sublimate, and roughly the same amount of Sal Armoniack; after mixing these three well, I place them into a small vial with a long neck, or, which works better, into a glass decanter, which I first plug with cotton to avoid(183) toxic fumes. I then gradually bring it close to a decent fire from well-kinded coals, or (which looks nicer but risks breaking the glass) to a candle flame. After a while, holding the bottom of the glass directly over the coals or flame, you will notice some liquid mercury forming at the bottom of the glass in about fifteen minutes, or possibly even sooner. If you then remove the glass and break it, you might find a piece of quicksilver, maybe all of it, or part may remain in the solid mass. You will also see that when the remaining lump is held to the candle flame, it will burn with a greenish flame, and after a brief time (or maybe right away) it will take on a bluish green color in the air, which is the color associated with copper when it is unlocked. It’s easy to convince people that this is the true sulfur of Venus, especially since not only can the salts be assumed to have partly evaporated and partly sublimed to the upper part of the glass (its inside commonly appearing whitened by them), but the metal seems completely destroyed, with copper no longer visible in metallic form but rather almost like a resinous lump. In truth, the situation is that the saline components of the sublimate, along with the Sal Armoniack, when activated by intense heat, act on the copper (which is more easily corroded than silver), allowing small parts of mercury to be released from the salts that kept them apart, and through the heat, they tumble around, eventually joining into a noticeable liquid mass. Meanwhile, some of the more volatile salts sublime to the upper part of the glass, while the others corrode the copper, merging with it and drastically changing its metallic appearance to create a new kind of flammable substance like sulfur. I won't say much more about this since I can refer you to Mr. Boyle’s detailed observations on this peculiar verdigris. But Carneades continues smiling, you know I’m not cut out to be a charlatan, so I’ll get back to being a skeptic and pick up my discussion where you interrupted me.

In the next place, then, I consider, that, as there are some Bodies which yield not so many as the three Principles; so there are many others, that in their Resolution Exhibite more principles than three; and that therefore the Ternary Number is not that of the Universal and Adequate Principles of Bodies. If you allow of the Discourse I ately made You, touching the primary Associations of the small Particles of matter, You will scarce think it improbable, that of such Elementary Corpuscles there may be more sorts then either three, or four, or five. And if you will grant, what will scarce be deny’d, that Corpuscles of a compounded Nature may in all the wonted Examples of Chymists pass for Elementary, I see not, why you should think it impossible, that as Aqua Fortis, or Aqua Regis will make a Separation of colliquated Silver and Gold, though the Fire cannot; so there may be some A(186)gent found out so subtile and so powerfull, at least in respect of those particular compounded Corpuscles, as to be able to resolve them into those more simple ones, whereof they consist, and consequently encrease the number of the Distinct Substances, whereinto the mixt Body has been hitherto thought resoluble. And if that be true, which I recited to you a while ago out of Helmont concerning the Operations of the Alkahest, which divides Bodies into other Distinct Substances, both as to number and Nature, then the Fire does; it will not a little countenance my Conjecture. But confining our selves to such wayes of Analyzing mix’d Bodies, as are already not unknown to Chymists, it may without Absurdity be Question’d, whether besides those grosser Elements of Bodies, which they call Salt Sulphur and Mercury, there may not be Ingredients of a more Subtile Nature, which being extreamly little, and not being in themselves Visible, may escape unheeded at the Junctures of the Destillatory Vessels, though never so carefully Luted. For let me observe to you one thing, which though(187) not taken notice of by Chymists, may be a notion of good Use in divers Cases to a Naturalist, that we may well suspect, that there may be severall Sorts of Bodies, which are not Immediate Objects of any one of our senses; since we See, that not only those little Corpuscles that issue out of the Loadstone, and perform the Wonders for which it is justly admired; But the Effluviums of Amber, Jet, and other Electricall Concretes, though by their effects upon the particular Bodies dispos’d to receive their Action, they seem to fall under the Cognizance of our Sight, yet do they not as Electrical immediately Affect any of our senses, as do the bodies, whether minute or greater, that we See, Feel, Taste, &c. But, continues Carneades, because you may expect I should, as the Chymists do, consider only the sensible Ingredients of Mixt Bodies, let us now see, what Experience will, even as to these, suggest to us.

Next, I think about the fact that while some substances only have three main elements, there are many others that show more than three when they break down. So, the number three isn’t the only important number when it comes to understanding all substances. If you accept what I mentioned earlier about the fundamental connections between tiny particles of matter, you might not find it hard to believe that there could be more types than just three, four, or five. And if you agree, as most people would, that particles of a complex nature can appear to be elementary in the usual examples given by chemists, I don’t see why you would think it’s impossible that just as Aqua Fortis or Aqua Regis can separate melted silver and gold, although fire cannot, there could be some agent, extremely subtle and powerful, especially regarding those specific complex particles, capable of breaking them down into simpler ones, thus increasing the number of distinct substances that the mixed body was previously thought to be made up of. If what I mentioned to you earlier from Helmont about the actions of Alkahest, which divides bodies into different substances in terms of both quantity and nature, is true, then it aligns with my theory. But if we focus on the ways chemists already know to analyze mixed bodies, it’s reasonable to question whether, besides the major elements called salt, sulfur, and mercury, there might not be more subtle ingredients that are extremely small and invisible, which could go unnoticed at the junctions of distillation vessels, no matter how carefully sealed they are. Let me point out something that, although often overlooked by chemists, may be useful in various cases for a naturalist: we can suspect there are several types of substances that aren’t direct objects of any of our senses since we see that not only the tiny particles that come from magnets, which perform the wonders for which they are admired, but also the Effluviums from amber, jet, and other electrical materials, even though they seem to be visible through their effects on specific bodies that are ready to receive their action, do not affect any of our senses directly like the bodies, whether small or large, that we can see, feel, taste, etc. However, Carneades continues, since you might expect me to focus only on the noticeable ingredients of mixed bodies as chemists do, let’s now see what experience suggests to us regarding these as well.

It seems then questionable enough, whether from Grapes variously order’d there may not be drawn more distinct Substances by the help of the Fire, then from most other mixt Bodies. For the(188) Grapes themselves being dryed into Raysins and distill’d, will (besides Alcali, Phlegm, and Earth) yield a considerable quantity of an Empyreumatical Oyle, and a Spirit of a very different nature from that of Wine. Also the unfermented Juice of Grapes affords other distil’d Liquors then Wine doth. The Juice of Grapes after fermentation will yield a Spiritus Ardens; which if competently rectifyed will all burn away without leaving any thing remaining. The same fermented Juice degenerating into Vinager, yields an acid and corroding Spirit. The same Juice turn’d up, armes it self with Tartar; out of which may be separated, as out of other Bodies, Phlegme, Spirit, Oyle, Salt and Earth: not to mention what Substances may be drawn from the Vine it self, probably differing from those which are separated from Tartar, which is a body by it self, that has few resemblers in the World. And I will further consider that what force soever you will allow this instance, to evince that there are some Bodies that yield more Elements then others, it can scarce be deny’d but that the Major part of bodies that are divisible into Ele(189)ments, yield more then three. For, besides those which the Chymists are pleased to name Hypostatical, most bodies contain two others, Phlegme and Earth, which concurring as well as the rest to the constitution of Mixts, and being as generally, if not more, found in their Analysis, I see no sufficient cause why they should be excluded from the number of Elements. Nor will it suffice to object, as the Paracelsians are wont to do, that the Tria prima are the most useful Elements, and the Earth and Water but worthlesse and unactive; for Elements being call’d so in relation to the constituting of mixt Bodies, it should be upon the account of its Ingrediency, not of its use, that any thing should be affirmed or denyed to be an Element: and as for the pretended uselessness of Earth and Water, it would be consider’d that usefulnesse, or the want of it, denotes only a Respect or Relation to us; and therefore the presence, or absence of it, alters not the Intrinsick nature of the thing. The hurtful Teeth of Vipers are for ought I know useless to us, and yet are not to be deny’d to be parts of their Bodies; and it were hard to shew of(186) what greater Use to Us, then Phlegme and Earth, are those Undiscern’d Stars, which our New Telescopes discover to Us, in many Blanched places of the Sky; and yet we cannot but acknowledge them Constituent and Considerably great parts of the Universe. Besides that whether or no the Phlegme and Earth be immediately Useful, but necessary to constitute the Body whence they are separated; and consequently, if the mixt Body be not Useless to us, those constituent parts, without which it could not have been That mixt Body, may be said not to be Unuseful to Us: and though the Earth and Water be not so conspicuously Operative (after separation) as the other three more active Principles, yet in this case it will not be amiss to remember the lucky Fable of Menemius Aggrippa, of the dangerous Sedition of the Hands and Legs, and other more busie parts of the Body, against the seemingly unactive Stomack. And to this case also we may not unfitly apply that Reasoning of an Apostle, to another purpose; If the Ear shall say, because I Am not the Eye, I am not of the Body; Is it therefore not of the Body? If the whole(187) Body were Eye, where were the Hearing? If the whole were for hearing, where the smelling? In a word, since Earth and water appear, as clearly and as generally as the other Principles upon the resolution of Bodies, to be the Ingredients whereof they are made up; and since they are useful, if not immediately to us, or rather to Physitians, to the Bodies they constitute, and so though in somewhat a remoter way, are serviceable to us; to exclude them out of the number of Elements, is not to imitate Nature.

It seems questionable whether we can extract more distinct substances from grapes, prepared in various ways, with the help of fire than from most other mixed bodies. The grapes themselves, when dried into raisins and distilled, will yield a significant amount of an empyreumatic oil, as well as a spirit that is very different from wine, alongside alkali, phlegm, and earth. Additionally, the unfermented grape juice produces distilled liquors other than wine. The fermented grape juice will yield a burning spirit; if properly refined, it will completely burn away with nothing left behind. If the same fermented juice turns into vinegar, it results in an acidic, corrosive spirit. When that juice is processed, it forms tartar, from which we can separate phlegm, spirit, oil, salt, and earth, just like other bodies. Not to mention the substances we can extract from the vine itself, which likely differ from those separated from tartar, a unique substance with few similar counterparts in the world. Moreover, whatever strength you attribute to this example in showing that some bodies yield more elements than others, it’s hard to deny that most bodies, when broken down into elements, yield more than three. Besides those that chemists call hypostatical, most bodies also contain phlegm and earth, which contribute to the composition of mixtures and are generally found in their analysis. Thus, there seems to be no strong reason to exclude them from being considered elements. It’s not enough to argue, as the Paracelsians do, that the three primary elements are the most useful while earth and water are worthless and inactive. Elements are defined by their role in forming mixed bodies based on their ingredients, not by their usefulness. The supposed uselessness of earth and water is simply a reflection of our perspective; their presence or absence doesn't change their intrinsic nature. For instance, the harmful fangs of vipers may be useless to us, yet they are undeniably parts of their bodies. It’s also hard to claim that the undiscovered stars, revealed by our new telescopes in many parts of the sky, are of greater use to us than phlegm and earth, even though we have to accept that they are significant and essential parts of the universe. Additionally, whether phlegm and earth are immediately useful or necessary for the formation of the body from which they are separated is relevant. Consequently, if the mixed body is useful to us, the constituent parts—without which it could not exist—can also be considered useful. Even if earth and water don’t seem as operational after separation as the other three more active principles, it’s worth recalling the fable of Menemius Agrippa about the conflict between the hands, legs, and other busy parts of the body against the seemingly inactive stomach. This situation can also remind us of an Apostle's reasoning: "If the ear says, 'Because I am not the eye, I am not part of the body,' is it therefore not part of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were for hearing, where would the smelling be?" In summary, since earth and water are as clearly and commonly seen as the other principles when bodies decompose, and since they are useful—not immediately to us, but rather to physicians and the bodies they make up, thus ultimately serving us—excluding them from the list of elements does not align with nature.

Transcriber’s Note: See the printer’s note for material that the printer inadvertently omitted from this page.

Transcriber’s Note: See the printer’s note for material that the printer accidentally left out of this page.

But, pursues Carneades, though I think it Evident, that Earth and Phlegme are to be reckon’d among the Elements of most Animal and Vegetable Bodies, yet ’tis not upon that Account alone, that I think divers Bodies resoluble into more Substances then three. For there are two Experiments, that I have sometimes made to shew, that at least some Mixts are divisible into more Distinct Substances then five. The one of these Experiments, though ’twill be more seasonable for me to mention it fully anon, yet in the mean time, I shall tell you thus much of it, That out of two Distill’d Liquors,(192) which pass for Elements of the Bodies whence they are drawn, I can without Addition make a true Yellow and Inflamable Sulphur, notwithstanding that the two Liquors remain afterwards Distinct. Of the other Experiment, which perhaps will not be altogether unworthy your Notice, I must now give you this particular Account. I had long observ’d, that by the Destillation of divers Woods, both in Ordinary, and some unusuall sorts of Vessels, the Copious Spirit that came over, had besides a strong tast, to be met with in the Empyreumaticall Spirits of many other Bodies, an Acidity almost like that of Vinager: Wherefore I suspected, that though the sowrish Liquor Distill’d, for Instance, from Box-Wood, be lookt upon by Chymists as barely the Spirit of it, and therefore as one single Element or Principle; yet it does really consist of two Differing Substances, and may be divisible into them; and consequently, that such Woods and other Mixts as abound with such a Vinager, may be said to consist of one Element or Principle, more then the Chymists as yet are Aware of; Wherefore bethinking(193) my self, how the separation of these two Spirits might be made, I Quickly found, that there were several wayes of Compassing it. But that of them which I shall at present mention, was this, Having Destill’d a Quantity of Box-Wood per se, and slowly rectify’d the sowrish Spirit, the better to free it both from Oyle and Phlegme, I cast into this Rectify’d Liquor a convenient Quantity of Powder’d Coral, expecting that the Acid part of the Liquor would Corrode the Coral, and being associated with it would be so retain’d by it, that the other part of the Liquor, which was not of an acid Nature, nor fit to fasten upon the Corals, would be permitted to ascend alone. Nor was I deceiv’d in my Expectation; For having gently abstracted the Liquor from the Coralls, there came over a Spirit of a Strong smell, and of a tast very piercing, but without any sourness; and which was in diverse qualities manifestly different, not only from a Spirit of Vinager, but from some Spirit of the same Wood, that I purposely kept by me without depriving it of its acid Ingredient. And to satisfy you, that these two Substances were of(194) a very differing Nature, I might informe you of several Tryals that I made, but must not name some of them, because I cannot do so without making some unseasonable discoveries. Yet this I shall tell you at present, that the sowre Spirit of Box, not only would, as I just now related, dissolve Corals, which the other would not fasten on, but being pour’d upon Salt of Tartar would immediately boile and hiss, whereas the other would lye quietly upon it. The acid Spirit pour’d upon Minium made a Sugar of Lead, which I did not find the other to do; some drops of this penetrant spirit being mingl’d with some drops of the blew Syrup of Violets seem’d rather to dilute then otherwise alter the colour; whereas the Acid Spirit turn’d the syrup of a reddish colour, and would probably have made it of as pure a red as Acid Salts are wont to do, had not its operation been hindered by the mixture of the other Spirit. A few drops of the compound Spirit being Shaken into a pretty quantity of the infusion of Lignum Nephriticum, presently destroyed all the blewish colour, whereas the other Spirit would not take it away. To all which(195) it might be added, that having for tryals sake pour’d fair water upon the Corals that remained in the bottom of the glass wherein I had rectifyed the double spirit (if I may so call it) that was first drawn from the Box, I found according to my expectation that the Acid Spirit had really dissolved the Corals, and had coagulated with them. For by the affusion of fair Water, I Obtain’d a Solution, which (to note that singularity upon the bye) was red, whence the Water being evaporated, there remained a soluble Substance much like the Ordinary Salt of Coral, as Chymists are pleas’d to call that Magistery of Corals, which they make by dissolving them in common spirit of Vinager, and abstracting the Menstruum ad Siccitatem. I know not whether I should subjoine, on this occasion, that the simple spirit of Box, if Chymists will have it therefore Saline because it has a strong tast, will furnish us with a new kind of Saline Bodies, differing from those hitherto taken notice of. For whereas of the three chief sorts of Salts, the Acid, the Alcalizate, and the Sulphureous, there is none that seems to be friends with both the other(196) two, as I may, e’re it be long, have occasion to shew; I did not find but that the simple spirit of Box did agree very well (at least as farr as I had occasion to try it) both with the Acid and the other Salts. For though it would lye very quiet with salt of Tartar, Spirit of Urine, or other bodies, whose Salts were either of an Alcalizate or fugitive Nature; yet did not the mingling of Oyle of Vitriol it self produce any hissing or Effervescence, which you know is wont to ensue upon the Affusion of that highly Acid Liquor upon either of the Bodies newly mentioned.

But, Carneades argues, even though I think it’s clear that Earth and Phlegm are included among the Elements of most Animal and Vegetable Bodies, that's not the only reason I believe that various Bodies can be resolved into more than three Substances. I've run two experiments to show that at least some Mixtures can be divided into more than five Distinct Substances. One of these experiments, which I’ll go into more detail about later, involves two Distilled Liquors,(192) which are considered Elements of the Bodies from which they come. I can create a true Yellow and Flammable Sulphur from these without any additives, even though the two Liquors remain separate afterward. As for the second experiment, which you might find interesting, I’ve observed that when various Woods are distilled, both in regular and some unusual types of vessels, the rich Spirit that comes off has a strong flavor, similar to the Empyreumatic Spirits found in many other Bodies, and an acidity that almost resembles Vinegar. So, I suspected that even though the sour Liquor distilled from Box-Wood is seen by chemists as merely its Spirit, thus a single Element or Principle, it actually consists of two different Substances and can be separated. Consequently, Woods and other Mixtures rich in such Vinegar can be said to consist of one more Element or Principle than chemists currently recognize. Thinking about how to separate these two Spirits, I quickly discovered several ways to achieve it. The method I’ll mention now involved distilling a quantity of Box-Wood per se, and slowly purifying the sour Spirit to better remove Oil and Phlegm. I then added a suitable amount of Powdered Coral to this purified Liquor, expecting that the Acid part would corrode the Coral, associating with it and allowing the non-acidic portion of the Liquor to rise alone. My expectation was correct; after gently extracting the Liquor from the Corals, a Spirit with a strong smell and a very sharp flavor emerged, but without any sourness. It was distinctly different in several qualities, not only from a Spirit of Vinegar but also from some Spirit of the same Wood, which I purposely kept without removing its acidic component. To show you that these two Substances were very different in nature, I could tell you about several tests I performed, but some I shouldn't mention because doing so would reveal some unnecessary information. However, I will tell you now that the sour Spirit of Box not only dissolved Corals, which the other Spirit wouldn't attach to, but when poured onto Salt of Tartar, it immediately boiled and hissed, whereas the other stayed quiet. The acidic Spirit poured onto Minium produced Sugar of Lead, which I didn't get from the other. A few drops of this penetrating spirit mixed with some drops of blue Violet Syrup seemed to dilute rather than alter the color; meanwhile, the Acid Spirit changed the syrup to a reddish hue, and it likely would have resulted in a pure red like Acid Salts typically do if its effect hadn’t been stopped by the other Spirit's presence. A few drops of the combined Spirit shaken into a decent amount of Lignum Nephriticum infusion quickly removed the bluish color, while the other Spirit could not do this. Additionally,(195) I trialed pouring clean water over the Corals left in the bottom of the glass where I had processed the double spirit (if I can call it that) drawn from the Box, and I found that the Acid Spirit had indeed dissolved the Corals and coagulated with them as I expected. By adding clean water, I obtained a solution, which (as a side note) was red, so that when the water evaporated, there was a solubilized Substance resembling the common Salt of Coral, which chemists refer to as the Magistery of Corals, made by dissolving them in common vinegar and extracting the Menstruum ad Siccitatem. I’m not sure if I should also mention that the simple spirit of Box, if chemists consider it Saline because of its strong flavor, could provide a new type of Saline Bodies, different from those previously noted. Among the three main types of Salts—Acid, Alkaline, and Sulphureous—none appears to associate with both of the others(196), as I could later demonstrate. However, I found that the simple spirit of Box did mix well (at least as far as I tested) with both the Acid and other Salts. While it would remain quite still with salt of Tartar, Spirit of Urine, or other bodies whose Salts were either Alkaline or transient, the mixing with Oil of Vitriol itself did not cause any hissing or Effervescence, which you know commonly occurs when that highly Acid Liquor is applied to either of the aforementioned Bodies.

I think my self, sayes Eleutherius, beholden to you, for this Experiment; not only because I forsee you will make it helpful to you in the Enquiry you are now upon, but because it teaches us a Method, whereby we may prepare a numerous sort of new spirits, which though more simple then any that are thought Elementary, are manifestly endow’d with peculiar and powerfull qualities, some of which may probably be of considerable use in Physick, as well alone, as associated with other things; as one may hopefully guess by the redness of(197) that Solution your sour Spirit made of Corals, and by some other circumstances of your Narrative. And suppose (pursues Eleutherius) that you are not so confin’d, for the separation of the Acid parts of these compound Spirits from the other, to employ Corals; but that you may as well make use of any Alcalizate Salt, or of Pearls, or Crabs eyes, or any other Body, upon which common Spirit of Vinager will easily work, and, to speak in an Helmontian Phrase, Exantlate it self.

I think of myself, says Eleutherius, grateful to you for this experiment; not only because I see it will be useful to you in your current inquiry, but also because it shows us a method to prepare a wide variety of new spirits, which, although simpler than those considered elemental, clearly possess unique and powerful qualities. Some of these qualities might be very useful in medicine, both on their own and when combined with other substances, as one might hopefully deduce from the redness of (197) that solution your sour spirit made from corals, and from other details in your narrative. And suppose (continues Eleutherius) that you are not limited to using corals for separating the acidic parts of these compound spirits from the others; rather, you could use any alkaline salt, or pearls, or crab eyes, or any other substance that common vinegar spirit can easily act upon, and, to use a phrase from Helmont, make it extract itself.

I have not yet tryed, sayes Carneades, of what use the mention’d liquors may be in Physick, either as Medicines or as Menstruums: But I could mention now (and may another time) divers of the tryals that I made to satisfy my self of the difference of these two Liquors. But that, as I allow your thinking what you newly told me about Corals, I presume you will allow me, from what I have said already, to deduce this Corollary; That there are divers compound bodies, which may be resolv’d into four such differing Substances, as may as well merit the name of Principles, as those to which the Chymists freely give it. For since they scruple(198) not to reckon that which I call the compound Spirit of Box, for the spirit, or as others would have it, the Mercury of that Wood, I see not, why the Acid liquor, and the other, should not each of them, especially that last named, be lookt upon as more worthy to be called an Elementary Principle; since it must needs be of a more simple nature then the Liquor, which was found to be divisible into that, and the Acid Spirit. And this further use (continues Carneades) may be made of our experiment to my present purpose, that it may give us a rise to suspect, that since a Liquor reputed by the Chymists to be, without dispute, Homogeneous, is by so slight a way divisible into two distinct and more simple Ingredients, some more skilful or happier Experimenter then I may find a way either further to divide one of these Spirits, or to resolve some or other, if not all, of those other Ingredients of mixt Bodies, that have hitherto pass’d among Chymists for their Elements or Principles.

I haven't tried yet, says Carneades, to determine how useful the mentioned liquids might be in medicine, whether as remedies or as Menstruums. However, I could mention now (and perhaps another time) several experiments I conducted to understand the difference between these two liquids. But, just as I appreciate your thoughts about corals, I assume you will allow me, based on what I’ve already said, to draw this conclusion: There are various compound substances that can be broken down into four different components, which deserve to be called Principles just as much as those that chemists commonly refer to as such. Since they don't hesitate to classify what I refer to as the compound Spirit of Box as the spirit, or as others call it, the Mercury of that Wood, I don't see why the Acid liquid and the other one shouldn't each, especially the latter, be considered more deserving of being called an Elementary Principle; since it must be simpler in nature than the liquid that was found to be divisible into it and the Acid Spirit. Moreover (continues Carneades), our experiment can lead us to suspect that since a liquid regarded by chemists as unquestionably Homogeneous can be so easily divided into two distinct and simpler ingredients, a more skilled or fortunate experimenter than I may discover a way to further divide one of these spirits or decompose some, if not all, of those other ingredients of mixed bodies that have so far been accepted by chemists as their elements or principles.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.


The Fourth Part.



ANd thus much (sayes Carneades) may suffice to be said of the Number of the Distinct substances separable from mixt Bodies by the Fire: Wherefore I now proceed to consider the nature of them, and shew you, That though they seem Homogeneous Bodies, yet have they not the purity and simplicity that is requisite to Elements. And I should immediately proceed to the proof of my Assertion, but that the Confidence wherewith Chymists are wont to call each of the Substances we speak of by the name of Sulphur or Mercury, or the other of the Hyposta(200)ticall Principles, and the intollerabln Ambiguity they allow themselves ie their Writings and Expressions, makes it necessary for me in Order to the Keeping you either from mistaking me, or thinking I mistake the Controversie, to take Notice to you and complain of the unreasonable Liberty they give themselves of playing with Names at pleasure. And indeed if I were oblig’d in this Dispute, to have such regard to the Phraseology of each particular Chymist, as not to Write any thing which this or that Author may not pretend, not to contradict this or that sence, which he may give as Occasion serves to his Ambiguous Expressions, I should scarce know how to dispute, nor which way to turn myself. For I find that even Eminent Writers, (such as Raymund Lully, Paracelsus and others) do so abuse the termes they employ, that as they will now and then give divers things, one name; so they will oftentimes give one thing, many Names; and some of them (perhaps) such, as do much more properly signifie some Distinct Body of another kind; nay even in Technical Words or Termes of Art,(201) they refrain not from this Confounding Liberty; but will, as I have Observ’d, call the same Substance, sometimes the Sulphur, and Sometimes the Mercury of a Body. And now I speak of Mercury, I cannot but take Notice, that the Descriptions they give us of that Principle or Ingredient of mixt Bodies, are so intricate, that even those that have Endeavour’d to Pollish and Illustrate the Notions of the Chymists, are fain to confess that they know not what to make of it, either by Ingenuous Acknowledgments, or Descriptions that are not Intelligible.


And so much (says Carneades) can be said about the Number of distinct substances that can be separated from mixed bodies by fire. Therefore, I will now discuss their nature and show you that although they appear as Homogeneous bodies, they lack the purity and simplicity necessary to be considered elements. I would immediately move on to prove my assertion, but the confidence with which chemists tend to label each of the substances we discuss as Sulphur or Mercury, or another of the Hypostatic principles, along with the intollerabln ambiguity they allow themselves in their writings and expressions, makes it necessary for me to point out and address the unreasonable freedom they take in playing with names. In fact, if I were obligated in this debate to pay such close attention to the terminology of each individual chemist that I couldn't write anything that this or that author wouldn't claim I contradicted, I would hardly know how to argue or which way to turn. I find that even prominent writers like Raymund Lully, Paracelsus, and others misuse the terms they use so much that they sometimes give different things the same name or often give one thing many names, and some of those names (perhaps) refer more appropriately to distinct bodies of another kind. Even in technical language or terms of art,(201) they do not shy away from this confusing practice; as I've noticed, they will sometimes refer to the same substance as either the Sulphur or the Mercury of a body. Now that I mention Mercury, I must point out that the descriptions given of that principle or ingredient of mixed bodies are so complex that even those who have tried to refine and clarify the concepts of chemists admit they are unsure of what it actually means, either through honest acknowledgments or unintelligible descriptions.

I must confess (sayes Eleutherius) I have, in the reading of Paracelsus and other Chymical Authors, been troubled to find, that such hard Words and Equivocal Expressions, as You justly complain of, do even when they treat of Principles, seem to be studiously affected by those Writers; whether to make themselves to be admir’d by their Readers, and their Art appear more Venerable and Mysterious, or, (as they would have us think) to conceal from them a Knowledge themselves judge inestimable.(202)

I must admit (says Eleutherius) that while reading Paracelsus and other chemical authors, I’ve been frustrated to see that they use such complicated words and ambiguous expressions, just like you’ve pointed out. It seems like these writers deliberately use this kind of language even when discussing basic principles. Perhaps they want to impress their readers and make their work seem more respected and mysterious, or, as they would have us believe, to hide knowledge they consider priceless.(202)

But whatever (sayes Carneades) these Men may promise themselves from a Canting way of delivering the Principles of Nature, they will find the Major part of Knowing Men so vain, as when they understand not what they read, to conclude, that it is rather the Writers fault then their own. And those that are so ambitious to be admir’d by the Vulgar, that rather then go without the Admiration of the Ignorant they will expose themselves to the contempt of the Learned, those shall, by my consent, freely enjoy their Option. As for the Mystical Writers scrupling to Communicate their Knowledge, they might less to their own Disparagement, and to the trouble of their Readers, have conceal’d it by writing no Books, then by Writing bad ones. If Themistius were here, he would not stick to say, that Chymists write thus darkly, not because they think their Notions too precious to be explain’d, but because they fear that if they were explain’d, men would discern, that they are farr from being precious. And indeed, I fear that the chief Reason why Chymists have written so(203) obscurely of their three Principles, may be, That not having Clear and Distinct Notions of them themselves, they cannot write otherwise then Confusedly of what they but Confusedly Apprehend: Not to say that divers of them, being Conscious to the Invalidity of their Doctrine, might well enough discerne that they could scarce keep themselves from being confuted, but by keeping themselves from being clearly understood. But though much may be said to Excuse the Chymists when they write Darkly, and Ænigmatically, about the Preparation of their Elixir, and Some few other grand Arcana, the divulging of which they may upon Grounds Plausible enough esteem unfit; yet when they pretend to teach the General Principles of Natural Philosophers, this Equivocall Way of Writing is not to be endur’d. For in such Speculative Enquiries, where the naked Knowledge of the Truth is the thing Principally aim’d at, what does he teach me worth thanks that does not, if he can, make his Notion intelligible to me, but by Mystical Termes, and Ambiguous Phrases darkens what he should clear up; and makes(204) me add the Trouble of guessing at the sence of what he Equivocally expresses, to that of examining the Truth of what he seems to deliver. And if the matter of the Philosophers Stone, and the manner of preparing it, be such Mysteries as they would have the World believe them, they may Write Intelligibly and Clearly of the Principles of mixt Bodies in General, without Discovering what they call the Great Work. But for my part (Continues Carneades) what my Indignation at this Un-philosophical way of teaching Principles has now extorted from me, is meant chiefly to excuse my self, if I shall hereafter oppose any Particular Opinion or assertion, that some Follower of Paracelsus or any Eminent Artist may pretend not to be his Masters. For, as I told you long since, I am not Oblig’d to examine private mens writings, (which were a Labour as endless as unprofitable) being only engag’d to examine those Opinions about the Tria Prima, which I find those Chymists I have met with to agree in most: And I Doubt not but my Arguments against their Doctrine will be in great part ea(205)sily enough applicable ev’n to those private Opinions, which they do not so directly and expresly oppose. And indeed, that which I am now entering upon being the Consideration of the things themselves whereinto Spagyrists resolve mixt Bodies by the Fire, If I can shew that these are not of an Elementary Nature, it will be no great matter what names these or those Chymists have been pleased to give them. And I question not that to a Wise man, and consequently to Eleutherius, it will be lesse considerable to know, what Men Have thought of Things, then what they Should have thought.

But whatever these men might expect from a pretentious way of presenting the principles of nature, they will find that most knowledgeable people are so vain that when they don’t understand what they read, they tend to blame the writer rather than themselves. Those who are so eager to be admired by the ignorant that they would rather risk the contempt of learned individuals to gain that admiration should be free to make that choice. As for the mystical writers who hesitate to share their knowledge, they could have done less harm to themselves and their readers by simply not writing books than by writing poor ones. If Themistius were here, he would say that chemists write in such a vague manner not because they believe their ideas are too valuable to explain, but because they worry that if they were explained, people would realize they are far from valuable. In fact, I fear that the main reason chemists have written so obscurely about their three principles could be that, lacking clear and distinct understanding themselves, they can only write confusingly about what they only grasp in a muddled way. Not to mention that some of them, aware of the weakness of their theories, might recognize that they could hardly avoid being refuted if they were clearly understood. But while there’s much to excuse the chemists when they write obscurely and enigmatically about the preparation of their elixir and some other significant secrets, which they may have plausible grounds to regard as unfit to disclose, when they attempt to teach the general principles of natural philosophy, this equivocal way of writing is unacceptable. In such speculative inquiries, where the primary goal is to attain pure knowledge of the truth, what gratitude is owed to someone who does not make their ideas intelligible to me, but instead darkens their explanation with mystical terms and ambiguous phrases, adding the burden of guessing the meaning of what they ambiguously express to the effort of examining the truth of what they seem to convey? If the matter of the philosopher's stone and the method of preparing it are such mysteries they wish the world to believe, they should be able to write clearly and intelligibly about the principles of mixed bodies in general without revealing what they call the Great Work. As for me (continues Carneades), what my frustration at this un-philosophical teaching of principles has now compelled me to say, is primarily to excuse myself if I later oppose any specific opinion or assertion that a follower of Paracelsus or any notable practitioner may claim is not their master's. As I mentioned long ago, I am not obligated to examine the writings of private individuals, which would be a labor as endless as it is pointless, but am only committed to addressing those opinions about the Tria Prima that I find most chemists agree upon. I have no doubt that my arguments against their doctrine will largely apply even to those private opinions that don’t directly oppose. Indeed, as I now turn to consider the very things into which spagyric practitioners resolve mixed bodies by fire, if I can show that these are not of an elementary nature, it won’t matter much what names certain chemists have chosen to give them. And I have no doubt that for a wise person, and thus for Eleutherius, it is less important to know what people have thought about things than what they should have thought.

In the fourth and last place, then, I consider, that as generally as Chymists are wont to appeal to Experience, and as confidently as they use to instance the several substances separated by the Fire from a Mixt Body, as a sufficient proof of their being its component Elements: Yet those differing Substances are many of them farr enough from Elementary simplicity, and may be yet look’d upon as mixt Bodies, most of them also retaining, somewhat at least, if not very much, of the Nature of those(206) Concretes whence they were forc’d.

In the fourth and final point, I think that although chemists typically rely heavily on experience and often point to the various substances separated by fire from a mixed body as strong proof of their being the basic elements, many of those different substances are far from being elementally simple. They can still be considered mixed bodies, and most of them still retain some, if not a lot, of the properties of the concretes from which they were derived.(206)

I am glad (sayes Eleutherius) to see the Vanity or Envy of the canting Chymists thus discover’d and chastis’d; and I could wish, that Learned Men would conspire together to make these deluding Writers sensible, that they must no longe hope with Impunity to abuse the World. For whilst such Men are quietly permitted to publish Books with promising Titles, and therein to Assert what they please, and contradict others, and ev’n themselves as they please, with as little danger of being confuted as of being understood, they are encourag’d to get themselves a name, at the cost of the Readers, by finding that intelligent Men are wont for the reason newly mention’d, to let their Books and Them alone: And the ignorant and credulous (of which the number is still much greater then that of the other) are forward to admire most what they least understand. But if Judicious men skill’d in Chymical affaires shall once agree to write clearly and plainly of them, and thereby keep men from being stunn’d, as it were, or imposd upon by dark or empty Words; ’tis to be hop’d that(207) these men finding that they can no longer write impertinently and absurdly, without being laugh’d at for doing so, will be reduc’d either to write nothing, or Books that may teach us something, and not rob men, as formerly, of invaluable Time; and so ceasing to trouble the World with Riddles or Impertinencies, we shall either by their Books receive an Advantage, or by their silence escape an Inconvenience.

I’m glad (says Eleutherius) to see the vanity and envy of the pretentious chemists exposed and punished. I wish that knowledgeable people would come together to make these misleading writers realize that they can't keep misleading the world without consequences. As long as such people are allowed to publish books with enticing titles, asserting whatever they want and contradicting others—and even themselves—without risk of being proven wrong or even understood, they’re encouraged to gain notoriety at the expense of the readers. This happens because smart people often avoid these books for the reason stated, leaving them alone. Meanwhile, the ignorant and gullible (who outnumber the knowledgeable) are quick to admire what they barely understand. If knowledgeable individuals experienced in chemistry decide to write clearly and plainly, preventing people from being confused or misled by obscure or empty language, it’s to be hoped that(207) these writers will find they can no longer produce nonsense without being laughed at. This may force them to either stop writing or create books that actually teach us something instead of wasting people's invaluable time. Thus, by stopping their riddles and nonsense, we’ll either gain from their books or avoid the inconvenience of listening to them.

But after all this is said (continues Eleutherius) it may be represented in favour of the Chymists, that, in one regard the Liberty they take in using names, if it be excusable at any time, may be more so when they speak of the substances whereinto their Analysis resolves mixt Bodies: Since as Parents have the Right to name their own Children, it has ever been allow’d to the Authors of new Inventions, to Impose Names upon them. And therefore the subjects we speak of being so the Productions of the Chymist’s Art, as not to be otherwise, but by it, obtainable; it seems but equitable to give the Artists leave to name them as they please: considering also that none are so fit and likely to teach us what those Bo(208)dies are, as they to whom we ow’d them.

But after all this is said (continues Eleutherius), it can be argued in favor of the Chemists that their freedom to use names, if it is justifiable at any time, may be even more so when they refer to the substances that their Analysis breaks down into mixed Bodies. Just as parents have the right to name their own children, it has always been accepted that the creators of new inventions can assign names to them. Therefore, since the subjects we are discussing are products of the Chemist's art and can only be obtained through it, it seems fair to allow the artists to name them as they wish, especially considering that no one is better suited to teach us what those Bodies are than those to whom we owe their existence.

I told You already (sayes Carneades) that there is great Difference betwixt the being able to make Experiments, and the being able to give a Philosophical Account of them. And I will not now add, that many a Mine-digger may meet, whilst he follows his work, with a Gemm or a Mineral which he knowes not what to make of, till he shews it a Jeweller or a Mineralist to be inform’d what it is. But that which I would rather have here observ’d, is, That the Chymists I am now in debate with have given up the Liberty You challeng’d for them, of using Names at Pleasure, and confin’d Themselves by their Descriptions, though but such as they are, of their Principles; so that although they might freely have call’d any thing their Analysis presents them with, either Sulphur, or Mercury, or Gas, or Blas, or what they pleas’d; yet when they have told me that Sulphur (for instance) is a Primogeneal and simple Body, Inflamable, Odorous, &c. they must give me leave to dis-believe them, if they tell me that a Body that is either compounded or uninflamable is(209) such a Sulphur; and to think they play with words, when they teach that Gold and some other Minerals abound with an Incombustible Sulphur, which is as proper an Expression, as a Sun-shine Night, or Fluid Ice.

I already told you (says Carneades) that there's a big difference between being able to conduct experiments and being able to explain them in a philosophical way. I won’t add that many miners might find a gem or mineral while working but don’t know what to do with it until they show it to a jeweler or a mineral expert for clarification. What I really want to point out is that the chemists I’m currently debating with have given up the freedom you claimed for them to use names as they wish, and have limited themselves to their descriptions, even if they’re just descriptions of their principles; so although they could have called anything that appears in their Analysis Sulfur, Mercury, Gas, or whatever they liked, when they tell me that Sulfur (for example) is a primordial and simple substance, flammable, odorous, etc., they must allow me to doubt them if they claim that a substance that is either a compound or non-flammable is(209) such a Sulfur; and I think they’re just playing with words when they say that gold and some other minerals contain an incomprehensible Sulfur, which is as sensible an expression as a sunny night or fluid ice.

But before I descend to the Mention of Particulars belonging to my Fourth Consideration, I think it convenient to premise a few Generals; some of which I shall the less need to insist on at present, because I have Touched on them already.

But before I get into the details related to my Fourth Consideration, I think it's best to start with a few general points; some of which I won't need to elaborate on right now since I've already mentioned them.

And first I must invite you to take notice of a certain passage in Helmont;Illud notabile, in vino esse Spiritum quendam mitiorem ulterioris & nobilioris qualitatis participem quā qui immediatè per distillationem elicitur diciturque aqua vitæ dephlegmata, quod facilius in simplici Olivarum oleo ad oculum spectatur. Quippe distillatum oleum absque laterum aut tigularum additamento, quodque oleum Philosophorum dicitur, multum dissert ab ejus oleitate; quæ elicitur prius reducto oleo simplici in partes dissimilares sola digestione & Salis circulati Paracelsici appositione; siquidem sal circulatum idem in pondere & quantitatibus pristinis ab oleo segregatur postquam oleum olivarum in sui heterogeneitates est dispositum. Dulce enim tunc Oleum Olivarum ex oleo, prout & suavissimus vini spiritus a vino hoc pacto separantur, longéque ab aquæ vitæ acrimoniâ distinctus.—Helmont. Aura vitalis, pag. 725. which though I have not Found much heeded by his Readers, He Himself mentions as a notable thing, and I take to be a very considerable one; for whereas the Distill’d oyle of oyle-olive, though(210) drawn per se is (as I have try’d) of a very sharp and fretting Quality, and of an odious tast, He tells us that Simple oyle being only digested with Paracelsus’s sal circulatum, is reduc’d into dissimilar parts, and yields a sweet Oyle, very differing from the oyle distill’d, from sallet oyle; as also that by the same way there may be separated from Wine a very sweet and gentle Spirit, partaking of a far other and nobler quality then that which is immediately drawn by distillation and call’d Dephlegm’d Aqua vitæ, from whose Acrimony this other spirit is exceedingly remote, although the sal circulatum that makes these Anatomies be separated from the Analyz’d Bodies, in the same weight and with the same qualities it had before; which Affirmation of Helmont if we admit to be true, we must acknowledge that there may be a very great disparity betwixt bodies of the same denomination (as several oyles, or several spirits) separable from compound Bodies: For, besides the differences I shall anon take notice of, betwixt those distill’d Oyles that are commonly known to Chymists, it appears by this, that by means of the Sal Circulatum, There may(211) be quite another sort of Oyles obtain’d from the same Body; and who knowes but that there may be yet other Agents found in Nature, by whose help there may, whether by Transmutation or otherwise, be obtain’d from the Bodies Vulgarly call’d Mixt, Oyles or other substances, Differing from those of the same Denomination, known either to Vulgar Chymists, or even to Helmont Himself: but for fear You should tell me, that this is but a conjecture grounded upon another Man’s Relation, whose Truth we have not the means to Experiment, I will not Insist upon it; but leaving You to Consider of it at leasure, I shall proceed to what is next.

And first, I must point out a certain passage in Helmont;It’s important to note that in wine there’s a certain gentler spirit that contributes to a higher and nobler quality than what is directly achieved through distillation, known as dephlegm'd aqua vitæ, which can be more easily observed in pure olive oil. Indeed, distilled oil without any additions or __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ called the Philosophers' oil is quite different from its oily nature; this is created by first breaking down the simple oil through digestion and adding Paracelsus's circulating salt. This circulating salt is separated from the oil after the olive oil has been broken down into its different components. Then, the sweet olive oil is separated from the oil, just as the sweetest spirit of wine is separated in a similar manner, and this process results in a product that is distinctly different from the bitterness of aqua vitæ. —Helmont. Aura vitalis, pag. 725. which, although I have not found much attention from his readers, he himself mentions as something noteworthy, and I believe it is quite significant; for while the distilled oil of olive oil, although(210) extracted per se is (as I have tried) very sharp and unpleasant-tasting, he tells us that simple oil, when just digested with Paracelsus's circulating salt, is broken down into different parts and yields a sweet oil very different from the oil distill’d, from salad oil; and also that in the same way, a very sweet and gentle spirit can be separated from wine, partaking of a far different and nobler quality than that which is immediately drawn by distillation and called dephlegm'd aqua vitæ, from whose bitterness this other spirit is extremely distant, although the sal circulatum that creates these Anatomies is separated from the analyzed bodies in the same weight and with the same qualities it had before; if we accept Helmont's statement as true, we must recognize that there can be a significant difference between bodies of the same name (like different oils or spirits) that can be separated from compound bodies: For, besides the differences I will soon highlight between those distilled oils commonly known to chemists, it appears from this that through sal circulatum, an entirely different kind of oils can be obtained from the same body; and who knows, there may be even more agents discovered in nature, by which, whether through transmutation or otherwise, oils or other substances differing from those of the same name, known either to common chemists or even to Helmont himself, could be obtained: but lest you tell me that this is merely speculation based on another person's account, whose truth we have no way to test, I won’t dwell on it; but leaving you to consider it at your leisure, I shall move on to what comes next.

Secondly, Then if that be True which was the Opinion of Lucippus, Democritus, and other prime Anatomists of old, and is in our dayes reviv’d by no mean Philosophers; namely, That our Culinary Fire, such as Chymists use, consists of swarmes of little Bodies swiftly moving, which by their smallness and motion are able to permeate the sollidest and Compactest Bodies, and even Glass it Self; If this (I say) be True, since we see that In flints and other Concretes,(212) the Fiery part is Incorporated with the Grosser, it will not be Irrationall to conjecture, that multitudes of these Fiery Corpuscles, getting in at the Pores of the Glass, may associate themselves with the parts of the mixt Body whereon they work, and with them Constitute new Kinds of Compound Bodies, according as the Shape, Size, and other Affections of the Parts of the Dissipated Body happen to dispose them, in Reference to such Combinations; of which also there may be the greater Number; if it be likewise granted that the Corpuscles of the Fire, though all exceeding minute, and very swiftly moved, are not all of the same bigness, nor Figure. And if I had not Weightier Considerations to Discourse to you of, I could name to you, to Countenance what I have newly said, some particular Experiments by which I have been Deduc’d to think, that the Particles of an open Fire working upon some Bodies may really Associate themselves therewith, and add to the Quantity. But because I am not so sure, that when the Fire works upon Bodies included in Glasses, it does it by a reall Trajection(213) of the Fiery Corpuscles themselves, through the Substance of the Glass, I will proceed to what is next to be mention’d.

Secondly, if what Lucippus, Democritus, and other leading Anatomists of the past believed is true, and is revived today by no less significant Philosophers; that our cooking fire, like the ones used by chemists, is made up of swarms of tiny particles moving rapidly, which, due to their small size and motion, can penetrate even the most solid and compact bodies, including glass itself; if this is indeed true, since we observe that in flints and other solids, the fiery part is mixed with the denser materials, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that large numbers of these fiery particles could enter through the pores of the glass, mix with the components of the mixture they act upon, and create new kinds of compound bodies, depending on the shape, size, and other properties of the parts of the dispersed body and how they are arranged for such combinations. There may be even more possibilities if we also accept that the particles of fire, although all extremely tiny and moving very quickly, are not all the same size or shape. If I didn’t have more important topics to discuss with you, I could mention specific experiments that have led me to believe that the particles from an open fire can indeed combine with some materials and increase their quantity. However, I’m not as certain that when the fire acts on bodies enclosed in glass, it does so through a direct passage of the fiery particles through the glass material itself. Therefore, I will move on to the next topic to be discussed.

I could (sayes Eleutherius) help you to some Proofes, whereby I think it may be made very probable, that when the Fire acts immediately upon a Body, some of its Corpuscles may stick to those of the burnt Body, as they seem to do in Quicklime, but in greater numbers, and more permanently. But for fear of retarding Your Progress, I shall desire you to deferr this Enquiry till another time, and proceed as you intended.

I could (says Eleutherius) help you with some evidence that I think makes it very likely that when fire acts directly on a substance, some of its particles may stick to those of the burnt material, similar to what happens with quicklime, but in larger quantities and more permanently. However, to avoid slowing down your progress, I would like you to postpone this investigation until another time and continue with your original plan.

You may then in the next place (sayes Carneades) observe with me, that not only there are some Bodies, as Gold, and Silver, which do not by the usual Examens, made by Fire, Discover themselves to be mixt; but if (as You may Remember I formerly told You) it be a De-compound Body that is Dissipable into several Substances, by being expos’d to the Fire it may be resolv’d into such as are neither Elementary, nor such as it was upon its last mixture Compounded of; but into new(214) Kinds of mixts. Of this I have already given You some Examples in Sope, Sugar of Lead, and Vitrioll. Now if we shall Consider that there are some Bodies, as well Natural, (as that I last nam’d) as Factitious, manifestly De-compounded; That in the Bowells of the Earth Nature may, as we see she sometimes does, make strange Mixtures; That Animals are nourish’d with other Animals and Plants; And, that these themselves have almost all of them their Nutriment and Growth, either from a certain Nitrous Juice Harbour’d in the Pores of the Earth, or from the Excrements of Animalls, or from the putrify’d Bodies, either of living Creatures or Vegetables, or from other Substances of a Compounded Nature; If, I say, we consider this, it may seem probable, that there may be among the Works of Nature (not to mention those of Art) a greater Number of De-compound Bodies, then men take Notice of; And indeed, as I have formerly also observ’d, it does not at all appear, that all Mixtures must be of Elementary Bodies; but it seems farr more probable, that there are divers sorts of(215) compound Bodies, even in regard of all or some of their Ingredients, consider’d Antecedently to their Mixture. For though some seem to be made up by the immediate Coalitions of the Elements, or Principles themselves, and therefore may be call’d Prima Mista, or Mista Primaria; yet it seems that many other Bodies are mingl’d (if I may so speak) at the second hand, their immediate Ingredients being not Elementary, but these primary Mixts newly spoken of; And from divers of these Secondary sort of Mixts may result, by a further Composition, a Third sort, and so onwards. Nor is it improbable, that some Bodies are made up of Mixt Bodies, not all of the same Order, but of several; as (for Instance) a Concrete may consist of Ingredients, whereof the one may have been a primary, the other a Secondary Mixt Body; (as I have in Native Cinnaber, by my way of Resolving it, found both that Courser the part that seems more properly to be Oar, and a Combustible Sulphur, and a Running Mercury:) or perhaps without any Ingredient of this latter sort, it may be compos’d of Mixt Bodies, some of(216) them of the first, and some of the third Kind; And this may perhaps be somewhat Illustrated by reflecting upon what happens in some Chymical Preparations of those Medicines which they call their Bezoardicum’s. For first, they take Antimony and Iron, which may be look’d upon as Prima Mista; of these they compound a Starry Regulus, and to this they add according to their Intention, either Gold, or Silver, which makes with it a new and further Composition. To this they add Sublimate, which is it self a De-compound body, (consisting of common Quicksilver, and divers Salts United by Sublimation into a Crystalline Substance) and from this Sublimate, and the other Metalline Mixtures, they draw a Liquor, which may be allow’d to be of a yet more Compounded Nature. If it be true, as Chymists affirm it, that by this Art some of the Gold or Silver mingl’d with the Regulus may be carry’d over the Helme with it by the Sublimate; as indeed a Skilfull and Candid person complain’d to me a while since, That an experienc’d Friend of His and mine, having by such a way brought over a(217) great Deal of Gold, in hope to do something further with it, which might be gainfull to him, has not only miss’d of his Aim, but is unable to recover his Volatiliz’d Gold out of the Antimonial butter, wherewith it is strictly united.

You can then, next (says Carneades), notice with me that there are some materials, like gold and silver, that don’t show themselves to be mixed through the usual tests conducted by fire. But if (as you might remember I previously mentioned) a compound material can be broken down into different substances when exposed to fire, it can turn into things that are neither elementary nor those of its last mixed state; instead, it might become new(214) types of mixtures. I've already given you some examples of this in soap, lead sugar, and vitriol. Now, if we consider that there are materials, both natural (like the one I just mentioned) and artificial, which are clearly decompounded; that nature can create bizarre mixtures in the earth's depths, as we sometimes observe; that animals are nourished by other animals and plants; and that these creatures get most of their nutrients and growth either from a certain nitrous juice found in the earth’s pores, or from the waste of animals, or from decomposed bodies, whether of living creatures or plants, or from other compounded substances; if we consider this, it might seem likely that there are more decompounded bodies in nature (not to mention those created by humans) than people realize. In fact, as I have also noted before, it doesn’t appear that all mixtures need to be of elementary bodies; rather, it seems more likely that there are various types of(215) compound bodies, especially concerning all or some of their ingredients considered before their mixing. For although some seem to be formed by the direct combination of elements or principles themselves, and therefore might be called Prima Mista or Mista Primaria; it appears that many other bodies are mixed (if I may say so) indirectly, their immediate ingredients not being elemental, but rather these primary mixtures just mentioned. And from several of these secondary types of mixtures, further compositions may lead to a third kind, and so on. It’s also possible that some bodies are made up of mixed bodies, not all of the same kind, but of various kinds; for example, a concrete may consist of ingredients where one might be a primary mixture and the other a secondary mixture. (As I have found in native cinnabar, through my way of analysis, there are both that coarser part that seems more accurately to be ore, along with a combustible sulfur and a flowing mercury:) or perhaps, without any of this latter type of ingredient, it may be composed of mixed bodies, some being of the first kind and others of the third kind. This might be somewhat illustrated by looking at what happens in some chemical preparations of those medicines they refer to as their Bezoardicum’s. First, they take antimony and iron, which can be seen as Prima Mista; from these, they create a starry Regulus, and according to their intention, they add either gold or silver, which makes a new and further composition with it. Then, they add sublime, which is itself a decompounded body (consisting of common quicksilver and various salts united by sublimation into a crystalline substance), and from this sublime and the other metal mixtures, they extract a liquor that can be considered to have an even more compounded nature. If it is true, as chemists assert, that through this art some of the gold or silver mixed with the Regulus can be carried over the helm with it by the sublime; indeed, a skilled and honest person complained to me a while back that an experienced friend of both of ours, having brought over a(217) great deal of gold this way in hopes of using it for something profitable, not only missed his target but also can't recover his volatilized gold from the antimonial butter, where it is tightly bound.

Now (Continues Carneades) if a Compound body consist of Ingredients that are not meerly Elementary; it is not hard to conceive, that the Substances into which the Fire Dissolves it, though seemingly Homogeneous enough, may be of a Compounded Nature, those parts of each body that are most of Kin associating themselves into a Compound of a new Kind. As when (for example sake) I have caus’d Vitrioll and Sal Armoniack, and Salt Petre to be mingl’d and Destill’d together, the Liquor that came over manifested it self not to be either Spirit of Nitre, or of Sal Armoniack, or of Vitrioll. For none of these would dissolve crude gold, which yet my Liquor was able readily to do; and thereby manifested it self to be a new Compound, consisting at least of Spirit of Nitre, and Sal Armoniack, (for the latter dissolv’d in the former,(218) will Work on Gold) which nevertheless are not by any known way separable, and consequently would not pass for a Mixt Body, if we our selves did not, to obtain it, put and Distill together divers Concretes, whose Distinct Operations were known before hand. And, to add on this Occasion the Experiment I lately promis’d You, because it is Applicable to our present purpose, I shall Acquaint You, that suspecting the Common Oyle of Vitrioll not to be altogether such a simple Liquor as Chymists presume it, I mingl’d it with an equal or a Double Quantity (for I try’d the Experiment more then once) of common Oyle of Turpentine, such as together with the other Liquor I bought at the Drugsters. And having carefully (for the Experiment is Nice, and somewhat dangerous) Distill’d the Mixture in a small Glass Retort, I obtain’d according to my Desire, (besides the two Liquors I had put in) a pretty Quantity of a certain substance, which sticking all about the Neck of the Retort Discover’d it self to be Sulphur, not only by a very strong Sulphureous smell, and by the colour of(219) Brimstone; but also by this, That being put upon a coal, it was immediately kindl’d, and burn’d like common Sulphur. And of this Substance I have yet by me some little Parcells, which You may command and examine when you please. So that from this Experiment I may deduce either one, or both of these Propositions, That a real Sulphur may be made by the Conjunction of two such Substances as Chymists take for Elementary, And which did not either of them apart appear to have any such body in it; or that Oyle of Vitrioll though a Distill’d Liquor, and taken for part of the Saline Principle of the Concrete that yields it, may yet be so Compounded a body as to contain, besides its Saline part, a Sulphur like common brimstone, which would hardly be it self a simple or un-compounded body.

Now (Continues Carneades) if a compound body is made up of ingredients that aren't just basic elements, it's easy to understand that the substances into which the fire breaks it down, although they seem quite uniform, may actually be of a mixed nature. The parts of each substance that are most similar may combine into a new type of compound. For example, when I caused vitriol, sal armoniack, and saltpeter to be mixed and distilled together, the resulting liquid turned out to be neither spirit of nitre, nor spirit of sal armoniack, nor vitriol. None of these would dissolve crude gold, yet my liquid could easily do so, proving itself to be a new compound made up at least of spirit of nitre and sal armoniack (since the latter dissolves in the former, (218) will work on gold), which nonetheless cannot be separated by any known method and therefore wouldn't be considered a mixed body if we hadn't previously combined and distilled various concretes whose distinct properties we already understood. Additionally, to mention the experiment I promised you, as it relates to our current discussion, I want to tell you that I suspected the common oil of vitriol wasn't as simple a liquid as chemists think. I mixed it with an equal or double amount (since I tried the experiment more than once) of common turpentine oil, which I obtained along with the other liquid from the druggist. After carefully (since the experiment is delicate and somewhat dangerous) distilling the mixture in a small glass retort, I got, as I desired, besides the two liquids I added, a good amount of a certain substance that collected around the neck of the retort. This substance turned out to be sulfur, confirmed not only by a very strong sulfurous smell and the color of (219)brimstone, but also because when placed on coal, it ignited immediately and burned like regular sulfur. I still have some small samples of this substance, which you can examine whenever you want. From this experiment, I can conclude either one or both of these propositions: that real sulfur can be made by combining two substances that chemists consider elementary, neither of which appeared separately to have such a body; or that oil of vitriol, although a distilled liquid considered part of the saline component of the concrete that produces it, can still be such a complex body that it contains, in addition to its saline part, a sulfur similar to common brimstone, which itself would hardly be a simple or uncompounded substance.

I might (pursues Carneades) remind You, that I formerly represented it, as possible, That as there may be more Elements then five, or six; so the Elements of one body may be Different from those of another; whence it would follow, that from the Resolution of De-(220)compound body, there may result Mixts of an altogether new kind, by the Coalition of Elements that never perhaps conven’d before. I might, I say, mind You of this, and add divers things to this second Consideration; but for fear of wanting time I willingly pretermit them, to pass on to the third, which is this, That the Fire does not alwayes barely resolve or take asunder, but may also after a new manner mingle and compound together the parts (whether Elementary or not) of the Body Dissipated by it.

I might remind you, as Carneades suggested, that I previously indicated it could be possible that there are more than five or six elements; likewise, the elements of one substance may differ from those of another. From the decomposition of a compound, it could lead to mixtures of an entirely new kind, formed by the combination of elements that may have never come together before. I mention this and could add various points to this second consideration; however, fearing I might run out of time, I’ll skip those and move on to the third point, which is that fire doesn’t just break down or separate; it can also mix and combine the parts (whether elemental or not) of the substance it has acted upon.

This is so evident, sayes Carneades, in some obvious Examples, that I cannot but wonder at their Supiness that have not taken notice of it. For when Wood being burnt in a Chimney is dissipated by the Fire into Smoke and Ashes, that smoke composes soot, which is so far from being any one of the principles of the Wood, that (as I noted above) you may by a further Analysis separate five or six distinct substances from it. And as for the remaining Ashes, the Chymists themselves teach us, that by a further degree of fire they may be indissolubly united into glass. ’Tis true, that the A(221)nalysis which the Chymists principally build upon is made, not in the open air, but in close Vessels; but however, the Examples lately produc’d may invite you shrewdly to suspect, That heat may as well compound as dissipate the Parts of mixt Bodies: and not to tell you, that I have known a Vitrification made even in close vessels, I must remind you that the Flowers of Antimony, and those of Sulphur, are very mix’d Bodies, though they ascend in close vessells: And that ’twas in stopt glasses that I brought up the whole Body of Camphire. And whereas it may be objected, that all these Examples are of Bodies forc’d up in a dry, not a Fluid forme, as are the Liquors wont to be obtain’d by distillation; I answer, That besides that ’tis possible, that a Body may be chang’d from Consistent to Fluid, or from Fluid to Consistent, without being otherwise much altered, as may appear by the Easiness wherewith in Winter, without any Addition or Separation of Visible Ingredients, the same substance may be quickly harden’d into brittle Ice, and thaw’d again into Fluid Water; Besides this, I say it would be consider’d, that common(222) Quick-silver it self, which the Eminentest Chymists confess to be a mixt Body, may be Driven over the Helme in its Pristine forme of Quicksilver, and consequently, in that of a Liquor. And certainly ’tis possible that very compounded Bodies may concur to Constitute Liquors; Since, not to mention that I have found it possible, by the help of a certain Menstruum, to distill Gold it self through a Retort, even with a Moderate Fire: Let us but consider what happens in Butter of Antimony. For if that be carefully rectify’d, it may be reduc’d into a very clear Liquor; and yet if You cast a quantity of fair water upon it, there will quickly precipitate a Ponderous and Vomitive Calx, which made before a considerable part of the Liquor, and yet is indeed (though some eminent Chymists would have it Mercurial) an Antimonial Body carryed over and kept dissolv’d by the Salts of the Sublimate, and consequently a compounded one; as You may find if You will have the Curiosity to Examine this White powder by a skilful Reduction. And that You may not think that Bodies as compounded as flowers of Brimstone cannot be brought(223) to Concurr to Constitute Distill’d Liquors; And also That You may not imagine with Divers Learned Men that pretend no small skill in Chymistry, that at least no mixt Body can be brought over the Helme, but by corrosive Salts, I am ready to shew You, when You please, among other wayes of bringing over Flowers of Brimstone (perhaps I might add even Mineral Sulphurs) some, wherein I employ none but Oleaginous bodies to make Volatile Liquors, in which not only the colour, but (which is a much surer mark) the smell and some Operations manifest that there is brought over a Sulphur that makes part of the Liquor.

This is so clear, says Carneades, in some obvious examples, that I can't help but be surprised at those who haven’t noticed it. When wood burns in a fireplace, it turns into smoke and ashes. That smoke creates soot, which is far from being one of the wood's original components. As I mentioned earlier, through further analysis, you can separate five or six distinct substances from it. As for the leftover ashes, chemists teach us that with a stronger heat, they can be permanently turned into glass. It’s true that the A(221)nalysis chemists rely on is done not in open air, but in closed containers; however, the examples given earlier might lead you to suspect that heat can both combine and break down the parts of mixed substances. Not to mention, I've seen vitrification happen even in closed vessels. I must also remind you that the flowers of antimony and sulfur are very mixed bodies, even though they rise in closed vessels. I’ve also produced the entire body of camphor in sealed flasks. While it could be argued that all these examples involve substances forced into a dry, not fluid state—as is the case with liquids usually obtained through distillation—I counter that it's possible for a body to change from solid to liquid, or from liquid to solid, without significant alteration, as can be seen in winter when the same substance can quickly harden into brittle ice and then thaw back into liquid water without adding or separating any visible ingredients. Moreover, consider the common (222) mercury, which even the most prominent chemists admit is a mixed body. It can be driven over the helm in its original liquid form, confirming that complex bodies can indeed come together to form liquids. For example, I’ve managed to distill gold itself through a retort using moderate heat thanks to a certain menstruum. Let’s think about what occurs with butter of antimony. If carefully refined, it can be reduced to a very clear liquid; however, if you add a certain quantity of clean water to it, a heavy and purgative calx will quickly precipitate, which used to be a significant part of the liquid, and is indeed (although some renowned chemists claim it's mercurial) an antimonial body carried over and kept dissolved by the salts of the sublimate, thus a compounded one. You’ll find this out if you're curious enough to examine this white powder through a skilled reduction. And to prevent you from thinking that bodies as complex as flowers of sulfur cannot be distilled into liquids, and to counter the views of various learned individuals who claim significant expertise in chemistry—who believe no mixture can be distilled without corrosive salts—I’m ready to show you, whenever you like, methods for distilling flowers of sulfur (and possibly even mineral sulfurs) using only oily substances to create volatile liquids, in which not only the color but, more importantly, the smell and certain operations clearly indicate that a sulfur that is part of the liquid has been captured.

One thing more there is, Eleutherius, sayes Carneades, which is so pertinent to my present purpose, that though I have touch’d upon it before, I cannot but on this occasion take notice of it. And it is this, That the Qualities or Accidents, upon whose account Chymists are wont to call a portion of Matter by the name of Mercury or some other of their Principles, are not such but that ’tis possible as Great (and therefore why not the like?) may be produc’d by such changes(224) of Texture, and other Alterations, as the Fire may make in the small Parts of a Body. I have already prov’d, when I discours’d of the second General Consideration, by what happens to plants nourish’d only with fair water, and Eggs hatch’d into Chickens, that by changing the disposition of the component parts of a Body, Nature is able to effect as great Changes in a parcell of Matter reputed similar, as those requisite to Denominate one of the Tria Prima. And though Helmont do somewhere wittily call the Fire the Destructor and the Artificial Death of Things; And although another Eminent Chymist and Physitian be pleas’d to build upon this, That Fire can never generate any thing but Fire; Yet You will, I doubt not, be of another mind, If You consider how many new sorts of mixt Bodies Chymists themselves have produc’d by means of the Fire: And particularly, if You consider how that Noble and Permanent Body, Glass, is not only manifestly produc’d by the violent action of the Fire, but has never, for ought we know, been produc’d any other way. And indeed it seems but an inconsiderate Assertion of(225) some Helmontians, that every sort of Body of a Peculiar Denomination must be produc’d by some Seminal power; as I think I could evince, if I thought it so necessary, as it is for me to hasten to what I have further to discourse. Nor need it much move us, that there are some who look upon whatsoever the Fire is employ’d to produce, not as upon Natural but Artificial Bodies. For there is not alwaies such a difference as many imagine betwixt the one and the other: Nor is it so easy as they think, clearly to assigne that which Properly, Constantly, and Sufficiently, Discriminates them. But not to engage my self in so nice a Disquisition, it may now suffice to observe, that a thing is commonly termed Artificial, when a parcel of matter is by the Artificers hand, or Tools, or both, brought to such a shape or Form, as he Design’d before-hand in his Mind: Whereas in many of the Chymical Productions the effect would be produc’d whether the Artificer intended it or no; and is oftentimes very much other then he Intended or Look’t for; and the Instruments employ’d, are not Tools Artificially fashion’d and(226) shaped, like those of Tradesmen, for this or that particular Work; but, for the most part, Agents of Nature’s own providing, and whose chief Powers of Operation they receive from their own Nature or Texture, not the Artificer. And indeed, the Fire is as well a Natural Agent as Seed: And the Chymist that imployes it, does but apply Natural Agents and Patients, who being thus brought together, and acting according to their respective Natures, performe the worke themselves; as Apples, Plums, or other fruit, are natural Productions, though the Gardiner bring and fasten together the Sciens of the Stock, and both Water, and do perhaps divers other wayes Contribute to its bearing fruit. But, to proceed to what I was going to say, You may observe with me, Eleutherius, that, as I told You once before, Qualities sleight enough may serve to Denominate a Chymical Principle. For, when they anatomize a compound Body by the Fire, if they get a Substance inflamable, and that will not mingle with Water, that they presently call Sulphur; what is sapid and Dissoluble in Water, that must pass for Salt; Whatsoever is(227) fix’d and indissoluble in Water, that they name Earth. And I was going to add, that, whatsoever Volatile substance they know not what to make of, not to say, whatsoever they please, that they call Mercury. But that these Qualities may either be produc’d, otherwise then by such as they call Seminal Agents, or may belong to bodies of a compounded Nature, may be shewn, among other Instances, in Glass made of ashes, where the exceeding strongly-tasted Alcalizate Salt joyning with the Earth becomes insipid, and with it constitutes a Body, which though also dry, fixt, and indissoluble in Water, is yet manifestly a mixt Body; and made so by the Fire itself.

One more thing, Eleutherius, says Carneades, that is really relevant to what I'm talking about right now, even though I've mentioned it before, I can't help but bring it up again. It's this: the qualities or characteristics that chemists use to call a piece of matter 'mercury' or some other principle are such that it’s possible to create equally great—and why not similar?—changes through the alterations of texture and other changes that fire can cause in the tiny parts of a body. I’ve already demonstrated, when I talked about the second general consideration, by observing how plants grow with just clean water and eggs that hatch into chickens, that by changing the arrangement of a body’s components, nature can produce as significant changes in a piece of matter considered to be the same as those necessary to classify one of the Tria Prima. And although Helmont cleverly calls fire the destroyer and the artificial death of things; and even though another prominent chemist and physician bases their idea on this that fire can only generate fire; I’m sure you’ll disagree if you think about how many new types of mixed bodies chemists have created using fire. Particularly when you consider that the noble and permanent substance, glass, is not only clearly produced through the intense action of fire, but as far as we know, it has never been produced any other way. Indeed, it seems unreasonable to claim, as some Helmontians do, that every type of body with a specific name must come from some seminal power; I could prove that if I thought it was necessary, but I need to move on to what I want to discuss further. It shouldn’t concern us too much that some people view everything produced by fire as not being natural but artificial. Because there isn’t always the kind of distinction that many assume between the two: it’s not so simple for them to clearly define what properly, consistently, and sufficiently differentiates them. But rather than getting into such a complicated discussion, it’s enough to note that something is usually called artificial when a piece of matter is shaped or formed by the craftsman’s hands or tools, or both, as they initially envisioned it. Whereas in many chemical productions, the result would occur whether the craftsman intended it or not; and it’s often very different from what they expected or intended; and the tools used are not artificially crafted tools like those of tradespeople for specific tasks; rather, they are mostly natural agents that come from nature itself, whose primary powers of operation derive from their own nature or texture, not from the craftsman. Indeed, fire is just as much a natural agent as seed is: and the chemist who uses it merely applies natural agents and materials, which, when brought together and acting according to their own natures, perform the work themselves; just as apples, plums, or other fruits are natural products, even though the gardener brings and attaches the scions to the stock, waters them, and perhaps contributes in other ways to their bearing fruit. But back to what I was going to say, you might notice with me, Eleutherius, that as I mentioned before, even slight qualities can be enough to name a chemical principle. For when they analyze a compound body with fire, if they obtain a flammable substance that doesn’t mix with water, they immediately call it sulfur; whatever is flavorful and dissolvable in water, that must be called salt; and any material that is fixed and indissoluble in water, they name earth. And I was about to add that whatever volatile substance they don’t know what to make of, or whatever they simply choose, they call mercury. But these qualities can either be produced in ways other than through what they call seminal agents, or they may belong to bodies of a compounded nature, as can be shown in the case of glass made from ashes, where the intensely tasted alkalizate salt combines with the earth and becomes tasteless, forming a body that, although also dry, fixed, and indissoluble in water, is clearly a mixed body; and it is created so by the fire itself.

And I remmember to our present purpose, that Helmont,Helmont pag. 412. amongst other Medicines that he commends, has a short processe, wherein, though the Directions for Practice are but obscurely intimated; yet I have some reason not to Dis-believe the Process, without affirming or denying any thing about the vertues of the remedy to be made by it. Quando (sayes he) oleum cinnamomi &c. suo sali alkali miscetur absque omni aqua, trium mensium artificiosa occultaque circulatione, totum in salem vola(228)tilem commutatum est, vere essentiam sui simplicis in nobis exprimit, & usque in prima nostri constitutivasese ingerit. A not unlike Processe he delivers in another place; from whence, if we suppose him to say true, I may argue, that since by the Fire there may be produc’d a substance that is as well Saline and volatile as the Salt of Harts-horn, blood, &c. which pass for Elementary; and since that this Volatile Salt is really compounded of a Chymical Oyle and a fixt Salt, the one made Volatile by the other, and both associated by the fire, it may well be suspected that other Substances, emerging upon the Dissipation of Bodies by the Fire, may be new sorts of Mixts, and consist of Substances of differing natures; and particularly, I have sometimes suspected, that since the Volatile Salts of Blood, Harts-horn, &c. are figitive and endow’d with an exceeding strong smell, either that Chymists do Erroneously ascribe all odours to sulphurs, or that such Salts consist of some oyly parts well incorporated with the Saline ones. And the like conjecture I have also made concerning Spirit of Vinager, which, though the Chymists think one of the Principles(229) of that Body, and though being an Acid Spirit it seems to be much less of kin then Volatile Salts to sulphurs; yet, not to mention its piercing smell; which I know not with what congruity the Chymist will deduce from Salt, I wonder they have not taken notice of what their own Tyrocinium ChymicumTyroc. Chym.
L. 1. C. 4.
teach us concerning the Destillation of Saccharum Saturni; out of which Beguinus assures Us, that he distill’d, besides a very fine spirit, no lesse then two Oyles, the one blood-red and ponderous, but the other swimming upon the top of the Spirit, and of a yellow colour; of which he sayes that he kept then some by him, to verify what he delivers. And though I remember not that I have had two distinct Oyles from Sugar of Lead, yet that it will though distill’d without addition yield some Oyle, disagrees not with my Experience. I know the Chymists will be apt to pretend, that these Oyls are but the volatiliz’d sulphur of the lead; and will perhaps argue it from what Beguinus relates, that when the Distillation is ended, you’l find a Caput Mortuum extreamly black, and (as he speaks) nullius momenti, as if the Body, or at least the chief part of(230) the Metal it self were by the distillation carried over the Helme. But since you know as well as I that Saccharum Saturni is a kind of Magistery, made only by calcining of Lead per se, dissolving it in distill’d Vinager, and crystalizing the solution; if I had leasure to tell You how Differing a thing I did upon examination find the Caput Mortuum, so sleighted by Beguinus, to be from what he represents it, I believe you would think the conjecture propos’d less probable then one or other of these three; either that this Oyle did formerly concur to constitute the Spirit of Vinager, and so that what passes for a Chymical Principle may yet be further resoluble into distinct substances; or that some parts of the Spirit together with some parts of the Lead may constitute a Chymical Oyle, which therefore though it pass for Homogeneous, may be a very compounded Body: or at least that by the action of the Distill’d Vinager and the Saturnine Calx one upon another, part of the Liquor may be so alter’d as to be transmuted from an Acid Spirit into an Oyle. And though the truth of either of the two former conjectures would make the example I(231) have reflected on more pertinent to my present argument; yet you’l easily discern, the Third and last Conjecture cannot be unserviceable to confirm some other passages of my discourse.

And I remember for our current purpose that Helmont,Helmont p. 412. among other medicines he recommends, has a brief process where, although the instructions for practice are somewhat unclear, I have some reason not to disbelieve the process, without affirming or denying anything about the benefits of the remedy produced from it. When (he says) oil of cinnamon &c. is mixed with its alkaline salt without any water, through three months of careful and hidden circulation, it is entirely transformed into volatile salt, truly expressing the essence of its simple form within us, and until it gets into our first constituents. He describes a similar process elsewhere; from which, if we assume he's telling the truth, I can argue that since fire can produce a substance that is both saline and volatile like the salt of hartshorn, blood, etc., which are considered elemental; and since this volatile salt is actually a combination of a chemical oil and a fixed salt, the former made volatile by the latter, both brought together by fire, it can be reasonably suspected that other substances, arising from the dissipation of bodies through fire, may be new kinds of mixtures, consisting of substances of different natures. In particular, I have sometimes suspected that since the volatile salts of blood, hartshorn, etc., are figitive and have an extremely strong smell, either chemists mistakenly attribute all odors to sulfur, or these salts are made up of some oily parts well integrated with the saline ones. I’ve also made similar guesses about spirit of vinegar, which, although chemists think is one of the principles(229) of that substance, and although as an acidic spirit it seems to be much less related to volatile salts than to sulfurs; yet, not to mention its sharp smell, I am unclear how the chemist would explain that from salt. I wonder why they have not noticed what their own Tyrocinium ChymicumTyroc. Chym.
L. 1. C. 4.
teaches us about the distillation of Saccharum Saturni; from which Beguinus assures us that he distilled, besides a very fine spirit, no less than two oils, one deep red and heavy, while the other floated on top of the spirit and was yellow; he says he kept some on hand to verify what he claims. And even though I don’t recall having obtained two distinct oils from sugar of lead, I can confirm it yields some oil when distilled without any additives, which aligns with my experience. I know chemists will likely argue that these oils are merely the volatilized sulfur from the lead; and they may point out that after the distillation, you'll find an extremely black Caput Mortuum which he says is of no significance, as if the body, or at least the main part of(230) the metal, was carried away by the distillation. But since you know as well as I do that Saccharum Saturni is a type of mastery made only by calcining lead per se, dissolving it in distilled vinegar, and crystallizing the solution; if I had the leisure to explain how I found the Caput Mortuum, so dismissed by Beguinus, to be very different from his description, I believe you would find the conjecture proposed less likely than one of these three; either that this oil previously contributed to forming the spirit of vinegar, so that what is considered a chemical principle could be further resolved into distinct substances; or that some components of the spirit, along with parts of the lead, could form a chemical oil, which, although regarded as homogeneous, may actually be a very complex body; or at the very least, that through the interaction of the distilled vinegar and the saturnine calx, one could alter part of the liquid enough to change it from an acidic spirit into an oil. And while the truth of either of the first two hypotheses would make the example I(231) have considered more relevant to my current argument, you’ll easily see that the third and final conjecture cannot be unhelpful in confirming some other points of my discussion.

To return then to what I was saying just before I mention’d Helmont’s Experiment, I shall subjoyne, That Chymists must confess also that in the perfectly Dephlegm’d spirit of Wine, or other Fermented Liquors, that which they call the Sulphur of the Concrete loses, by the Fermentation, the Property of Oyle, (which the Chymists likewise take to be the true Sulphur of the Mixt) of being unminglable with the Water. And if You will credit Helmont,Ostendi alias, quomodo lib. una aquæ vitæ combibita in sale Tartari siccato, vix fiat semuncia salis, cæterum totum corpus fiat aqua Elementalis. Helmont. in Aura vitali. all of the purest Spirit of Wine may barely by the help of pure Salt of Tartar (which is but the fixed Salt of Wine) be resolv’d or Transmuted into scarce half an ounce of Salt, and as much Elementary Water as amounts to the remaining part of the mention’d weight. And it may (as I think I formerly also noted) be doubted, whether that Fixt and Alcalizate Salt, which is so unanimously agreed on to be the Saline Principle of incinerated Bodies, be not,(232) as ’tis Alcalizate, a Production of the Fire? For though the tast of Tartar, for Example, seem to argue that it contains a Salt before it be burn’d, yet that Salt being very Acid is of a quite Differing Tast from the Lixiviate Salt of Calcin’d Tartar. And though it be not truly Objected against the Chymists, that they obtain all Salts they make, by reducing the Body they work on into Ashes with Violent Fires, (since Hartshorn, Amber, Blood, and divers other Mixts yield a copious Salt before they be burn’d to Ashes) yet this Volatile Salt Differs much, as we shall see anon, from the Fixt Alcalizate Salt I speak of; which for ought I remember is not producible by any known Way, without Incineration. ’Tis not unknown to Chymists, that Quicksilver may be Precipitated, without Addition, into a dry Powder, that remains so in Water. And some eminent Spagyrists, and even Raimund Lully himself, teach, that meerly by the Fire Quicksilver may in convenient Vessels be reduc’d (at least in great part) into a thin Liquor like Water, and minglable with it. So that by the bare Action(233) of the Fire, ’tis possible, that the parts of a mixt Body should be so dispos’d after new and differing manners, that it may be sometimes of one consistence, sometimes of another; And may in one State be dispos’d to be mingl’d with Water, and in another not. I could also shew you, that Bodies from which apart Chymists cannot obtain any thing that is Combustible, may by being associated together, and by the help of the Fire, afford an inflamable Substance. And that on the other side, ’tis possible for a Body to be inflamable, from which it would very much puzzle any ordinary Chymist; and perhaps any other, to separate an inflamable Principle or Ingredient. Wherefore, since the Principles of Chymists may receive their Denominations from Qualities, which it often exceeds not the power of Art, nor alwayes that of the Fire to produce; And since such Qualities may be found in Bodies that differ so much in other Qualities from one another, that they need not be allow’d to agree in that pure and simple Nature, which Principles, to be so indeed, must have; it may(234) justly be suspected, that many Productions of the Fire that are shew’d us by Chymists, as the Principles of the Concrete that afforded them, may be but a new kind of Mixts. And to annex, on this Occasion, to these arguments taken from the Nature of the thing, one of those which Logicians call ad Hominem, I shall desire You to take Notice, that though Paracelsus Himself, and some that are so mistaken as to think he could not be so, have ventur’d to teach, that not only the bodies here below, but the Elements themselves, and all the other Parts of the Universe, are compos’d of Salt, Sulphur and Mercury; yet the learned Sennertus, and all the more wary Chymists, have rejected that conceit, and do many of them confess, that the Tria Prima are each of them made up of the four Elements; and others of them make Earth and Water concur with Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, to the Constitution of Mixt bodies. So that one sort of these Spagyrists, notwithstanding the specious Titles they give to the productions of the Fire, do in effect grant what I contend for. And, of the o(235)ther sort I may well demand, to what Kind of Bodies the Phlegme and dead Earth, to be met with in Chymical Resolutions, are to be referr’d? For either they must say, with Paracelsus, but against their own Concessions as well as against Experience, that these are also compos’d of the Tria Prima, whereof they cannot separate any one from either of them; or else they must confess that two of the vastest Bodies here below, Earth, and Water, are neither of them compos’d of the Tria Prima; and that consequently those three are not the Universal, and Adequate Ingredients, neither of all Sublunary Bodies, nor even of all mixt Bodies.

To get back to what I was saying just before I mentioned Helmont's Experiment, I want to add that chemists must also admit that in the perfectly dephlegm'd spirit of wine, or other fermented drinks, what they call the sulfur of the concrete loses, through fermentation, the property of oil (which chemists likewise consider to be the true sulfur of the mix) of being immiscible with water. If you trust Helmont,I show another example of how, when one book of the water of life is mixed with dried salt from Tartary, barely half a ounce of salt is produced, while the entire body transforms into elemental water. Helmont. in Aura vitali. all the purest spirit of wine can barely, with the help of pure salt of tartar (which is just the fixed salt of wine), be converted into barely half an ounce of salt, plus as much elemental water as accounts for the rest of the mentioned weight. And it may (as I think I noted before) be questioned whether that fixed and alkaline salt, which is so unanimously agreed upon as the saline principle of incinerated bodies, is not,(232) as it is alkaline, a product of fire? For even though the taste of tartar, for example, seems to suggest that it contains a salt before it is burned, that salt, being quite acidic, has a totally different taste from the lixiviate salt of calcined tartar. And while it's not truly objectionable against the chemists that they obtain all salts they make by reducing the body they work on into ashes with violent fires (since hartshorn, amber, blood, and various other mixes yield a plentiful salt before they are burned to ashes), this volatile salt differs greatly, as we shall see shortly, from the fixed alkaline salt I mention; which, as far as I recall, cannot be produced by any known method without incineration. Chemists know that quicksilver can be precipitated, without any additions, into a dry powder, which remains so in water. Some notable spagyrists, and even Raimund Lully himself, teach that quicksilver can merely be reduced (at least largely) by fire in suitable vessels into a liquid like water, which can mix with it. Thus, through the mere action(233) of fire, it's possible for the parts of a mixed body to be rearranged in new and different ways, making it sometimes have one consistency, sometimes another; and in one state, it may be apt to mix with water, and in another, it might not. I could also show you that bodies from which chemists cannot obtain anything combustible on their own can, when combined together and with the help of fire, produce an inflammable substance. Conversely, it is possible for a body to be inflammable even when separating an inflammable principle or ingredient would be quite a puzzle for any ordinary chemist, and perhaps anyone else. Therefore, since the principles of chemists may receive their names from qualities that it often exceeds the power of art or always that of fire to produce; and since such qualities can be found in bodies that differ so much in other qualities from one another that they need not be allowed to agree in that pure and simple nature, which principles must have to be such, it may(234) justly be suspected that many products of fire shown to us by chemists as the principles of the concrete that generated them might be just a new kind of mixtures. And to add, in this context, one of those arguments that logicians call ad Hominem, I would like you to take note that although Paracelsus himself, and some who are misled enough to think he could not be so, have ventured to teach that not only the bodies here below, but the elements themselves, and all other parts of the universe, are composed of salt, sulfur, and mercury; yet the learned Sennertus, and all the more cautious chemists, have rejected that idea, and many admit that the Tria Prima are made up of the four elements; and others include earth and water along with salt, sulfur, and mercury in the constitution of mixed bodies. Therefore, one type of these spagyrists, despite the attractive titles they give to products of fire, effectively concede what I argue for. And, of the other type, I can rightly ask, to what kind of bodies are the phlegm and dead earth found in chemical resolutions to be referred? For they must either say, with Paracelsus, but against their own concessions as well as against experience, that these are also composed of the Tria Prima, from which they cannot separate any one from either of them; or they must admit that two of the largest bodies here below, earth and water, are neither composed of the Tria Prima; and that consequently those three are not the universal and adequate ingredients of all sublunary bodies, nor even all mixed bodies.

I know that the chief of these Chymists represent, that though the Distinct Substances into which they divide mixt bodies by the Fire, are not pure and Homogeneous; yet since the four Elements into which the Aristotelians pretend to resolve the like bodies by the same Agent, are not simple neither, as themselves acknowledge, ’tis as allowable for the Chymists to call the one Principles, as for the Peripateticks to call the other Elements; since in both cases the(236) Imposition of the name is grounded only upon the Predominancy of that Element whose name is ascrib’d to it. Nor shall I deny, that this Argument of the Chymists is no ill one against the Aristotelians. But what Answer can it prove to me, who you know am disputing against the Aristotelian Elements, as the Chymicall Principles, and must not look upon any body as a true Principle or Element, but as yet compounded, which is not perfectly Homogeneous, but is further Resoluble into any number of Distinct Substances how small soever. And as for the Chymists calling a body Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, upon pretence that the Principle of the same name is predominant in it, That it self is an Acknowledgment of what I contend for; namely that these productions of the Fire, are yet compounded bodies. And yet whilst this is granted, it is affirm’d, but not prov’d, that the reputed Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, consists mainly of one body that deserves the name of a principle of the same Denomination. For how do Chymists make it appear that there are any such primitive and simple bo(237)dies in those we are speaking of; since ’tis upon the matter confess’d by the answer lately made, that these are not such? And if they pretend by Reason to evince what they affirm, what becomes of their confident boasts, that the Chymists (whom they therefore, after Beguinus, call a Philosophus or Opifex Sensatus) can convince our Eyes, by manifestly shewing in any mixt body those simple substances he teaches them to be compos’d of? And indeed, for the Chymists to have recourse in this case to other proofs then Experiments, as it is to wave the grand Argument that has all this while been given out for a Demonstrative One; so it releases me from the obligation to prosecute a Dispute wherein I am not engag’d to Examine any but Experimentall proofs. I know it may plausibly Enough be Represented, in favour of the Chymists, that it being evident that much the greater part of any thing they call Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, is really such; it would be very rigid to deny those Substances the names ascribed them, only because of some sleight mixture of another Body; since not only the Peripateticks call particular parcels of(238) matter Elementary, though they acknowledge that Elements are not to be anywhere found pure, at least here below; And since especially there is a manifest Analogie and Resemblance betwixt the bodies obtainable by Chymical Anatomies and the principles whose names are given them; I have, I say, consider’d that these things may be represented: But as for what is drawn from the Custome of the Peripateticks, I have already told You, that though it may be employ’d against Them, Yet it is not available against me who allow nothing to be an Element that is not perfectly Homogeneous. And whereas it is alledg’d, that the Predominant Principle ought to give a name to the substance wherein it abounds; I answer, that that might much more reasonably be said, if either we or the Chymists had seen Nature take pure Salt, pure Sulphur, and pure Mercury, and compound of them every sort of Mixt Bodies. But, since ’tis to experience that they appeal, we must not take it for granted, that the Distill’d Oyle (for instance) of a plant is mainly compos’d of the pure principle call’d Sulphur, till they have given us an ocular proof,(239) that there is in that sort of Plants such an Homogeneous Sulphur. For as for the specious argument, which is drawn from the Resemblance betwixt the Productions of the Fire, and the Respective, either Aristotelian Elements, or Chymical Principles, by whose names they are call’d; it will appear more plausible then cogent, if You will but recall to mind the state of the controversie; which is not, whether or no there be obtain’d from mixt Bodies certain substances that agree in outward appearance, or in some Qualities with Quicksilver or Brimstone, or some such obvious or copious Body; But whether or no all Bodies confess’d to be perfectly mixt were compos’d of, and are resoluble into a determinate number of primary unmixt Bodies. For, if you keep the state of the question in your Eye, you’l easily discerne that there is much of what should be Demonstrated, left unprov’d by those Chymical Experiments we are Examining. But (not to repeat what I have already discover’d more at large) I shall now take notice, that it will not presently follow, that because a Production of the Fire has some affinity with some of the greater Masses(240) of matter here below, that therefore they are both of the same Nature, and deserve the same Name; for the Chymists are not content, that flame should be look’t upon as a parcel of the Element of Fire, though it be hot, dry, and active, because it wants some other Qualities belonging to the nature of Elementary fire. Nor will they let the Peripateticks call Ashes, or Quicklime, Earth, notwithstanding the many likenesses between them; because they are not tastlesse, as Elementary Earth ought to be: But if you should ask me, what then it is, that all the Chymical Anatomies of Bodies do prove, if they prove not that they consist of the three Principles into which the fire resolves them? I answer, that their Dissections may be granted to prove, that some mixt bodies (for in many it will not hold) are by the fire, when they are included in close Vessels, (for that Condition also is often requisite) dissolube into several Substances differing in some Qualities, but principally in Consistence. So that out of most of them may be obtain’d a fixt substance partly saline, and partly insipid, an unctuous Liquor, and another Liquor or(241) more that without being unctuous have a manifest taste. Now if Chymists will agree to call the dry and sapid substance salt, the Unctous liquor Sulphur, and the other Mercury, I shall not much quarrel with them for so doing: But if they will tell me that Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, are simple and primary bodies whereof each mixt body was actually compounded, and which was really in it antecedently to the operation of the fire, they must give me leave to doubt whether (whatever their other arguments may do) their Experiments prove all this. And if they will also tell me that the Substances their Anatomies are wont to afford them, are pure and similar, as Principles ought to be, they must give me leave to believe my own senses; and their own confessions, before their bare Assertions. And that you may not (Eleutherius) think I deal so rigidly with them, because I scruple to Take these Productions of the Fire for such as the Chymists would have them pass for, upon the account of their having some affinity with them; consider a little with me, that in regard an Element or Principle ought to be perfectly Similar and(242) Homogeneous, there is no just cause why I should rather give the body propos’d the Name of this or that Element or Principle, because it has a resemblance to it in some obvious Quality, rather then deny it that name upon the account of divers other Qualities, wherein the propos’d Bodies are unlike; and if you do but consider what sleight and easily producible qualities they are that suffice, as I have already more then once observ’d, to Denominate a Chymical Principle or an Element, you’l not, I hope, think my wariness to be destitute either of Example, or else of Reason. For we see that the Chymists will not allow the Aristotelians that the Salt in Ashes ought to be called Earth, though the Saline and Terrestrial part symbolize in weight, in dryness, in fixness and fusibility, only because the one is sapid and dissoluble in Water, and the other not: Besides, we see that sapidness and volatility are wont to denominate the Chymists Mercury or Spirit; and yet how many Bodies, think you, may agree in those Qualities which may yet be of very differing natures, and disagree in qualities either more numerous, or more considerable, or both. For(243) not only Spirit of Nitre, Aqua Fortis, Spirit of Salt, Spirit of Oyle of Vitriol, Spirit of Allome, Spirit of Vinager, and all Saline Liquors Distill’d from Animal Bodies, but all the Acetous Spirits of Woods freed from their Vinager; All these, I say, and many others must belong to the Chymists Mercury, though it appear not why some of them should more be comprehended under one denomination then the Chymists Sulphur, or Oyle should likewise be; for their Distill’d Oyles are also Fluid, Volatile, and Tastable, as well as their Mercury; Nor is it Necessary, that their Sulphur should be Unctuous or Dissoluble in Water, since they generally referr Spirit of Wine to Sulphurs, although that Spirit be not Unctuous, and will freely mingle with Water. So that bare Inflamability must constitute the Essence of the Chymists Sulphur; as uninflamablenesse joyned with any taste is enough to intitle a Distill’d Liquor to be their Mercury. Now since I can further observe to You, that Spirit of Nitre and Spirit of Harts-horne being pour’d together will boile(244) and hisse and tosse up one another into the air, which the Chymists make signes of great Antipathy in the Natures of Bodies (as indeed these Spirits differ much both in Taste, Smell, and Operations;) Since I elsewhere tell you of my having made two sorts of Oyle out of the same mans blood, that would not mingle with one another; And since I might tell You Divers Examples I have met with, of the Contrariety of Bodies which according to the Chymists must be huddl’d up together under one Denomination; I leave you to Judge whether such a multitude of Substances as may agree in these sleight Qualities, and yet Disagree in Others more Considerable, are more worthy to be call’d by the Name of a Principle (which ought to be pure and homogeneous,) than to have appellations given them that may make them differ, in name too, from the bodies from which they so wildly differ in Nature. And hence also, by the bye, you may perceive that ’tis not unreasonable to distrust the Chymists way of Argumentation, when being unable to shew us that(245) such a Liquor is (for Example) purely saline, they prove, that at least salt is much the predominant principle, because that the propos’d substance is strongly tasted, and all Tast proceeds from salt; whereas those Spirits, such as spirit of Tartar, spirit of Harts-horn, and the like, which are reckoned to be the Mercuries of the Bodies that afford them, have manifestly a strong and piercing tast, and so has (according to what I formerly noted) the spirit of Box &c. even after the acid Liquor that concurr’d to compose it has been separated from it. And indeed, if sapidness belong not to the spirit or Mercurial Principle of Vegitables and Animals: I scarce know how it will be discriminated from their phlegm, since by the absence of Inflamability it must be distinguish’d from their sulphur, which affords me another Example, to prove how unacurate the Chymical Doctrine is in our present Case; since not only the spirits of Vegitables and Animals, but their Oyles are very strongly tasted, as he that shall but wet his tongue with Chymical Oyle of Cinnamon, or of Cloves, or even of Turpentine, may quickly find, to his smart. And not only I(246) never try’d any Chymical Oyles whose tast was not very manifest and strong; but a skilful and inquisitive person who made it his business by elaborate operations to depurate Chymical Oyles, and reduce them to an Elementary simplicity, Informes us, that he never was able to make them at all Tastless; whence I might inferr, that the proof Chymists confidently give us of a bodies being saline, is so far from demonstrating the Predominancy, that it does not clearly Evince so much as the presence of the saline Principle in it. But I will not (pursues Carneades) remind you, that the Volatile salt of Harts-horn, Amber, Blood, &c. are exceeding strongly scented, notwithstanding that most Chymists deduce Odours from Sulphur, and from them argue the Predominancy of that Principle in the Odorous body, because I must not so much as add any new Examples of the incompetency of this sort of Chymical arguments; since having already detain’d You but too long in those generals that appertain to my fourth consideration, ’tis time that I proceed to the particulars themselves, to which I thought fit they should be previous:(247)

I know that the main proponents of chemistry argue that even though the distinct substances they isolate from mixtures using fire are not pure and homogeneous, it is still acceptable for them to call these substances principles. This is comparable to the Aristotelians, who claim to break down similar bodies into four elements through the same process, yet even they acknowledge that these elements are not truly simple. Thus, it seems justifiable for chemists to label their substances as principles, just as it is for the Peripatetics to call theirs elements, as both naming conventions are based on the predominance of the element in question. I won't deny that this argument of the chemists is reasonable against the Aristotelians. However, what does it prove for me, as I am arguing against the Aristotelian elements, considering that I only recognize something as a true principle or element if it is entirely homogeneous and cannot be broken down into a smaller number of distinct substances? When chemists refer to a body as salt, sulfur, or mercury, arguing that the principle of that name is dominant within it, they are actually acknowledging my point: these products of fire are still compounds. Furthermore, while they assert that the so-called salt, sulfur, or mercury consists mainly of one substance rightly deserving the title of a principle, they have yet to convincingly demonstrate that such primitive and simple bodies exist among the ones in question. Their previous responses indicate that these substances are not truly simple. If they claim to provide reasoned evidence for their assertions, then what happens to their bold claims that the ______ (which they subsequently refer to as a philosopher or "sensible maker") can convincingly show us these simple substances within any mixture? Indeed, if chemists turn to evidence other than experiments in this matter, they are avoiding the fundamental argument that has always been presented as demonstrative, freeing me from the obligation to argue when I am not bound to examine anything but experimental evidence. I understand that it may seem reasonable on behalf of the chemists to argue that since it is clear that a significant portion of what they call salt, sulfur, or mercury is indeed such, it would be unreasonable to deny these substances their names merely due to some slight mixing with another body. After all, the Peripatetics also label particular portions of matter as elementary, even though they admit that true elements cannot be found in pure form, at least not here on earth. Moreover, there is a clear analogy and resemblance between the products obtained through chemical analysis and the principles for which they are named. However, as I have said, while such arguments can be used against the Peripatetics, they don't hold against me since I reject anything as an element that is not perfectly homogeneous. While it is claimed that the predominant principle should name the substance in which it is abundant, I respond that this can only be more reasonably argued if either we or the chemists had seen nature create pure salt, pure sulfur, and pure mercury to compose every kind of mixture. However, since they invoke experience, we should not assume that distilled oil (for example) from a plant is primarily composed of the pure principle called sulfur until they provide us with visual proof that such a homogeneous sulfur exists in those types of plants. As for the appealing argument drawn from the resemblance between the products of fire and the corresponding Aristotelian elements or chemical principles, it seems to be more superficial than convincing if you remember the nature of the controversy. The question is not whether certain substances resembling mercury or brimstone can be isolated from mixed bodies but whether all bodies confirmed to be perfectly mixed can be composed of and resolvable into a specific number of primary, unadulterated bodies. If you keep the core of the question in mind, you will easily see there is a lot that needs to be demonstrated that is yet unproven by the chemical experiments we've been examining. Not to reiterate what I’ve already discussed in detail, I will point out that it doesn’t necessarily follow that because a product of fire shows some similarity to certain substantial masses here below, they must therefore both share the same nature and deserve the same name. Chemists wouldn’t agree for flame to be considered a part of the fire element, even though it is hot, dry, and active, because it lacks other qualities that belong to the nature of elemental fire. Furthermore, they wouldn’t let the Peripatetics call ashes or quicklime earth, despite the many similarities between them, because they lack the tasteless quality expected of elemental earth. If you were to ask me what indeed the chemical analyses of bodies prove if they do not show that these bodies are made up of the three principles into which fire breaks them down, I would respond that their dissections may indeed show that some mixed bodies (though this does not apply to many) can be broken down by fire, but only when they are contained in closed vessels (which is often also a necessary condition) into various substances that differ in some qualities, primarily in consistency. Therefore, from most of them, you can obtain a solid substance that is partly saline and partly tasteless, a fatty liquid, and one or more other liquids that, while not fatty, do exhibit a distinct taste. Now, if chemists agree to label the dry and tasty substance as salt, the fatty liquid as sulfur, and the other as mercury, I won’t quarrel with them too much about that. But if they assert that salt, sulfur, and mercury are simple, primary bodies that each mixed body is truly composed of and that these substances existed in them before the fire acted upon them, I must express my doubt about whether, regardless of their other arguments, their experiments support this entirely. If they also claim that the substances their analyses typically yield are pure and consistent, as principles ought to be, they must allow me to trust my own senses and their own admissions rather than their mere assertions. And so you don’t think I am being overly harsh on them, consider with me that since an element or principle must be completely uniform and homogeneous, there is no good reason for me to assign the proposed body the title of this or that element or principle, merely because it shares a resemblance with some obvious quality, rather than deny it that name due to various other qualities in which the proposed bodies are dissimilar. If you reflect on the minor and easily produced qualities that suffice, as I have pointed out several times, to name a chemical principle or element, you won’t, I hope, think my caution is without foundation or rationale. For we see that the chemists do not permit the Aristotelians to call the salt in ashes earth, even though the saline and terrestrial parts are comparable in weight, dryness, fixity, and fusibility. They refuse to do so simply because one is savory and soluble in water while the other is not. Additionally, we observe that savoriness and volatility are typically used to label what chemists consider mercury or spirit. However, how many bodies do you think can share those qualities yet possess very different natures, and differ in qualities that are either more numerous or more significant, or both? Not only do the spirits of nitre, aqua fortis, spirit of salt, spirit of oil of vitriol, spirit of alum, and spirit of vinegar, along with all saline liquids distilled from animal bodies belong to the chemists' mercury, but all the acetic spirits from woods, purged of their vinegar, do too. All these examples suggest that they refer to these spirits as mercury, when it is unclear why some of them should be classified under one label rather than sulfur or oil. This is because their distilled oils are also fluid, volatile, and tasty, just like their mercury. There’s no requirement for their sulfur to be fatty or soluble in water since they generally assign spirits of wine to sulfur, even though that spirit is neither fatty nor mixes easily with water. Thus, sheer combustibility seems to define the essence of the chemists’ sulfur, while the combination of non-combustibility with any taste is enough to classify a distilled liquid as their mercury. Now, since I can further observe that when spirit of nitre and spirit of hartshorn are combined, they will boil and hiss and throw each other into the air—an occurrence that the chemists interpret as signs of a significant antipathy in the natures of bodies (since these spirits notably differ in taste, smell, and effects)—and since I’ve previously mentioned that I made two types of oil from the same person’s blood, which wouldn’t mix with each other, and since I have various examples of the contradiction of bodies that must be lumped together under one name according to the chemists, I leave it to you to judge whether such a multitude of substances that may agree in these minor qualities yet differ in more important ones are more deserving of being called a principle (which ought to be pure and homogeneous) than to be named in such a way that makes them differ in name, as well as in nature, from the bodies from which they significantly differ. Additionally, you may see that it’s not unreasonable to be skeptical of the chemists’ mode of argumentation when, unable to demonstrate that such a liquid is, for example, purely saline, they claim that at least salt is the predominant principle because the proposed substance has a strong taste, asserting that all taste derives from salt. Yet spirits like spirit of tartar, spirit of hartshorn, and the like—considered the mercuries of the bodies that yield them—also have a noticeably strong and sharp taste, as does the spirit of box, even after the acidic liquid contributing to its composition has been separated out. Indeed, if flavor does not belong to the spirit or mercurial principle of plants and animals, I hardly see how it can be differentiated from their phlegm, since the absence of combustibility must distinguish it from their sulfur. This provides me another example to illustrate how inaccurate chemical doctrine is in our current case; for not only are the spirits of vegetables and animals, but their oils too are very strongly flavored, as anyone who touches their tongue to chemical oil of cinnamon, cloves, or even of turpentine will quickly discover to their discomfort. Moreover, not only have I never tested any chemical oils that did not have a distinctly strong taste, but a skilled and curious individual dedicated to painstaking operations to purify chemical oils and reduce them to elemental simplicity informs us that he could never achieve a completely tasteless result. From this, I can infer that the confident assertion chemists make about a body being saline is so far from demonstrating predominance that it does not even convincingly show the presence of the saline principle within it. But I won’t remind you that the volatile salt of hartshorn, amber, blood, etc., are exceedingly fragrant, even though most chemists trace odors back to sulfur and argue for the predominance of that principle in odoriferous bodies. I won’t add any more new examples to highlight the inadequacy of this type of chemical reasoning; having already kept you too long discussing the general points related to my fourth consideration, it's time to move on to the specifics that I thought needed to come first:

These Generals (continues Carneades) being thus premis’d, we might the better survey the Unlikeness that an attentive and unprepossess’d observer may take notice of in each sort of Bodies which the Chymists are wont to call the salts or sulphurs or Mercuries of the Concretes that yield Them, as if they had all a simplicity, and Identity of Nature: whereas salts if they were all Elementary would as little differ as do the Drops of pure and simple Water. ’Tis known that both Chymists and Physitians ascribe to the fixt salts of calcin’d Bodies the vertues of their concretes; and consequently very differing Operations. So we find the Alkali of Wormwood much commended in distempers of the stomach; that of Eyebright for those that have a weak sight; and that of Guaiacum (of which a great Quantity yields but a very little salt) is not only much commended in Venereal Diseases, but is believed to have a peculiar purgative vertue, which yet I have not had occasion to try. And though, I confess, I have long thought, that these Alkalizate salts are, for the most part, very neer of kin, and retain very little of the properties of(248) the Concretes whence they were separated; Yet being minded to Observe watchfully whether I could meet with any Exceptions to this General Observation, I observ’d at the Glasse-house, that sometimes the Metal (as the Workmen call it) or Masse of colliquated Ingredients, which by Blowing they fashion into Vessels of divers shapes, did sometimes prove of a very differing colour, and a somewhat differing Texture, from what was usuall. And having enquired whether the cause of such Accidents might not be derived from the peculiar Nature of the fixt salt employ’d to bring the sand to fusion, I found that the knowingst Workmen imputed these Mis-adventures to the Ashes, of some certain kind of Wood, as having observ’d the ignobler kind of Glass I lately mention’d to be frequently produc’d when they had employ’d such sorts of Ashes which therefore they scruple to make use of, if they took notice of them beforehand. I remember also, that an Industrious Man of my acquaintance having bought a vast quantity of Tobacco stalks to make a fixt Salt with, I had the Curiosity to go see whether that Exotick Plant, which(249) so much abounds in volatile salt, would afford a peculiar kind of Alcali; and I was pleas’d to find that in the Lixivium of it, it was not necessary, as is usual, to evaporate all the Liquor, that there might be obtain’d a Saline Calx, consisting like lime quench’d in the Air of a heap of little Corpuscles of unregarded shapes; but the fixt salt shot into figur’d Crystal, almost as Nitre or Sal-armoniack and other uncalcin’d salts are wont to do; And I further remember that I have observ’d in the fixt Salt of Urine, brought by depuration to be very white, a tast not so unlike to that of common salt, and very differing from the wonted caustick Lixiviate tast of other salts made by Incineration. But because the Instances I have alledg’d of the Difference of Alcalizate salt are but few, and therefore I am still inclin’d to think, that most Chymists and many Physitians do, inconsideratly enough and without Warrant from Experience, ascribe the Vertues of the Concretes expos’d to Calcination, to the salts obtain’d by it; I shall rather, to shew the Disparity of salts, mention in the first Place the apparent Difference betwixt the Vegetable fixt salts and the(250) Animal Volatile ones: As (for Example) betwixt salt of Tartar, and salt of Harts-horn; whereof the former is so fixt that ’twill indure the brunt of a violent Fire, and stand in fusion like a Metal; whereas the other (besides that it has a differing tast and a very differing smell) is so far from being fixt, that it will fly away in a gentle heat as easily as Spirit of Wine it self. And to this I shall add, in the next place, That even among the Volatile salts themselves, there is a considerable Difference, as appears by the distinct Properties of (for Instance) salt of Amber, salt of Urine, salt of Mans Skull, (so much extoll’d against the falling Sicknesse) and divers others which cannot escape an ordinary Observer. And this Diversity of Volatile salts I have observ’d to be somtimes Discernable even to the Eye, in their Figures. For the salt of Harts-horn I have observ’d to adhere to the Receiver in the forme almost of a Parallelipipedon; and of the Volatile salt of humane blood (long digested before distillation, with spirit of Wine) I can shew you store of graines of that Figure which Geometricians call a Rhombus; though I dare not(251) undertake that the Figures of these or other Saline Crystals (if I may so call Them) will be alwaies the same, whatever degree of Fire have been employ’d to force them up, or how hastily soever they have been made to convene in the spirits or liquors, in the lower part of which I have usually observ’d them after a while to shoot. And although, as I lately told You, I seldom found any Difference, as to Medical Vertues, in the fixt Salts of Divers Vegetables; and accordingly I have suspected that most of these volatile Salts, having so great a Resemblance in smell, in tast, and fugitiveness, differ but little, if at all, in their Medicinal properties: As indeed I have found them generally to agree in divers of them (as in their being somewhat Diaphoretick and very Deopilative; Yet I remember HelmontError vero per distillationem nobis monstrat etiam Spiritum salinum plane volatilem odore nequicquam ut nec gustu distinguibilem a spiritu Urinæ; In eo tamen essentialiter diversum, quod spiritus talis cruoris curat Epilepsiam, non autem Spiritus salis lotii. Helmont. Aura Vitalis. somewhere informes us, that there is this Difference betwixt the saline spirit of Urine and that of Mans blood, that the former will not cure the Epilepsy,(252) but the Latter will. Of the Efficacy also of the Salt of Common Amber against the same Disease in Children, (for in Grown Persons it is not a specifick) I may elsewhere have an Occasion to Entertain You. And when I consider that to the obtaining of these Volatile Salts (especially that of Urine) there is not requisite such a Destructive Violence of the Fire, as there is to get those Salts that must be made by Incineration, I am the more invited to conclude, that they may differ from one another, and consequently recede from an Elementary Simplicity. And, if I could here shew You what Mr. Boyle has Observ’d, touching the Various Chymicall Distinctions of Salts; You would quickly discern, not only that Chymists do give themselves a strange Liberty to call Concretes Salts, that are according to their own Rules to be look’d upon as very Compounded Bodies; but that among those very Salts that seem Elementary, because produc’d upon the Anatomy of the Bodies that yield them, there is not only a visible Disparity, but, to speak in the common Lan(253)guage, a manifest Antipathy or Contrariety: As is evident in the Ebullition and hissing that is wont to ensue, when the Acid Spirit of Vitrioll, for Instance, is pour’d upon pot ashes, or Salt of Tartar. And I shall beg leave of this Gentleman, sayes Carneades, casting his Eyes on me, to let me observe to You out of some of his papers, particularly those wherein he treats of some Preparations of Urine, that not only one and the same body may have two Salts of a contrary Nature, as he exemplifies in the Spirit and Alkali of Nitre; but that from the same body there may without addition be obtain’d three differing and Visible Salts. For He Relates, that he observ’d in Urine, not only a Volatile and Crystalline Salt, and a fixt Salt, but likewise a kind of Sal Armoniack, or such a Salt as would sublime in the form of a salt, and therefore was not fixt, and yet was far from being so fugitive as the Volatile salt; from which it seem’d also otherwise to differ. I have indeed suspected that this may be a Sal Armoniack properly enough so call’d, as Compounded of the Volatile salt of Urine, and the fixt(254) of the same Liquor, which, as I noted, is not unlike sea-salt; but that it self argues a manifest Difference betwixt the salts, since such a Volatile salt is not wont to Unite thus with an ordinary Alcali, but to fly away from it in the Heat. And on this occasion I remember that, to give some of my Friends an Ocular proof of the difference betwixt the fixt and Volatile salt (of the same Concrete) Wood, I devis’d the following Experiment. I took common Venetian sublimate, and dissolv’d as much of it as I well could in fair Water: then I took Wood Ashes, and pouring on them Warme Water, Dissolv’d their salt; and filtrating the Water, as soon as I found the Lixivium sufficiently sharp upon the tongue, I reserv’d it for use: Then on part of the former solution of sublimate dropping a little of this Dissolv’d Fixt salt of Wood, the Liquors presently turn’d of an Orange Colour; but upon the other part of the clear solution of sublimate putting some of the Volatile salt of Wood (which abounds in the spirit of soot) the Liquor immediately turn’d white, almost like Milke, and af(255)ter a while let fall a white sediment, as the other Liquor did a Yellow one. To all this that I have said concerning the Difference of salts, I might add what I Formerly told you, concerning the simple spirit of Box, and such like Woods, which differ much from the other salts hitherto mention’d, and yet would belong to the saline Principle, if Chymists did truly teach that all Tasts proceed from it. And I might also annex, what I noted to you out of HelmontAliquando oleum Cinnamomi, &c. suo sali Alcali miscetur absque omni aqua, trium mensium Artificiosa occultaque circulatione, totum in salem volatilem commutatum est. Helmont. Tria Prima Chymicorum, &c. pag. 412. concerning Bodies, which, though they consist in great part of Chymical Oyles, do yet appear but Volatile salts; But to insist on these things, were to repeat; and therefore I shall proceed.

These Generals (continues Carneades) being thus established, we can better examine the differences that an attentive and unbiased observer may notice in each type of substances that chemists refer to as the salts, or sulphurs, or mercuries of the compounds that produce them, as if they all possessed a simplicity and uniformity in nature: whereas salts, if they were all elemental, would differ as little as pure and simple water droplets do. It's known that both chemists and physicians attribute the properties of the fixed salts from calcined bodies to the virtues of their compounds; hence, these properties lead to very different effects. For example, the alkali from wormwood is highly recommended for stomach issues; that from eyebright is suggested for weak eyesight; and the alkali of guaiacum (which yields a small amount of salt despite a large quantity) is not only well-regarded for venereal diseases but is also believed to have a unique purgative quality, which I have yet to test. Although I admit that I have long considered these alkalizate salts to be largely related and to retain very little of the properties of(248) the compounds they were separated from; I intended to watch carefully for any exceptions to this general observation. At the glassworks, I observed that sometimes the metal (as the workers refer to it) or mass of liquefied ingredients, which they shape into various vessel forms by blowing, occasionally turned out with a very different color and a somewhat unusual texture than what is common. When I inquired whether such occurrences might stem from the specific nature of the fixed salt used to melt the sand, I learned that the most knowledgeable workers attributed these mishaps to the Ashes, of a certain kind of wood, having noticed that the inferior type of glass I previously mentioned was often produced when they used those types of ashes, which they hesitated to use if they noticed them beforehand. I also recall that a diligent acquaintance of mine bought a vast quantity of tobacco stalks to make a fixed salt, and I was curious to see whether this exotic plant, known for its volatile salt, would yield a unique type of alkali; and I was pleased to discover that in its lixivium, it was not necessary, as is usually done, to evaporate all the liquid to obtain a saline calx, which, like quicklime when quenched in air, consists of a collection of tiny particles of various shapes; instead, the fixed salt crystallized into distinct shapes, almost like how nitre or sal-armoniack and other uncooked salts often do. I further recall observing that I have noticed in the fixed salt of urine, rendered very white through purification, a taste that is somewhat similar to that of common salt, differing significantly from the usual caustic leachate taste of other salts produced by incineration. But because the examples I have cited of the difference in alkalizate salts are limited, I am still inclined to believe that most chemists and many physicians unwittingly and without justification from experience attribute the virtues of the compounds subjected to calcination to the salts obtained from them; I will instead mention first the clear difference between fixed vegetable salts and(250) animal volatile ones: For instance, the difference between the salt of tartar and the salt of hartshorn; the former is so fixed that it can withstand intense heat and melt like a metal; whereas the latter (besides having a different taste and smell) is so volatile that it evaporates in gentle heat as easily as alcohol itself. Additionally, even among volatile salts, there is a significant difference, as evidenced by the distinct properties of, for example, amber salt, urine salt, and the salt from a human skull (which is highly praised for its use against epilepsy) and various others that any ordinary observer cannot miss. I have noticed that this variety in volatile salts is sometimes discernible even by their shapes. For instance, the salt of hartshorn I noticed adheres to the receiver in a nearly parallelopiped shape; and the volatile salt of human blood (which was allowed to digest for a long time before distillation with alcohol) yielded many grains of that shape which geometricians refer to as a rhombus; although I wouldn't dare(251) claim that the shapes of these or other saline crystals (if I may call them that) will always remain the same, regardless of the level of heat used to produce them, or how rapidly they were caused to form in the spirits or liquids, which I've usually observed them doing after some time. And though, as I mentioned earlier, I rarely find any difference in medicinal properties among the fixed salts of various vegetables; thus, I have suspected that many of these volatile salts, having such great similarities in smell, taste, and volatility, differ very little, if at all, in their medicinal properties: In fact, I have generally found them to agree in several respects (such as their somewhat diaphoretic nature and very Deopilative; Yet I remember HelmontIn fact, the error in distillation shows us that saline spirit is completely volatile, with an odor that is not distinguishable from the taste of urine; however, it is essentially different in that such a spirit of blood treats Epilepsy, whereas the spirit of washed salt does not. Helmont. Aura Vitalis. somewhere informs us that there is a difference between the saline spirit of urine and that of human blood, in that the former does not cure epilepsy,(252) but the latter does. I may have another opportunity to discuss the efficacy of common amber salt against the same disease in children (as it’s not specific for adults). Considering that the extraction of these volatile salts (especially that of urine) does not require such destructive heat as is necessary to obtain those salts that must be made by incineration, I am even more inclined to conclude that they may differ from one another and consequently diverge from elementary simplicity. If I could show you what Mr. Boyle has observed regarding the various chemical distinctions of salts; you would quickly notice not only that chemists give themselves the liberty to refer to certain compounds as salts, which according to their own criteria should be considered very complex bodies; but also that among those very salts that seem elemental, because they arise from the anatomy of the bodies that produce them, there is not only a visible disparity but, in common terms, a clear antipathy or contradiction: This is clear when the acidic spirit of vitriol, for instance, is poured onto potash or salt of tartar, causing bubbling and hissing. And I will ask for permission from this gentleman, says Carneades, casting his eyes at me, to let me share some observations from his papers, particularly those where he discusses some preparations of urine, which illustrate that not only can one body possess two salts of opposing natures—as exemplified in the spirit and alkali of nitre—but that from the same body, without any additions, three different and visible salts can be obtained. He notes that he observed in urine not only a volatile and crystalline salt and a fixed salt, but also a type of sal armoniack, or a salt that would sublime in the form of a salt, and thus was not fixed, yet was far from being as volatile as the volatile salt, indicating that it differed in other ways as well. I suspected that this could be a sal armoniack properly named, as it is composed of the volatile salt of urine and the fixed(254) salt of the same liquid, which, as I noted, resembles sea salt; but this indicates a clear difference among salts since such a volatile salt does not typically unite with an ordinary alkali but tends to escape from it when heated. In this context, I recall that, to provide my friends with visual proof of the differences between the fixed and volatile salt (of the same compound), I devised the following experiment. I took common Venetian sublimate and dissolved as much of it as I could in clean water: then I took wood ashes, added warm water to dissolve their salt; and after filtering the water, once I found the lixivium adequately sharp to the taste, I reserved it for use: Then, dropping a bit of this dissolved fixed salt of wood onto one part of the earlier sublimate solution, the liquids immediately turned orange; while on another part of the clear sublimate solution adding some of the volatile salt of wood (which is rich in soot spirit) caused the liquid to turn white almost like milk, and after a while, it deposited a white sediment, just as the other liquid left a yellow one. To all I have said regarding the difference of salts, I might add what I told you previously about the simple spirit of boxwood and similar woods, which vary significantly from the other salts I've mentioned, yet would belong to the saline principle if chemists truly taught that all tastes derive from it. I could also include what I noted about HelmontSometimes, cinnamon oil, etc., is mixed with its alkaline salt without any water, undergoing three months of skillful and covert circulation, and it is completely transformed into volatile salt. Helmont. The Three Primaries of Chemists, etc. page 412. regarding bodies that, while largely composed of chemical oils, still appear only as volatile salts; however, lingering on these details would be repetitive, so I will proceed.

This Disparity is also highly eminent in the separated sulphurs or Chymical Oyles of things. For they contain so much of the scent, and tast, and vertues, of the Bodies whence they were drawn, that they seem to be but the Material Crasis (if I may so speak) of their Concretes. Thus the Oyles of Cinna(256)mon, Cloves, Nutmegs and other spices, seem to be but the United Aromatick parts that did ennoble those Bodies. And ’tis a known thing, that Oyl of Cinnamon, and oyle of Cloves, (which I have likewise observ’d in the Oyles of several Woods) will sink to the Bottom of Water: whereas those of Nutmegs and divers other Vegetables will swim upon it. The Oyle (abusively call’d spirit) of Roses swims at the Top of the Water in the forme of a white butter, which I remember not to have observ’d in any other Oyle drawn in any Limbeck; yet there is a way (not here to be declar’d) by which I have seen it come over in the forme of other Aromatick Oyles, to the Delight and Wonder of those that beheld it. In Oyle of Anniseeds, which I drew both with, and without Fermentation, I observ’d the whole Body of the Oyle in a coole place to thicken into the Consistence and Appearance of white Butter, which with the least heat resum’d its Former Liquidness. In the Oyl of Olive drawn over in a Retort, I have likewise more then once seen a spontaneous Coagulation in the(257) Receiver: And I have of it by me thus Congeal’d; which is of such a strangely Penetrating scent, as if ’twould Perforate the Noses that approach it. The like pungent Odour I also observ’d in the Distill’d Liquor of common sope, which forc’d over from Minium, lately afforded an oyle of a most admirable Penetrancy; And he must be a great stranger, both to the Writings and preparations of Chymists, that sees not in the Oyles they distill from Vegetables and Animals, a considerable and obvious Difference. Nay I shall venture to add, Eleutherius, (what perhaps you will think of kin to a Paradox) that divers times out of the same Animal or Vegetable, there may be extracted Oyles of Natures obviously differing. To which purpose I shall not insist on the swimming and sinking Oyles, which I have sometimes observ’d to float on, and subside under the spirit of Guajacum, and that of divers other Vegetables Distill’d with a strong and lasting Fire; Nor shall I insist on the observation elsewhere mention’d, of the divers and unminglable oyles afforded us by Humane Blood long fermented and(258) Digested with spirit of Wine, because these kind of oyles may seem chiefly to differ in Consistence and Weight, being all of them high colour’d and adust. But the Experiment which I devis’d to make out this Difference of the oyles of the same Vegetable, ad Oculum, (as they speak) was this that followes. I took a pound of Annisseeds, and having grosly beaten them, caused them to be put into a very large glass Retort almost filled with fair Water; and placing this Retort in a sand Furnace, I caus’d a very Gentle heat to be administer’d during the first day, and a great part of the second, till the Water was for the most part drawn off, and had brought over with it at least most of the Volatile and Aromatick Oyle of the seeds. And then encreasing the Fire, and changing the Receiver, I obtain’d besides an Empyreumatical Spirit, a quantity of adust oyle; whereof a little floated upon the Spirit, and the rest was more heavy, and not easily separable from it. And whereas these oyles were very dark, and smell’d (as Chymists speak) so strongly of the Fire, that their Odour(259) did not betray from what Vegetables they had been forc’d; the other Aromatick Oyle was enrich’d with the genuine smell and tast of the Concrete; and spontaneously coagulating it self into white butter did manifest self to be the true Oyle of Annisseeds; which Concrete I therefore chose to employ about this Experiment, that the Difference of these Oyles might be more conspicuous then it would have been, had I instead of it destill’d another Vegetable.

This difference is also very clear in the separated sulfur or chemical oils of substances. They carry so much of the scent, taste, and qualities of the materials they come from that they seem to be just the material essence (if I may put it this way) of their solids. For example, the oils of cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, and other spices appear to be simply the combined aromatic parts that made those substances valuable. It's well known that cinnamon oil and clove oil (which I’ve also noticed in the oils of various woods) will sink to the bottom of water, whereas those of nutmeg and various other plants will float on it. The oil (incorrectly called spirit) of roses floats at the top of the water in the form of a white butter, which I don’t recall seeing in any other oil distilled in any apparatus; yet there’s a method (not to be explained here) by which I’ve seen it come out as other aromatic oils, to the delight and amazement of those watching. In the oil of anise seeds, which I extracted both with and without fermentation, I noticed that when kept in a cool place, the entire body of the oil thickened into the consistency and appearance of white butter, which would return to its original liquid state with just a little heat. With olive oil distilled in a retort, I have also repeatedly seen spontaneous coagulation occur in the receiver; and I have some of it here in that congealed form, which has such a strangely penetrating scent that it seems to pierce the noses of those who come near it. I also observed a similar pungent odor in the distilled liquor of common soap, which, when forced from red lead, recently produced an oil of remarkable penetrance; and someone unfamiliar with the writings and preparations of chemists would surely notice a significant and obvious difference in the oils they distill from plants and animals. Moreover, I will boldly add, Eleutherius, (which you might think is a paradox) that different oils can be extracted from the same animal or plant that are obviously distinct in nature. I won’t dwell on the floating and sinking oils, which I’ve sometimes seen rise and fall beneath the spirit of guaiacum and various other plants distilled with intense and lasting heat; nor will I focus on the previously mentioned observation of the various unmixable oils produced by human blood that has been long fermented and digested with spirits. These oils might mainly seem to differ in consistency and weight, all being highly colored and burnt. But the experiment I designed to illustrate this difference in oils from the same plant, as they say, “with the naked eye,” was as follows. I took a pound of anise seeds, roughly crushed them, and had them placed into a very large glass retort almost filled with fresh water; then, I set this retort in a sand furnace and applied a very gentle heat during the first day, continuing a significant part of the second day, until most of the water was removed, taking with it at least most of the volatile and aromatic oil of the seeds. Then, increasing the fire and changing the receiver, I obtained not only an empyreumatic spirit but also a quantity of burnt oil; some of which floated on the spirit, while the rest was heavier and not easily separable from it. And while these oils were very dark and had such a strong smell (as chemists say) of the fire that their odor did not reveal which plants they had been taken from, the other aromatic oil was enriched with the true scent and taste of the solid; and by spontaneously coagulating into white butter, it clearly showed itself to be the genuine oil of anise seeds; which solid I specifically selected for this experiment so that the difference in these oils would be more obvious than it would have been if I had distilled another plant instead.

I had almost forgot to take notice, that there is another sort of Bodies, which though not obtain’d from Concretes by Distillation, many Chymists are wont to call their Sulphur; not only because such substances are, for the most part, high colour’d (whence they are also, and that more properly, called Tinctures) as dissolv’d Sulphurs are wont to be; but especially because they are, for the most part, abstracted and separated from the rest of the Masse by Spirit of Wine: which Liquor those men supposing to be Sulphureous, they conclude, that what it works upon, and abstracts, must be a Sulphur also. And upon this account they presume, that they can sequester the sul(260)phur even of Minerals and Metalls; from which ’tis known that they cannot by Fire alone separate it. To all This I shall answer; That if these sequestred substances where indeed the sulphurs of the Bodies whence they are drawn, there would as well be a great Disparity betwixt Chymical Sulphurs obtain’d by Spirit of Wine, as I have already shewn there is betwixt those obtain’d by Distillation in the forme of Oyles: which will be evident from hence, that not to urge that themselves ascribe distinct vertues to Mineral Tinctures, extolling the Tincture of Gold against such and such Diseases; the Tincture of Antimony, or of its Glass, against others; and the Tincture of Emerauld against others; ’tis plain, that in Tinctures drawn from Vegetables, if the superfluous spirit of Wine be distill’d off, it leaves at the bottom that thicker substance which Chymists use to call the Extract of the Vegetable. And that these Extracts are endow’d with very differing Qualities according to the Nature of the Particular Bodies that afforded them (though I fear seldom with so much of the specifick vertues as is wont to be imagin’d) is freely confess’d(261) both by Physitians and Chymists. But, Eleutherius, (sayes Carneades) we may here take Notice that the Chymists do as well in this case, as in many others, allow themselves a License to abuse Words: For not again to argue from the differing properties of Tinctures, that they are not exactly pure and Elementary Sulphurs; they would easily appear not to be so much as Sulphur’s, although we should allow Chymical Oyles to deserve that Name. For however in some Mineral Tinctures the Natural fixtness of the extracted Body does not alwayes suffer it to be easily further resoluble into differing substances; Yet in very many extracts drawn from Vegetables, it may very easily be manifested that the spirit of Wine has not sequestred the sulphureous Ingredient from the saline and Mercurial ones; but has dissolv’d (for I take it to be a Solution) the finer Parts of the Concrete (without making any nice distinction of their being perfectly Sulphureous or not) and united it self with them into a kind of Magistery; which consequently must contain Ingredients or Parts of several sorts. For we see that the stones that are rich in vitriol,(262) being often drench’d with rain-Water, the Liquor will then extract a fine and transparent substance coagulable into Vitriol; and yet though this Vitriol be readily dissoluble in Water, it is not a true Elementary Salt, but, as You know, a body resoluble into very differing Parts, whereof one (as I shall have occasion to tell You anon) is yet of a Metalline, and consequently not of an Elementary Nature. You may consider also, that common Sulphur is readily dissoluble in Oyle of Turpentine, though notwithstanding its Name it abounds as well, if not as much, in Salt as in true Sulphur; witness the great quantity of saline Liquor it affords being set to flame away under a glasse Bell. Nay I have, which perhaps You will think strange, with the same Oyle of Turpentine alone easily enough dissolv’d crude Antimony finely powder’d into a Blood-red Balsam, wherewith perhaps considerable things may be perform’d in Surgery. And if it were now Requisite, I could tell You of some other Bodies (such as Perhaps You would not suspect) that I have been able to work upon with certain Chymical Oyles. But instead of digressing further(263) I shall make this use of the Example I have nam’d. That ’tis not unlikely, but that Spirit of Wine which by its pungent tast, and by some other Qualities that argue it better (especially its Reduciblenesse, according to Helmont, into Alcali, and Water,) seems to be as well of a Saline as of a Sulphureous Nature, may well be suppos’d Capable of Dissolving Substances That are not meerly Elementary sulphurs, though perhaps they may abound with Parts that are of kin thereunto. For I find that Spirit of Wine will dissolve Gumm Lacca, Benzoine, and the Resinous Parts of Jallap, and even of Guaiacum; whence we may well suspect that it may from Spices, Herbs, and other lesse compacted Vegetables, extract substances that are not perfect Sulphurs but mixt Bodies. And to put it past Dispute, there is many a Vulgar Extract drawn with Spirit of Wine, which committed to Distillation will afford such differing substances as will Loudly proclaim it to have been a very compounded Body. So that we may justly suspect, that even in Mineral Tinctures it will not alwaies follow, that because a red substance(264) is drawn from the Concrete by spirit of Wine, that Substance is its true and Elementary Sulphur. And though some of these Extracts may perhaps be inflamable; Yet besides that others are not, and besides that their being reduc’d to such Minuteness of Parts may much facilitate their taking Fire; besides this, I say, We see that common Sulphur, common Oyle, Gumm Lac, and many Unctuous and Resinous Bodies, will flame well enough, though they be of very compounded natures: Nay Travellers of Unsuspected Credit assure Us, as a known thing, that in some Northern Countries where Firr trees and Pines abound, the poorer sort of Inhabitants use Long splinters of those Resinous Woods to burne instead of Candles. And as for the rednesse wont to be met with in such solutions, I could easily shew, that ’tis not necessary it should proceed from the Sulphur of the Concrete, Dissolv’d by the Spirit of Wine; if I had leasure to manifest how much Chymists are wont to delude themselves and others by the Ignorance of those other causes upon whose account spirit of Wine and other Menstruums may acquire(265) a red or some other high colour. But to returne to our Chymical Oyles, supposing that they were exactly pure; Yet I hope they would be, as the best spirit of Wine is, but the more inflamable and deflagrable. And therefore since an Oyle can be by the Fire alone immediately turn’d into flame, which is something of a very differing Nature from it: I shall Demand how this Oyle can be a Primogeneal and Incorruptible Body, as most Chymists would have their Principles; Since it is further resoluble into flame, which whether or no it be a portion of the Element of Fire, as an Aristotelian would conclude, is certainly something of a very differing Nature from a Chymical Oyle, since it burnes, and shines, and mounts swiftly upwards; none of which a Chymical Oyle does, whilst it continues such. And if it should be Objected, that the Dissipated Parts of this flaming Oyle may be caught and collected again into Oyl or Sulphur; I shall demand, what Chymist appears to have ever done it; and without Examining whether it may not hence be as well said that sulphur is but compacted Fire, as that Fire is but(266) diffus’d Sulphur, I shall leave you to consider whether it may not hence be argu’d, that neither Fire nor Sulphur are primitive and indestructible Bodies; and I shall further observe that, at least it will hence appear that a portion of matter may without being Compounded with new Ingredients, by having the Texture and Motion of its small parts chang’d, be easily, by the means of the Fire, endow’d with new Qualities, more differing from them it had before, then are those which suffice to discriminate the Chymists Principles from one another.

I almost forgot to mention that there’s another category of substances that many chemists refer to as their sulfur, even though these aren't derived from solids through distillation. They do this not only because these substances are usually brightly colored (which is why they're also more accurately called tinctures, just like dissolved sulfurs) but mainly because they're generally extracted and isolated from the rest of the mass using alcohol. These chemists believe that since alcohol is sulfurous, whatever the alcohol acts upon and extracts must also be a form of sulfur. Because of this, they think they can isolate the sulfur even from minerals and metals, although it's known that they can't separate it using just fire. To this, I would respond that if these isolated substances truly were the sulfurs of the bodies from which they were taken, there would be a significant difference between chemical sulfurs obtained through alcohol and those obtained through distillation in oil form. This becomes clear from the fact that, not to mention how they assign different virtues to mineral tinctures—praising the tincture of gold for certain diseases, the tincture of antimony for others, and the tincture of emerald for yet others—it’s evident that when tinctures are drawn from plants, if the excess alcohol is distilled away, it leaves behind a thicker substance that chemists refer to as the extract of the plant. These extracts are recognized to have very different qualities based on the nature of the particular bodies that provided them (though I fear they rarely possess as many specific virtues as is often believed), a fact both physicians and chemists openly admit. However, Eleutherius, as Carneades points out, we should note that chemists, like in many other cases, allow themselves the freedom to misuse words. Not to argue further from the different properties of tinctures that show they aren’t purely and elementally sulfurs; it's evident they might not even be sulfurs at all, even if we were to accept that chemical oils deserve that title. In many mineral tinctures, the natural fixity of the extracted body doesn’t always allow for easy further resolution into different substances. Yet in many extracts taken from plants, it can be clearly demonstrated that the alcohol hasn’t isolated the sulfurous ingredient from the saline and mercurial ones; it has dissolved (which I believe to be a solution) the finer parts of the concrete (without making a fine distinction between whether they are purely sulfurous or not) and combined with them into a kind of mastery; which must consequently contain ingredients or parts of various sorts. For example, we see that stones rich in vitriol, when often soaked in rainwater, will extract a fine and transparent substance that can coagulate into vitriol. Even though this vitriol easily dissolves in water, it’s not a true elementary salt, but rather a body resolvable into very different parts, one of which (as I’ll explain shortly) is metallic and therefore not elemental. You should also consider that common sulfur readily dissolves in turpentine oil, yet despite its name, it is as much composed of salt as it is of true sulfur; witness the significant amount of saline liquid it produces when burned under a bell jar. I even have, which you might find strange, dissolved powdered crude antimony into a blood-red balsam with just turpentine oil, which might have useful applications in surgery. If necessary, I could tell you about other bodies (perhaps ones you wouldn't expect) that I have worked on using certain chemical oils. But instead of diggingress further, I'll use the example I just mentioned. It’s not unlikely that alcohol, which has a pungent taste and other qualities suggesting it is both saline and sulfurous in nature (especially its ability to be turned back into alkaline and water, according to Helmont), could dissolve substances that aren’t merely elementary sulfurs, even if they may contain many related parts. I find that alcohol will dissolve Gumm Lacca, Benzoine, and the resinous parts of Jallap and even Guaiacum; therefore, we might suspect that it can extract from spices, herbs, and other less compacted plants substances that aren’t perfect sulfurs but mixed bodies. To put it beyond debate, there are many common extracts taken with alcohol that, when distilled, yield such different substances that they loudly confirm they were very complex bodies. Thus, we can justifiably suspect that even in mineral tinctures, it won’t always follow that because a red substance is drawn from the concrete using alcohol, that substance is its true and elementary sulfur. While some of these extracts may indeed be flammable, besides the fact that others are not, and aside from that their reduction to such small particles may facilitate their flaming; we observe that common sulfur, common oil, Gumm Lac, and many oily and resinous substances burn well, even though they are of very complex nature. Travelers of credible reputation assure us as a known fact that in some northern regions where fir trees and pines abound, the poorer inhabitants use long splinters of these resinous woods as candles. Regarding the redness typically found in such solutions, I could easily show that it doesn't necessarily come from the sulfur of the concrete dissolved by the alcohol; if I had time to demonstrate how often chemists deceive themselves and others due to their ignorance of the other factors that can cause alcohol and other menstruums to acquire a red or other vibrant color. But returning to our chemical oils, assuming they were entirely pure; I still suspect they would be, like the best alcohol, even more flammable and explosive. And since an oil can be immediately turned into flame by fire, which is a very different nature from it, I ask how this oil can be a primordial and incorruptible body, as most chemists would label their principles; since it can also be resolved into flame, which, whether or not it's a portion of the fire element, as an Aristotelian would conclude, is certainly a very different entity from a chemical oil since it burns, shines, and quickly rises; none of which a chemical oil does while it remains as such. And if it’s argued that the dissipated parts of this flaming oil could be caught and gathered back into oil or sulfur, I would ask which chemist has ever accomplished that; and without examining whether it might as well be said that sulfur is merely compacted fire, as fire is but diffused sulfur. I leave you to consider whether it can be argued that neither fire nor sulfur are primitive and indestructible bodies; additionally, it seems that at least it will show that a portion of matter, without being compounded with new ingredients, by altering the texture and motion of its tiny parts, can easily, through fire, gain new qualities that are more distinct from what it previously had than those needed to distinguish between the chemists’ principles.

We are next to Consider, whether in the Anatomy of mixt Bodies, that which Chymists call the Mercurial part of them be un-compounded, or no. But to tell You True, though Chymists do Unanimously affirm that their Resolutions discover a Principle, which they call Mercury, yet I find them to give of it Descriptions so Differing, and so Ænigmaticall, that I, who am not asham’d to confess that I cannot understand what is not sence, must acknowledge to you that I know not what to make of them. Paracelsus himself, and(267) therefore, as you will easily believe, many of his Followers, does somewhere call that Mercury which ascends upon the burning of Wood, as the Peripateticks are wont to take the same smoke for Air; and so seems to define Mercury by Volatility, or (if I may coyne such a Word) Effumability. But since, in this Example, both Volatile Salt and Sulphur make part of the smoke, which does indeed consist also both of Phlegmatick and Terrene Corpuscles, this Notion is not to be admitted; And I find that the more sober Chymists themselves disavow it. Yet to shew you how little of clearness we are to expect in the accounts even of latter Spagyrists, be pleas’d to take notice, that Beguinus, even in his Tyrocinium Chymicum,Chm. Tyrocin. lib. 1. Cap. 2. written for the Instruction of Novices, when he comes to tell us what are meant by the Tria Prima, which for their being Principles ought to be defin’d the more accurately and plainly, gives us this Description of Mercury; Mercurius (sayes he) est liquor ille acidus, permeabilis, penetrabilis, æthereus, ac purissimus, a quo omnis Nutricatio, Sensus, Motus, Vires, Colores, Senectutisque Præproperæ retarda(268)tio. Which words are not so much a Definition of it, as an Encomium: and yet Quercetanus in his Description of the same Principle adds to these, divers other Epithets. But both of them, to skip very many other faults that may be found with their Metaphoricall Descriptions, speak incongruously to the Chymists own Principles. For if Mercury be an Acid Liquor, either Hermetical Philosophy must err in ascribing all Tasts to Salt, or else Mercury must not be a Principle, but Compounded of a Saline Ingredient and somewhat else. Libavius, though he find great fault with the obscurity of what the Chymists write concerning their Mercurial Principle, does yet but give us such a Negative Description of it, as Sennertus, how favourable soever to the Tria Prima, is not satisfi’d with. And this Sennertus Himself, though the Learnedst Champion for the Hypostatical Principles, does almost as frequently as justly complain of the unsatisfactoriness of what the Chymists teach concerning their Mercury; and yet he himself (but with his wonted modesty) Substitutes instead of the Description(269) of Libavius, another, which many Readers, especially if they be not Peripateticks, will not know what to make of. For scarce telling us any more, then that in all bodies that which is found besides Salt and Sulphur, and the Elements, or, as they call them, Phlegm and Dead Earth, is that Spirit which in Aristotles Language may be call’d ουσιαν αναλογον τω των αϛρων ϛοιχαιω. He sayes that which I confess is not at all satisfactory to me, who do not love to seem to acquiesce in any mans Mystical Doctrines, that I may be thought to understand them.

We next need to consider whether, in the anatomy of mixed bodies, what chemists refer to as the mercurial part is simple or not. To be honest, even though chemists unanimously claim that their findings reveal a principle they call mercury, I find their descriptions so varied and puzzling that I—who am not ashamed to admit my confusion over anything that isn’t clear—must acknowledge that I don’t know what to make of them. Paracelsus himself, and as you will easily believe, many of his followers, at one point refer to the mercury that rises from burning wood, just as the Peripatetics often consider the same smoke to be air; thus, they seem to define mercury by its volatility, or if I may invent a term, its effusibility. However, in this example, since both volatile salt and sulfur are components of the smoke, which also includes phlegmatic and earthy particles, this notion cannot be accepted; and I find that even the more sensible chemists themselves reject it. Yet to show you how little clarity we should expect in the accounts of even later spagyrists, please note that Beguinus, in his Tyrocinium Chymicum,Chm. Tyrocin. book 1. chapter 2. written for the training of novices, when he attempts to explain what is meant by the Tria Prima, which, being principles, should be defined more accurately and plainly, describes mercury as follows: Mercurius (he says) est liquor ille acidus, permeabilis, penetrabilis, æthereus, ac purissimus, a quo omnis Nutricatio, Sensus, Motus, Vires, Colores, Senectutisque Præproperæ retarda(268)tio. These words are less a definition than an encomium: yet Quercetanus, in his description of the same principle, adds various other epithets to it. But both of them, aside from many other flaws in their metaphorical descriptions, speak inconsistently with the chemists' own principles. For if mercury is an acidic liquid, either hermetic philosophy must be wrong in attributing all tastes to salt, or else mercury must not be a principle, but something that combines a saline component with something else. Libavius, although he criticizes the obscurity of what chemists write about their mercurial principle, only gives us a negative description, which Sennertus, however favorable to the Tria Prima, is not satisfied with. And Sennertus himself, the most learned advocate for the hypostatic principles, frequently and quite justifiably complains about the inadequacy of what chemists teach regarding their mercury; and yet he himself (though with his usual modesty) substitutes another description for Libavius's, which many readers, especially if they are not Peripatetics, may not understand. For he hardly tells us anything more than that in all bodies, what is found alongside salt and sulfur, and the elements, or what they call phlegm and dead earth, is that spirit which in Aristotle's language could be called __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ of the __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__. He states that, which I must admit is not satisfying to me, as I do not like to appear to conform to anyone's mystical doctrines just to seem to understand them.

If (sayes Eleutherius) I durst presume that the same thing would be thought clear by me, and those that are fond of such cloudy Expressions as You justly Tax the Chymists for, I should venture to offer to Consideration, whether or no, since the Mercurial Principle that arises from Distillation is unanimously asserted to be distinct from the salt and Sulphur of the same Concrete, that may not be call’d the Mercury of a Body, which though it ascend in Distillation, as do the Phlegme and Sulphur, is neither insipid like the former, nor infla(270)mable like the latter. And therefore I would substitute to the too much abused Name of Mercury, the more clear and Familiar Appellation of Spirit, which is also now very much made use of even by the Chymists themselves, of our times, though they have not given us so Distinct an Explication, as were fit, of what may be call’d the Spirit of a mixt Body.

If I (say Eleutherius) were bold enough to think that the same thing would be clear to me and to those who enjoy the complicated language that you rightly criticize in chemists, I would like to suggest for consideration whether the Mercurial Principle that comes from distillation, which is generally accepted to be separate from the salt and sulfur of the same substance, could be referred to as the Mercury of a body. This is because, while it rises during distillation like the phlegm and sulfur, it is neither tasteless like the former nor flammable like the latter. Therefore, I would replace the overly misused term Mercury with the clearer and more familiar term Spirit, which is also widely used today by modern chemists, even though they haven’t provided a sufficiently distinct explanation of what can be called the Spirit of a mixed body.

I should not perhaps (sayes Carneades) much quarrel with your Notion of Mercury. But as for the Chymists, what they can mean, with congruity to their own Principles, by the Mercury of Animals and Vegetables, ’twill not be so easie to find out; for they ascribe Tasts only to the Saline Principle, and consequently would be much put to it to shew what Liquor it is, in the Resolution of Bodies, that not being insipid, for that they call Phlegme, neither is inflamable as Oyle or Sulphur, nor has any Tast; which according to them must proceed from a Mixture, at least, of Salt. And if we should take Spirit in the sence of the Word receiv’d among Modern Chymists and Physitians, for any Distill’d Liquor that(271) is neither Phlegme nor oyle, the Appellation would yet appear Ambiguous enough. For, plainly, that which first ascends in the Distillation of Wine and Fermented Liquors, is generally as well by Chymists as others reputed a Spirit. And yet pure Spirit of Wine being wholly inflamable ought according to them to be reckon’d to the Sulphureous, not the Mercurial Principle. And among the other Liquors that go under the name of Spirits, there are divers which seem to belong to the family of Salts, such as are the Spirits of Nitre, Vitriol, Sea-Salt and others, and even the Spirit of Harts-horn, being, as I have try’d, in great part, if not totally reducible into Salt and Phlegme, may be suspected to be but a Volatile Salt disguis’d by the Phlegme mingl’d with it into the forme of a Liquor. However if this be a Spirit, it manifestly differs very much from that of Vinager, the Tast of the one being Acid, and the other Salt, and their Mixture in case they be very pure, sometimes occasioning an Effervescence like that of those Liquors the Chymists count most contrary to one another. And even among(272) those Liquors that seem to have a better title then those hitherto mention’d, to the name of Spirits, there appears a sensible Diversity; For spirit of Oak, for instance, differs from that of Tartar, and this from that of Box, or of Guaiacum. And in short, even these spirits as well as other Distill’d Liquors manifest a great Disparity betwixt themselves, either in their Actions on our senses, or in their other operations.

I shouldn't really (says Carneades) argue too much with your idea of Mercury. But when it comes to the Chemists, it’s not so easy to figure out what they mean by the Mercury of Animals and Plants in line with their own principles. They attribute tastes solely to the Saline Principle, so they'd really struggle to explain what liquid it is in the breakdown of substances that doesn’t taste bland, which they refer to as Phlegm, isn’t flammable like Oil or Sulphur, and has no taste; according to them, this must result from at least a mixture of Salt. And if we take Spirit in the sense used by Modern Chemists and Physicians to mean any Distilled Liquid that(271) is neither Phlegm nor oil, that term still seems quite unclear. Because, clearly, the first substance that rises in the distillation of Wine and Fermented Liquors is generally recognized as a Spirit by both Chemists and others. Yet, since pure Spirit of Wine is completely flammable, it should, in their view, be classified under the Sulphureous, not the Mercurial Principle. Among the other liquids labeled as Spirits, there are many that seem to belong to the Salt family, such as the Spirits of Nitre, Vitriol, Sea Salt, and others. Even the Spirit of Hartshorn, as I've tested, is largely, if not entirely, reducible to Salt and Phlegm, and may be suspected to be just a Volatile Salt disguised by the Phlegm mixed with it in liquid form. However, if this is a Spirit, it clearly differs greatly from that of Vinegar, as one has an Acid taste and the other a Salt taste, and when mixed very pure, they sometimes cause effervescence similar to that of liquids that Chemists consider to be in opposition to each other. And even among(272) those liquids that seem to have a better claim to the title of Spirits than those previously mentioned, there is a noticeable variety; for example, the spirit of Oak differs from that of Tartar, and this differs from that of Box or Guaiacum. In short, even these spirits, as well as other Distilled Liquors, show a significant disparity between themselves, either in how they affect our senses or in their other properties.

And (continues Carneades) besides this Disparity that is to be met with among those Liquors that the Modernes call spirits, & take for similar bodies, what I have formerly told you concerning the Spirit of Box-wood may let you see that some of those Liquors not only have qualities very differing from others, but may be further resolved into substances differing from one another.

And (continues Carneades) besides this difference that can be found among those liquids that modern people call spirits and consider similar, what I mentioned earlier about the spirit of boxwood may show you that some of these liquids not only have very different qualities from others, but can also be further broken down into substances that are different from one another.

And since many moderne Chymists and other Naturalists are pleased to take the Mercurial spirit of Bodies for the same Principle, under differing names, I must invite you to observe, with me, the great difference that is conspicuous betwixt all the Vegetable and Animal spirits I have mention’d and running(273) Mercury. I speak not of that which is commonly sold in shops that many of themselves will confesse to be a mixt Body; but of that which is separated from Metals, which by some Chymists that seem more Philosophers then the rest, and especially by the above mentioned Claveus, is (for distinction sake) called Mercurius Corporum. Now this Metalline Liquor being one of those three Principles of which Mineral Bodies are by Spagyrists affirmed to be compos’d and to be resoluble into them, the many notorious Differences betwixt them and the Mercuries, as They call Them, of Vegetables and Animals will allow me to inferr, either that Minerals and the other two sorts of Mixt Bodies consist not of the same Elements, or that those Principles whereinto Minerals are immediately resolved, which Chymists with great ostentation shew us as the true principles, of them, are but Secundary Principles, or Mixts of a peculiar sort, which must be themselves reduc’d to a very differing forme, to be of the same kind with Vegetable and Animal Liquors.

And since many modern chemists and other naturalists like to think of the mercurial spirit of substances as the same principle under different names, I want to point out the significant differences between all the vegetable and animal spirits I've mentioned and running(273) mercury. I'm not talking about the stuff that's usually sold in stores, which many of them openly admit is a mixed substance; I'm referring to what’s separated from metals, which some chemists who claim to be more philosophical than the others, especially the aforementioned Claveus, call Mercurius Corporum for clarity. This metallic liquid, being one of the three principles that mineral bodies are said to be made of and that can be broken down into, allows me to infer from the many obvious differences between them and the so-called mercuries of plants and animals that either minerals and the other two types of mixed substances do not consist of the same elements, or that the principles into which minerals are directly resolved, which chemists proudly present as their true principles, are merely secondary principles or a specific type of mixture that must be reduced to a very different form to be similar to vegetable and animal liquids.

But this is not all; for although I for(274)merly told You how Little Credit there is to be given to the Chymical Processes commonly to be met with, of Extracting the Mercuries of Metals, Yet I will now add, that supposing that the more Judicious of Them do not untruly affirme that they have really drawn true and running Mercury from several Metals (which I wish they had cleerly taught Us how to do also,) yet it may be still doubted whether such extracted Mercuries do not as well differ from common Quicksilver, and from one another, as from the Mercuries of Vegetables and Animalls. Claveus,Dixi autem de argento vivo a metallis prolicito, quod vulgare ob nimiam frigiditatem & humiditatem nimium concoctioni est contumax, nec ab auro solum alterato coerceri potest. Gast. Clave. in Apoll. in his Apology, speaking of some experiments whereby Metalline Mercuries may be fixt into the nobler metals, adds, that he spake of the Mercuries drawn from metals; because common Quicksilver by reason of its excessive coldnesse and moisture is unfit for that particular kind of operation; for which though a few lines before he prescribes in general the Mercuries of Metalline Bodies, yet he chiefly commends that drawn by art from silver.(275) And elsewhere, in the same Book, he tells us, that he himself tryed, that by bare coction the quicksilver of Tin or Pewter (argentum vivum ex stanno prolicitum) may by an efficient cause, as he speaks, be turn’d into pure Gold. And the Experienc’d Alexander van Suchten, somewhere tells us, that by a way he intimates may be made a Mercury of Copper, not of the Silver colour of other Mercuries, but green; to which I shall add, that an eminent person, whose name his travells and learned writings have made famous, lately assur’d me that he had more then once seen the Mercury of Lead (which whatever Authors promise, you will find it very difficult to make, at least in any considerable quantity) fixt into perfect Gold. And being by me demanded whether or no any other Mercury would not as well have been changed by the same Operations, he assured me of the Negative.

But that's not all; even though I previously told you how little trust can be placed in the chemical processes commonly found for extracting the mercuries of metals, I will now add that, assuming the more knowledgeable among them aren't falsely claiming to have really extracted true and flowing mercury from various metals (which I wish they would clearly explain how to do), it can still be questioned whether the extracted mercuries differ from regular quicksilver, and from each other, as much as they do from the mercuries of plants and animals. Claveus,But I talked about the quicksilver taken from metals, which is usually difficult to manage due to its extreme coldness and moisture, and cannot be controlled only by altered gold. Gast. Clave. in Apoll. in his Apology, discussing some experiments through which metallic mercuries can be fixed into nobler metals, adds that he referred to the mercuries drawn from metals because ordinary quicksilver is unsuitable for that specific operation due to its extreme coldness and moisture; although he generally recommends the mercuries of metallic bodies, he particularly praises the one drawn by art from silver.(275) And elsewhere in the same book, he tells us that he himself tried to show that through mere heating, the quicksilver from tin or pewter (argentum vivum ex stanno prolicitum) can, by an effective cause, as he puts it, be transformed into pure gold. And the experienced Alexander van Suchten once told us that there’s a method he hints at to create a mercury from copper, which isn't the silver color of other mercuries, but green; I’ll also add that a well-known individual, whose travels and scholarly works have brought him fame, recently assured me that he has seen the mercury of lead (which, despite what authors claim, you will find very difficult to produce, at least in any significant quantity) fixed into perfect gold more than once. And when I asked him if any other mercury could have been changed by the same operations, he confirmed that it could not.

And since I am fallen upon the mention of the Mercuries of metals, you will perhaps expect (Eleutherius!) that I should say something of their two other principles; but must freely confess to you, that what Disparity there may be be(276)tween the salts and sulphurs of Metals and other Menerals, I am not my self experienced enough in the separations and examens of them, to venture to determine: (for as for the salts of Metals, I formerly represented it as a thing much to be question’d, whether they have any at all:) And for the processes of separation I find in Authors, if they were (what many of them are not) successfully practicable, as I noted above, yet they are to be performed by the assistance of other bodies, so hardly, if upon any termes at all, separable from them, that it is very difficult to give the separated principles all their due, and no more. But the Sulphur of Antimony which is vehemently vomitive, and the strongly scented Anodyne Sulphur of Vitriol inclines me to think that not only Mineral Sulphurs differ from Vegetable ones, but also from one another, retaining much of the nature of their Concretes. The salts of metals, and of some sort of minerals, You will easily guesse by the Doubts I formerly express’d, whether metals have any salt at all, that I have not been so happy as yet to see, perhaps not for want of curiosity. But if Paracelsus did alwaies(277) write so consentaneously to himself that his opinion were confidently to be collected from every place of his writings where he seems to expresse it, I might safely take upon me to tell you, that he both countenances in general what I have delivered in my Fourth main consideration, and in particular warrants me to suspect that there may be a difference in metalline and mineral Salts, as well as we find it in those of other bodies. For, Sulphur (sayes he)Paracel. de Mineral. Tract. 1. pag. 141. aliud in auro, aliud in argento, aliud in ferro, aliud in plumbo, stanno, &c. sic aliud in Saphiro, aliud in Smaragdo, aliud in rubino, chrysolito, amethisto, magnete, &c. Item aliud in lapidibus, silice, salibus, fontibus, &c. nec vero tot sulphura tantum, sed & totidem salia; sal aliud in metallis, aliud in gemmis, aliud in lapidibus, aliud in salibus, aliud in vitriolo, aliud in alumine: similis etiam Mercurii est ratio. Alius in Metallis, alius in Gemmis, &c. Ita ut unicuique speciei suus peculiaris Mercurius sit. Et tamen res saltem tres sunt; una essentia est sulphur; una est sal; una est Mercurius. Addo quod & specialius adhuc singula dividantur; aurum enim non unum, sed multiplex, ut et non unum pyrum, pomum, sed idem multiplex; totidem e(278)tiam sulphura auri, salia auri, mercurii auri; idem competit etiam metallis & gemmis; ut quot saphyri præstantiores, lævioris, &c. tot etiam saphyrica sulphura, saphyrica salia, saphyrici Mercurii, &c. Idem verum etiam est de turconibus & gemmis aliis universis. From which passage (Eleutherius) I suppose you will think I might without rashness conclude, either that my opinion is favoured by that of Paracelsus, or that Paracelsus his opinion was not alwaies the same. But because in divers other places of his writings he seems to talk at a differing rate of the three Principles and the four Elements, I shall content my self to inferr from the alledg’d passage, that if his doctrine be not consistent with that Part of mine which it is brought to countenance, it is very difficult to know what his opinion concerning salt, sulphur and mercury, was; and that consequently we had reason about the beginning of our conferences, to decline taking upon us, either to examine or oppose it.

And since I've touched on the topic of the mercury of metals, you might expect (Eleutherius!) that I should say something about their two other principles. However, I must honestly admit that the differences that may exist between the salts and sulfurs of metals and other minerals are not something I'm experienced enough in to determine. (As for the salts of metals, I previously suggested that it's very much debatable whether they even exist at all.) Regarding the methods for separating them found in various texts, even if they were (which many are not) successfully applicable, as I mentioned earlier, they require the aid of other substances that are extraordinarily difficult, if at all, to separate from them. Thus, it becomes very challenging to accurately identify the separated principles and ensure that they receive their due and no more. The sulfur of antimony, which is very strongly emetic, and the intensely scented anodyne sulfur of vitriol makes me consider that not only do mineral sulfurs differ from vegetable ones, but they also vary among themselves, retaining much of the essence of their compounds. As for the salts of metals and certain types of minerals, you can easily guess the doubts I expressed before regarding whether metals even contain any salt at all. Unfortunately, I haven't been fortunate enough to see this firsthand, perhaps not for lack of curiosity. However, if Paracelsus always wrote in such a way that his opinion could confidently be inferred from every part of his writings where he seems to express it, I would be safe in telling you that he generally supports what I have outlined in my fourth main consideration and specifically leads me to suspect that there may indeed be a difference between metallic and mineral salts, similar to what we observe in those of other substances. For, Sulfur (he states)Paracel. de Mineral. Tract. 1. page 141. is different in gold, different in silver, different in iron, different in lead, tin, etc.; similarly different in sapphire, emerald, ruby, chrysolite, amethyst, magnet, etc. Also different in stones, flint, salts, springs, etc. Indeed, there are not just so many types of sulfur but just as many salts; a salt in metals, another in gems, another in stones, another in salts, another in vitriol, and another in alum. The same principle applies to mercury. There is one in metals, another in gems, etc. Thus, each species has its own specific mercury. Nevertheless, there are still three things; one essence is sulfur; one is salt; one is mercury. I add that even within these, each can be subdivided further; for gold is not one but multiple, just like not each pear, apple, or the like is the same but diverse; as many as the different sulfurs of gold, salts of gold, mercuries of gold; the same is true for metals and gems; as many superior sapphires, lighter ones, etc., so many also are the sapphic sulfurs, sapphic salts, sapphic mercuries, etc. The same is also true for turquoises and all other gems. From this passage (Eleutherius), I believe you might think that I could, without being reckless, conclude either that my view aligns with Paracelsus' or that Paracelsus’s opinions were not always consistent. However, because in various other parts of his works he seems to speak differently regarding the three principles and the four elements, I shall be satisfied to infer from the cited passage that if his teachings do not align with that part of mine which it was meant to support, it is quite challenging to understand what his viewpoint regarding salt, sulfur, and mercury was. Consequently, we had reason at the start of our discussions to refrain from taking it upon ourselves to either examine or contest it.

I know not whether I should on this occasion add, that those very bodies the Chymists call Phlegme and Earth do yet recede from an Elementary simplicity.(279) That common Earth and Water frequently do so, notwithstanding the received contrary opinion, is not deny’d by the more wary of the moderne Peripateticks themselves: and certainly, most Earths are much lesse simple bodies then is commonly imagined even by Chymists, who do not so consideratly to prescribe and employ Earths Promiscuously in those distillations that require the mixture of some caput mortuum, to hinder the flowing together of the matter, and to retain its grosser parts. For I have found some Earths to yield by distillation a Liquor very far from being inodorous or insipid; and ’tis a known observation, that most kinds of fat Earth kept cover’d from the rain, and hindred from spending themselves in the production of vegetables, will in time become impregnated with Salt-Petre.

I’m not sure if I should mention that the substances the Chemists refer to as Phlegm and Earth actually move away from basic elemental simplicity.(279) The fact that common Earth and Water often do this, despite popular belief to the contrary, isn’t denied by the more cautious of the modern Peripatetics. Indeed, most Earths are much less simple than is generally thought, even by Chemists, who don't carefully prescribe and use Earths interchangeably in those distillations that require the mixture of some caput mortuum to prevent the materials from coalescing and to retain the heavier components. I've discovered that some Earths can yield a liquid through distillation that is definitely not odorless or bland; and it is well known that most types of rich Earth, when kept dry and prevented from supporting plant life, will eventually become impregnated with Saltpeter.

But I must remember that the Water and Earths I ought here to speak of, are such as are separated from mixt Bodies by the fire; and therefore to restrain my Discourse to such, I shall tell you, That we see the Phlegme of Vitriol (for instance) is a very effectual remedie against burnes; and I know a very Fa(280)mous and experienc’d Physitian, whose unsuspected secret (himself confess’d to me) it is, for the discussing of hard and Obstinate Tumours. The Phlegme of Vinager, though drawn exceeding leasurly in a digesting Furnace, I have purposely made tryall of; and sometimes found it able to draw, though slowly, a saccharine sweetness out of Lead; and as I remember by long Digestion, I dissolv’d Corpals in it. The Phlegme of the sugar of Saturne is said to have very peculiar properties. Divers Eminent Chymists teach, that it will dissolve Pearls, which being precipitated by the spirit of the same concrete are thereby (as they say) rendred volatile; which has been confirmed to me, upon his own observation, by a person of great veracity. The Phlegme of Wine, and indeed divers other Liquors that are indiscriminately condemnd to be cast away as phlegm, are endow’d with qualities that make them differ both from meer water, and from each other; and whereas the Chymists are pleas’d to call the caput mortuum of what they have distill’d (after they have by affusion of water drawn away its salt) terra damnata, or Earth, it may be doubted whether or(281) no those earths are all of them perfectly alike: and it is scarce to be doubted, but that there are some of them which remain yet unreduc’d to an Elementary nature. The ashes of wood depriv’d of all the salt, and bone-Ashes, or calcin’d Harts-horn, which Refiners choose to make Tests of, as freest from Salt, seem unlike: and he that shall compare either of these insipid ashes to Lime, and much more to the calx of Talk (though by the affusion of water they be exquisitely dulcify’d) will perhaps see cause to think them things of a somewhat differing nature. And it is evident in Colcothar that the exactest calcination, follow’d by an exquisite dulcification, does not alwaies reduce the remaining body into elementary earth; for after the salt or Vitriol (if the Calcination have been too faint) is drawn out of the Colcothar, the residue is not earth, but a mixt body, rich in Medical vertues (as experience has inform’d me) and which Angelus Sala affirmes to be partly reducible into malleable Copper; which I judge very probable: for though when I was making Experiments upon Colcothar, I was destitute of a Furnace capable of giving a heat intense Enough to bring such a(282) Calx to Fusion; yet having conjectur’d that if Colcothar abounded with that Metal, Aqua Fortis would find it out there, I put some dulcifi’d Colcothar into that Menstruum, and found the Liquor, according to my Expectation, presently Colour’d as Highly as if it had been an Ordinary Solution of Copper.

But I must remember that the Water and Earths I'm talking about are those that are separated from mixed Bodies by fire; and so to keep my discussion focused, I want to point out that we see the Phlegm of Vitriol (for example) is a very effective remedy for burns; and I know a well-known and experienced Physician, whose trusted secret (he admitted to me) is for addressing hard and stubborn Tumors. The Phlegm of Vinegar, although slowly drawn in a digesting Furnace, I have deliberately tested; and I’ve sometimes found it capable of slowly extracting a sugary sweetness from Lead; and as I recall, I dissolved Corpals in it through long digestion. The Phlegm of the sugar of Saturn is said to have some unique properties. Several eminent Chemists teach that it can dissolve Pearls, which, when precipitated by the spirit of the same substance, are said (as they claim) to become volatile; this has been confirmed to me, from his observation, by a very trustworthy person. The Phlegm of Wine, and indeed many other Liquors that are carelessly discarded as phlegm, have qualities that distinguish them from plain water and from each other; and while Chemists are pleased to call the caput mortuum of what they have distilled (after they’ve drawn away its salt with water) terra damnata, or Earth, it can be questioned whether all those earths are perfectly alike: and it’s hardly doubtful that some of them remain unreduced to an Elementary nature. The ashes of wood stripped of all salt, and bone ashes, or calcined Harts-horn, which Refiners prefer as Tests because they are free from Salt, seem different: and anyone who compares either of these tasteless ashes to Lime, and even more to the calx of Chat (even though they are perfectly sweetened by the affusion of water) might find reason to think they are fundamentally different. It is clear with Colcothar that even the most careful calcination, followed by thorough sweetening, does not always convert the remaining body into elementary earth; because when the salt or Vitriol (if the Calcination was too weak) is drawn out of the Colcothar, the residue is not earth but a mixed body, rich in medicinal properties (as experience has shown me) and which Angelus Sala claims is partially reducible to malleable Copper; which I find very likely: for even though when I was experimenting with Colcothar, I didn’t have a Furnace that could provide enough heat to melt such a (282) Calx; still, I suspected that if Colcothar contained that Metal, Aqua Fortis would be able to find it, so I put some sweetened Colcothar into that Menstruum, and found the liquid, just as I expected, quickly colored as deeply as if it had been an ordinary solution of Copper.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.


The Fifth Part.



HEre Carneades making a pause, I must not deny (sayes his Friend to him) that I think You have sufficiently prov’d that these distinct Substances which Chymists are wont to obtain from Mixt Bodies, by their Vulgar Destillation, are not pure and simple enough to deserve, in Rigour of speaking, the Name of Elements, or Principles. But I suppose You have heard, that there are some Modern Spagyrists, who give out that they can by further and more Skilfull Purifications, so reduce the separated Ingredients of Mixt Bodies to an Elementary simplicity, That(284) the Oyles (for Instance) extracted from all Mixts shall as perfectly resemble one another, as the Drops of Water do.


Here Carneades paused, and his friend said to him, “I can’t deny that you’ve sufficiently shown that the distinct substances which chemists typically obtain from mixed bodies through regular distillation aren’t pure or simple enough to truly be called elements or principles in a strict sense. However, I assume you’ve heard of some modern spagyrists who claim they can further refine and purify the separated ingredients from mixed bodies to achieve an elementary simplicity, so that (284) the oils extracted from all mixtures will resemble each other as perfectly as drops of water do.”

If you remember (replies Carneades) that at the Beginning of our Conference with Philoponus, I declar’d to him before the rest of the Company, that I would not engage my self at present to do any more then examine the usual proofs alledg’d by Chymists, for the Vulgar doctrine of their three Hypostatical Principles; You will easily perceive that I am not oblig’d to make answer to what you newly propos’d; and that it rather grants, then disproves what I have been contending for: Since by pretending to make so great a change in the reputed Principles that Destillation affords the common Spagyrists, ’tis plainly enough presuppos’d, that before such Artificial Depurations be made, the Substances to be made more simple were not yet simple enough to be look’d upon as Elementary; Wherefore in case the Artists you speak of could perform what they give out they can, yet I should not need to be asham’d of having question’d the Vulgar Opinion(285) touching the tria Prima. And as to the thing it self, I shall freely acknowledge to you, that I love not to be forward in determining things to be impossible, till I know and have consider’d the means by which they are propos’d to be effected. And therefore I shall not peremptorily deny either the possibility of what these Artists promise, or my Assent to any just Inference; however destructive to my Conjectures, that may be drawn from their performances. But give me leave to tell you withall, that because such promises are wont (as Experience has more then once inform’d me) to be much more easily made, then made good by Chymists, I must withhold my Beliefe from their assertions, till their Experiments exact it; and must not be so easie as to expect before hand, an unlikely thing upon no stronger Inducements then are yet given me: Besides that I have not yet found by what I have heard of these Artists, that though they pretend to bring the several Substances into which the Fire has divided the Concrete, to an exquisite simplicity, They pretend also to be able by the Fire to divide all Concretes,(286) Minerals, and others, into the same number of Distinct Substances. And in the mean time I must think it improbable, that they can either truly separate as many differing Bodies from Gold (for Instance) or Osteocolla, as we can do from Wine, or Vitriol; or that the Mercury (for Example) of Gold or Saturn would be perfectly of the same Nature with that of Harts-horn; and that the sulphur of Antimony would be but Numerically different from the Distill’d butter or oyle of Roses.

If you recall, (answers Carneades) at the start of our discussion with Philoponus, I stated to him in front of the others that I wouldn’t commit to anything more than examining the common proofs put forth by chemists regarding the popular belief in their three Hypostatical Principles. You can easily see that I'm not obligated to respond to what you just proposed; instead, it actually supports rather than undermines my argument. Since by suggesting such a major change in the accepted principles that distillation provides to the common Spagyrists, it’s clearly assumed that before these artificial purifications are done, the substances being simplified weren’t simple enough to be considered elementary. Therefore, even if the Artists you mentioned could achieve what they claim, I wouldn’t feel ashamed for questioning the common belief regarding the tria Prima. As for the matter itself, I want to openly say that I don’t like to jump to conclusions about things being impossible until I understand and have considered the methods proposed to achieve them. Thus, I won’t outright deny either the possibility of what these Artists promise or my agreement with any valid conclusion that may undermine my theories based on their results. However, let me also say that since such promises tend to be much more easily made than fulfilled by chemists, based on my experience, I have to reserve my belief in their claims until their experiments demand it; I shouldn't be so quick to expect something unlikely without stronger reasons than what I've been given so far. Furthermore, I haven’t yet seen what these Artists offer; although they claim to reduce the various substances created by fire into a perfect simplicity, they also assert that they can separate all composites, (285) minerals and others, into the same number of distinct substances. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that they can genuinely separate as many different bodies from gold (for instance) or Osteocolla, as we can from wine or vitriol; or that the mercury (for example) of gold or lead would be exactly the same as that from hartshorn; or that the sulfur of antimony would merely be numerically different from distilled butter or rose oil. (286)

But suppose (sayes Eleutherius) that you should meet with Chymists, who would allow you to take in Earth and Water into the number of the principles of Mixt Bodies; and being also content to change the Ambiguous Name of Mercury for that more intelligible one of spirit, should consequently make the principles of Compound Bodies to be Five; would you not think it something hard to reject so plausible an Opinion, only because the Five substances into which the Fire divides mixt Bodies are not exactly pure, and Homogeneous? For my part(287) (Continues Carneades) I cannot but think it somewhat strange, in case this Opinion be not true, that it should fall out so luckily, that so great a Variety of Bodies should be Analyz’d by the Fire into just five Distinct substances; which so little differing from the Bodies that bear those names, may so Plausibly be call’d Oyle, Spirit, Salt, Water, and Earth.

But imagine (says Eleutherius) if you came across chemists who would agree to include Earth and Water among the basic principles of mixed substances; and if they were also willing to replace the vague term Mercury with the clearer term spirit, they would then conclude that the principles of compound substances consist of five. Wouldn't you find it somewhat challenging to dismiss such a reasonable viewpoint just because the five substances into which fire divides mixed bodies aren't entirely pure and homogeneous? For my part(287) (continues Carneades), I can't help but find it a bit odd, assuming this viewpoint isn't true, that such a wide variety of substances should be analyzed by fire into exactly five distinct substances, which are so similar to the bodies they are named after that they could convincingly be called Oil, Spirit, Salt, Water, and Earth.

The Opinion You now propose (answers Carneades) being another then that I was engag’d to examine, it is not requisite for me to Debate it at present; nor should I have leisure to do it thorowly. Wherefore I shall only tell you in General, that though I think this Opinion in some respects more defensible then that of the Vulgar Chymists; yet you may easily enough learn from the past Discourse what may be thought of it: Since many of the Objections made against the Vulgar Doctrine of the Chymists seem, without much alteration, employable against this Hypothesis also. For, besides that this Doctrine does as well as the other take it for granted, (what is not easie to be prov’d) that the Fire is the true and Adequate Ana(288)lyzer of Bodies, and that all the Distinct substances obtainable from a mixt Body by the Fire, were so pre-existent in it, that they were but extricated from each other by the Analysis; Besides that this Opinion, too, ascribe to the Productions of the Fire an Elementary simplicity, which I have shewn not to belong to them; and besides that this Doctrine is lyable to some of the other Difficulties, wherewith That of the Tria Prima is incumber’d; Besides all this, I say, this quinary number of Elements, (if you pardon the Expression) ought at least to have been restrain’d to the Generality of Animal and Vegetable Bodies, since not only among these there are some Bodies (as I formerly argu’d) which, for ought has yet been made to appear, do consist, either of fewer or more similar substances then precisely Five. But in the Mineral Kingdom, there is scarce one Concrete that has been evinc’d to be adequatly divisible into such five Principles or Elements, and neither more nor less, as this Opinion would have every mixt Body to consist of.

The opinion you're proposing (answers Carneades) is different from the one I was engaged in examining, so I don't need to debate it right now; I also wouldn't have the time to discuss it thoroughly. Therefore, I'll just tell you in general that while I think this opinion is more defensible in some ways than that of conventional chemists, you can easily pick up from our previous discussion what can be said about it: many of the objections made against the conventional chemist's doctrine can, with little modification, be applied to this hypothesis as well. Besides the fact that this doctrine also assumes (which is not easy to prove) that fire is the true and adequate analyzer of substances, and that all the distinct substances obtained from a mixture by fire pre-existed in it, merely being separated from each other through analysis; in addition to that, this opinion also attributes an elementary simplicity to the products of fire, which I've shown they do not possess; and it is also subject to some of the same difficulties that the doctrine of Tria Prima faces. Moreover, I would argue that this five-element theory (if you can forgive the expression) should at least be limited to general animal and plant bodies, as there are some among them (as I previously argued) that, so far, have been shown to consist of either fewer or more similar substances than exactly five. In the mineral kingdom, hardly any compound has been convincingly shown to be adequately divisible into those five principles or elements, just as this opinion claims every mixture must consist of.

And this very thing (continues Car(289)neades) may serve to take away or lessen your Wonder, that just so many Bodies as five should be found upon the Resolution of Concretes. For since we find not that the fire can make any such Analysis (into five Elements) of Metals and other Mineral Bodies, whose Texture is more strong and permanent, it remains that the Five Substances under consideration be Obtain’d from Vegetable and Animal Bodies, which (probably by reason of their looser Contexture) are capable of being Distill’d. And as to such Bodies, ’tis natural enough, that, whether we suppose that there are, or are not, precisely five Elements, there should ordinarily occurr in the Dissipated parts a five Fold Diversity of Scheme (if I may so speak.) For if the Parts do not remain all fix’d, as in Gold, Calcin’d Talck, &c. nor all ascend, as in the Sublimation of Brimstone, Camphire, &c. but after their Dissipation do associate themselves into new Schemes of Matter; it is very likely, that they will by the Fire be divided into fix’d and Volatile (I mean, in Reference to that degree of heat by which they are destill’d) and those Volatile(290) parts will, for the most part, ascend either in a dry forme, which Chymists are pleas’d to call, if they be Tastless, Flowers; if Sapid, Volatile Salt; or in a Liquid Forme. And this Liquor must be either inflamable, and so pass for oyl, or not inflamable, and yet subtile and pungent, which may be call’d Spirit; or else strengthless or insipid, which may be nam’d Phlegme, or Water. And as for the fixt part, or Caput Mortuum, it will most commonly consist of Corpuscles, partly Soluble in Water, or Sapid, (especially if the Saline parts were not so Volatile, as to fly away before) which make up its fixt salt; and partly insoluble and insipid, which therefore seems to challenge the name of Earth. But although upon this ground one might easily enough have foretold, that the differing substances obtain’d from a perfectly mixt Body by the Fire would for the most part be reducible to the five newly mentioned States of Matter; yet it will not presently follow, that these five Distinct substances were simple and primogeneal bodies, so pre-existent in the Concrete that the fire does but take them asunder. Besides(291) that it does not appear, that all Mixt Bodies, (witness, Gold, Silver, Mercury, &c.) Nay nor perhaps all Vegetables, which may appear by what we said above of Camphire, Benzoin, &c. are resoluble by Fire into just such differing Schemes of Matter. Nor will the Experiments formerly alledg’d permit us to look upon these separated Substances as Elementary, or uncompounded. Neither will it be a sufficient Argument of their being Bodies that deserve the Names which Chymists are pleas’d to give them, that they have an Analogy in point of Consistence, or either Volatility or Fixtness, or else some other obvious Quality, with the suppos’d Principles, whose names are ascrib’d to them. For, as I told you above, notwithstanding this Resemblance in some one Quality, there may be such a Disparity in others, as may be more fit to give them Differing Appellations, then the Resemblance is to give them one and the same. And indeed it seems but somewhat a gross Way of judging of the Nature of Bodies, to conclude without Scruple, that those must be of the same(292) Nature that agree in some such General Quality, as Fluidity, Dryness, Volatility, and the like: since each of those Qualities, or States of Matter, may Comprehend a great Variety of Bodies, otherwise of a very differing Nature; as we may see in the Calxes of Gold, of Vitriol, and of Venetian Talck, compar’d with common Ashes, which yet are very dry, and fix’d by the vehemence of the Fire, as well as they. And as we may likewise gather from what I have formerly Observ’d, touching the Spirit of Box-Wood, which though a Volatile, Sapid, and not inflamable Liquor, as well as the Spirits of Harts-horn, of Blood and others, (and therefore has been hitherto call’d, the Spirit, and esteem’d for one of the Principles of the Wood that affords it;) may yet, as I told You, be subdivided into two Liquors, differing from one another, and one of them at least, from the Generality of other Chymical Spirits.

And this very thing (continues Car(289)neades) might help reduce your amazement that exactly five substances should be found in the breakdown of mixtures. Since we observe that fire cannot perform such an Analysis (into five Elements) for metals and other minerals, which have a stronger and more permanent structure, it follows that the five substances we're discussing come from vegetable and animal materials, which are likely more easily distilled due to their looser structure. Regarding these materials, it makes sense that whether we believe there are exactly five elements or not, there would typically be a fivefold variety in the dispersed parts (if I can put it that way). Because if the parts don’t stay completely fixed, like gold or calcined talc, nor all rise, like in the sublimation of sulfur or camphor, but rather associate into new forms of matter after dispersal, it’s very probable that the fire will separate them into fixed and volatile parts (referring to the heat level used for distillation). Those volatile parts will mostly rise either in a dry form, which chemists like to call flowers if they’re tasteless or volatile salt if they’re flavorful, or in a liquid form. This liquid could either be flammable, passing for oil, or non-flammable yet subtle and pungent, which might be called spirit; or it could be weak or tasteless, which might be labeled phlegm or water. As for the fixed part, or Caput Mortuum, it will typically consist of particles that are partially soluble in water or flavorful (especially if the saline parts weren’t so volatile that they evaporated first), making up its fixed salt; and partly insoluble and tasteless, which thus seems to deserve the name of earth. However, even though it’s easy to predict that the different substances obtained from a well-mixed body through fire would mostly correspond to these five mentioned states of matter, that doesn’t immediately mean that these five distinct substances are simple and original bodies, pre-existing within the compound that the fire merely separates. Additionally(291), it doesn’t seem that all mixed bodies, like gold, silver, mercury, etc., nor perhaps all vegetables, as indicated by what we mentioned before about camphor, benzoin, etc., are reducible by fire into just those different forms of matter. The previously mentioned experiments also do not allow us to consider these separated substances as elemental or uncompounded. Moreover, it is not sufficient to argue that these bodies deserve the names chemists assign them just because they have similarities in consistency, volatility, fixedness, or some other obvious traits with the supposed principles named after them. As I mentioned earlier, despite this resemblance in some quality, there may be such differences in others that it would be more appropriate to give them different names rather than the same one. Indeed, it seems a rather crude way to judge the nature of bodies to conclude without hesitation that those which share a general quality, like fluidity, dryness, or volatility, must be of the same nature; since each of those qualities or states of matter can include a wide variety of substances that may otherwise be very different in nature; as we can see in the calxes of gold, vitriol, and Venetian talc, compared with common ashes, which are also very dry and fixed due to intense heat. We can also gather from my earlier observations about the spirit of boxwood, which, despite being a volatile, flavorful, and non-flammable liquid, as are the spirits of hartshorn, blood, and others (and thus has so far been called spirit and valued as one of the principles of the wood from which it comes), can still be subdivided into two liquids that differ from each other, and at least one of them is different from the general category of other chemical spirits.

But you may your self, if you please, (pursues Carneades) accommodate to the Hypothesis you propos’d what other particulars you shall think applicable to it,(293) in the foregoing Discourse. For I think it unseasonable for me to meddle now any further with a Controversie, which since it does not now belong to me, Leaves me at Liberty to Take my Own time to Declare my Self about it.

But if you want, you can adjust the Hypothesis you proposed to fit in any other details you think are relevant to it,(293) as mentioned earlier. I believe it's not appropriate for me to get involved in a debate that isn't currently my concern, which gives me the freedom to share my thoughts about it whenever I choose.

Eleutherius perceiving that Carneades was somewhat unwilling to spend any more time upon the debate of this Opinion, and having perhaps some thoughts of taking hence a Rise to make him Discourse it more fully another time, thought not fit as then to make any further mention to him of the propos’d opinion, but told him;

Eleutherius noticed that Carneades was somewhat reluctant to spend any more time debating this opinion, and perhaps thinking about revisiting it for a more in-depth discussion later, decided it wasn't the right moment to bring up the proposed opinion again, but said to him;

I presume I need not mind you, Carneades, That both the Patrons of the ternary number of Principles, and those that would have five Elements, endeavour to back their experiments with a specious Reason or two; and especially some of those Embracers of the Opinion last nam’d (whom I have convers’d with, and found them Learned men) assigne this Reason of the necessity of five distinct Elements; that otherwise mixt Bodies could not be so compounded and temper’d as to obtain a due consi(294)stence and competent Duration. For Salt (say they) is the Basis of Solidity; and Permanency in Compound Bodies, without which the other four Elements might indeed be variously and loosly blended together, but would remain incompacted; but that Salt might be dissolv’d into minute Parts, and convey’d to the other Substances to be compacted by it, and with it, there is a Necessity of Water. And that the mixture may not be too hard and brittle, a Sulphureous or Oyly Principle must intervene to make the mass more tenacious; to this a Mercurial spirit must be superadded; which by its activity may for a while premeate, and as it were leaven the whole Mass, and thereby promote the more exquisite mixture and incorporation of the Ingredients. To all which (lastly) a portion of Earth must be added, which by its drinesse and poracity may soak up part of that water wherein the Salt was dissolv’d, and eminently concurr with the other ingredients to give the whole body the requisite consistence.

I assume I don't need to remind you, Carneades, that both the supporters of the three principles and those who advocate for five elements try to support their experiments with some convincing arguments. Specifically, some of those who hold the latter view (whom I’ve talked to and found to be knowledgeable) argue for the necessity of having five distinct elements, claiming that otherwise, mixed bodies could not be properly combined and balanced to achieve consistent existence and adequate duration. They say that Salt is the Basis of Solidity and Permanence in Compound Bodies; without it, the other four elements could indeed be mixed together loosely, but would remain unbound. However, for Salt to dissolve into tiny parts and be integrated into the other substances, Water is necessary. Additionally, to prevent the mixture from being too hard and brittle, a Sulphurous or Oily principle needs to be included to make the mix more cohesive; to this, a Mercurial spirit must be added, which can actively permeate and leaven the entire mixture, promoting a finer blend and integration of the components. Finally, a portion of Earth must be added, which, through its dryness and poracity, can absorb some of the water in which the Salt was dissolved, working harmoniously with the other ingredients to provide the whole body with the needed consistency.

I perceive (sayes Carneades smiling) that if it be true, as ’twas lately rooted from the Proverb, That good Wits have(295) bad Memories, You have that Title, as well as a better, to a place among the good Wits. For you have already more then once forgot, that I declar’d to you that I would at this Conference Examine only the Experiments of my Adversaries, not their Speculative Reasons. Yet ’tis not (Subjoynes Carneades) for fear of medling with the Argument you have propos’d, that I decline the examining it at present. For if when we are more at leasure, you shall have a mind that we may Solemnly consider of it together; I am confident we shall scarce find it insoluble. And in the mean time we may observe, that such a way of Arguing may, it seems, be speciously accommodated to differing Hypotheses. For I find that Beguinus, and other Assertors of the Tria Prima, pretend to make out by such a way, the requisiteness of their Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, to constitute mixt Bodies, without taking notice of any necessity of an Addition of Water and Earth.

I see (says Carneades with a smile) that if it's true, as was recently mentioned in the Proverb, That good Wits have(295) bad Memories, you have that title, as well as a better one, to be among the good Wits. For you have already forgotten more than once that I told you I would only examine the experiments of my opponents during this Conference, not their speculative arguments. However (adds Carneades), it’s not because I’m afraid to engage with the argument you proposed that I’m avoiding it right now. If when we have more time, you want us to seriously consider it together; I’m confident we won’t find it unsolvable. In the meantime, we can note that this method of arguing seems to be conveniently adapted to different Hypotheses. I’ve found that Beguinus and other supporters of the Tria Prima claim to demonstrate the necessity of their Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury for creating mixed bodies, without acknowledging any need for adding Water and Earth.

And indeed neither sort of Chymists seem to have duly consider’d how great Variety there is in the Textures and(296) Consistences of Compound Bodie; sand how little the consistence and Duration of many of them seem to accommodate and be explicable by the propos’d Notion. And not to mention those almost incorruptible Substances obtainable by the Fire, which I have prov’d to be somewhat compounded, and which the Chymists will readily grant not to be perfectly mixt Bodies: (Not to mention these, I say) If you will but recall to mind some of those Experiments, whereby I shew’d You that out of common Water only mixt Bodies (and even living ones) of very differing consistences, and resoluble by Fire into as many Principles as other bodies acknowledg’d to be perfectly mixt; if you do this, I say, you will not, I suppose, be averse from beleeving, that Nature by a convenient disposition of the minute parts of a portion of matter may contrive bodies durable enough, and of this, or that, or the other Consistence, without being oblig’d to make use of all, much less of any Determinate quantity of each of the five Elements, or of the three Principles to compound such bodies of. And I have (pursues Carne(297)ades) something wonder’d, Chymists should not consider, that there is scarce any body in Nature so permanent and indissoluble as Glass; which yet themselves teach us may be made of bare Ashes, brought to fusion by the meer Violence of the Fire; so that, since Ashes are granted to consist but of pure Salt and simple Earth, sequestred from all the other Principles or Elements, they must acknowledge, That even Art it self can of two Elements only, or, if you please, one Principle and one Element, compound a Body more durable then almost any in the World. Which being undeniable, how will they prove that Nature cannot compound Mixt Bodies, and even durable Ones, under all the five Elements or material Principles.

And indeed, neither type of chemists seem to have properly considered how much variety there is in the textures and(296) consistencies of compound materials. It’s surprising how little the consistency and duration of many of them seem to fit or be explained by the proposed notion. Not to mention those nearly incorruptible substances that can be obtained by fire, which I have shown to be somewhat compounded, and which chemists will readily agree are not perfectly mixed bodies: (Not to mention these, I say) if you just remember some of those experiments where I showed you that from ordinary water, we can get mixed bodies (even living ones) of very different consistencies, and which can be resolved by fire into as many principles as other bodies acknowledged to be perfectly mixed; if you think back on this, I believe you won’t be opposed to the idea that nature, through a suitable arrangement of the tiny parts of a portion of matter, can create bodies that are durable enough and of this, that, or the other consistency, without being required to use all, much less any specific quantity of each of the five elements, or of the three principles to create such bodies. And I have (continues Carne(297)ades) wondered why chemists do not acknowledge that there is hardly any body in nature as permanent and indissoluble as glass; which they themselves tell us can be made from plain ashes, melted down by the sheer power of fire; so that, since ashes are agreed to consist only of pure salt and simple earth, separated from all the other principles or elements, they must recognize that even art itself can combine two elements, or if you prefer, one principle and one element, to create a body more durable than almost any in the world. Given that this is undeniable, how can they prove that nature cannot create mixed bodies, and even durable ones, using all five elements or material principles?

But to insist any longer on this Occasional Disquisition, Touching their Opinion that would Establish five Elements, were to remember as little as You did before, that the Debate of this matter is no part of my first undertaking; and consequently, that I have already spent time enough in what I look back upon but as a digression, or at best an Excursion.(298)

But to keep insisting on this occasional discussion about their belief in five elements would be to forget, as you did before, that debating this topic is not part of my original goal. Therefore, I've already spent enough time on what I consider a side note, or at best, a detour.(298)

And thus, Eleutherius, (sayes Carneades) having at length gone through the four Considerations I propos’d to Discourse unto you, I hold it not unfit, for fear my having insisted so long on each of them may have made you forget their Series, briefly to repeat them by telling you, that

And so, Eleutherius (says Carneades), after finally going through the four points I wanted to discuss with you, I think it’s a good idea to quickly recap them in case my lengthy explanations have made you lose track of their Series, by saying that

Since, in the first place, it may justly be doubted whether or no the Fire be, as Chymists suppose it, the genuine and Universal Resolver of mixt Bodies;

Since it can be reasonably questioned whether Fire is, as chemists think, the true and universal solvent of mixed substances;

Since we may doubt, in the next place, whether or no all the Distinct Substances that may be obtain’d from a mixt body by the Fire were pre-existent there in the formes in which they were separated from it;

Since we might question whether all the different substances that can be obtained from a mixed body through fire were already present there in the forms they were separated into;

Since also, though we should grant the Substances separable from mixt Bodies by the fire to have been their component Ingredients, yet the Number of such substances does not appear the same in all mixt Bodies; some of them being Resoluble into more differing substances than three, and Others not being Resoluble into so many as three.

Since we should also acknowledge that the substances that can be separated from mixed bodies by fire have been their component ingredients, the number of such substances does not seem to be the same in all mixed bodies; some can be broken down into more than three different substances, while others can't be broken down into more than three.

And Since, Lastly, those very substances that are thus separated are not for the(299) most part pure and Elementary bodies, but new kinds of mixts;

And since, lastly, the substances that are separated are mostly not pure and basic elements, but rather new types of mixtures;

Since, I say, these things are so, I hope you will allow me to inferr, that the Vulgar Experiments (I might perchance have Added, the Arguments too) wont to be Alledg’d by Chymists to prove, that their three Hypostatical Principles do adequately compose all mixt Bodies, are not so demonstrative as to reduce a wary Person to acquiesce in their Doctrine, which, till they Explain and prove it better, will by its perplexing darkness be more apt to puzzle then satisfy considering men, and will to them appear incumbred with no small Difficulties.

Since, I say, these things are true, I hope you will let me suggest that the common experiments (and perhaps also the arguments) often cited by chemists to prove that their three fundamental principles make up all mixed substances are not so convincing that a careful person would simply accept their teachings. Until they can explain and prove it better, their confusing darkness is likely to confuse rather than satisfy thoughtful individuals, and it will seem to them loaded with significant challenges.

And from what has been hitherto deduc’d (continues Carneades) we may Learn, what to Judge of the common Practice of those Chymists, who because they have found that Diverse compound Bodies (for it will not hold in All) can be resolv’d into, or rather can be brought to afford two or three differing Substances more then the Soot and Ashes, whereinto the naked fire commonly divides them in our Chymnies, cry up their own Sect for the Invention of a New Philosophy, some of them, as Helmont, &c. styling(300) themselves Philosophers by the Fire; and the most part not only ascribing, but as far as in them lies, engrossing to those of their Sect the Title of PHILOSOPHERS.

And based on what has been discussed so far (continues Carneades), we can understand how to judge the common practice of those chemists who, because they have discovered that various compound substances (though this doesn’t apply to all) can be broken down into, or rather can yield, two or three different substances beyond just the soot and ashes that the naked fire typically produces in our chimneys, promote their own group as the creators of a new philosophy. Some of them, like Helmont, &c., even refer to themselves as Philosophers by the Fire; and most not only claim but as far as they can, monopolize the title of PHILOSOPHERS for their own group.

But alas, how narrow is this Philosophy, that reaches but to some of those compound Bodies, which we find but upon, or in the crust or outside of our terrestrial Globe, which is it self but a point in comparison of the vast extended Universe, of whose other and greater parts the Doctrine of the Tria Prima does not give us an Account! For what does it teach us, either of the Nature of the Sun, which Astronomers affirme to be eight-score and odd times bigger then the whole Earth? or of that of those numerous fixt Starrs, which, for ought we know, would very few, if any of them, appear inferiour in bulke and brightness to the Sun, if they were as neer us as He? What does the knowing that Salt, sulphur and Mercury, are the Principles of Mixt Bodies, informe us of the Nature of that vast, fluid, and Ætherial Substance, that seemes to make up the interstellar, and consequently much the greatest part of the World? for as for(301) the opinion commonly ascrib’d to Paracelsus, as if he would have not only the four Peripatetick Elements, but even the Celestial parts of the Universe to consist of his three Principles, since the modern Chymists themselves have not thought so groundless a conceit worth their owning, I shall not think it Worth my confuting.

But sadly, how limited is this Philosophy, which only applies to some of the complex bodies we find on or within the crust of our Earth—this tiny point in comparison to the vast, expansive Universe. The Doctrine of the Tria Prima doesn't account for the larger parts of it! What does it really teach us about the nature of the Sun, which astronomers say is over 800 times bigger than the entire Earth? Or about those countless fixed stars, which, for all we know, might rival the Sun in size and brightness if they were as close to us as it is? How does knowing that salt, sulfur, and mercury are the principles of mixed bodies help us understand the vast, fluid, ether-like substance that seems to compose the interstellar space, making up the majority of the Universe? As for the view commonly attributed to Paracelsus, that he believed not only the four Aristotelian elements but also the celestial parts of the Universe were made up of his three principles—I won't bother arguing against it since modern chemists don't find that idea worth supporting anyway.

But I should perchance forgive the Hypothesis I have been all this while examining, if, though it reaches but to a very little part of the World, it did at least give us a satisfactory account of those things to which ’tis said to reach. But I find not, that it gives us any other then a very imperfect information even about mixt Bodies themselves: For how will the knowledge of the Tria Prima discover to us the Reason, why the Loadstone drawes a Needle and disposes it to respect the Poles, and yet seldom precisely points at them? how will this Hypothesis teach Us how a Chick is formed in the Egge, or how the Seminal Principles of Mint, Pompions, and other Vegitables, that I mention’d to You above, can fashion Water into Various Plants, each of them endow’d with its peculiar(302) and determinate shape, and with divers specifick and discriminating Qualities? How does this Hypothesis shew us, how much Salt, how much Sulphur, and how much Mercury must be taken to make a Chick or a Pompion? and if We know that, what Principle is it, that manages these Ingredients, and contrives (for instance) such Liquors as the White and Yelk of an Egge into such a variety of Textures as is requisite to fashion the Bones, Veines, Arteries, Nerves, Tendons, Feathers, Blood, and other parts of a Chick; and not only to fashion each Limbe, but to connect them altogether, after that manner that is most congruous to the perfection of the Animal which is to Consist of Them? For to say, that some more fine and subtile part of either or all the Hypostatical Principles is the Director in all this business, and the Architect of all this Elaborate structure, is to give one occasion to demand again, what proportion and way of mixture of the Tria Prima afforded this Architectonick Spirit, and what Agent made so skilful and happy a mixture? And the Answer to this Question, if the Chymists will keep themselves(303) within their three Principles, will be lyable to the same Inconvenience, that the Answer to the former was. And if it were not to intrench upon the Theame of a Friend of ours here present, I could easily prosecute the Imperfections of the Vulgar Chymists Philosophy, and shew you, that by going about to explicate by their three Principles, I say not, all the abstruse Properties of mixt Bodies, but even such Obvious and more familiar Phænomena as Fluidity and Firmness, The Colours and Figures of Stones, Minerals, and other compound Bodies, The Nutrition of either Plants or Animals, the Gravity of Gold or Quicksilver compar’d with Wine or Spirit of Wine; By attempting, I say, to render a reason of these (to omit a thousand others as difficult to account for) from any proportion of the three simple Ingredients, Chymists will be much more likely to discredit themselves and their Hypothesis, then satisfy an intelligent Inquirer after Truth.

But I should perhaps forgive the hypothesis I have been examining all this time if, even though it only covers a small part of the world, it at least provided a satisfactory explanation for the things it claims to address. However, I find that it offers us nothing more than very imperfect information, even about mixed bodies themselves. For how will knowing the Tria Prima explain why a magnet attracts a needle and aligns it with the poles, yet often doesn’t point directly at them? How will this hypothesis teach us how a chick is formed in the egg, or how the seminal principles of mint, pumpkins, and other plants I mentioned earlier can shape water into various plants, each with its unique and specific shape, and various specific and distinguishing qualities? How does this hypothesis show us how much salt, how much sulfur, and how much mercury must be combined to create a chick or a pumpkin? And if we know that, what principle manages these ingredients and designs (for instance) such liquids as the egg white and yolk into the variety of textures needed to form the bones, veins, arteries, nerves, tendons, feathers, blood, and other parts of a chick? Not only does it need to form each limb, but it must also connect them in a way that perfectly suits the animal that will consist of them. To say that a finer and subtler part of either or all the hypo-static principles directs all of this and is the architect of this elaborate structure only raises the question of what proportion and mixture of the Tria Prima provided this architectonic spirit, and what agent created such a skillful and successful mixture? The answer to this question, if chemists remain confined within their three principles, will face the same pitfalls as the answer to the previous question did. And if it weren’t for stepping on the theme of a friend of ours present here, I could easily pursue the flaws of common chemists' philosophy and show you that by trying to explain not all the obscure properties of mixed bodies, but even more obvious and familiar phenomena like fluidity and firmness, the colors and shapes of stones, minerals, and other compounds, the nutrition of either plants or animals, or the weight of gold or mercury compared to wine or spirits; by attempting to justify these (to say nothing of a thousand others that are just as hard to account for) from any proportion of the three simple ingredients, chemists will more likely discredit themselves and their hypothesis than satisfy an intelligent seeker of truth.

But (interposes Eleutherus) This Objection seems no more then may be made against the four Peripatetick Elements. And indeed almost against any other Hy(304)pothesis, that pretends by any Determinate Number of Material Ingredients to render a reason of the Phænomena of Nature. And as for the use of the Chymical Doctrine of the three Principles, I suppose you need not be told by me, that The great Champion of it, The Learned Sennertus,Senn. de Cons. & Dissen. p. 165. assignes this noble use of the Tria Prima, That from Them, as the neerest and most Proper Principles, may be Deduc’d and Demonstrated the Properties which are in Mixt Bodies, and which cannot be Proximately (as They speak) deduc’d from the Elements. And This, sayes he, is chiefly Apparent, when we Inquire into the Properties and Faculties of Medecines. And I know (continues Eleutherius) That the Person You have assum’d, of an Opponent of the Hermetick Doctrine, will not so far prevaile against your Native and wonted Equity, as To keep You from acknowledging that Philosophy is much beholden to the Notions and Discoveries of Chymists.

But (interjects Eleutherus) this objection seems no more valid than the ones made against the four Peripatetic elements. In fact, it can apply to almost any other Hypothesis that claims to explain the Phenomena of nature using a set number of material components. Regarding the use of the chemical doctrine of the three principles, I assume you don't need me to tell you that the great advocate of it, the learned Sennertus,Senn. on Counseling & Dissent p. 165. assigns this significant role to the Tria Prima: that from these, as the closest and most appropriate principles, we can derive and demonstrate the properties present in mixed bodies that cannot be directly (as they say) deduced from the elements. And this, he says, is especially evident when we examine the properties and effects of medicines. I know (continues Eleutherius) that the role you’ve taken on as an opponent of the Hermetic Doctrine won’t override your natural and usual fairness, keeping you from recognizing that philosophy owes a great deal to the concepts and discoveries of chemists.

If the Chymists You speak of (Replyes Carneades) had been so modest, or so Discreet, as to propose their O(305)pinion of the Tria Prima, but as a Notion useful among Others, to increase Humane knowledge, they had deserv’d more of our thanks; and less of our Opposition; but since the Thing that they pretend is not so much to contribute a Notion toward the Improvement of Philosophy, as to make this Notion attended by a few lesse considerable ones) pass for a New Philosophy itself. Nay, since they boast so much of this phancie of theirs, that the famous Quercetanus scruples not to write, that if his most certain Doctrine of the three Principles were sufficiently Learned, Examin’d, and Cultivated, it would easily Dispel all the Darkness that benights our minds, and bring in a Clear Light, that would remove all Difficulties. This School affording Theorems and Axiomes irrefragable, and to be admitted without Dispute by impartial Judges; and so useful withal, as to exempt us from the necessity of having recourse, for want of the knowledg of causes, to that Sanctuary of the igorant, Occult Qualities; since, I say, this Domestick Notion of the Chymists is so much overvalued by them, I cannot think it unfit, they should be made(306) sensible of their mistake; and be admonish’d to take in more fruitful and comprehensive Principles, if they mean to give us an account of the Phænomena of Nature; and not confine themselves and (as far as they can) others to such narrow Principles, as I fear will scarce inable them to give an account (I mean an intelligible one) of the tenth part (I say not) of all the Phænomena of Nature; but even of all such as by the Leucippian or some of the other sorts of Principles may be plausibly enough explicated. And though I be not unwilling to grant, that the incompetency I impute to the Chymical Hypothesis is but the same which may be Objected against that of the four Elements, and divers other Doctrines that have been maintain’d by Learned men; yet since ’tis the Chymical Hypothesis only which I am now examining, I see not why, if what I impute to it be a real inconvenience, either it should cease to be so, or I should scruple to object it, because either Theories are lyable thereunto, as well as the Hermetical. For I know not why a Truth should be thought lesse a Truth for the being fit to overthrow variety of Errors.(307)

If the chemists you mentioned (replies Carneades) had been more modest or discreet in presenting their ideas on the Tria Prima as simply a concept that could enhance human knowledge, they would have earned our gratitude rather than our opposition. But since what they really aim for isn’t just to contribute an idea to improve philosophy but to elevate this concept attended above several lesser ones to pass for a new philosophy itself, it’s concerning. In fact, they boast so much about this notion that the well-known Quercetanus isn't hesitant to claim that if his solid doctrine of the three principles were thoroughly learned, examined, and developed, it would easily clear away all the confusion clouding our minds and introduce a clear understanding that would resolve all challenges. This school provides undeniable theorems and axioms that should be accepted without debate by unbiased observers; they are so useful that they free us from needing to rely on the ignorance of occult qualities due to our lack of knowledge about causes. Therefore, since this domestic idea of the chemists is so greatly exaggerated by them, I believe it’s appropriate to make them aware of their mistake and encourage them to embrace more fruitful and comprehensive principles if they want to explain the Phænomena of nature, rather than limiting themselves and others to such narrow principles that, I fear, will hardly enable them to provide a clear (and I mean intelligible) explanation for even a fraction (I wouldn't say a tenth) of all the Phænomena of nature. This applies even to those concepts that the Leucippian or other types of principles may plausibly explain. While I’m willing to acknowledge that the shortcomings I attribute to the chemical Hypothesis are similar to those that could be raised against the four elements and various other doctrines supported by learned individuals, since I am currently examining the chemical Hypothesis, I don’t see why, if my criticisms are valid, it should cease to be an issue or why I should hesitate to voice them, just because other theories are also susceptible to such criticisms, just like the Hermetical. I can’t see why a truth should be considered any less true simply because it can challenge a variety of errors.(307)

I am oblig’d to You (continues Carneades, a little smiling) for the favourable Opinion You are pleas’d to express of my Equity, if there be no design in it. But I need not be tempted by an Artifice, or invited by a Complement, to acknowledge the great service that the Labours of Chymists have done the Lovers of useful Learning; nor even on this occasion shall their Arrogance hinder my Gratitude. But since we are as well examining to the truth of their Doctrine as the merit of their industry, I must in order to the investigation of the first, continue a reply, to talk at the rate of the part I have assum’d; And tell you, that when I acknowledg the usefulness of the Labours of Spagyrists to Natural Philosophy, I do it upon the score of their experiments, not upon that of Their Speculations; for it seems to me, that their Writings, as their Furnaces, afford as well smoke as light; and do little lesse obscure some subjects, then they illustrate others. And though I am unwilling to deny, that ’tis difficult for a man to be an Accomplisht Naturalist, that is a stranger to Chymistry, yet I look upon the common Operations and practices(308) of Chymists, almost as I do on the Letters of the Alphabet, without whose knowledge ’tis very hard for a man to become a Philosopher; and yet that knowledge is very far from being sufficient to make him One.

I appreciate your positive opinion about my fairness, as Carneades continues with a slight smile, if it’s sincere. But I don't need to be lured by deception or flattering words to recognize the significant contributions that chemists have made to the lovers of practical knowledge; their arrogance won’t diminish my gratitude. However, since we are also examining to both the truth of their teachings and the value of their work, I must continue my response in line with the role I’ve taken on. I want to say that when I acknowledge the usefulness of the work of Spagyrists in Natural Philosophy, I do so because of their experiments, not their theories. To me, their writings, like their furnaces, produce both smoke and light, often obscuring some topics while clarifying others. While I don’t deny that it’s tough for someone to be a skilled naturalist without knowledge of chemistry, I view the routine actions and practices(308) of chemists much like the letters of the alphabet: it’s hard to be a philosopher without that knowledge, but simply having that knowledge isn’t enough to make one a philosopher.

But (sayes Carneades, resuming a more serious Look) to consider a little more particularly what you alledg in favour of the Chymical Doctrine of the Tria Prima, though I shall readily acknowledge it not to be unuseful, and that the Divisers and Embracers of it have done the Common-Wealth of Learning some service, by helping to destroy that excessive esteem, or rather veneration, wherewith the Doctrine of the four Elements was almost as generally as undeservedly entertain’d; yet what has been alledg’d concerning the usefulness of the Tria Prima, seems to me liable to no contemptible Difficulties.

But (says Carneades, taking on a more serious expression) to take a closer look at what you’re arguing in favor of the Chemical Doctrine of the Tria Prima, I’ll gladly admit that it’s not without merit, and that the Divisers and its supporters have contributed positively to the realm of knowledge by helping to break down the exaggerated admiration—rather, reverence—that the Doctrine of the four Elements received, almost universally and unjustly; still, the arguments made regarding the usefulness of the Tria Prima seem to be faced with some significant challenges.

And first, as for the very way of Probation, which the more Learned and more Sober Champions of the Chymical cause employ to evince the Chymical Principles in Mixt Bodies, it seems to me to be farr enough from being convincing. This grand and leading Argument, your(309) Sennertus Himself, who layes Great weight upon it, and tells us, that the most Learned Philosophers employ this way of Reasoning to prove the most important things, proposes thus: Ubicunque (sayes he) pluribus eædem affectiones & qualitates insunt, per commune quoddam Principium insint necesse est, sicut omnia sunt Gravia propter terram, calida propter Ignem. At Colores, Odores, Sapores, esse φλογιϛον & similia alia, mineralibus, Metallis, Gemmis, Lapidibus, Plantis, Animalibus insunt. Ergo per commune aliquod principium, & subiectum, insunt. At tale principium non sunt Elementa. Nullam enim habent ad tales qualitates producendas potentiam. Ergo alia principia, unde fluant, inquirenda sunt.

And first, regarding the method of testing that the more knowledgeable and serious advocates of the chemical cause use to demonstrate the chemical principles in mixed substances, it seems to me to be far from convincing. This major and primary argument, your (309) Sennertus himself, who places great importance on it, tells us that the most learned philosophers use this reasoning to prove crucial points, states: Wherever multiple things share the same properties and qualities, they must exist through some common principle, just as everything is heavy because of Earth, hot because of Fire. But colors, odors, tastes, being φλογιϛον & similar others exist in minerals, metals, gems, stones, plants, and animals. Therefore, they must exist through some common principle and subject. However, such a principle is not the Elements. For they have no power to produce such qualities. Therefore, other principles from which they arise need to be investigated.

In the Recital of this Argument, (sayes Carneades) I therefore thought fit to retain the Language wherein the Author proposes it, that I might also retain the propriety of some Latine Termes, to which I do not readily remember any that fully answer in English. But as for the Argumentation it self, ’tis built upon a precarious supposition, that seems to me neither Demonstrable nor true; for, how does it(310) appear, that where the same Quality is to be met with in many Bodies, it must belong to them upon the Account of some one Body whereof they all partake? (For that the Major of our Authors Argument is to be Understood of the Material Ingredients of bodies, appears by the Instances of Earth and Fire he annexes to explain it.) For to begin with that very Example which he is pleas’d to alledge for himself; how can he prove, that the Gravity of all Bodies proceeds from what they participate of the Element of Earth? Since we see, that not only common Water, but the more pure Distill’d Rain Water is heavy; and Quicksilver is much heavier than Earth it self; though none of my Adversaries has yet prov’d, that it contains any of that Element. And I the Rather make use of this Example of Quicksilver, because I see not how the Assertors of the Elements will give any better Account of it then the Chymists. For if it be demanded how it comes to be Fluid, they will answer, that it participates much of the Nature of Water. And indeed, according to them, Water(311) may be the Predominant Element in it, since we see, that several Bodies which by Distillation afford Liquors that weigh more then their Caput Mortuum do not yet consist of Liquor enough to be Fluid. Yet if it be demanded how Quicksilver comes to be so heavy, then ’tis reply’d, that ’tis by reason of the Earth that abounds in it; but since, according to them, it must consist also of air, and partly of Fire, which they affirm to be light Elements, how comes it that it should be so much heavier then Earth of the same bulk, though to fill up the porosities and other Cavities it be made up into a mass or paste with Water, which it self they allow to be a heavy Element. But to returne to our Spagyrists, we see that Chymical Oyles and fixt Salts, though never so exquisitely purify’d and freed from terrestrial parts, do yet remain ponderous enough. And Experience has inform’d me, that a pound, for instance, of some of the heaviest Woods, as Guajacum that will sink in Water, being burnt to Ashes will yield a much less weight of them (whereof I found but a small part to be Alcalyzate) then much ligh(312)ter Vegetables: As also that the black Charcoal of it will not sink as did the wood, but swim; which argues that the Differing Gravity of Bodies proceeds chiefly from their particular Texture, as is manifest in Gold, the closest and Compactest of Bodies, which is many times heavier then we can possibly make any parcell of Earth of the same Bulk. I will not examine, what may be argu’d touching the Gravity or Quality Analagous thereunto, of even Celestial bodies, from the motion of the spots about the Sun, d from the appearing equality of the suppos’d Seas in the Moon; nor consider how little those Phæmonea would agree with what Sennertus presumes concerning Gravity. But further to invalidate his supposition, I shall demand, upon what Chymical Principle Fluidity depends? And yet Fluidity is, two or three perhaps excepted, the most diffused quality of the universe, and far more General then almost any other of those that are to be met with in any of the Chymicall Principles, or Aristotelian Elements; since not only the Air, but that vast expansion we call Heaven, in comparison of which(313) our Terrestrial Globe (supposing it were all Solid) is but a point; and perhaps to the Sun and the fixt Stars are fluid bodies. I demand also, from which of the Chymical Principles Motion flowes; which yet is an affection of matter much more General then any that can be deduc’d from any of the three Chymical Principles. I might ask the like Question concerning Light, which is not only to be found in the Kindl’d Sulphur of mixt Bodis, but (not to mention those sorts of rotten Woods, and rotten Fish that shine in the Dark) in the tails of living Glow-wormes, and in the Vast bodies of the Sun and Stars. I would gladly also know, in which of the three Principles the Quality, we call Sound, resides as in its proper Subject; since either Oyl falling upon Oyle, or Spirit upon Spirit, or Salt upon Salt, in a great quantity, and from a considerable height, will make a noise, or if you please, create a sound, and (that the objection may reach the Aristotelians) so will also water upon water, and Earth upon Earth. And I could name other qualities to be met within divers bodies, of which I(314) suppose my Adversaries will not in haste assign any Subject, upon whose Account it must needs be, that the quality belongs to all the other several bodies.

In the Recital of this Argument, (says Carneades) I thought it was best to keep the language the Author used, so I could also keep the accuracy of some Latin terms, for which I can't easily think of any English equivalents. However, as for the argument itself, it’s based on a shaky assumption, which seems neither provable nor true; for, how does it(310) make sense that when the same quality is found in many bodies, it must come from one body that they all share? (This is clear from the instances of Earth and Fire he gives to explain his point.) To start with the example he prefers to use for himself; how can he show that the gravity of all bodies comes from what they share from the Earth element? We see that not only regular water, but even purer distilled rainwater is heavy; and mercury is much heavier than Earth itself, even though none of my opponents has yet demonstrated that it contains any of that element. I especially use the example of mercury because I don’t see how proponents of the elements can explain it any better than the chemists do. For if we ask how it becomes fluid, they will say it shares much of the nature of water. And indeed, according to them, water(311) might be the dominant element in it, since we see that several bodies which through distillation yield liquids that weigh more than their Caput Mortuum still don’t contain enough liquid to be fluid. Yet if we ask how mercury becomes so heavy, the response is that it’s due to the Earth that it contains; but since, according to them, it must also contain air and partly fire, which they claim are light elements, how can it be so much heavier than Earth of the same volume, even if it’s mixed into a mass or paste with water, which they also recognize as a heavy element? But to return to our Spagyrists, we see that chemical oils and fixed salts, no matter how perfectly purified and freed from earthly parts, still remain quite heavy. Experience has shown me that a pound, for example, of some of the heaviest woods like Guajacum, which sinks in water, when burnt to ashes yields much less weight (of which I found only a small part to be alkaline) than much lighter plants. Additionally, the black charcoal from it will not sink like the wood did, but will float; which indicates that the differing gravity of bodies mainly comes from their particular texture, as is evident in gold, the densest and most compact of bodies, which is many times heavier than any piece of Earth of the same volume. I won’t examine what might be argued about the gravity or related quality of even celestial bodies, regarding the motion of spots around the Sun, d from the apparent equality of the supposed seas on the Moon; nor will I consider how little those Phæmonea align with what Sennertus assumes about gravity. But to further disprove his assumption, I will ask, on what chemical principle does fluidity depend? Yet fluidity is, with perhaps two or three exceptions, the most widespread quality in the universe, and far more general than almost any other of those found in any of the chemical principles or Aristotelian elements; since not only the air but that vast expanse we call heaven, compared to which(313) our terrestrial globe (if it were entirely solid) is just a point; and perhaps to the sun and the fixed stars are fluid bodies. I also ask, from which of the chemical principles does motion arise; which is a property of matter much more general than any that can be derived from any of the three chemical principles. I could ask a similar question about light, which is found not only in burning sulfur of mixed bodies, but (not to mention rotten woods and fish that shine in the dark) in the tails of living glowworms and in the vast bodies of the sun and stars. I would also like to know in which of the three principles the quality we call sound resides as its proper subject; since whether oil falling on oil, or spirit on spirit, or salt on salt, in great quantities and from a significant height, will make a noise, or if you prefer, create a sound, and (to include the Aristotelians) so will also water on water, and earth on earth. And I could name other qualities found in various bodies for which I(314) believe my opponents will not quickly identify a subject, on whose account it must necessarily be that the quality applies to all the other different bodies.

And, before I proceed any further, I must here invite you to compare the supposition we are examining, with some other of the Chymical Tenents. For, first they do in effect teach that more then one quality may belong to, and be deduc’d from, one Principle. For, they ascribe to Salt Tasts, and the power of Coagulation; to sulphur, as well Odours as inflamableness; And some of them ascribe to Mercury, Colours; as all of them do effumability, as they speak. And on the other side, it is evident that Volatility belongs in common to all the three Principles, and to Water too. For ’tis manifest, that Chymical Oyles are Volatile; That also divers Salts Emerging, upon the Analysis of many Concretes, are very Volatile, is plain from the figitiveness of Salt, of Harts-horne, flesh, &c. ascending in the Distillation of those bodies. How easily water may be made to ascend in Vapours, there is scarce any body that has not observ’d. And as(315) for what they call the Mercuriall Principle of bodies, that is so apt to be rais’d in the form of Steam, that Paracelsus and others define it by that aptness to fly up; so that (to draw that inference by the way) it seems not that Chymists have been accurate in their Doctrine of qualities, and their respective Principles, since they both derive several qualities from the same Principle, and must ascribe the same quality to almost all their Principles and other bodies besides. And thus much for the first thing taken for granted, without sufficient proof, by your Sennertus: And to add that upon the Bye (continues Carneades) we may hence learn what to judge of the way of Argumentation, which that fierce Champion of the Aristotelians against the Chymists, Anthonius Guntherus BillichiusIn Thessalo redivivo. Cap. 10. pag. 73. & 74. employes, where he pretends to prove against Beguinus, that not only the four Elements do immediately concur to Constitute every mixt body, and are both present in it, and obtainable from it upon its Dissolution; but that in the Tria Prima themselves, whereinto Chymists are wont to resolve mixt Bodies, each of them clearly dis(316)covers it self to consist of four Elements. The Ratiocination it self (pursues Carneades) being somewhat unusual, I did the other Day Transcribe it, and (sayes He, pulling a Paper out of his Pocket) it is this. Ordiamur, cum Beguino, a ligno viridi, quod si concremetur, videbis in sudore Aquam, in fumo Aerem, in flamma & Prunis Ignem, Terram in cineribus: Quod si Beguino placuerit ex eo colligere humidum aquosum, cohibere humidum oleaginosum, extrahere ex cineribus salem; Ego ipsi in unoquoque horum seorsim quatuor Elementa ad oculum demonstrabo, eodem artificio quo in ligno viridi ea demonstravi. Humorem aquosum admovebo Igni. Ipse Aquam Ebullire videbit, in Vapore Aerem conspiciet, Ignem sentiet in æstu, plus minus Terræ in sedimento apparebit. Humor porro Oleaginosus aquam humiditate & fluiditate per se, accensus vero Ignem flamma prodit, fumo Aerem, fuligine, nidore & amurca terram. Salem denique ipse Beguinus siccum vocat & Terrestrem, qui tamen nec fusus Aquam, nec caustica vi ignem celare potest; ignis vero Violentia in halitus versus nec ab Aere se alienum esse demonstrat; Idem de Lacte, de Ovis, de semine Lini, de Garyophyllis, de Nitro,(317) de sale Marino, denique de Antimonio, quod fuit de Ligno viridi Judicium; eadem de illorum partibus, quas Beguinus adducit, sententia, quæ de viridis ligni humore aquoso, quæ de liquore ejusdem oleoso, quæ de sale fuit.

And before I go any further, I need you to compare the idea we are discussing with other chemical principles. First, they essentially teach that more than one quality can come from a single principle. They attribute taste and the ability to form solid masses to salt, and they assign both smells and flammability to sulfur. Some even attribute colors to mercury, while all of them agree on its volatility, as they describe it. On the other hand, it’s clear that volatility is common to all three principles, and to water as well. It’s obvious that chemical oils are volatile; that various salts can become very volatile upon analyzing many combinations is evident from the salts of antlers, flesh, etc., which rise during the distillation of those substances. Almost everyone has noticed how easily water can be vaporized. And as for what they call the mercurial principle of substances, it can be easily raised in the form of steam, which is why Paracelsus and others define it by its ability to ascend; this implies that chemists may not have been precise in their theories about qualities and their respective principles since they attribute different qualities to the same principle while also assigning the same quality to nearly all their principles and other substances. This serves as the first point taken for granted without adequate evidence by your Sennertus. And to add a side note, Carneades continues, we can discern something about the argumentative methods used by that fierce advocate of the Aristotelians against the chemists, Anthonius Guntherus Billichius, who attempts to show against Beguinus that not only do the four elements directly contribute to the formation of every mixed body, being both present in it and obtainable from it upon its breakdown, but that within the Tria Prima themselves, into which chemists typically break down mixed bodies, each one clearly shows itself to consist of the four elements. The reasoning itself, Carneades continues, is somewhat unusual; I recently transcribed it, and (he says, pulling a paper from his pocket) it goes like this: "Let’s consider with Beguinus the green wood; if it is burned, you will see water in the sweat, air in the smoke, fire in the flames and embers, and earth in the ashes. If Beguinus is willing to gather moist water from this, hold back oily moisture, and extract salt from the ashes, I will show him in each of these the four elements using the same method I used to demonstrate it in the green wood. I will bring the watery moisture close to the fire. He will see the water boil, notice the air in the steam, feel the heat of the fire, and see more or less of the earth in the sediment. The oily moisture has water’s dampness and fluidity by itself, while the ignited material produces fire in the flame, smoke, soot, odor, and residue as earth. Finally, Beguinus calls salt dry and earthy, yet it cannot hide water in its melted state nor fire through its caustic strength; the force of fire, when it transforms into vapor, shows that it is not separate from air; the same goes for milk, eggs, flaxseed, cloves, nitre, sea salt, and even antimony, which were all judged from the green wood; the same applies to their parts that Beguinus presents, which relate to the watery humors of the green wood, its oily liquid, and its salt."

This bold Discourse (resumes Carneades, putting up again his Paper,) I think it were not very difficult to confute, if his Arguments were as considerable as our time will probably prove short for the remaining and more necessary Part of my Discourse; wherefore referring You for an Answer to what was said concerning the Dissipated Parts of a burnt piece of green Wood, to what I told Themistius on the like occasion, I might easily shew You, how sleightly and superficially our Guntherus talks of the dividing the flame of Green Wood into his four Elements; When he makes that vapour to be air, which being caught in Glasses and condens’d, presently discovers it self to have been but an Aggregate of innumerable very minute drops of Liquor; and When he would prove the Phlegmes being compos’d of Fire by that Heat which is adventitious to the Liquor, and ceases upon the absence of what pro(318)duc’d it (whether that be an Agitation proceeding from the motion of the External Fire, or the presence of a Multitude of igneous Atomes pervading the pores of the Vessel, and nimbly permeating the whole Body of the Water) I might, I say, urge these and divers other Weaknesses of His Discourse. But I will rather take Notice of what is more pertinent to the Occasion of this Digression, namely, that Taking it for Granted, that Fluidity (with which he unwarily seems to confound Humidity) must proceed from the Element of Water, he makes a Chymical Oyle to Consist of that Elementary Liquor; and yet in the very next Words proves, that it consists also of Fire, by its Inflamability; not remembring that exquisitely pure Spirit of Wine is both more Fluid then Water it self, and yet will Flame all away without leaving the Least Aqueous Moisture behind it; and without such an Amurca and Soot as he would Deduce the presence of Earth from. So that the same Liquor may according to his Doctrine be concluded by its great Fluidity to be almost all Water; and by its burning all away to be all disguised(319) Fire. And by the like way of Probation our Author would shew that the fixt salt of Wood is compounded of the four Elements. For (sayes he) being turn’d by the violence of the Fire into steames, it shews it self to be of kin to Air; whereas I doubt whether he ever saw a true fixt Salt (which to become so, must have already endur’d the violence of an Incinerating Fire) brought by the Fire alone to ascend in the Forme of Exhalations; but I do not doubt that if he did, and had caught those Exhalations in convenient Vessels, he would have found them as well as the Steames of common Salt, &c. of a Saline and not an Aereal Nature. And whereas our Authour takes it also for Granted, that the Fusibility of Salt must be Deduc’d from Water, it is indeed so much the Effect of heat variously agitating the Minute Parts of a Body, without regard to Water, that Gold (which by its being the heavyest and fixtest of Bodies, should be the most Earthy) will be brought to Fusion by a strong Fire; which sure is more likely to drive away then increase its Aqueous Ingredient, if it have any; and on the other side, for want of a sufficient a(320)gitation of its minute parts, Ice is not Fluid, but Solid; though he presumes also that the Mordicant Quality of Bodies must proceed from a fiery ingredient; whereas, not to urge that the Light and inflamable parts, which are the most likely to belong to the Element of Fire, must probably be driven away by that time the violence of the Fire has reduc’d the Body to ashes; Not to urge this, I I say, nor that Oyle of Vitriol which quenches Fire, burnes the Tongue and flesh of those that Unwarily tast or apply it, as a caustick doth, it is precarious to prove the Presence of Fire in fixt salts from their Caustick power, unlesse it were first shewn, that all the Qualities ascribed to salts must be deduc’d from those of the Elements; which, had I Time, I could easily manifest to be no easy talk. And not to mention that our Authour makes a Body as Homogeneous as any he can produce for Elementary, belong both to Water and Fire, Though it be neither Fluid nor Insipid, like Water; nor light and Volatile, like Fire; he seems to omit in this Anatomy the Element of Earth, save That he intimates, That the salt may pass for(321) that; But since a few lines before, he takes Ashes for Earth, I see not how he will avoid an Inconsistency either betwixt the Parts of his Discourse or betwixt some of them and his Doctrine. For since There is a manifest Difference betwixt the Saline and the insipid Parts of Ashes, I see not how substances That Disagree in such Notable Qualities can be both said to be Portions of an Element, whose Nature requires that it be Homogeneous, especially in this case where an Analysis by the Fire is suppos’d to have separated it from the admixture of other Elements, which are confess’d by most Aristotelians to be Generally found in common Earth, and to render it impure. And sure if when we have consider’d for how little a Disparities sake the Peripateticks make these Symbolizing Bodies Aire and Fire to be two Distinct Elements, we shall also consider that the Saline part of Ashes is very strongly Tasted, and easily soluble in Water; whereas the other part of the same Ashes is insipid and indissoluble in the same Liquor: Not to add, that the one substance is Opacous, and the other some(322)what Diaphanous, nor that they differ in Divers other Particulars; If we consider those things, I say, we shall hardly think that both these Substances are Elementary Earth; And as to what is sometimes objected, that their Saline Tast is only an Effect of Incineration and Adustion, it has been elsewhere fully reply’d to, when propos’d by Themistius, and where it has been prov’d against him, that however insipid Earth may perhaps by Additaments be turn’d into Salt, yet ’tis not like it should be so by the Fire alone: For we see that when we refine Gold and Silver, the violentest Fires We can Employ on them give them not the least Rellish of Saltness. And I think Philoponus has rightly observ’d, that the Ashes of some Concretes contain very little salt if any at all; For Refiners suppose that bone-ashes are free from it, and therefore make use of them for Tests and Cuppels, which ought to be Destitute of Salt, lest the Violence of the Fire should bring them to Vitrification; And having purposely and heedfully tasted a Cuppel made of only bone-ashes and fair water, which I had caus’d to be ex(323)pos’d to a Very Violent Fire, acuated by the Blast of a large pair of Double Bellows, I could not perceive that the force of the Fire had imparted to it the least Saltness, or so much as made it less Insipid.

This bold discussion (resumes Carneades, presenting his paper again), I believe it wouldn't be too hard to counter if his arguments were as significant as our time will likely be too short for the rest of my talk; therefore, regarding the answer to what was said about the scattered pieces of a burnt stick of green wood, I refer you to what I told Themistius on a similar occasion. I could easily show you how superficially and carelessly our Guntherus discusses dividing the flame of green wood into four elements; when he claims that the vapor is air, which, when captured in flasks and condensed, quickly reveals itself to be just an aggregate of countless tiny droplets of liquid; and when he tries to prove that phlegm is made of fire due to the heat associated with the liquid, which disappears when the source of that heat (whether it’s agitation from external fire or the presence of a multitude of fiery atoms permeating the vessel) is removed. I could, I say, point out these and various other weaknesses in his arguments. But I think it’s more relevant to note what connects to the reason for this digression, specifically that assuming fluidity (which he mistakenly seems to confuse with humidity) results from the element of water, he argues that a chemical oil consists of that elementary liquid; yet in the next sentence, he proves it also consists of fire because of its inflammability, not realizing that pure spirit of wine is not only more fluid than water itself but also burns away completely, leaving no trace of moisture behind; and without any Amurca or soot, which he would use to suggest the presence of earth. So, according to his reasoning, the same liquid could be inferred to be nearly all water based on its high fluidity, and by burning away completely, to be entirely disguised (319) fire. By a similar method of proof, our author would argue that the fixed salt of wood is made up of four elements. For, he says, when transformed by the fire, it reveals itself to be related to air; but I wonder if he has ever seen a true fixed salt (which must have endured the violence of an incinerating fire to become fixed) ascend in the form of vapors solely because of fire; but I have no doubt that if he had, and captured those vapors in suitable vessels, he would have found them, just like the vapors of common salt, to be saline and not airy. And our author also assumes that the fusibility of salt must come from water. In reality, fusibility is much more the result of heat agitating the minute parts of a body, without regard to water, as gold (the heaviest and most fixed of substances) can melt under intense fire, which surely is more likely to drive away any aqueous component, if it has one; conversely, ice remains solid and non-fluid due to a lack of sufficient agitation of its minute parts. Moreover, he assumes that the caustic quality of substances must come from a fiery component; while it's worth noting that the light and flammable parts, which are most likely associated with the element of fire, are probably expelled by the time the fire reduces the body to ashes. Without delving into that, I say, nor that vitriol, which quenches fire, burns the tongue and flesh of those who unwittingly taste or apply it like a caustic substance does, it is questionable to use a fixed salt's caustic power as proof of fire's presence, unless it is first shown that all qualities attributed to salts must derive from those of the elements; which, had I the time, I could readily demonstrate is no easy task. Not to mention that our author makes a body as homogeneous as any he can produce for elemental purposes belong to both water and fire, even though it is neither fluid nor tasteless like water, nor light and volatile like fire. He seems to overlook the element of earth in this analysis, except for mentioning that the salt might be considered as such; but since a few lines earlier, he identifies ashes as earth, I don't see how he can avoid inconsistency between parts of his discourse or between some parts and his doctrine. Since there’s a clear difference between the saline and tasteless parts of ashes, I can't see how substances that disagree so notably in qualities can both be considered portions of an element, whose nature requires it to be homogeneous, especially in this case where an analysis by fire is supposed to have separated it from the admixture of other elements, which most Aristotelians agree are commonly found in earth and render it impure. If we consider how carefully the Peripatetics distinguish between these bodies—air and fire—as two distinct elements for what seems like trivial discrepancies, we must also acknowledge that the saline part of ashes has a strong taste and is easily soluble in water; whereas the other part of the same ashes is tasteless and insoluble in the same liquid. To add that one substance is opaque and the other somewhat translucent, not to mention their differences in various other aspects; if we consider those things, I say, we would hardly believe that both substances are elementary earth. As to the objection that their saline taste is merely a result of incineration and burning, it has been thoroughly addressed elsewhere when posed by Themistius, and it has been proven against him that while insipid earth might possibly be turned into salt by additives, it is unlikely to happen through fire alone. When we refine gold and silver, the most intense fires we can use on them do not impart the slightest saltiness. I believe Philoponus rightly noted that the ashes of some substances contain very little salt, if any at all; refiners suppose that bone ash is salt-free, and thus use it to make tests and crucibles, which need to be devoid of salt to prevent vitrification from the intensity of the fire. I have carefully tasted a crucible made solely from bone ash and clean water that I had intentionally exposed to a very strong fire, activated by a large pair of double bellows, and I could not detect that the strength of the fire had imparted even the slightest saltiness, or made it any less tasteless.

But (sayes Carneades) since neither You nor I love Repetitions, I shall not now make any of what else was urg’d against Themistius but rather invite You to take notice with me that when our Authour, though a Learned Man, and one that pretends skill enough in Chymistry to reforme the whole Art, comes to make good his confident Undertaking, to give us an occular Demonstration of the immediate Presence of the four Elements in the resolution of Green Wood, He is fain to say things that agree very little with one another. For about the beginning of that passage of His lately recited to you, he makes the sweat as he calls it of the green Wood to be Water, the smoke Aire, the shining Matter Fire, and the Ashes Earth; whereas a few lines after, he will in each of these, nay (as I just now noted) in one Distinct Part of the Ashes, shew the four Elements. So that either the former Ana(324)lysis must be incompetent to prove that Number of Elements, since by it the burnt Concrete is not reduc’d into Elementary Bodies, but into such as are yet each of them compounded of the four Elements; or else these Qualities from which he endeavours to deduce the presence of all the Elements, in the fixt salt, and each of the other separated substances, will be but a precarious way of probation: especially if you consider, that the extracted Alcali of Wood, being for ought appears at least as similar a Body as any that the Peripateticks can shew us, if its differing Qualities must argue the presence of Distinct Elements, it will scarce be possible for them by any way they know of employing the fire upon a Body, to shew that any Body is a Portion of a true Element: And this recals to my mind, that I am now but in an occasional excussion, which aiming only to shew that the Peripateticks as well as the Chymists take in our present Controversie something for granted which they ought to prove, I shall returne to my exceptions, where I ended the first of them, and further tell you, that neither is that the only precarious(325) thing that I take notice of in Sennertus his Argumentation; for when he inferrs, that because the Qualities he Mentions as Colours, Smels, and the like, belong not to the Elements; they therefore must to the Chymical Principles, he takes that for granted, which will not in haste be prov’d; as I might here manifest, but that I may by and by have a fitter opportunity to take notice of it. And thus much at present may suffice to have Discours’d against the Supposition, that almost every Quality must have some δεκτικον πρωτον, as they speak, some Native receptacle, wherein as in its proper Subject of inhesion it peculiarly resides, and on whose account that quality belongs to the other Bodies, Wherein it is to be met with. Now this Fundamental supposition being once Destroy’d, whatsoever is built upon it, must fall to ruine of it self.

But (says Carneades) since neither you nor I like repetitions, I won’t go over everything else that was argued against Themistius. Instead, I’ll point out that when our author, despite being a knowledgeable man who claims to know enough about chemistry to reform the entire discipline, attempts to prove his bold claim by giving us a visual demonstration of the immediate presence of the four elements in the process of burning green wood, he ends up saying things that don’t quite fit together. At the beginning of that excerpt I recently shared with you, he claims that the moisture from the green wood is Water, the smoke is Air, the glowing substance is Fire, and the ashes are Earth; yet just a few lines later, he intends to demonstrate the four elements in each of these, even (as I just pointed out) in one distinct part of the ashes. So, either the earlier Ana(324)lysis fails to adequately prove that number of elements since by it the burnt material is not broken down into elemental bodies but into substances still composed of the four elements, or else the qualities he uses to suggest the presence of all the elements in the fixed salt and the other separated substances will merely provide an unreliable method of proof. Especially when you consider that the extracted Alcali of wood seems, at least, as similar a substance as any that the Peripatetics can present to us; if its differing qualities imply the presence of distinct elements, it will likely be impossible for them, using any method they know to apply fire to a body, to prove that any body is a portion of a true element. This reminds me that I’m currently just going off on a tangent, which is only meant to show that both the Peripatetics and the chemists take for granted something in our current debate that they ought to prove. So, I’ll return to my objections where I left off with the first one, and further point out that this isn’t the only questionable matter I’ve noticed in Sennertus’ argument. When he concludes that because the qualities he mentions, such as colors and smells, do not belong to the elements, they must therefore belong to the chemical principles, he assumes something that isn’t easily proven, as I could demonstrate here, but I might have a better opportunity to address it later. For now, it should suffice to have discussed against the assumption that almost every quality must have some καλώς ήρθες, as they say, some native receptacle in which, as in its proper subject of presence, it particularly resides, and on account of which that quality is associated with the other bodies where it can be found. Once this fundamental assumption is destroyed, whatever is built upon it will inevitably collapse.

But I consider further, that Chymists are (for ought I have found) far from being able to explicate by any of the Tria Prima, those qualities which they pretend to belong primarily unto it, and in mixt Bodies to Deduce from it. Tis true indeed, that such qua(326)lities are not explicable by the four Elements; but it will not therefore follow, that they are so by the three hermetical Principles; and this is it that seems to have deceiv’d the Chymists, and is indeed a very common mistake amongst most Disputants, who argue as if there could be but two Opinions concerning the Difficulty about which they contend; and consequently they inferr, that if their Adversaries Opinion be Erroneous, Their’s must needs be the Truth; whereas many questions, and especially in matters Physiological, may admit of so many Differing Hypotheses, that ’twill be very inconsiderate and fallacious to conclude (except where the Opinions are precisely Contradictory) the Truth of one from the falsity of another. And in our particular case ’tis no way necessary, that the Properties of mixt Bodies must be explicable either by the Hermetical, or the Aristotelian Hypothesis, there being divers other and more plausible wayes of explaining them, and especially that, which deduces qualities from the motion, figure, and contrivance of the small parts of Bodies; as I think might be(327) shewn, if the attempt were as seasonable, as I fear it would be Tedious.

But I further think that chemists are (from what I’ve found) far from being able to explain, through any of the Tria Prima, the qualities they claim primarily belong to it, and to derive those from mixed bodies. It’s true that those qualities can’t be explained by the four elements; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can be explained by the three hermetical principles. This seems to have misled chemists and is a common mistake among many debaters, who argue as if there could only be two opinions on the difficulty they are debating. Consequently, they infer that if their opponent's opinion is wrong, theirs must be the truth; whereas many questions, especially in physiological matters, can allow for numerous differing hypotheses, making it very unwise and misleading to conclude (except when the opinions are precisely contradictory) the truth of one from the falsehood of another. In our particular case, it is not necessary that the properties of mixed bodies must be explained either by the hermetical or the Aristotelian Hypothesis, as there are various other and more plausible ways to explain them, especially one that derives qualities from the motion, shape, and arrangement of the small parts of bodies; as I think could be(327) demonstrated, if the attempt were as timely as I fear it would be tedious.

I will allow then, that the Chymists do not causelessly accuse the Doctrine of the four elements of incompetency to explain the Properties of Compound bodies. And for this Rejection of a Vulgar Error, they ought not to be deny’d what praise men may deserve for exploding a Doctrine whose Imperfections are so conspicuous, that men needed but not to shut their Eyes, to discover them. But I am mistaken, if our Hermetical Philosophers Themselves need not, as well as the Peripateticks, have Recourse to more Fruitfull and Comprehensive Principles then the tria Prima, to make out the Properties of the Bodies they converse with. Not to accumulate Examples to this purpose, (because I hope for a fitter opportunity to prosecute this Subject) let us at present only point at Colour, that you may guess by what they say of so obvious and familiar a Quality, how little Instruction we are to expect from the Tria Prima in those more abstruse ones, which they with the Aristotelians stile Occult. For about Colours, nei(328)ther do they at all agree among themselves, nor have I met with any one, of which of the three Perswasions soever, that does intelligibly explicate Them. The Vulgar Chymists are wont to ascribe Colours to Mercury; Paracelsus in divers places attributes them to Salt; and Sennertus,De Cons. & dissen. cap. 11. pag. 186. having recited their differing Opinions, Dissents from both, and referrs Colours rather unto Sulphur. But how Colours do, nay, how they may, arise from either of these Principles, I think you will scarce say that any has yet intelligibly explicated. And if Mr. Boyle will allow me to shew you the Experiments which he has collected about Colours, you will, I doubt not, confess that bodies exhibite colours, not upon the Account of the Predominancy of this or that Principle in them, but upon that of their Texture, and especially the Disposition of their superficial parts, whereby the Light rebounding thence to the Eye is so modifi’d, as by differing Impressions variously to affect the Organs of Sight. I might here take notice of the pleasing variety of Colours exhibited by the Triangular glass, (as ’tis wont to be call’d) and demand,(329) what addition or decrement of either Salt, Sulphur, or Mercury, befalls the Body of the Glass by being Prismatically figur’d; and yet ’tis known, that without that shape it would not affor’d those colours as it does. But because it may be objected, that these are not real, but apparent Colours; that I may not lose time in examing the Distinction, I will alledge against the Chymists, a couple of examples of Real and Permanent Colours Drawn from Metalline Bodies, and represent, that without the addition of any extraneous body, Quicksilver may by the Fire alone, and that in glass Vessels, be depriv’d of its silver-like Colour, and be turn’d into a Red Body; and from this Red Body without Addition likewise may be obtain’d a Mercury Bright and Specular as it was before; So that I have here a lasting Colour Generated and Destroy’d (as I have seen) at pleasure, without adding or taking away either Mercury, Salt, or Sulphur; and if you take a clean and slender piece of harden’d steel, and apply to it the flame of a candle at some little distance short of the point, You shall not have held(330) the Steel long in the flame, but You shall perceive divers Colours, as Yellow, Red and Blew, to appear upon the Surface of the metal, and as it were run along in chase of one another towards the point; So that the same body, and that in one and the same part, may not only have a new colour produc’d in it, but exhibite successively divers Colours within a minute of an hour, or thereabouts, and any of these Colours may by Removing the Steel from the Fire, become Permanent, and last many years. And this Production and Variety of Colours cannot reasonably be suppos’d to proceed from the Accession of any of the three Principles, to which of them soever Chymists will be pleas’d to ascribe Colours; especially considering, that if you but suddenly Refrigerate that Iron, First made Red hot, it will be harden’d and Colourless again; and not only by the Flame of a Candle, but by any other equivalent heat Conveniently appli’d, the like Colours will again be made to appear and succeed one another, as at the First. But I must not any further prosecute an Occasional Discourse, though(331) that were not so Difficult for me to do, as I fear it would be for the Chymists to give a better Account of the other Qualities, by their Principles, then they have done of Colours. And your SennertusSennert. de Con. seus. & Dissens. pag. 165. 166. Himself (though an Author I much value) would I fear have been exceedingly puzl’d to resolve, by the Tria Prima, halfe that Catalogue of Problems, which he challenges the Vulgar Peripateticks to explicate by their four Elements. And supposing it were true, that Salt or Sulphur were the Principle to which this or that Quality may be peculiarly referr’d, yet though he that teaches us this teaches us something concerning That quality, yet he Teaches us but something. For indeed he does not Teach us That which can in any Tollerable measure satisfie an inquisitive Searcher after Truth. For what is it to me to know, that such a quality resides in such a Principle or Element, whilst I remain altogether ignorant of the Cause of that quality, and the manner of its production and Operation? How little do I know more then any Ordinary Man of Gravity, if I know but that the Heaviness of mixt(332) bodies proceeds from that of the Earth they are compos’d of, if I know not the reason why the Earth is Heavy? And how little does the Chymist teach the Philosopher of the Nature of Purgatition, if he only tells him that the Purgative Vertue of Medicines resides in their Salt? For, besides that this must not be conceded without Limitation, since the purging parts of many Vegetables Extracted by the Water wherein they are infus’d, are at most but such compounded Salts, (I mean mingl’d with Oyle, and Spirit, and Earth, as Tartar and divers other Subjects of the Vegetable Kingdom afford;) And since too that Quicksilver precipitated either with Gold, or without Addition, into a powder, is wont to be strongly enough Cathartical, though the Chymists have not yet prov’d, that either Gold or Mercury have any Salt at all, much less any that is Purgative; Besides this, I say, how little is it to me, to know That ’tis the Salt of the Rhubarb (for Instance) that purges, if I find That it does not purge as Salt; since scarce any Elementary Salt is in small quantity cathartical. And if I know not how(333) Purgation in general is effected in a Humane Body? In a word, as ’tis one thing to know a mans Lodging, and another, to be acquainted with him; so it may be one thing to know the subject wherein a Quality principally resides, and another thing to have a right notion and knowledg of the quality its self. Now that which I take to be the reason of this Chymical Deficiency, is the same upon whose account I think the Aristotelian and divers other Theories incompetent to explicate the Origen of Qualities. For I am apt to think, that men will never be able to explain the Phænomena of Nature, while they endeavour to deduce them only from the Presence and Proportion of such or such material Ingredients, and consider such ingredients or Elements as Bodies in a state of rest; whereas indeed the greatest part of the affections of matter, and consequently of the Phænomena of nature, seems to depend upon the motion and the continuance of the small parts of Bodies. For ’tis by motion that one part of matter acts upon another; and ’tis, for the most part, the texture of the Body upon which the moving parts strike, that modifies to moti(334)on or Impression, and concurrs with it to the production of those Effects which make up the chief part of the Naturalists Theme.

I’ll agree that chemists don’t wrongly claim that the theory of the four elements can’t adequately explain the properties of compound bodies. They deserve credit for rejecting a common misconception, especially since the flaws are so obvious that one just needs to open their eyes to see them. However, I’d be mistaken if I thought our hermetic philosophers, just like the Aristotelians, don’t also need to refer to more fruitful and comprehensive principles than the tria Prima to explain the properties of the substances they study. To avoid piling on examples (since I hope to have a better chance to explore this topic later), let’s just look at color. This will show how little we can expect from the Tria Prima regarding those more obscure properties, which they, along with the Aristotelians, refer to as occult. About colors, they don’t really agree among themselves, and I haven’t found anyone, no matter their perspective, who explains them clearly. Ordinary chemists attribute colors to mercury; Paracelsus often attributes them to salt; and Sennertus,On Cons. & dissent. chap. 11, page 186. after listing their differing views, disagrees with both and suggests colors are more connected to sulfur. However, how colors arise from any of these principles is something I doubt anyone has explained well. If Mr. Boyle lets me show you the experiments he’s gathered on colors, I’m sure you’ll agree that bodies display colors not because of the dominance of one principle over another but due to their texture, particularly the arrangement of their surface parts. This configuration affects how light bounces off and reaches the eye, thus impacting our perception. I could mention the beautiful variety of colors shown by a triangular glass (as it’s often called) and ask what addition or subtraction of salt, sulfur, or mercury occurs when the glass is shaped like a prism, knowing full well that without that shape, it wouldn’t show those colors. But since it might be argued that these colors are not real but only apparent, instead of debating this distinction, I'll present a few examples of real and permanent colors seen in metallic bodies. I can show that quicksilver (mercury) can lose its silver-like color and turn into a red substance solely by fire, and that without any additional materials, this red body can revert to a bright, shiny mercury. So, I have a lasting color created and destroyed (as I’ve observed) at will, without adding or removing any mercury, salt, or sulfur. If you take a clean, slender piece of hardened steel and hold it just close enough to a candle flame, you won’t need to hold it there long before you see various colors—yellow, red, and blue—appearing on the surface of the metal, almost chasing one another toward the point. Thus, the same body can not only produce a new color but also display various colors in a short span of time, and any of these colors can become permanent by removing the steel from the flame, lasting for many years. The production and variation of colors can’t reasonably be attributed to any of the three principles that chemists assign to color; especially when considering that if you suddenly cool that red-hot iron, it returns to being hard and colorless. Other types of heat will also bring out similar colors successfully, just like at first. However, I shouldn’t delve further into this aside, even if it wouldn’t be too challenging for me; rather, it might be more difficult for chemists to explain the other qualities through their principles than they’ve done with colors. Even your SennertusSennert. on Con. seus. & Dissens. pp. 165-166. himself (whom I respect greatly) would probably struggle to address even half of the list of problems he challenges ordinary Aristotelians to explain using their four elements. Even if it were true that salt or sulfur was the principle behind a specific quality, knowing which element it resides in only gives us a sliver of information. Simply knowing that this quality belongs to this principle doesn’t satisfactorily educate an inquisitive mind seeking true understanding. What good does it do me to know that a quality comes from a certain principle or element if I remain completely oblivious to the cause of that quality and how it works? How little I understand about gravity if I only know that the heaviness of mixed bodies arises from the earth they're made of but not why the earth is heavy. And how little does a chemist teach a philosopher about the nature of purgation if they merely claim that the purgative power of medicines lies in their salt? This claim can’t go unqualified since the purging parts of many plants, extracted by the water in which they are soaked, are mostly just complex salts (meaning combined with oil, spirit, and earth, as substances like tartar and various others from the plant kingdom present). Moreover, quicksilver that is precipitated into a powder, either with gold or without, is known to be strongly cathartic, even though chemists have yet to demonstrate that either gold or mercury contains any salt, much less a purgative one. Additionally, how little does it matter to me to know that it’s the salt from rhubarb, for example, that causes purging, if it doesn’t act like salt in that way? Since hardly any elemental salt is cathartic in small quantities. And if I don’t understand how purgation works in the human body in general? In short, knowing where a quality lies is different from being genuinely familiar with it. The reason I believe there’s a deficiency in chemistry parallels why I suspect Aristotelian and other theories are inadequate for explaining the Origen of qualities. I think people will never clarify the Phænomena of nature while they try to derive them solely from the presence and proportions of such or such materials, treating ingredients or elements as if they are static bodies. Meanwhile, most of the properties of matter, and thus the Phænomena of nature, seem to depend on the movement and continuance of the tiny parts of bodies. It’s movement that allows one particle of matter to affect another; and usually, it's the texture of the body that the moving parts interact with that modifies the action or impression, coming together to produce the effects that form the core of a naturalist’s discourse.

But (sayes Eleutherius) me thinks for all this, you have left some part of what I alledg’d in behalf of the three principles, unanswer’d. For all that you have said will not keep this from being a useful Discovery, that since in the Salt of one Concrete, in the Sulphur of another and the Mercury of a third, the Medicinal vertue of it resides, that Principle ought to be separated from the rest, and there the desired faculty must be sought for.

But (says Eleutherius) I think you've left some of what I argued in favor of the three principles unanswered. Everything you’ve said doesn’t change the fact that this is a useful discovery, since the medicinal property resides in the salt of one substance, the sulfur of another, and the mercury of a third. That principle should be separated from the others, and that’s where we should look for the desired property.

I never denyed (Replyes Carneades) that the Notion of the Tria Prima may be of some use, but (continues he laughing) by what you now alledg for it, it will but appear That it is useful to Apothecaries, rather than to Philosophers, The being able to make things Operative being sufficient to those, whereas the Knowledge of Causes is the Thing looked after by These. And let me Tell You, Eleutherius, even this it self will need to be entertained with some caution.(335)

I never denied (Replies Carneades) that the idea of the Tria Prima can be useful in some ways, but (he continues laughing) based on what you’re saying, it seems more beneficial to apothecaries than to philosophers. Being able to make things work is enough for them, while philosophers are more concerned with understanding the reasons behind things. And let me tell you, Eleutherius, even this will need to be approached with some caution.(335)

For first, it will not presently follow, That if the Purgative or other vertue of a simple may be easily extracted by Water or Spirit of Wine, it Resides in the Salt or Sulphur of the Concrete; Since unlesse the Body have before been resolved by the Fire, or some Other Powerful Agent, it will, for the most part, afford in the Liquors I have named, rather the finer compounded parts of it self, Than the Elementary ones. As I noted before, That Water will dissolve not only pure Salts, but Crystals of Tartar, Gumme Arabick, Myrr’h, and Other Compound Bodies. As also Spirit of Wine will Dissolve not only the pure Sulphur of Concretes, but likewise the whole Substance of divers Resinous Bodies, as Benzoin, the Gummous parts of Jallap, Gumme Lacca, and Other bodies that are counted perfectly Mixt. And we see that the Extracts made either with Water or Spirit of Wine are not of a simple and Elementary Nature, but Masses consisting of the looser Corpuscles, and finer parts of the Concretes whence they are Drawn; since by Distillation they may be Divided into more Elementary substances.(336)

First, it won't follow that if the purging power or other qualities of a substance can be easily extracted by water or alcohol, it resides in the salt or sulfur of the substance. Unless the body has been broken down by fire or some other strong agent, it will generally provide, in the liquids I mentioned, more of its finer, combined parts than its basic elements. As I pointed out earlier, water can dissolve not just pure salts but also crystals of tartar, gum arabic, myrrh, and other compounds. Likewise, alcohol can dissolve not just the pure sulfur of substances, but also the entire makeup of various resinous materials, like benzoin, the gummy parts of jalap, lac gum, and other substances that are considered perfectly mixed. We can see that the extracts made with either water or alcohol aren't simple and elemental; rather, they are collections of the looser particles and finer parts of the substances from which they were derived. Through distillation, they can be separated into more basic elements.(336)

Next, we may consider That even when there intervenes a Chymical resolution by he Fire, ’tis seldom in the Saline or Sulphureous principle, as such, that the desir’d Faculty of the Concrete Resides; But, as that Titular Salt or Sulphur is yet a mixt body, though the Saline or Sulphureous Nature be predominant in it. For, if in Chymical Resolutions the separated Substances were pure and simple Bodies, and of a perfect Elementary Nature; no one would be indued with more Specifick Vertues, than another; and their qualities would Differ as Little as do those of Water. And let me add this upon the bye, That even Eminent Chymists have suffer’d themselves to be reprehended by me for their over great Diligence in purifying some of the things they obtain by Fire from mixt Bodies. For though such compleatly purifyed Ingredients of Bodies might perhaps be more satisfactory to our Understanding; yet others are often more useful to our Lives, the efficacy of such Chymical Productions depending most upon what they retain of the Bodies whence they are separated, or gain by the new associations of the Dis(337)sipated among themselves; whereas if they were meerly Elementary, their uses would be comparatively very small; and the vertues of Sulphurs, Salts, or Other such Substances of one denomination, would be the very same.

Next, we can consider that even when a chemical breakdown occurs through fire, it's rarely in the saline or sulfurous element by itself that the desired qualities of the substance reside. Rather, since that titled salt or sulfur is still a mixed body, even if the saline or sulfurous nature is dominant in it. If, in chemical breakdowns, the separated substances were pure and simple bodies with perfect elemental properties, no one would have more specific virtues than another, and their qualities would differ as little as those of water. And let me add, just as an aside, that even prominent chemists have faced criticism from me for being overly diligent in purifying certain substances they obtain from mixed bodies through fire. While such completely purified ingredients might be more satisfying to our understanding, others are often more useful to our lives. The effectiveness of these chemical products relies significantly on what they retain from the bodies they come from or gain through new associations of the dissipated elements among themselves; whereas, if they were merely elemental, their uses would be quite limited, and the properties of sulfurs, salts, or other similar substances of one type would be essentially the same.

And by the Way (Eleutherius) I am inclin’d upon this ground to Think, That the artificial resolution of compound bodies by Fire does not so much enrich mankind, as it divides them into their supposed Principles; as upon the score of its making new compounds by now combinations of the dissipated parts of the resolv’d Body. For by this means the Number of mixt Bodies is considerably increased. And many of those new productions are indow’d with useful qualities, divers of which they owe not to the body from which they were obtein’d, but to Their newly Acquired Texture.

And by the way (Eleutherius), I’m inclined to think that the artificial breakdown of complex substances by fire doesn’t enrich humanity as much as it separates them into their supposed basic elements; it creates new compounds through new combinations of the broken-down parts of the resolved substance. This way, the number of mixed substances increases significantly. Many of these new creations have useful properties, some of which they don’t owe to the original substance but to their newly formed structure.

But thirdly, that which is principally to be Noted is this, that as there are divers Concretes whose Faculties reside in some one or other of those differing Substances that Chymists call their Sulphurs, Salts, and Mercuries, and consequently may be best obtain’d, by ana(338)lyzing the Concrete whereby the desired Principles may be had sever’d or freed from the rest; So there are other wherein the noblest properties lodge not in the Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, but depend immediately upon the form (or if you will) result from the determinate structure of the Whole Concrete; and consequently they that go about to extract the Vertues of such bodies, by exposing them to the Violence of the Fire, do exceedingly mistake, and take the way to Destroy what they would obtain.

But thirdly, the main point to note is this: there are various substances whose qualities come from specific elements that chemists call their Sulphurs, Salts, and Mercuries. These substances can be best obtained by analyzing the mixture, which allows the desired components to be separated from the rest. However, there are other substances where the most valuable properties don’t come from the Salt, Sulphur, or Mercury, but instead depend directly on the form (or, if you prefer, the specific structure) of the entire mixture. Therefore, those who try to extract the virtues of such materials by exposing them to intense heat are making a serious mistake; they are likely to destroy what they intend to obtain.

I remmember that HelmontHelmont Pharm. & Dispens. Nov. p. 458. himself somewhere confesses, That as the Fire betters some things and improves their Vertues, so it spoyles others and makes them degenerate. And elsewhere he judiciously affirmes, that there may be sometimes greater vertue in a simple, such as Nature has made it, than in any thing that can by the fire be separated from it. And lest you should doubt whether he means by the vertues of things those that are Medical; he has in one place this ingenuous confession; Credo (sayes he) simplicia in sua simplicitate esse sufficientia pro sanatione omnium morborum.(339) Nag. Barthias,Vide Jer. ad Begu. Lib. 1. Cap. 17. even in a Comment upon Beguinus, scruples not to make this acknowledgment; Valde absurdum est (sayes he) ex omnibus rebus extracta facere, salia, quintas essentias; præsertim ex substantiis per se plane vel subtilibus vel homogeneis, quales sunt uniones, Corallia, Moscus, Ambra, &c. Consonantly whereunto he also tells Us (and Vouches the famous Platerus, for having candidly given the same Advertisement to his Auditors,) that some things have greater vertues, and better suited to our humane nature, when unprepar’d, than when they have past the Chymists Fire; as we see, sayes my Author, in Pepper; of which some grains swallowed perform more towards the relief of a Distempered stomack, than a great quantity of the Oyle of the same spice.

I remember that HelmontHelmont Pharm. & Dispens. Nov. p. 458. admits somewhere that just as fire can enhance some things and improve their qualities, it can also ruin others and degrade them. He wisely states that sometimes there's greater value in something simple, as made by nature, than in anything that can be separated from it by fire. And to ensure you don’t doubt that by "the virtues of things" he means those that are medicinal, he makes this honest confession in one place: Credo (he says) simplicia in sua simplicitate esse sufficientia pro sanatione omnium morborum.(339) Nag. Barthias,See Jer. ad Begu. Book 1, Chapter 17. even in a comment on Beguinus, doesn't hesitate to acknowledge this: Valde absurdum est (he says) ex omnibus rebus extracta facere, salia, quintas essentias; præsertim ex substantiis per se plane vel subtilibus vel homogeneis, quales sunt uniones, Corallia, Moscus, Ambra, &c. Consistent with this, he also tells us (and cites the famous Platerus, who has kindly given the same advice to his audience) that some things have greater qualities, better suited to our nature, when they’re unprocessed than after they’ve gone through the chemist’s fire; as my author illustrates with pepper, where just a few grains can do more for an upset stomach than a large amount of the oil from the same spice.

It has been (pursues Carneades) by our Friend here present observ’d concerning Salt-petre, that none of the substances into which the Fire is wont to divide it, retaines either the Tast, the cooling vertue, or some other of the properties of the Concrete; and that each of those Substances acquires new qualities, not to be found in the Salt-Petre it self. The(340) shining property of the tayls of gloworms does survive but so short a time the little animal made conspicuous by it, that inquisitive men have not scrupled publickly to deride Baptista Porta and others; who deluded perhaps with some Chymical surmises have ventur’d to prescribe the distillation of a Water from the tayles of Glowormes, as a sure way to obtain a liquor shining in the Dark. To which I shall now add no other example than that afforded us by Amber; which, whilst it remains an intire body, is endow’d with an Electrical faculty of drawing to it self fethers, strawes, and such like Bodies; which I never could observe either in its Salt, its Spirit, its Oyle, or in the Body I remember I once made by the reunion of its divided Elements; none of these having such a Texture as the intire Concrete. And however Chymists boldly deduce such and such properties from this or that proportion of their component Principles; yet in Concretes that abound with this or that Ingredient, ’tis not alwayes so much by vertue of its presence, nor its plenty, that the Concrete is qualify’d to perform such and such Effects; as upon the account(341) of the particular texture of that and the other Ingredients, associated after a determinate Manner into one Concrete (though possibly such a proportion of that ingredient may be more convenient than an other for the constituting of such a body.) Thus in a clock the hand is mov’d upon the dyal, the bell is struck, and the other actions belonging to the engine are perform’d, not because the Wheeles are of brass or iron, or part of one metal and part of another, or because the weights are of Lead, but by Vertue of the size, shape, bigness, and co-aptation of the several parts; which would performe the same things though the wheels were of Silver, or Lead, or Wood, and the Weights of Stone or Clay; provided the Fabrick or Contrivance of the engine were the same: though it be not to be deny’d, that Brasse and Steel are more convenient materials to make clock-wheels of than Lead, or Wood. And to let you see, Eleutherius, that ’tis sometimes at least, upon the Texture of the small parts of a body, and not alwaies upon the presence, or recesse, or increase, or Decrement of any one of its Principle, that it may lose some(142) such Qualities, and acquire some such others as are thought very strongly inherent to the bodies they Reside in. I will add to what may from my past discourse be refer’d to this purpose, this Notable Example, from my Own experience; That Lead may without any additament, and only by various applications of the Fire, lose its colour, and acquire sometimes a gray, sometimes a yellowish, sometimes a red, sometimes an amethihstine colour; and after having past through these, and perhaps divers others, again recover its leaden colour, and be made a bright body. That also this Lead, which is so flexible a metal, may be made as brittle as Glasse, and presently be brought to be again flexible and Malleable as before. And besides, that the same lead, which I find by Microscopes to be one of the most opacous bodies in the World, may be reduced to a fine transparent glasse; whence yet it may returne to an opacous Nature again; and all this, as I said, without the addition of any extraneous body, and meerly by the manner and Method of exposing it to the Fire.

It has been observed by our friend here that regarding saltpeter, none of the substances that fire breaks it into retains the taste, cooling property, or any other traits of the concrete itself; each of those substances gains new qualities not found in the saltpeter. The glowing property of firefly tails lasts so briefly that curious individuals have openly mocked Baptista Porta and others who, perhaps misled by some chemical speculations, have dared to suggest distilling a liquid from firefly tails as a reliable way to obtain something that glows in the dark. Now, I will add no other example than that provided by amber, which, while it remains a whole body, has the electrical ability to attract feathers, straws, and similar objects; I have never observed this in its salt, spirit, oil, or in the substance I remember creating by reuniting its divided elements; none of these have the same texture as the whole concrete. And although chemists boldly infer various properties from this or that ratio of their component principles, in concretes rich in certain ingredients, the effects are not always due to the mere presence or abundance of one ingredient, but rather because of the specific texture of each ingredient combined in a particular way into a single concrete (though it's possible that one ratio of an ingredient might be better suited than another for forming such a body). Just like in a clock, the hand moves on the dial, the bell rings, and other actions are performed not because the gears are made of brass or iron, or a mix of the two, or because the weights are made of lead, but because of the size, shape, and fit of each part; they would accomplish the same functions even if the gears were made of silver, lead, or wood, and the weights of stone or clay, as long as the design of the machine is the same. However, it cannot be denied that brass and steel are more suitable materials for making clock gears than lead or wood. And to show you, Eleutherius, that sometimes it is the texture of the small parts of a body, not always the presence, absence, increase, or decrease of any one of its components, that can lead to the loss of some properties and the acquisition of others thought to be strongly inherent to the bodies they reside in, I will add this notable example from my own experience: Lead can, without any additive and solely through various applications of fire, lose its color and sometimes take on a gray, yellowish, red, or even an amethyst color; after going through these and perhaps other variations, it can regain its original leaden color and become bright again. This lead, which I find through microscopes to be one of the most opaque substances in the world, can also be turned into a fine transparent glass, from which it may revert to an opaque nature again; all of this, as I said, without adding any foreign substance and purely by the method of exposing it to fire.

But (sayes Carneades) after having al(343)ready put you to so prolix a trouble, it is time for me to relieve you with a promise of putting speedily a period to it; And to make good that promise, I shall from all that I have hitherto discoursed with you, deduce but this one proposition by way of Corollary. [That it may as yet be doubted, whether or no there be any determinate Number of Elements; Or, if you please, whether or no all compound bodies, do consist of the same number of Elementary ingredients or material Principles.]

But (says Carneades) after putting you through such a lengthy discussion, it's time for me to relieve you with a promise to wrap it up soon. To keep that promise, I will only draw this one conclusion from everything I've talked about with you: [That it may still be questioned whether there is a specific number of elements; or, if you prefer, whether all compound substances consist of the same number of basic ingredients or material principles.]

This being but an inference from the foregoing Discourse, it will not be requisite to insist at large on the proofs of it; But only to point at the chief of Them, and Referr You for Particulars to what has been already Delivered.

This is just an inference from the previous discussion, so there's no need to elaborate on the evidence for it. I'll just highlight the main points and refer you to what has already been covered for the details.

In the First place then, from what has been so largely discours’d, it may appear, that the Experiments wont to be brought, whether by the common Peripateticks, or by the vulgar Chymists, to demonstrate that all mixt bodies are made up precisely either of the four Elements, or the three Hypostatical Principles, do not evince what they are alledg’d to prove. And as for the other common arguments, pretended to be(344) drawn from Reason in favour of Aristotelian Hypothesis (for the Chymists are wont to rely almost altogether upon Experiments) they are Commonly grounded upon such unreasonable or precarious Suppositions, that ’tis altogether as easie and as just for any man to reject them, as for those that take them for granted to assert them, being indeed all of them as indemonstrable as the conclusion to be inferr’d from them; and some of them so manifestly weak and prooflesse; that he must be a very courteous adversary, that can be willing to grant them; and as unskilful a one, that can be compelled to do so.

First of all, from what has been discussed extensively, it may seem that the experiments typically presented by either the common Peripatetics or the everyday chemists, which aim to show that all mixed substances are made up precisely of the four elements or the three fundamental principles, do not actually prove what they claim to. As for the other frequently used arguments that are supposedly based on reason to support the Aristotelian Hypothesis (since chemists usually rely almost entirely on experiments), they are often based on such unreasonable or unstable assumptions that it is just as easy and fair for anyone to reject them as it is for those who accept them to assert them; in fact, they are all just as unprovable as the conclusions drawn from them. Some of these arguments are so evidently weak and baseless that only a very generous opponent could be willing to accept them, and only an inexperienced one could be forced to do so.

In the next place, it may be considered, if what those Patriarchs of the Spagyrists, Paracelsus and Helmont, do on divers occasions positively deliver, be true; namely that the Alkahest does Resolve all mixt Bodies into other Principles than the fire, it must be decided which of the two resolutions (that made by the Alkahest, or that made by the fire) shall determine the number of the Elements, before we can be certain how many there are.

Next, we should consider whether what the patriarchs of the Spagyrists, Paracelsus and Helmont, claim on various occasions is true; specifically, that the Alkahest can break down all mixed bodies into principles other than fire. We need to decide which of the two processes (the one caused by the Alkahest or the one caused by fire) should determine the number of elements, before we can be sure how many exist.

And in the mean time, we may take(345) notice in the last place, that as the distinct substances whereinto the Alkahest divides bodies, are affirm’d to be differing in nature from those whereunto they are wont to be reduc’d by fire, and to be obtain’d from some bodies more in Number than from some others; since he tells us,Novi saxum & lapides omnes in merum salem suo saxo aut lapidi & æquiponderantem reducere absque omni prorsus sulphure aut Mercurio. Helmont. pag. 409. he could totally reduce all sorts of Stones into Salt only, whereas of a coal he had two distinct Liquors. So, although we should acquiesce in that resolution which is made by fire, we find not that all mixt bodies are thereby divided into the same number of Elements and Principles; some Concretes affordding more of them than others do; Nay and sometimes this or that Body affording a greater number of Differing substances by one way of management, than the same yields by another. And they that out of Gold, or Mercury, or Muscovy-glasse, will draw me as many distinct substances as I can separate from Vitriol, or from the juice of Grapes variously orderd, may teach me that which I shall very Thankfully learn. Nor does it ap(346)pear more congruous to that variety that so much conduceth to the perfection of the Universe, that all elemented bodies be compounded of the same number of Elements, then it would be for a language, that all its words should consist of the same number of Letters.

And in the meantime, we should note that the different substances into which the Alkahest separates bodies are said to be different in nature from those they usually break down into when burned, and that these substances are derived from some bodies in greater quantity than from others. As he mentions,New rock & all stones reduced to pure salt with their rock or stone & balancing without any sulfur or mercury at all. Helmont. p. 409. he could completely reduce all types of stones to just salt, while from coal he obtained two distinct liquids. So, even if we accept the conclusion that fire provides, we find that not all mixed bodies are divided into the same number of elements and principles; some mixtures yield more than others. Moreover, sometimes one body produces a greater variety of distinct substances in one method than it does in another. And those who can extract as many distinct substances from gold, mercury, or Muscovy glass as I can from vitriol, or from the varied juices of grapes, will teach me something I will be eager to learn. It doesn't seem reasonable that, in such diversity which greatly contributes to the perfection of the universe, all elemental bodies should be made up of the same number of elements, just as it would be odd for a language to have all its words made up of the same number of letters.

THE

SCEPTICAL CHYMIST

Or,

A Paradoxical Appendix to the
Foregoing Treatise.


The Sixth Part.



HEre Carneades Having Dispach’t what he Thought Requisite to oppose against what the Chymists are wont to alledge for Proof of their three Principles, Paus’d awhile, and look’d about him, to discover whether it were Time for him and his Friend to Rejoyne the Rest of the Company. But Eleutherius perceiving nothing yet to(348) forbid Them to Prosecute their Discourse a little further, said to his Friend, (who had likewise taken Notice of the same thing) I halfe expected, Carneades, that after you had so freely declar’d Your doubting, whether there be any Determinate Number of Elements, You would have proceeded to question whether there be any Elements at all. And I confess it will be a Trouble to me if You defeat me of my Expectation; especially since you see the leasure we have allow’d us may probably suffice to examine that Paradox; because you have so largly Deduc’d already many Things pertinent to it, that you need but intimate how you would have them Apply’d, and what you would inferr from them.


Here Carneades, after addressing what he thought was necessary to counter the claims the chemists usually make about their three principles, paused for a moment to see if it was time for him and his friend to rejoin the rest of the group. But Eleutherius, noticing that there was still nothing to (348) stop them from continuing their discussion a bit longer, said to his friend (who had also noticed the same thing), "I half expected, Carneades, that after you clearly expressed your doubts about whether there is a definite number of elements, you would go on to question whether there are any elements at all. And I must admit, it would trouble me if you let me down in that expectation; especially since we have the time to probably explore that paradox, considering you have already elaborated on many relevant points that only need you to suggest how you want them applied and what conclusions you would draw from them."

Carneades having in Vain represented that their leasure could be but very short, that he had already prated very long, that he was unprepared to maintain so great and so invidious a Paradox, was at length prevail’d with to tell his Friend; Since, Eleutherius, you will have me Discourse Ex Tempore of the Paradox you mention, I am content, (though more perhaps to express my(349) Obedience, then my Opinion) to tell you that (supposing the Truth of Helmonts and Paracelsus’s Alkahestical Experiments, if I may so call them) though it may seem extravagant, yet it is not absurd to doubt, whether, for ought has been prov’d, there be a necessity to admit any Elements, or Hypostatical Principles, at all.

Carneades having pointed out that their time was likely very limited, that he had already talked for a long time, and that he was not ready to argue such a significant and controversial paradox, was eventually persuaded to share with his friend; Since, Eleutherius, you want me to speak Ex Tempore about the paradox you mentioned, I agree, (maybe more to show my(349) compliance than my actual belief) to tell you that (assuming the truth of Helmont and Paracelsus's alchemical experiments, if I can call them that) even though it might sound outrageous, it’s not unreasonable to question whether, based on what has been proven, there is any need to accept any elements or fundamental principles at all.

And, as formerly, so now, to avoid the needless trouble of Disputing severally with the Aristotelians and the Chymists, I will address my self to oppose them I have last nam’d, Because their Doctrine about the Elements is more applauded by the Moderns, as pretending highly to be grounded upon Experience. And, to deal not only fairly but favourably with them, I will allow them to take in Earth and Water to their other Principles. Which I consent to, the rather that my Discourse may the better reach the Tenents of the Peripateticks; who cannot plead for any so probably as for those two Elements; that of fire above the Air being Generally by Judicious Men exploded as an Imaginary thing; And the Air not concurring to compose Mixt(350) Bodies as one of their Elements, but only lodging in their pores, or Rather replenishing, by reason of its Weight and Fluidity, all those Cavities of bodies here below, whether compounded or not, that are big enough to admit it, and are not fill’d up with any grosser substance.

And just like before, to avoid the hassle of arguing separately with the Aristotelians and the Chemists, I will focus on opposing the latter group since their ideas about the Elements are more popular among modern thinkers, claiming to be strongly based on Experience. To be fair and even generous toward them, I will allow them to include Earth and Water among their other Principles. I agree to this mainly because it helps my discussion better address the views of the Peripatetics; they can only reasonably defend those two Elements, as the idea of fire above Air has generally been dismissed by knowledgeable people as a figment of imagination. Moreover, Air does not contribute to making Mixt(350) Bodies as one of their Elements; rather, it simply fills the pores or, more accurately, occupies all the cavities of bodies below, whether they are mixed or not, that are large enough to hold it and are not filled with any denser substance.

And, to prevent mistakes, I must advertize You, that I now mean by Elements, as those Chymists that speak plainest do by their Principles, certain Primitive and Simple, or perfectly unmingled bodies; which not being made of any other bodies, or of one another, are the Ingredients of which all those call’d perfectly mixt Bodies are immediately compounded, and into which they are ultimately resolved: now whether there be any one such body to be constantly met with in all, and each, of those that are said to be Elemented bodies, is the thing I now question.

And to avoid confusion, I need to clarify that when I refer to Elements, I mean those basic and simple substances, as the chemists who speak most clearly refer to their Principles. These are primitive bodies that aren’t made from any other substances or from each other and are the building blocks of what we call perfectly mixed bodies. Therefore, these bodies are ultimately made up of these elements. Now, I’m questioning whether there is one specific body that can consistently be found in all of those so-called elemental bodies.

By this State of the controversie you will, I suppose, Guess, that I need not be so absur’d as to deny that there are such bodies as Earth, and Water, and Quicksilver, and Sulphur: But I look upon Earth and Water, as component parts(351) of the Universe, or rather of the Terrestrial Globe, not of all mixt bodies. And though I will not peremptorily deny that there may sometimes either a running Mercury, or a Combustible Substance be obtain’d from a Mineral, or even a Metal; yet I need not Concede either of them to be an Element in the sence above declar’d; as I shall have occasion to shew you by and by.

By this point in the discussion, I think it's clear that I don't need to be so absur’d as to deny the existence of Earth, Water, Quicksilver, and Sulphur. However, I see Earth and Water as essential parts(351) of the Universe, or rather of the Earth itself, not as part of all mixed bodies. While I won’t categorically deny that it’s possible to obtain something like running Mercury or a combustible substance from a mineral or even a metal, I also don't have to agree that either of them qualifies as an element in the sense mentioned earlier; I'll explain that further shortly.

To give you then a brief account of the grounds I intend to proceed upon, I must tell you, that in matters of Philosophy, this seems to me a sufficient reason to doubt of a known and important proposition, that the Truth of it is not yet by any competent proof made to appear. And congruously herunto, if I shew that the grounds upon which men are perswaded that there are Elements are unable to satisfie a considering man, I suppose my doubts will appear rational.

To give you a brief overview of the basis I plan to move forward with, I need to say that in philosophical matters, it seems to me a valid reason to doubt a well-known and significant proposition if there hasn't been any solid proof presented to demonstrate its truth. Similarly, if I show that the reasons people believe in Elements are not convincing to a thoughtful person, I believe my doubts will seem reasonable.

Now the Considerations that induce men to think that there are Elements, may be conveniently enough referr’d to two heads. Namely, the one, that it is necessary that Nature make use of Elements to constitute the bodies that(352) are reputed Mixt. And the other, That the Resolution of such bodies manifests that nature had compounded them of Elementary ones.

Now the reasons that lead people to believe in the existence of elements can be conveniently categorized into two main points. First, it is essential for nature to utilize elements to create the bodies that(352) are considered mixtures. Second, the breakdown of such bodies shows that nature must have composed them using elementary substances.

In reference to the former of these Considerations, there are two or three things that I have to Represent.

In regard to the first of these considerations, there are a couple of things I need to point out.

And I will begin with reminding you of the Experiments I not long since related to you concerning the growth of pompions, mint, and other vegetables, out of fair water. For by those experiments its seems evident, that Water may be Transmuted into all the other Elements; from whence it may be inferr’d, both, That ’tis not every Thing Chymists will call Salt, Sulphur, or Spirit, that needs alwayes be a Primordiate and Ingenerable body. And that Nature may contex a Plant (though that be a perfectly mixt Concrete) without having all the Elements previously presented to her to compound it of. And, if you will allow the relation I mention’d out of Mounsieur De Rochas to be True; then may not only plants, but Animals and Minerals too, be produced out of Water, And however there is little doubt to be made, but that the plants my tryals afforded me(353) as they were like in so many other respects to the rest of the plants of the same Denomination; so they would, in case I had reduc’d them to putrefaction, have likewise produc’d Wormes or other insects, as well as the resembling Vegetables are wont to do; so that Water may, by Various Seminal Principles, be successively Transmuted into both plants and Animals. And if we consider that not only Men, but even sucking Children are, but too often, Tormented with Solid Stones, but that divers sorts of Beasts themselves, (whatever Helmont against Experience think to the contrary) may be Troubled with great and Heavy stones in their Kidneys and Bladders, though they Feed but upon Grass and other Vegetables, that are perhaps but Disguised Water, it will not seem improbable that even some Concretes of a mineral Nature, may Likewise be form’d of Water.

And I want to start by reminding you of the experiments I recently shared with you regarding the growth of pumpkins, mint, and other vegetables from clean water. These experiments clearly show that water can be transformed into all the other elements; from which it can be inferred that not everything chemists label as salt, sulfur, or spirit necessarily has to be a fundamental, unchangeable substance. Nature can create a plant (even if it’s a perfectly mixed compound) without needing all the elements present to combine it. And if you accept the example I mentioned from Monsieur De Rochas as true, then not only plants but also animals and minerals can be produced from water. There’s little doubt that the plants my experiments yielded(353), in many ways similar to other plants of the same types, would also have produced worms or other insects if I had decomposed them, just as similar vegetables tend to do. This suggests that water can, through various reproductive principles, be successively transformed into both plants and animals. Furthermore, if we consider that not only humans but even nursing infants frequently suffer from solid stones, and that various animals (despite what Helmont may argue against evidence) can also be affected by large, heavy stones in their kidneys and bladders while primarily eating grass and other vegetables, which might just be disguised water, it doesn't seem far-fetched that even some mineral compounds could also be formed from water.

We may further Take notice, that as a Plant may be nourisht, and consequently may Consist of Common water; so may both plants and Animals, (perhaps even from their Seminal Rudiments) consist of compound Bodies,(354) without having any thing meerly Elementary brought them by nature to be compounded by them: This is evident in divers men, who whilst they were Infants were fed only with Milk, afterwards Live altogether upon Flesh, Fish, wine, and other perfectly mixt Bodies. It may be seen also in sheep, who on some of our English Downs or Plains, grow very fat by feeding upon the grasse, without scarce drinking at all. And yet more manifestly in the magots that breed and grow up to their full bignesse within the pulps of Apples, Pears, or the like Fruit. We see also, that Dungs that abound with a mixt Salt give a much more speedy increment to corn and other Vegetables than Water alone would do: And it hath been assur’d me, by a man experienc’d in such matters, that sometimes when to bring up roots very early, the Mould they were planted in was made over-rich, the very substance of the Plant has tasted of the Dung. And let us also consider a Graft of one kind of Fruit upon the upper bough of a Tree of another kind. As for instance, the Ciens of a Pear upon a White-thorne; for there the ascending(355) Liquor is already alter’d, either by the root, or in its ascent by the bark, or both wayes, and becomes a new mixt body: as may appear by the differing qualities to be met with in the saps of several trees; as particularly, the medicinal vertue of the Birch-Water (which I have sometimes drunk upon Helmonts great and not undeserved commendation) Now the graft, being fasten’d to the stock must necessarily nourish its self, and produce its Fruit, only out of this compound Juice prepared for it by the Stock, being unable to come at any other aliment. And if we consider, how much of the Vegetable he feeds upon may (as we noted above) remain in an Animal; we may easily suppose, That the blood of that Animal who Feeds upon this, though it be a Well constituted Liquor, and have all the differing Corpuscles that make it up kept in order by one præsiding form, may be a strangely Decompounded Body, many of its parts being themselves decompounded. So little is it Necessary that even in the mixtures which nature her self makes in Animal and Vegetable Bodies, she should have pure Elements at hand to make her compositions of.(356)

We should also note that just as a plant can be nourished and consist of regular water, both plants and animals (possibly even from their earliest forms) can consist of complex bodies,(354) without having simply elemental substances provided by nature for their composition. This is evident in various people who, as infants, were only fed milk and later thrived on meat, fish, wine, and other completely mixed substances. This is also seen in sheep, which can gain significant weight by grazing on grass with very little water intake. Even more clearly, we see maggots that develop and grow to their full size inside the pulp of apples, pears, or similar fruits. Additionally, we observe that manure rich in mixed salts promotes quicker growth for grains and other plants than water alone would. An experienced person in these matters once assured me that when roots are brought up very early with overly rich soil, the actual substance of the plant can be affected by the manure. Let’s also think about grafting one type of fruit onto the branch of a different tree. For instance, grafting a pear scion onto a hawthorn; in this case, the ascending(355) sap is already altered, either by the roots or during its ascent through the bark, or both, becoming a new mixed substance. This is clear from the varying qualities found in the sap of different trees, such as the medicinal properties of birch water (which I have occasionally tasted based on Helmont's high and deserved praise). Now, since the graft is attached to the stock, it must rely on it for nourishment and produce fruit solely from this mixed juice prepared by the stock, as it cannot access any other food source. If we consider how much of the plant material consumed by an animal may (as noted earlier) remain within the animal, we can easily assume that the blood of an animal feeding on this, although it is a well-formed liquid with all its different components arranged by one governing form, could actually be a strangely decompounded substance, containing many parts that are themselves decompounded. Thus, it is not necessary that even in the mixtures that nature herself creates in animal and plant bodies, she should have pure elements available for her compositions.(356)

Having said thus much touching the constitution of Plants and Animals, I might perhaps be able to say as much touching that of Minerals, and even Metalls, if it were as easy for us to make experiment in Order to the production of these, as of those. But the growth or increment of Minerals being usually a work of excessively long time, and for the most part perform’d in the bowels of the Earth, where we cannot see it, I must instead of Experiments make use, on this occasion, of Observations.

Having said all this about the structure of plants and animals, I could probably say just as much about minerals and even metals if it were as easy for us to experiment with producing them as it is with the others. However, since the growth or formation of minerals usually takes an incredibly long time and mostly happens deep within the Earth, where we can’t see it, I’ll have to rely on observations instead of experiments this time.

That stones were not all made at once, but that are some of them now adayes generated, may (though it be deny’d by some) be fully prov’d by several examples, of which I shall now scarce alledg any other, then that famous place in France known by the name of Les Caves Gentieres, where the Water falling from the upper Parts of the cave to the ground does presently there condense into little stones, of such figures as the drops, falling either severally or upon one another, and coagulating presently into stone, chance to exhibit. Of these stones some Ingenuous Friends of ours, that went a while since to visit that place, did me(357) the favour to present me with some that they brought thence. And I remember that both that sober Relator of his Voyages, Van Linschoten, and another good Author, inform us that in the Diamond Mines (as they call them) in the East-Indies, when having dig’d the Earth, though to no great depth, they find Diamonds and take them quite away; Yet in a very few years they find in the same place new Diamonds produc’d there since. From both which Relations, especially the first, it seems probable that Nature does not alwayes stay for divers Elementary Bodies, when she is to produce stones. And as for Metals themselves, Authors of good note assure us, that even they were not in the beginning produc’d at once altogether, but have been observ’d to grow; so that what was not a Mineral or Metal before became one afterwards. Of this it were easie to alledg many testimonies of professed Chymists. But that they may have the greater authority, I shall rather present you with a few borrowed from more unsuspected writers. Sulphuris Mineram (as the inquisitive P. Fallopius notes) quæ nutrix est caloris subterranei(158) fabri seu Archæi fontium & mineralium, Infra terram citissime renasci testantur Historiæ Metallicæ. Sunt enim loca e quibus si hoc anno sulphur effossum fuerit; intermissa fossione per quadriennium redeunt fossores & omnia sulphure, ut autea, rursus inveniunt plena. Pliny Relates, In Italiæ Insula Ilva, gigni ferri metallum. Strabo multo expressius; effossum ibi metallum semper regenerari. Nam si effossio spatio centum annorum intermittebatur, & iterum illuc revertebantur, fossores reperisse maximam copiam ferri regeneratam. Which history not only is countenanced by Fallopius, from the Incom which the Iron of that Island yielded the Duke of Florence in his time; but is mention’d more expressely to our purpose, by the Learned Cesalpinus. Vena (sayes he) ferri copiosissima est in Italia; ob eam nobilitata Ilva Tirrheni maris Insula incredibili copia, etiam nostris temporibus eam gignens: Nam terra quæ eruitur dum vena effoditur tota, procedente tempore in venam convertitur. Which last clause is therefore very notable, because from thence we may deduce, that earth, by a Metalline plastick principle latent in it, may be in processe of time chang’d into a metal. And even AgricolaIn Lygiis, ad Sagam opidum; in pratis eruitur ferrum, fossis ad altitudinem bipedaneam actis. Id decennio renatum denuo foditur non aliter ac Ilvæ ferrum.(359) himself, though the Chymists complain of him as their adversary, acknowledges thus much and more; by telling us that at a Town called Saga in Germany, they dig up Iron in the Fields, by sinking ditches two foot deep; And adding, that within the space of ten years the Ditches are digged again for Iron since produced, As the same Metal is wont to be obtain’d in Elva. Also concerning Lead, not to mention what even Galen notes, that it will increase both in bulk and Weight if it be long kept in Vaults or Sellars, where the Air is gross and thick, as he collects from the smelling of those pieces of Lead that were imploy’d to fasten together the parts of old Statues. Not to mention this, I say, Boccacius Certaldus, as I find him Quoted by a Diligent Writer, has this Passage touching the Growth of Lead. Fessularum mons (sayes he) in Hetruria, Florentiæ civitati imminens, lapides plumbarios habet; qui si excidantur, brevi temporis spatio, novis incrementis instaurantur; ut (annexes my Author) tradit(360) Boccacius Certaldus, qui id compotissimum esse scribit. Nihil hoc novi est; sed de eadem Plinius, lib. 34. Hist. Natur. cap. 17. dudum prodidit, Inquiens, mirum in his solis plumbi metallis, quod derelicta fertilius reviviscunt. In plumbariis secundo Lapide ab Amberga dictis ad Asylum recrementa congesta in cumulos, exposita solibus pluviisque paucis annis, redunt suum metallum cum fenore. I might Add to these, continues Carneades, many things that I have met with concerning the Generation of Gold and Silver. But, for fear of wanting time, I shall mention but two or three Narratives. The First you may find Recorded by Gerhardus the Physick Professor, in these Words. In valle (sayes he) Joachimaca argentum gramini modo & more e Lapidibus mineræ velut e radice excrevisse digiti Longitudine, testis est Dr. Schreterus, qui ejusmodi venas aspectu jucundas & admirabiles Domi sua aliis sæpe monstravit & Donavit. Item Aqua cærulea Inventa est Annebergæ, ubi argentum erat adhuc in primo ente, quæ coagulata redacta est in calcem fixi & boni argenti.

That stones weren't all created at once, but that some of them are still forming today, can be fully proven (though some deny it) by various examples. One notable example is the famous site in France known as Les Caves Gentieres, where water falling from the upper sections of the cave condenses into small stones shaped like the droplets that fall separately or on top of one another, quickly solidifying into stone. Some of our knowledgeable friends who visited that site recently were kind enough to bring me back a few stones. I also remember that the reliable travel writer, Van Linschoten, and another reputable author inform us that in the diamond mines (as they call them) in the East Indies, when they dig into the ground, even at shallow depths, they find diamonds and remove them entirely; yet, within a few years, they discover new diamonds produced in the same location. From both narrations, especially the first, it seems likely that Nature doesn't always wait for various elemental bodies when she produces stones. As for metals, reputable authors assure us that they weren't all produced at once from the beginning but have been observed to grow; what wasn’t a mineral or metal before eventually became one. It would be easy to cite many testimonies from renowned chemists on this. However, to give them greater authority, I’d rather share a few from less expected writers. Sulphuris Mineram (as the curious P. Fallopius notes) quæ nutrix est caloris subterranei fabris seu Archæi fontium & mineralium, Infra terram citissime renasci testantur Historiæ Metallicæ. Sunt enim loca e quibus si hoc anno sulphur effossum fuerit; intermissa fossione per quadriennium redeunt fossores & omnia sulphure, ut autea, rursus inveniunt plena. Pliny mentions, In Italiæ Insula Ilva, gigni ferri metallum. Strabo much more explicitly states; effossum ibi metallum semper regenerari. Nam si effossio spatio centum annorum intermittebatur, & iterum illuc revertebantur, fossores reperisse maximam copiam ferri regeneratam. This history is not only supported by Fallopius, based on what the Iron of that Island yielded to the Duke of Florence in his time; but is also mentioned more specifically for our purpose by the learned Cesalpinus. Vena (he says) ferri copiosissima est in Italia; ob eam nobilitata Ilva Tirrheni maris Insula incredibili copia, etiam nostris temporibus eam gignens: Nam terra quæ eruitur dum vena effoditur tota, procedente tempore in venam convertitur. This last statement is particularly noteworthy because from it we can infer that earth, with a latent metalline principle within it, can be transformed into metal over time. Even AgricolaIn Lygiis, near the town of Saga; iron is extracted in the fields, with pits dug to a height of two feet. It has been newly mined after a decade, just like Ilva's iron.(359) himself, although the chemists complain about him as their opponent, acknowledges this and more; telling us that in a town called Saga in Germany, they dig up Iron in the fields, by excavating ditches two feet deep; and adds that within ten years, the ditches are dug again for Iron produced since then, just like how iron is typically obtained in Elva. Also concerning Lead, not to mention what even Galen noted, that it will increase both in size and weight if it is kept for a long time in vaults or sellars where the air is thick and stale, as he concludes from the odor of pieces of Lead that were used to bind old statues together. Not to overlook this, I say, Boccacius Certaldus, as referenced by a diligent writer, has this passage regarding the growth of Lead. Fessularum mons (he says) in Hetruria, Florentiæ civitati imminens, lapides plumbarios habet; qui si excidantur, brevi temporis spatio, novis incrementis instaurantur; ut (my author adds) tradit Boccacius Certaldus, qui id compotissimum esse scribit. Nihil hoc novi est; sed de eadem Plinius, lib. 34. Hist. Natur. cap. 17. dudum prodidit, Inquiens, mirum in his solis plumbi metallis, quod derelicta fertilus reviviscunt. In plumbariis secundo Lapide ab Amberga dictis ad Asylum recrementa congesta in cumulos, exposita solibus pluviisque paucis annis, redunt suum metallum cum fenore. I might add many things I’ve come across regarding the generation of Gold and Silver. But, fearing I might run out of time, I will mention only two or three accounts. The first can be found recorded by Gerhardus, the professor of medicine, in these words. In valle (he says) Joachimaca argentum gramini modo & more e Lapidibus mineræ velut e radice excrevisse digiti Longitudine, testis est Dr. Schreterus, qui ejusmodi venas aspectu jucundas & admirabiles Domi sua aliis sæpe monstravit & Donavit. Item Aqua cærulea Inventa est Annebergæ, ubi argentum erat adhuc in primo ente, quæ coagulata redacta est in calcem fixi & boni argenti.

The other two Relations I have not met with in Latine Authours, and yet(361) they are both very memorable in themselves, and as pertinent to our present purpose.

The other two Relations I haven't found in Latin authors, and yet(361) they are both really significant on their own, and relevant to our current topic.

The first I meet with in the Commentary of Johannes Valehius upon the Kleine Baur, In which that Industrious Chymist Relates, with many circumstances, that at a Mine-Town (If I may so English the German Bergstat) eight miles or Leagues distant from Strasburg call’d Mariakirch, a Workman came to the Overseer, and desired employment; but he telling him that there was not any of the best sort at present for him, added that till he could be preferr’d to some such, he might in the mean time, to avoid idleness, work in a Grove or Mine-pit thereabouts, which at that time was little esteem’d. This Workman after some weeks Labour, had by a Crack appearing in the Stone upon a Stroak given near the wall, an Invitation Given him to Work his Way through, which as soon as he had done, his Eyes were saluted by a mighty stone or Lump which stood in the middle of the Cleft (that had a hollow place behind it) upright, and in shew like an armed-man; but consisted of pure fine(362) Silver having no Vein or Ore by it, or any other Additament, but stood there free, having only underfoot something like a burnt matter; and yet this one Lump held in Weight above a 1000 marks, which, according to the Dutch, Account makes 500 pound weight of fine silver. From which and other Circumstances my Author gathers; That by the warmth of the place, the Noble Metalline Spirits, (Sulphureous and Mercurial) were carri’d from the neighbouring Galleries or Vaults, through other smaller Cracks and Clefts, into that Cavity, and there collected as in a close Chamber or Cellar; whereinto when they were gotten, they did in process of time settle into the forementioned precious mass of Metal.

The first I come across in the Commentary of Johannes Valehius on the Kleine Baur is where that hardworking chemist describes, with many details, that in a mining town (if I may translate the German Bergstat) located about eight miles from Strasburg, called Mariakirch, a worker approached the overseer seeking a job. The overseer told him that there wasn't any good work available at the moment and suggested that, in the meantime, to avoid being idle, he could work in a grove or a nearby mining pit, which was not highly valued at that time. After several weeks of labor, this worker, upon noticing a crack in the stone after striking near the wall, was prompted to dig through. As soon as he broke through, he saw a massive stone or lump in the middle of the crevice (which had a hollow space behind it) standing upright, resembling an armed man. This lump was made entirely of pure silver with no veins or ore around it, just sitting there freely on something similar to burnt material beneath it. Yet, this single lump weighed over 1,000 marks, which, according to the Dutch, Account, amounts to 500 pounds of pure silver. From this and other details, my author concludes that due to the warmth of the area, the noble metallic spirits (sulfurous and mercurial) were drawn from the nearby galleries or vaults through smaller cracks and crevices into that cavity, where they eventually accumulated like in a closed chamber or cellar, settling over time into the previously mentioned precious mass of metal.

The other Germane Relation is of That great Traveller and Laborious Chymist Johannes (not Georgus) Agricola; who in his notes upon what Poppius has written of Antimony, Relates, that when he was among the Hungarian Mines in the deep Groves, he observ’d that there would often arise in them a warm Steam (not of that malignant sort which the Germains call Shwadt,(363) which (sayes he) is a meer poyson, and often suffocates the Diggers, which fasten’d it self to the Walls; and that coming again to review it after a couple of dayes, he discern’d that it was all very fast, and glistering; whereupon having collected it and Distill’d it per Retortam, he obtain’d from it a fine Spirit, adding, that the Mine-Men inform’d him, that this Steam or Damp of the English Mine (retaining the dutch Term) would at last have become a Metal, as Gold or Silver.

The other relevant connection is that of the great traveler and dedicated chemist Johannes (not Georgus) Agricola; who, in his commentary on what Poppius has written about antimony, mentions that when he was among the Hungarian mines in the deep groves, he observed that a warm steam would often rise from them (not the harmful type that the Germans call Shwadt, which he says is pure poison and often suffocates the workers, clinging to the walls). When he came back to check on it a couple of days later, he found it all very solid and shiny; after collecting it and distilling it in a retort, he obtained a fine spirit. He added that the miners told him this steam (keeping the Dutch term) would eventually have turned into a metal, like gold or silver.

I referr (sayes Carneades) to another Occasion, the Use that may be made of these Narratives towards the explicating the Nature of Metalls; and that of Fixtness, Malleableness, and some other Qualities conspicuous in them. And in the mean time, this I may at present deduce from these Observations, That ’tis not very probable, that, whensoever a Mineral, or even a Metall, is to be Generated in the Bowels of the Earth, Nature needs to have at hand both Salt, and Sulphur, and Mercury to Compound it of; for, not to urge that the two last Relations seem less to favour the Chymists than Aristotle, who(364) would have Metals Generated of certain Halitus or steams, the foremention’d Observations together, make it seem more Likely that the mineral Earths or those Metalline steams (wherewith probably such Earths are plentifully imbu’d) do contain in them some seminal Rudiment, or some thing Equivalent thereunto; by whose plastick power the rest of the matter, though perhaps Terrestrial and heavy, is in Tract of time fashion’d into this or That metalline Ore; almost as I formerly noted, that fair water was by the seminal Principle of Mint, Pompions, and other Vegetables, contriv’d into Bodies answerable to such Seeds. And that such Alterations of Terrestrial matter are not impossible, seems evident from that notable Practice of the Boylers of Salt-Petre, who unanimously observe, as well here in England as in other Countries; That if an Earth pregnant with Nitre be depriv’d, by the affusion of water, of all its true and dissoluble Salt, yet the Earth will after some years yield them Salt-Petre again; For which reason some of the eminent and skillfullest of them keep it in heaps as a perpetual(365) Mine of Salt Petre; whence it may appear, that the Seminal Principle of Nitre latent in the Earth does by degrees Transforme the neighbouring matter into a Nitrous Body; for though I deny that some Volatile Nitre may by such Earths be attracted (as they speak) out of the Air, yet that the innermost parts of such great heaps that lye so remote from the Air should borrow from it all the Nitre they abound with, is not probable, for other reasons besides the remoteness of the Air, though I have not the Leasure to mention them.

I refer (says Carneades) to another occasion: the way these narratives can help explain the nature of metals, including their properties like fixity, malleability, and other noticeable qualities. In the meantime, I can currently conclude from these observations that it’s not very likely that whenever a mineral, or even a metal, is formed in the Earth's depths, Nature requires both salt and sulfur, along with mercury, to create it. I don’t mean to suggest that the last two points seem less supportive of chemists than Aristotle, who(364) believed that metals are generated from specific halitus or vapors. The observations mentioned above make it seem more likely that the mineral earths or their metallic vapors, which those earths are probably rich in, contain some fundamental essence or something equivalent. This essence has the shaping power that turns the rest of the material, even if it is earthly and heavy, over time into various metallic ores. It's somewhat like how I previously noted that clear water could be transformed into bodies corresponding to the seeds of mint, pumpkins, and other plants due to the fundamental principle they carry. The potential for such transformations of earthly matter is evident from the well-known practice of saltpeter workers, who unanimously observe, both here in England and in other countries, that if earth rich in nitre is deprived, through the pouring of water, of all its genuine and soluble salt, the earth will eventually produce saltpeter again after some years. For this reason, some of the most skilled among them keep it in heaps as a perpetual(365) source of saltpeter. This shows that the latent essence of nitre in the earth gradually transforms the surrounding matter into a nitrous body. Although I deny that some volatile nitre can be extracted (as they say) from the air by such earths, it’s unlikely that the very inner parts of those large heaps, which are so far removed from the air, could derive all the nitre they contain from it, for reasons beyond just the distance from the air, though I don't have the time to list them.

And I remember, that a person of Great Credit, and well acquainted with the wayes of making Vitriol, affirm’d to me, that he had observ’d, that a kind of mineral which abounds in that Salt, being kept within Doors and not expos’d (as is usual) to the free Air and Rains, did of it self in no very long time turn into Vitriol, not only in the outward or superficial, but even in the internal and most Central parts.

And I recall that a reliable person, who's knowledgeable about how to make Vitriol, told me that he noticed a certain type of mineral rich in that salt, when kept indoors and not exposed (as is typical) to open air and rain, would naturally turn into Vitriol not just on the surface but even in its deeper, central parts in a relatively short period of time.

And I also remember, that I met with a certain kind of Merkasite that lay together in great Quantities under(366) ground, which did, even in my chamber, in so few hours begin of it self to turne into Vitriol, that we need not distrust the newly recited narrative. But to return to what I was saying of Nitre; as Nature made this Salt-Petre out of the once almost and inodorous Earth it was bred in, and did not find a very stinking and corrosive Acid Liquor, and a sharp Alcalyzate Salt to compound it of, though these be the Bodies into which the Fire dissolves it; so it were not necessary that Nature should make up all Metals and other Minerals of Pre-existent Salt, and Sulphur, and Mercury, though such Bodies might by Fire be obtained from it. Which one consideration duly weigh’d is very considerable in the present controversy: And to this agree well the Relations of our two German Chymists; for besides that it cannot be convincingly prov’d, it is not so much as likely that so languid and moderate a heat as that within the Mines, should carry up to so great a heat, though in the forme of fumes, Salt, Sulphur and Mercury; since we find in our Distillations, that it requires a considerable Degree of Fire to raise so much as to the height of one(367) foot not only Salt, but even Mercury it self, in close Vessels. And if it be objected, that it seems by the stink that is sometimes observ’d when Lightening falls down here below, that sulphureous steams may ascend very high without any extraordinary Degree of heat; It may be answer’d, among other things, that the Sulphur of Silver is by Chymists said to be a fixt Sulphur, though not altogether so well Digested as that of Gold.

And I also remember that I came across a particular type of Merkasite that was found in large quantities underground. Even in my room, it began to turn into Vitriol within just a few hours, which makes me trust the recent account. But back to what I was saying about Nitre; just as Nature created this Salt-Petre from the once almost odorless soil it came from, without finding a really foul and corrosive acid or a strong alkaline salt to mix it with, even though those substances can be produced by fire, it's not necessary for Nature to make all metals and other minerals from pre-existing salt, sulfur, and mercury, even if such substances can be derived from it through fire. This point, when carefully considered, is very significant in the current debate. Our two German chemists' reports also support this; besides the fact that it cannot be convincingly proven, it's not even likely that such a low and moderate heat as that found within the mines would cause salt, sulfur, and mercury to rise to such a great extent, albeit in the form of fumes. In our distillations, we find that it requires a substantial amount of heat just to raise even salt, let alone mercury, by just one foot in closed vessels. If someone argues that the smell sometimes noticed when lightning strikes indicates that sulfurous vapors can rise very high without any extraordinary heat, it can be replied, among other things, that the sulfur of silver is considered by chemists to be a fixed sulfur, although not quite as well processed as that of gold.

But, proceeds Carneades, If it had not been to afford You some hints concerning the Origine of Metals, I need not have deduc’d any thing from these Observations; It not being necessary to the Validity of my Argument that my Deductions from them should be irrefragable, because my Adversaries the Aristotelians and Vulgar Chymists do not, I presume, know any better then I, a priori, of what ingredients Nature compounds Metals and Minerals. For their Argument to prove that those Bodies are made up of such Principles, is drawn a posteriori; I mean from this, that upon the Analysis of Mineral bodies they are resolv’d into those differing substances.(368) That we may therefore examine this Argument, Let us proceed to consider what can be alledg’d in behalf of the Elements from the Resolutions of Bodies by the fire; which you remember was the second Tophick whence I told you the Arguments of my Adversaries were desum’d.

But, continues Carneades, if it wasn’t to give you some insights about the origin of metals, I wouldn’t have needed to draw any conclusions from these observations. It’s not essential for my argument that my deductions from them be irrefutable, because my opponents, the Aristotelians and the regular chemists, probably don't know any better than I do, a priori, what elements nature uses to create metals and minerals. Their argument proving that those bodies are made up of certain principles is based a posteriori; I mean that when analyzing mineral bodies, they break down into those different substances.(368) So, to examine this argument, let’s look at what can be said in favor of the elements based on the breakdown of bodies by fire; which, as you recall, was the second Tophick from which I said my opponents derived their arguments.

And that I may first dispatch what I have to say concerning Minerals, I will begin the remaining part of my discourse with considering how the fire divides them.

And to start with what I have to say about minerals, I will begin the rest of my discussion by looking at how fire separates them.

And first, I have partly noted above, that though Chymists pretend from some to draw salt, from others running Mercury, and from others a Sulphur; Yet they have not hitherto taught us by any way in us among them to separate any one principle, whether Salt, Sulphur, or Mercury, from all sorts of Minerals without exception. And thence I may be allow’d to conclude that there is not any of the Elements that is an Ingredient of all Bodies, since there are some of which it is not so.

And first, as I mentioned earlier, even though chemists claim to extract salt from some substances, mercury from others, and sulfur from yet others, they still haven't shown us a way in us to separate any one principle—whether it's salt, sulfur, or mercury—from all types of minerals without exception. Therefore, I can conclude that none of the elements is an ingredient in all substances since there are some that do not contain them.

In the next place, supposing that either Sulphur or Mercury were obtainable from all sorts of Minerals. Yet still this(369) Sulphur or Mercury would be but a compounded, not an Elementary body, as I told you already on another occasion. And certainly he that takes notice of the wonderful Operations of Quicksilver, whether it be common, or drawn from Mineral Bodies, can scarce be so inconsiderate as to think it of the very same nature with that immature and fugitive substance which in Vegetables and Animals Chymists have been pleas’d to call their Mercury. So that when Mercury is got by the help of the fire out of a metal or other Mineral Body, if we will not suppose that it was not pre-existent in it, but produc’d by the action of the fire upon the Concrete, we may at least suppose this Quicksilver to have been a perfect Body of its own kind (though perhaps lesse heterogeneous then more secundary mixts) which happen’d to be mingl’d per minima, and coagulated with the other substances, whereof the Metal or Mineral consisted. As may be exemplyfied partly by Native Vermillion wherein the Quicksilver and Sulphur being exquisitely blended both with one another, and that other course Mineral stuff (what ever it be) that harbours(370) them, make up a red body differing enough from both; and yet from which part of the Quicksilver, and of the Sulphur, may be easily enough obtain’d; Partly by those Mines wherein nature has so curiously incorporated Silver with Lead, that ’tis extreamly difficult, and yet possible, to separate the former out of the Latter. And partly too by native Vitriol, wherein the Metalline Corpuscles are by skill and industry separable from the saline ones, though they be so con-coagulated with them, that the whole Concrete is reckon’d among Salts.

Next, even if we assume that either Sulfur or Mercury could be extracted from all kinds of minerals, this(369) Sulfur or Mercury would still be a compound, not a pure element, as I mentioned before. Anyone observing the remarkable properties of Quicksilver, whether it's the common form or derived from mineral sources, wouldn't be so reckless as to believe it's the same as the immature and fleeting substance that chemists have whimsically referred to as their Mercury found in plants and animals. Therefore, when Mercury is obtained through fire from a metal or other mineral, while we can't ignore the possibility that it didn't originally exist there but was created by the fire's action on the matter, we can at least consider this Quicksilver to have been a distinct substance on its own (though perhaps less varied than other mixed substances), which just happened to be combined per minima and mixed with the other materials that made up the metal or mineral. This can be partially illustrated by Native Vermillion, where Quicksilver and Sulfur are finely blended together, along with whatever other coarse minerals may be present, creating a red substance that's noticeably different from both; yet, from which parts of the Quicksilver and Sulfur can be relatively easily extracted. It can also be seen in mines where nature has intricately combined Silver with Lead, making it extremely challenging, but not impossible, to separate the former from the Latter.. Additionally, in native Vitriol, the metallic particles can be separated from the saline ones through skill and effort, even though they are so closely combined with them that the entire mixture is classified as a Salt.

And here I further observe, that I never could see any Earth or Water, properly so call’d, separated from either Gold or Silver (to name now no other Metalline Bodies) and therefore to retort the argument upon my Adversaries, I may conclude, that since there are some bodies in which, for ought appears, there is neither Earth nor Water. I may be allow’d to conclude that neither of those two is an Universal Ingredient of all those Bodies that are counted perfectly mixt, which I desire you would remember against Anon.(371)

And here I further notice that I could never see any Earth or Water, properly speaking, separated from either Gold or Silver (not mentioning any other metallic substances). Therefore, to turn the argument back on my opponents, I can conclude that since there are some substances in which, as far as I can tell, there is neither Earth nor Water., I am allowed to conclude that neither of these two is a universal ingredient in all those substances that are considered perfectly mixed, which I hope you will keep in mind for later.(371)

It may indeed be objected, that the reason why from Gold or Silver we cannot separate any moisture, is, because that when it is melted out of the Oare, the vehement Fire requisite to its Fusion forc’d away all the aqueous and fugitive moisture; and the like fire may do from the materials of Glass. To which I shall Answer, that I Remember I read not long since in the Learned Josephus Acosta,Acosta Natural and Moral history of the Indies, L. 3. c. 5, p. 212. who relates it upon his own observation; that in America, (where he long lived) there is a kind of Silver which the Indians call Papas, and sometimes (sayes he) they find pieces very fine and pure like to small round roots, the which is rare in that metal, but usuall in Gold; Concerning which metal he tells us, that besides this they find some which they call Gold in grains, which he tells us are small morsels of Gold that they find whole without mixture of any other metal, which hath no need of melting or Refining in the fire.

It can indeed be argued that the reason we cannot separate any moisture from Gold or Silver is that when it is melted out of the Ore, the intense heat necessary for its melting drives away all the water and volatile moisture; and the same heat might do the same with the materials used for Glass. To this, I want to point out that I recently read in the learned Josephus Acosta,Acosta Natural and Moral History of the Indies, Book 3, Chapter 5, page 212. who shares from his own observation that in America (where he lived for a long time), there is a type of Silver that the Indians call Papas, and sometimes (he says) they find pieces that are very fine and pure, resembling small round roots, which is rare for that metal but common in Gold. He tells us that, besides this, they find some that they call Gold in grains, which are small pieces of Gold that they find intact without any mixture of other metals, and that don’t require melting or refining in the fire.

I remember that a very skilful and credible person affirmed to me, that being in the Hungarian mines he had the good fortune to see a mineral that was(372) there digg’d up, wherein pieces of Gold of the length, and also almost of the bigness of a humane Finger, grew in the Oar, as if they had been parts and Branches of Trees.

I remember a very skilled and trustworthy person told me that while he was in the Hungarian mines, he had the good luck to see a mineral that was(372) dug up there, where pieces of gold, about the size and length of a human finger, were embedded in the ore, like they were parts and branches of trees.

And I have my self seen a Lump of whitish Mineral, that was brought as a Rarity to a Great and knowing Prince, wherein there grew here and there in the Stone, which looked like a kind of sparr, divers little Lumps of fine Gold, (for such I was assured that Tryal had manifested it to be) some of them Seeming to be about the Bigness of pease.

And I have personally seen a chunk of whitish mineral that was brought as a rarity to a great and knowledgeable prince, in which there were several small lumps of fine gold scattered throughout the stone, resembling a kind of spar. I was assured that tests had confirmed this, and some of the lumps seemed to be about the size of peas.

But that is nothing to what our AcostaSee Acosta in the fore-cited Place, and the passage of Pliny quoted by him. subjoynes, which is indeed very memorable, namely, that of the morsels of Native and pure Gold, which we lately heard him mentioning he had now and then seen some that weighed many pounds; to which I shall add, that I my self have seen a Lump of Oar not long since digged up, in whose stony part there grew, almost like Trees, divers parcels though not of Gold, yet of (what perhaps Mineralists will more wonder at) another Metal which seemed to be very pure or un(373)mixt with any Heterogeneous Substances, and were some of them as big as my Finger, if not bigger. But upon Observations of this kind, though perhaps I could, yet I must not at present dwell any longer.

But that is nothing compared to what our AcostaCheck out Acosta in the source mentioned earlier, along with the excerpt from Pliny that he quoted. adds, which is truly remarkable, specifically about the pieces of native and pure gold. He recently mentioned that he has occasionally seen some that weighed several pounds; to which I’ll add that I myself saw a lump of ore not long ago that, within its stony part, contained various pieces that grew almost like trees. Although they weren't gold, they were made of another metal that might surprise mineralists, as it appeared to be very pure and free of any mixed substances, with some pieces being as big as my finger, if not larger. However, regarding such observations, even if I could elaborate, I shouldn’t linger on this any longer right now.

To proceed Therefore now (sayes Carneades) to the Consideration of the Analysis of Vegetables, although my Tryals give me no cause to doubt but that out of most of them five differing Substances may be obtain’d by the fire, yet I think it will not be so easily Demonstrated that these deserve to be call’d Elements in the Notion above explain’d.

To continue, then (says Carneades), let's consider the Analysis of plants. Even though my experiments lead me to believe that we can obtain five different substances from most of them through fire, I don’t think it will be as easy to prove that these should be called elements in the sense explained above.

And before I descend to particulars, I shall repeat and premise this General Consideration, that these differing substances that are call’d Elements or Principles, differ not from each other as Metals, Plants and Animals, or as such Creatures as are immediately produc’d each by its peculiar Seed, and Constitutes a distinct propagable sort of Creatures in the Universe; but these are only Various Schemes of matter or Substances that differ from each other, but in consistence (as Running Mercury and(174) the same Metal congeal’d by the Vapor of Lead) and some very few other accidents, as Tast, or Smel, or Inflamability, or the want of them. So that by a change of Texture not impossible to be wrought by the Fire and other Agents that have the Faculty not only to dissociate the smal parts of Bodies, but afterwards to connect them after a new manner, the same parcell of matter may acquire or lose such accidents as may suffice to Denominate it Salt, or Sulphur, or Earth. If I were fully to clear to you my apprehensions concerning this matter, I should perhaps be obliged to acquaint you with divers of the Conjectures (for I must yet call them no more) I have had Concerning the Principles of things purely Corporeal: For though because I seem not satisfi’d with the Vulgar Doctrines, either of the Peripatetick or Paracelsian Schools, many of those that know me, (and perhaps, among Them, Eleutherius himself) have thought me wedded to the Epicurean Hypotheses, (as others have mistaken me for an Helmontian;) yet if you knew how little Conversant I have been with Epicurean(375) Authors, and how great a part of Lucretius himself I never yet had the Curiosity to read, you would perchance be of another mind; especially if I were to entertain you at large, I say not, of my present Notions; but of my former thoughts concerning the Principles of things. But, as I said above, fully to clear my Apprehensions would require a Longer Discourse than we can now have.

And before I get into the details, I want to emphasize this general point: the different substances known as elements or principles are not different from one another like metals, plants, and animals, or like creatures that are produced from their specific seeds, forming distinct, reproducible types of creatures in the universe. Instead, they are just various forms of matter or substances that only differ in consistency (like running mercury and the same metal frozen by lead vapor) and a few other characteristics, such as taste, smell, flammability, or the lack of them. This means that through a change in texture, which can be achieved with fire and other agents capable of breaking apart the smaller parts of substances and then reassembling them differently, the same piece of matter can gain or lose traits that allow us to call it salt, sulfur, or earth. If I were to fully explain my views on this topic, I would probably need to share various hypotheses (which I can only call conjectures for now) I have about the principles of purely physical things. While I seem unsatisfied with mainstream ideas from the Aristotelian or Paracelsian schools, many who know me (including perhaps Eleutherius himself) have mistakenly thought I am committed to the Epicurean hypotheses (just as others have mistaken me for a Helmontian); but if you knew how little I have engaged with Epicurean authors and how much of Lucretius I've never bothered to read, you might think differently, especially if I were to elaborate not just on my current ideas but also my past thoughts on the principles of things. However, as I mentioned earlier, to clarify my thoughts fully would require a much longer discussion than we can have right now.

For, I should tell you that I have sometimes thought it not unfit, that to the Principles which may be assign’d to things, as the World is now Constituted, we should, if we consider the Great Mass of matter as it was whilst the Universe was in making, add another, which may Conveniently enough be call’d an Architectonick Principle or power; by which I mean those Various Determinations, and that Skilfull Guidance of the motions of the small parts of the Universal matter by the most wise Author of things, which were necessary at the beginning to turn that confus’d Chaos into this Orderly and beautifull World; and Especially, to contrive the Bodies of A(376)nimals and Plants, and the Seeds of those things whose kinds were to be propagated. For I confess I cannot well Conceive, how from matter, Barely put into Motion, and then left to it self, there could Emerge such Curious Fabricks as the Bodies of men and perfect Animals, and such yet more admirably Contriv’d parcels of matter, as the seeds of living Creatures.

For I should mention that I've sometimes thought it makes sense to consider an additional principle, which we could call an Architectural Principle or power, along with the principles that can be assigned to things, as the world is currently organized. If we think about the vast amount of matter as it was during the creation of the universe, this principle involves the various decisions and skillful direction of the movements of the small parts of universal matter by the most wise creator, which were necessary at the beginning to transform that chaotic Chaos into this orderly and beautiful world. This is especially important for designing the bodies of animals and plants, as well as the seeds of those things that were meant to be propagated. I must admit I can't really understand how, from matter simply set in motion and then left alone, such intricate structures as human bodies and perfect animals could emerge, along with even more cleverly designed pieces of matter like the seeds of living creatures.

I should likewise tell you upon what grounds, and in what sence, I suspected the Principles of the World, as it now is, to be Three, Matter, Motion and Rest. I say, as the World now is, because the present Fabrick of the Universe, and especially the seeds of things, together with the establisht Course of Nature, is a Requisite or Condition, upon whose account divers things may be made out by our three Principles, which otherwise would be very hard, if possible, to explicate.

I should also explain the reasons why I suspected that the principles of the world, as it currently exists, are three: Matter, Motion, and Rest. I mention as the world now is, because the current structure of the universe, especially the fundamental components of things, along with the established course of nature, is a requirement or condition that allows various things to be understood through our three principles, which would otherwise be very difficult, if not impossible, to clarify.

I should moreover declare in general (for I pretend not to be able to do it otherwise) not only why I Conceive that Colours, Odors, Tasts, Fluidness and Solidity, and those other qualities that Diversifie and Denominate Bodies(377) may Intelligibly be Deduced from these three; but how two of the Three Epicurean Principles (which, I need not tell, you are Magnitude, Figure and Weight) are Themselves Deducible from Matter and Motion; since the Latter of these Variously Agitating, and, as it were, Distracting the Former, must needs disjoyne its parts; which being Actually separated must Each of them necessarily both be of some Size, and obtain some shape or other. Nor did I add to our Principles the Aristotelean Privation, partly for other Reasons, which I must not now stay to insist on; and partly because it seems to be rather an Antecedent, or a Terminus a quo, then a True Principle, as the starting-Post is none of the Horses Legs or Limbs.

I should also generally state (since I can’t really do it any other way) not only why I believe that colors, smells, tastes, fluidity, and solidity, along with those other qualities that differentiate and name bodies(377), can be clearly derived from these three; but how two of the three Epicurean Principles (which, I need not tell you are Size, Shape, and Weight) can themselves be derived from Matter and Motion; since the latter, by variously acting upon and seemingly distracting the former, must separate its parts; which, when actually separated, must each necessarily have some size and take some shape or another. I also did not include the Aristotelean Privation in our principles, partly for various reasons I won't elaborate on now; and partly because it seems to be more of a starting point, or a Terminus a quo, than a true principle, just as a starting post is not one of the horse's legs or limbs.

I should also explain why and how I made rest to be, though not so considerable a Principle of things, as Motion, yet a Principle of them; partly because it is (for ought we know as Ancient at least as it, and depends not upon Motion, nor any other quality of matter; and partly, because it may enable the Body in which it happens to be,(378) both to continue in a State of Rest till some external force put it out of that state, and to concur to the production of divers Changes in the bodies that hit against it, by either quite stopping or lessning their Motion (whilst the body formerly at Rest Receives all or part of it into it self) or else by giving a new Byass, or some other Modification, to Motion, that is, To the Grand and Primary instrument whereby Nature produces all the Changes and other Qualities that are to be met with in the World.

I should also explain why and how I made rest a principle of things, though not as important as Motion, still a principle; partly because it is (as far as we know) at least as ancient as Motion and doesn't depend on it or any other quality of matter; and partly because it allows the body in which it exists,(378) to remain at rest until some external force changes that state, and to contribute to the creation of various changes in other bodies that collide with it, either by completely stopping or reducing their motion (while the previously resting body takes in all or part of it) or by imparting a new direction or modification to motion, which is the main and fundamental means by which Nature creates all the changes and other qualities found in the world.

I should likewise, after all this, explain to you how, although Matter, Motion and Rest, seem’d to me to be the Catholick Principles of the Universe, I thought the Principles of Particular bodies might be Commodiously enough reduc’d to two, namely Matter, and (what Comprehends the two other, and their effects) the result or Aggregate of those Accidents, which are the Motion or Rest, (for in some Bodies both are not to be found) the Bigness, Figure, Texture) and the thence resulting Qualities of the small parts) which are necessary to intitle the Body whereto they(379) belong to this or that Peculiar Denomination; and discriminating it from others to appropriate it to a Determinate Kind of Things, as Yellowness, Fixtness, such a Degree of Weight, and of Ductility, do make the Portion of matter wherein they Concur, to be reckon’d among perfect metals, and obtain the name of Gold.) Which Aggregate or result of Accidents you may, if You please, call either Structure or Texture.

I should also explain to you how, although Matter, Motion, and Rest seemed to be the fundamental principles of the Universe, I thought the principles of specific bodies could be conveniently reduced to two: namely Matter, and (which includes the other two and their effects) the result or Aggregate of those characteristics, which are Motion or Rest (since in some bodies, both aren't present), the Size, Shape, Texture) and the resulting Qualities of the small parts) that are needed to classify the body it belongs to as this or that particular type; and distinguishing it from others to assign it to a specific kind of things, as such as Yellowness, Fixedness, a certain Weight, and Ductility, make the piece of matter where they occur be categorized among perfect metals and be called Gold.) Which The aggregate or result of characteristics you may, if you wish, refer to as either Structure or Texture.

Though indeed, that do not so properly Comprehend the motion of the constituent parts especially in case some of them be Fluid, or what other appellation shall appear most Expressive. Or if, retaining the Vulgar Terme, You will call it the Forme of the thing it denominates, I shall not much oppose it; Provided the word be interpreted to mean but what I have express’d, and not a Scholastick Substantial Forme, which so many intelligent men profess to be to them altogether Un-intelligible.

Though Indeed, those who don’t fully understand how the individual parts move, especially if some of them are Fluid, or whatever other term seems most fitting. If you want to stick with the common term and call it the Form of the thing it labels, I won’t strongly object; as long as the term is understood to mean what I’ve expressed and not a scholarly Substantial Form, which many knowledgeable people claim is completely unintelligible to them.

But, sayes Carneades, if you remember that ’tis a Sceptick speaks to you, and that ’tis not so much my present Talk(380) to make assertions as to suggest doubts, I hope you will look upon what I have propos’d, rather as a Narrative of my former conjectures touching the principles of things, then as a Resolute Declaration of my present opinions of them; especially since although they cannot but appear Very much to their Disadvantage, If you Consider Them as they are propos’d without those Reasons and Explanations by which I could perhaps make them appear much lesse extravagant; yet I want time to offer you what may be alledg’d to clear and countenance these notions; my design in mentioning them unto you at present being, partly, to bring some Light and Confirmation to divers passages of my discourse to you; partly to shew you, that I do not (as you seem to have suspected) embrace all Epicurus his principles; but Dissent from him in some main things, as well as from Aristotle and the Chymists, in others; & partly also, or rather chiefly, to intimate to you the grounds upon which I likewise differ from Helmont in this, that whereas he ascribes almost all things, and even diseases themselves, to their determinate Seeds; I am of opinion, that(381) besides the peculiar Fabricks of the Bodies of Plants and Animals (and perhaps also of some Metals and Minerals) which I take to be the Effects of seminal principles, there are many other bodies in nature which have and deserve distinct and Proper names, but yet do but result from such contextures of the matter they are made of, as may without determinate seeds be effected by heat, cold, artificial mixtures and compositions, and divers other causes which sometimes nature imployes of her own accord; and oftentimes man by his power and skill makes use of to fashion the matter according to his Intentions. This may be exemplified both in the productions of Nature, and in those of Art; of the first sort I might name multitudes; but to shew how sleight a variation of Textures without addition of new ingredients may procure a parcel of matter divers names, and make it be Lookt upon as Different Things;

But, as Carneades says, if you remember that a Skeptic is speaking to you, and that my goal is not so much to make claims as it is to raise doubts, I hope you'll see what I’ve proposed more as a recounting of my previous thoughts on the principles of things than as a definitive statement of my current beliefs. Especially since, while they may appear quite unfavorable when considered as I've presented them without the reasons and explanations that could help make them seem less extravagant, I don’t have time to provide you with what could be said to clarify and support these ideas. My intention in mentioning them now is, partly, to shed some light and add confirmation to various points in my conversation with you; partly, to show you that I don’t (as you seem to suspect) adopt all of Epicurus’ principles; I dissent from him on some key issues, as well as from Aristotle and the Chemists on others; and partly, or rather mainly, to indicate to you the reasons for my disagreement with Helmont regarding the idea that he attributes nearly everything, including diseases, to their specific Seeds. I believe that, aside from the unique structures of the bodies of Plants and Animals (and perhaps some Metals and Minerals), which I consider to be the effects of seminal principles, there are many other substances in nature that have and deserve distinct and proper names. Yet, these result from the combinations of the materials they are made of, which can be affected by heat, cold, artificial mixtures and compositions, and various other processes that nature sometimes employs on its own; and often, humans use their skill and power to shape matter according to their intentions. This can be illustrated in both natural creations and artificial ones; I could name countless examples from nature, but to demonstrate how a slight change in textures without adding new ingredients can lead to a piece of matter having different names and being regarded as different things;

I shall invite you to observe with me, That Clouds, Rain, Hail, Snow, Froth, and Ice, may be but water, having its parts varyed as to their size and distance in respect of each other, and as to motion(383) and rest. And among Artificial Productions we may take notice (to skip the Crystals of Tartar) of Glass, Regulus, Martis-Stellatus, and particularly of the Sugar of Lead, which though made of that insipid Metal and sour salt of Vinager, has in it a sweetnesse surpassing that of common Sugar, and divers other qualities, which being not to be found in either of its two ingredients, must be confess’d to belong to the Concrete it self, upon the account of its Texture.

I invite you to notice with me that clouds, rain, hail, snow, froth, and ice can all be just water, varying in size and distance from one another, as well as in motion and rest. And among artificial creations, we can observe (skipping the crystals of tartar) glass, Regulus, Martis-Stellatus, and specifically the sugar of lead, which, although made from that bland metal and sour vinegar salt, has a sweetness that surpasses common sugar and various other qualities that cannot be found in either of its two ingredients. These must be attributed to the concrete itself because of its texture.(383)

This Consideration premis’d, it will be, I hope, the more easie to perswade you that the Fire may as well produce some new textures in a parcel of matter, as destroy the old.

This consideration in mind, I hope it will be easier to convince you that fire can create new textures in a chunk of matter just as well as it can destroy the old ones.

Wherefore hoping that you have not forgot the Arguments formerly imploy’d against the Doctrine of the Tria prima; namely that the Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, into which the Fire seems to resolve Vegetable and Animal Bodies, are yet compounded, not simple and Elementary Substances; And that (as appeared by the Experiment of Pompions) the Tria prima may be made out of Water; hoping I say, that you remember These and the other Things that I formerly represented(382) to the same purpose, I shall now add only, that if we doubt not the Truth of some of Helmonts Relation, We may well doubt whether any of these Heterogeneities be (I say not pre-existent, so as to convene together, when a plant or Animal is to be constituted but) so much as in-existent in the Concrete whence they are obtain’d, when the Chymists first goes about to resolve it; For not to insist upon the un-inflamable Spirit of such Concretes, because that may be pretended to be but a mixture of Phlegme and Salt; the Oyle or Sulphur of Vegetables or Animals is, according to him, reducible by the help of Lixiviate Salts into Sope; as that Sope is by the help of repeated Distillations from a Caput Mortuum of Chalk into insipid Water. And as for the saline substance that seems separable from mixt bodies; the same Helmonts tryalsOmne autem Alcali addita pinguedine in aqueum liquorem, qui tandem mera & simplex aqua fit, reducitur, (ut videre est in Sapone, Lazurio lapide, &c.) quoties per adjuncta fixa semen Pinguedinis deponit. Helmont. give us cause to think, That it may be a production of the Fire, which by transporting and otherwise altering the particles of the matter, does bring it to a Saline nature.

Therefore, I hope you haven't forgotten the arguments I previously used against the doctrine of the Tria prima; namely that the Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, into which fire seems to break down plant and animal bodies, are compounds and not simple, elemental substances. And that (as shown by the experiment with pumpkins) the Tria prima can be derived from water. I hope you remember these and the other things I previously presented(382) for the same reason. I will now add only that if we don't doubt the truth of some of Helmont's observations, we might reasonably question whether any of these heterogeneous substances exist (I'm not saying they exist pre-formed, ready to come together when a plant or animal is created, but rather as if they actually exist in the concrete material from which they're obtained) when the Chymists first attempts to break it down. Not to dwell on the non-flammable spirit of such concretes, which could be argued to simply be a mixture of phlegm and salt; according to him, the oil or sulfur of plants or animals can be transformed by using leaching salts into soap; as that soap can be, through repeated distillation from a Caput Mortuum of chalk, turned into tasteless water. As for the saline substance that appears to be separable from mixed bodies, Helmont's experimentsWhenever any alkali is combined with grease in a watery solution, it eventually turns into pure and simple water (as seen with soap, lazurite, etc.) whenever it deposits fixed grease through addition. Helmont. lead us to consider that it might be a product of fire, which, by transporting and altering the particles of matter, brings them to a saline nature.

For I know (sayes he, in the place formerly alledg’d to another purpose) a way to reduce all stones into a meer Salt of equal weight with the stone whence it was produc’d, and that without any of the least either Sulphur or Mercury; which asseveration of my Author would perhaps seem less incredible to You, if I durst acquaint You with all I could say upon that subject. And hence by the way you may also conclude that the Sulphur and Mercury, as they call them, that Chymists are wont to obtain from compound Bodies by the Fire, may possibly in many Cases be the productions of it; since if the same bodies had been wrought upon by the Agents employ’d by Helmont, they would have yielded neither Sulphur nor Mercury; and those portions of them which the Fire would have presented Us in the forme of Sulphureous and Mercurial Bodies would have, by Helmonts method, been exhibited to us in the form of Salt.

For I know (he says, in the place previously mentioned for another purpose) a way to turn all stones into a pure salt with the same weight as the stone it came from, and that without any trace of either sulfur or mercury. This claim from my source might seem less unbelievable to you if I could share everything I know about the topic. Also, you can conclude that the sulfur and mercury, as they call them, that chemists usually extract from compound substances using fire could potentially be produced by it. Since if the same substances were acted upon by the agents used by Helmont, they wouldn't have yielded any sulfur or mercury; and the parts of them that fire would have presented to us as sulfurous and mercurial bodies would have, using Helmont's method, been shown to us as salt.

But though (sayes Eleutherius) You have alledg’d very plausible Arguments against the tria Prima, yet I see not how it will be possible for you to avoid acknowledging that Earth and Water are(385) Elementary Ingredients, though not of Mineral Concretes, yet of all Animal and Vegetable Bodies; Since if any of these of what sort soever be committed to Distillation, there is regularly and constantly separated from it a phlegme or aqueous part and a Caput Mortuum or Earth.

But even though (says Eleutherius) you’ve presented some convincing arguments against the tria Prima, I don’t see how you can avoid admitting that Earth and Water are(385) essential elements. While they may not be part of mineral substances, they are crucial for all animal and plant bodies. Because if any of these substances, regardless of their type, undergoes distillation, what you consistently separate from it is an aqueous part, or phlegm, and a Caput Mortuum or Earth.

I readily acknowledged (answers Carneades) it is not so easy to reject Water and Earth (and especially the former) as ’tis to reject the Tria Prima, from being the Elements of mixt Bodies; but ’tis not every difficult thing that is impossible.

I easily admit (answers Carneades) that it's not so simple to dismiss Water and Earth (especially Water) as it is to reject the Tria Prima as the Elements of mixed Bodies; however, not everything that's difficult is impossible.

I consider then, as to Water, that the chief Qualities which make men give that name to any visible Substance, are, that it is Fluid or Liquid, and that it is insipid and inodorous. Now as for the tast of these qualities, I think you have never seen any of those separated substances that the Chymists call Phlegme which was perfectly devoyd both of Tast and Smell: and if you object, that yet it may be reasonably suppos’d, that since the whole Body is Liquid, the mass is nothing but Elementary Water faintly imbu’d with some of the Saline or Sul(386)phureous parts of the same Concrete, which it retain’d with it upon its Separation from the Other Ingredients. To this I answer, That this Objection would not appear so stong as it is plausible, if Chymists understood the Nature of Fluidity and Compactnesse; and that, as I formerly observ’d, to a Bodies being Fluid there is nothing necessary, but that it be divided into parts small enough; and that these parts be put into such a motion among themselves as to glide some this way and some that way, along each others Surfaces. So that, although a Concrete were never so dry, and had not any Water or other Liquor in-existent in it, yet such a Comminution of its parts may be made, by the fire or other Agents, as to turn a great portion of them into Liquor. Of this Truth I will give an instance, employ’d by our friend here present as one of the most conducive of his experiments to Illustrate the nature of Salts. If you Take, then, sea salt and melt it in the Fire to free it from the aqueous parts, and afterward distill it with a vehement Fire from burnt Clay, or any other, as dry a Caput mortuum as you please, you will, as Chymists confess,(387) by teaching it drive over a good part of the Salt in the form of a Liquor. And to satisfy some ingenious men, That a great part of this Liquor was still true sea salt brought by the Operation of the Fire into Corpuscles so small, and perhaps so advantageously shap’d, as to be capable of the forme of a Fluid Body, He did in my presence poure to such spiritual salts a due proportion of the spirit (or salt and Phlegme) of Urine, whereby having evaporated the superfluous moisture, he soon obtain’d such another Concrete, both as to tast and smell, and easie sublimableness as common Salt Armoniack, which you know is made up of grosse and undistill’d sea salt united with the salts of Urine and of Soot, which two are very neer of kin to each other. And further, to manifest that the Corpuscles of sea salt and the Saline ones of Urine retain their several Natures in this Concrete, He mixt it with a convenient quantity of Salt of Tartar, and committing it to Distillation soon regain’d his spirit of Urine in a liquid form by its self, the Sea salt staying behind with the Salt of Tartar. Wherefore it is very possible that dry Bodies may by the Fire be re(388)duc’d to Liquors without any separation of Elements, but barely by a certain kind of Dissipation and Comminution of the matter, whereby its parts are brought into a new state. And if it be still objected, that the Phlegme of mixt Bodies must be reputed water, because so weak a tast needs but a very small proportion of Salt to impart it; It may be reply’d, that for ought appears, common Salt and divers other bodies, though they be distill’d never so dry, and in never so close Vessels, will yield each of them pretty store of a Liquor, wherein though (as I lately noted) Saline Corpuscles abound, Yet there is besides a large proportion of Phlegme, as may easily be discovered by coagulating the Saline Corpuscles with any convenient Body; as I lately told you, our Friend coagulated part of the Spirit of Salt with Spirit of Urine: and as I have divers times separated a salt from Oyle of Vitriol it self (though a very ponderous Liquor and drawn from a saline body) by boyling it with a just quantity of Mercury, and then washing the newly coagulated salt from the Precipitate with fair Water. Now to what can we more probably ascribe this plenty(389) of aqueous Substance afforded us by the Distillation of such bodies, than unto this, That among the various operations of the Fire upon the matter of a Concrete, divers particles of that matter are reduc’d to such a shape and bignesse as is requisite to compose such a Liquor as Chymists are wont to call Phlegme or Water. How I conjecture this change may be effected, ’tis neither necessary for me to tell you, nor possible to do so without a much longer discourse then were now seasonable. But I desire you would with me reflect upon what I formerly told you concerning the change of Quicksilver into Water; For that Water having but a very faint tast, if any whit more than divers of those liquors that Chymists referr to Phlegme; By that experiment it seems evident, that even a metalline body, and therefore much more such as are but Vegetable or Animal, may by a simple operation of the Fire be turn’d in great part into Water. And since those I dispute with are not yet able out of Gold, or Silver, or divers other Concretes to separate any thing like Water; I hope I may be allow’d to conclude against Them, that water it self is not an(390) Universal and pre-existent Ingredient of Mixt Bodies.

I consider that for water, the main qualities that make people identify it as a visible substance are that it is fluid or liquid, and that it has no taste or smell. Now, regarding the taste of these qualities, I believe you've never encountered any of the separated substances that chemists refer to as phlegm that was completely devoid of taste and smell. If you argue that it might reasonably be assumed that since the whole mass is liquid, it is essentially just water mixed slightly with some saline or sulfurous parts of the same substance that it retained during separation from other ingredients, I would respond that this objection wouldn’t seem as strong as it does plausible, if chemists understood the nature of fluidity and compactness. As I noted before, for a body to be fluid, it only needs to be divided into small enough parts, and those parts need to move against each other in a way that allows them to glide along each other's surfaces. So, even if a substance were completely dry and had no water or other liquid in it, a sufficient breakdown of its parts could be achieved through heat or other agents, turning a significant portion of them into liquid. To illustrate this point, let me provide an example involving our friend here, who has used this in his experiments to clarify the nature of salts. If you take sea salt and melt it over a fire to remove its watery parts, and then distill it vigorously from burnt clay or any other very dry material you prefer, you will—as chemists teach—end up driving off a considerable amount of the salt in the form of liquid. To convince some clever individuals that much of this liquid is still essentially true sea salt transformed through the operation of fire into tiny particles, perhaps shaped advantageously enough to form a fluid, he, in my presence, added a suitable amount of the spirit (or salt and phlegm) of urine to those spiritual salts, and after evaporating the excess moisture, he quickly obtained a similar substance in terms of taste and smell, as well as easy sublimation, akin to common ammoniac salt. As you know, this is made of coarse, undistilled sea salt combined with the salts of urine and soot, which are quite closely related. Furthermore, to demonstrate that the particles of sea salt and those saline ones from urine maintain their distinct properties in this substance, he mixed it with an appropriate amount of tartar salt and, by distilling it, soon regained his spirit of urine in liquid form, leaving the sea salt behind with the tartar salt. Therefore, it is entirely possible for dry substances to be reduced to liquids by fire without separating their elements, merely through a specific type of dissipation and breakdown of matter that brings its parts into a new state. If it is still objected that the phlegm of mixed bodies must be considered water because such a weak taste only requires a very slight amount of salt to impart it, it can be replied that, as far as it appears, common salt and several other bodies, no matter how thoroughly distilled and contained in tightly sealed vessels, will yield a significant amount of liquid, which, though (as I recently noted) is abundant in saline particles, also contains a large portion of phlegm, as can be easily discovered by coagulating the saline particles with any suitable substance. As I mentioned earlier, our friend coagulated some of the spirit of salt with the spirit of urine, and I have several times separated a salt from sulfuric acid itself (even though it is a very heavy liquid and derived from a saline substance) by boiling it with an appropriate amount of mercury, and then washing the newly coagulated salt from the precipitate with clean water. Now, what can we more reasonably attribute this abundance of aqueous substance obtained through the distillation of such bodies to, except that through the various operations of fire on the matter of a substance, different particles of that matter are shaped and sized appropriately to make a liquid that chemists tend to call phlegm or water? How I suppose this change occurs is neither necessary for me to explain nor possible without a much longer discussion than is suitable at this time. But I would like you to reflect with me on what I previously told you about the transformation of mercury into water; for that water has only a very faint taste, if any, distinguishing it from many of those liquids that chemists associate with phlegm. From that experiment, it seems clear that even a metallic body, and even more so those that are just plant or animal-based, can largely be turned into water through a simple action of heat. And since those I am arguing with have yet to be able to separate anything resembling water from gold, silver, or several other substances, I hope I can be allowed to conclude against them that water itself is not a universal and pre-existing ingredient of mixed bodies.

But as for those Chymists that, Supposing with me the Truth of what Helmont relates of the Alkahest’s wonderful Effects, have a right to press me with his Authority concerning them, and to alledge that he could Transmute all reputedly mixt Bodies into insipid and meer Water; To those I shall represent, That though his Affirmations conclude strongly against the Vulgar Chymists (against whom I have not therefore scrupl’d to Employ Them) since they Evince that the Commonly reputed Principles or Ingredients of Things are not Permanent and indestructible, since they may be further reduc’d into Insipid Phlegme differing from them all; Yet till we can be allow’d to examine this Liquor, I think it not unreasonable to doubt whether it be not something else then meer Water. For I find not any other reason given by Helmont of his Pronouncing it so, then that it is insipid. Now Sapour being an Accident or an Affection of matter that relates to our Tongue, Palate, and other Organs of Tast, it may very possibly be,(391) that the small Parts of a Body may be of such a Size and Shape, as either by their extream Littleness, or by their slenderness, or by their Figure, to be unable to pierce into and make a perceptible Impression upon the Nerves or Membranous parts of the Organs of Tast, and what may be fit to work otherwise upon divers other Bodies than meer Water can, and consequently to Disclose it self to be of a Nature farr enough from Elementary. In Silke dyed Red or of any other Colour, whilst many Contiguous Threads makes up a skein, the Colour of the Silke is conspicuous; but if only a very few of them be lookt upon, the Colour will appear much fainter then before. But if You take out one simple Thread, you shall not easily be able to discern any Colour at all; So subtile an Object having not the Force to make upon the Optick Nerve an Impression great enough to be taken Notice of. It is also observ’d, that the best sort of Oyl-Olive is almost tastless, and yet I need not tell you how exceedingly distant in Nature Oyle is from Water. The Liquor into which I told you, upon the Relation of Lully,(392) and Eye-witness that Mercury might be Transmuted, has sometimes but a very Languid, if any Tast, and yet its Operations even upon some Mineral Bodies are very peculiar. Quicksilver it self also, though the Corpuscles it consists of be so very small as to get into the Pores of that Closest and compactest of Bodies, Gold, is yet (you know) altogether Tastless. And our Helmont several times tells us, that fair Water wherein a little Quantity f Quicksilver has lain for some time, though it acquire no certain Tast or other sensible Quality from the Quicksilver; Yet it has a power to destroy wormes in humane Bodies; which he does much, but not causelessly extoll. And I remember, a great Lady, that had been Eminent for her Beauty in Divers Courts, confess’d to me, that this insipid Liquor was of all innocent washes for the Face the best that she ever met with.

But as for those chemists who, like me, believe in the truth of what Helmont says about the Alkahest’s amazing effects, they have the right to challenge me with his authority on the topic and claim that he could transform all supposedly mixed substances into tasteless and pure water. To those, I would point out that while his claims strongly oppose the common chemists (whom I've therefore not hesitated to employ), as they show that the commonly accepted principles or ingredients of things are not permanent and indestructible, since they can be further reduced to tasteless phlegm that differs from them all; yet until we are allowed to examine this liquid, I think it’s reasonable to doubt whether it is truly just water. The only reason Helmont gives for calling it so is that it is tasteless. Now, since taste is an accident or quality of matter that relates to our tongue, palate, and other taste organs, it’s possible that the tiny parts of a substance might be of such size and shape that, due to their extreme smallness, slenderness, or form, they cannot penetrate and make a noticeable impression on the nerves or membranous parts of the taste organs, and what may interact differently with other substances than pure water does, thus revealing it to be of a nature far removed from elemental. In red silk or any other color, when many strands form a skein, the silk's color stands out; but if you only look at a few strands, the color appears much fainter than before. If you take out a single thread, you won’t easily see any color at all, as such a fine object doesn't have the force to make a significant impression on the optic nerve. It’s also observed that the best type of olive oil is almost tasteless, yet I don’t need to remind you how vastly different oil is from water. The liquid I mentioned, based on Lully’s account,(392) and eyewitnessing that mercury could be transmuted, sometimes has a very weak, if any, taste, yet its effects on certain mineral bodies are quite unique. Quicksilver itself, although the particles it consists of are so tiny that they can enter the pores of the densest and most compact of substances, gold, is still (as you know) completely tasteless. And our Helmont several times tells us that clear water, in which a small amount of f quicksilver has sat for a while, though it gains no distinct taste or other noticeable quality from the quicksilver, still possesses the power to destroy worms in human bodies, which he praises greatly, though not without reason. I also recall a great lady, renowned for her beauty in various courts, confessing to me that this tasteless liquid was the best of all innocent washes for the face that she had ever encountered.

And here let me conclude my Discourse, concerning such waters or Liquors as I have hitherto been examining, with these two Considerations. Whereof the first is, That by reason of our being wont to drink nothing but(393) Wine, Bear, Cyder, or other strongly tasted Liquors, there may be in several of these Liquors, that are wont to pass for insipid Phlegme, very peculiar and Distinct, Tasts though unheeded (and perhaps not to be perceiv’d) by Us. For to omit what Naturalists affirm of Apes, (and which probably may be true of divers other Animals) that they have a more exquisite palate than Men: among Men themselves, those that are wont to drink nothing but water may (as I have try’d in my self) Discern very sensibly a great Difference of Tasts in several waters, which one un-accustomed to drink water would take to be all alike insipid. And this is the first of my two Considerations; the Other is, That it is not impossible that the Corpuscles into which a body is dissipated by the Fire may by the Operation of the same fire have their figures so altered, or may be by associations with one another brought into little Masses of such a Size and Shape, as not to be fit to make sensible Impressions on the Tongue. And that you may not think such alterations impossible, be pleased to consider with me, that not(394) only the sharpest Spirit of Vinager having dissolved as much Corall as it can, will Coagulate with it into a Substance, which though soluble in water, like salt, is incomparably less strongly Tasted then the Vinager was before; but (what is more considerable) though the Acid salts that are carried up with Quicksilver in the preparation of common sublimate are so sharp, that being moistened with water it will Corrode some of the Metals themselves; yet this Corrosive Sublimate being twice or thrice re-sublim’d with a full proportion of insipid Quicksilver, Constitutes (as you know) that Factitious Concrete, which the Chymists call Mercurius dulcis; not because it is sweet, but because the sharpness of the Corrosive Salts is so taken away by their Combination with the Mercurial Corpuscles, that the whole mixture when it is prepar’d is judg’d to be insipid.

And let me wrap up my discussion about the waters or liquids I've been looking at with these two thoughts. First, because we're used to drinking only wine, beer, cider, or other strongly flavored drinks, there may be unique and noteworthy characteristics in what we think of as bland water, which often go unnoticed (and perhaps can't be perceived) by us. To skip over what naturalists say about apes (which may also be true for various other animals), they claim that apes have a more sensitive palate than humans. Among humans themselves, those who drink only water can notice significant differences in the taste of different waters, which someone unaccustomed to drinking water would think all taste the same. This is the first of my two thoughts; the second is that it’s possible that the particles into which a substance breaks down when heated may be changed in shape by the heat, or may clump together in such small sizes and shapes that they don’t create noticeable impressions on the tongue. And to assure you that such changes aren't impossible, consider that not(394) only does the sharpest vinegar, after dissolving as much coral as it can, combine with it into a substance that, while soluble in water like salt, tastes much milder than the vinegar did before; but (which is even more important) the acidic salts carried up with mercury in the making of common sublimates are so sharp that when mixed with water, they can eat away at some metals; yet this corrosive sublimate, when re-sublimed two or three times with a sufficient amount of bland mercury, creates (as you know) a man-made compound that chemists call Mercurius dulcis; not because it’s sweet, but because the sharpness of the corrosive salts is so diminished through their combination with the mercurial particles that the whole mixture is considered to be bland when prepared.

And thus (continues Carneades) having given you some Reasons why I refuse to admit Elementary water for a constant Ingredient of Mixt Bodies, It will be easie for me to give you an Account why I also reject Earth.(395)

And so (continues Carneades), having provided you with some reasons why I won’t consider elementary water as a constant component of mixed substances, it will be easy for me to explain why I also dismiss earth.(395)

For first, it may well be suspected that many Substances pass among Chymists under the name of Earth, because, like it, they are Dry, and Heavy, and Fixt, which yet are very farr from an Elementary Nature. This you will not think improbable, If you recall to mind what I formerly told you concerning what Chymists call the Dead Earth of things, and especially touching the copper to be drawn from the Caput Mortuum of Vitriol; And if also you allow me to subjoyn a casual but memorable Experiment made by Johannes Agricola upon the Terra Damnata of Brimstone. Our Author then tells us (in his notes upon Popius,) that in the year 1621 he made an Oyle of Sulphur; the remaining Fæces he reverberated in a moderate Fire fourteen dayes; afterwards he put them well luted up in a Wind Oven, and gave them a strong Fire for six hours, purposing to calcine the Fæces to a perfect Whiteness, that he might make someting else out of them. But coming to break the pot, he found above but very little Fæces, and those Grey and not White; but beneath there lay a fine Red Regulus(396) which he first marvell’d at and knew not what to make of, being well assured that not the least thing, besides the Fæces of the Sulphur, came into the pot; and that the Sulphur it self had only been dissolv’d in Linseed Oyle; this Regulus he found heavy and malleable almost as Lead; having caus’d a Goldsmith to draw him a Wire of it, he found it to be of the Fairest copper, and so rightly colour’d, that a Jew of Prague offer’d him a great price for it. And of this Metal he sayes he had 12 loth (or six ounces) out of one pound of Ashes or Fæces. And this Story may well incline us to suspect that since the Caput Mortuum of the Sulphur was kept so long in the fire before it was found to be any thing else then a Terra damnata, there may be divers other Residences of Bodies which are wont to pass only for the Terrestrial Fæces of things, and therefore to be thrown away as soon as the Distillation or Calcination of the Body that yielded them is ended; which yet if they were long and Skilfully examin’d by the fire would appear to be differing from Elementary Earth. And I have taken notice of the(397) unwarrantable forwardness of common Chymists to pronounce things useless Fæces, by observing how often they reject the Caput Mortuum of Verdegrease; which is yet so farr from deserving that Name, that not only by strong fires and convenient Additaments it may in some hours be reduc’d into copper, but with a certain Flux Powder I sometimes make for Recreation, I have in two or three minutes obtain’d that Metal from it. To which I may add, that having for tryall sake kept Venetian Taclk in no less a heat than that of a glass Furnace, I found after all the Brunt of the fire it had indur’d, the remaining Body though brittle and discolour’d, had not lost very much of its former Bulke, and seem’d still to be nearer of kin to Talck than to meer Earth. And I remember too, that a candid Mineralist, famous for his Skill in trying of Oars, requesting me one day to procure him a certain American Mineral Earth of a Virtuoso, who he thought would not refuse me; I enquir’d of him why he seem’d so greedy of it: he confess’d to me that this Gentleman having brought that Earth to the publick Say-Masters;(398) and they upon their being unable by any means to bring it to fusion or make it fly away, he (the Relator) had procur’d a little of it; and having try’d it with a peculiar Flux separated from it neer a third part of pure Gold; so great mistakes may be committed in hastily concluding things to be Uselesse Earth.

For starters, it’s quite likely that many substances are referred to as Earth among chemists because, like true Earth, they are dry, heavy, and stable, even though they are very far from being elemental in nature. You might not find this hard to believe if you remember what I previously mentioned about what chemists call the Dead Earth of substances, particularly regarding the copper extracted from the Caput Mortuum of Vitriol. If you also let me share a notable experiment conducted by Johannes Agricola with the Terra Damnata of Brimstone, our author notes (in his comments on Popius) that in 1621 he made an oil from sulfur; the remaining Fæces he heated in a moderate fire for fourteen days. Afterward, he tightly sealed them in a wind oven and applied a strong fire for six hours, intending to calcine the Fæces to a perfect whiteness so he could create something else from them. However, when he broke the pot, he discovered very little Fæces left, and those were grey, not white; but beneath it all was a fine red Regulus that he initially found surprising and was unsure what to make of, as he was confident that nothing besides the Fæces of the sulfur had gone into the pot, and that the sulfur itself had only been dissolved in linseed oil. He found this Regulus to be heavy and malleable almost like lead; after having a goldsmith draw a wire from it, he realized it was the finest copper and beautifully colored, so much so that a Jew from Prague offered him a high price for it. He stated he obtained 12 loth (or six ounces) from one pound of ashes or Fæces. This story suggests that since the Caput Mortuum of the sulfur was subjected to heat for so long before being transformed into something other than a Terra Damnata, there may be various other residues that are typically dismissed as mere terrestrial Fæces of substances and therefore discarded once the distillation or calcination of the body producing them is completed. However, if these were carefully examined by fire for a longer duration, they might reveal themselves to be different from elemental earth. I've also noted the unjust tendency of many common chemists to label things as useless Fæces, evident in how often they reject the Caput Mortuum of Verdegrease, which is so far from deserving that label. Not only can it be reduced to copper within hours using strong fires and appropriate additives, but with a special flux powder I sometimes make for fun, I’ve managed to extract that metal from it in just two or three minutes. Additionally, having kept Venetian Taclk at a temperature no less than that of a glass furnace, I found that even after enduring intense heat, the remaining material, though brittle and discolored, had not lost much of its original volume and still seemed more similar to talc than to mere earth. I also recall a knowledgeable mineralogist, renowned for his expertise in testing ores, asking me to obtain a certain American mineral earth from a Virtuoso who he believed wouldn’t deny me. When I inquired why he seemed so eager for it, he confessed that this gentleman had presented the earth to the public assay masters, and when they were unable to fuse it or make it disappear, he (the informant) managed to get a small sample, and after testing it with a specific flux, he separated nearly a third of pure gold from it; such significant errors can occur when hastily concluding that things are useless earth.

Next, it may be suppos’d, That as in the Resolution of Bodies by the Fire some of the dissipated Parts may, by their various occursion occasion’d by the heat, be brought to stick together so closely as to constitute Corpuscles too heavy for the Fire to carry away; the aggregate of which Corpuscles is wont to be call’d Ashes or Earrh; So other Agents may resolve the Concrete into Minute Parts, after so differing a manner as not to produce any Caput mortuum, or dry and heavy Body. As you may remember Helmont above inform’d us, that with his great Dissolvent he divided a Coal into two liquid and volatile Bodies, æquiponderant to the Coal, without any dry or fixt Residence at all.

Next, it could be suggested that just as the heating of materials causes some of the released particles to come together tightly enough to form particles that are too heavy for the fire to carry away, which we usually call Ashes or Earrh; other agents can break down substances into tiny components in such a way that they don't create any Caput mortuum or dry, heavy residue. As you may recall, Helmont previously mentioned that with his powerful solvent, he broke down a piece of coal into two liquid and volatile substances that weighed the same as the coal, without leaving any dry or fixed residue at all.

And indeed, I see not why it should be necessary that all Agents that resolve(399) Bodies into portions of differingly qualifi’d matter must work on them the same way, and divide them into just such parts, both for nature and Number, as the Fire dissipates them into. For since, as I noted before, the Bulk and shape of the small Parts of bodies, together with their Fitness and Unfitness to be easily put into Motion, may make the liquors or other substances such Corpuscles compose, as much to differ from each other as do some of the Chymical principles: Why may not something happen in this case, not unlike what is usuall in the grosser divisions of bodies by Mechanical Instruments? Where we see that some Tools reduce Wood, for Instance, into darts of several shapes, bignesse, and other qualities, as Hatchets and Wedges divide it into grosser parts; some more long and slender, as splinters; and some more thick and irregular, as chips; but all of considerable bulk; but Files and Saws makes a Comminution of it into Dust; which, as all the others, is of the more solid sort of parts; whereas others divide it into long and broad, but thin and flexible parts, as do Planes: And of this kind of parts it self there is also a(400) variety according to the Difference of the Tools employ’d to work on the Wood; the shavings made by the plane being in some things differing from those shives or thin and flexible pieces of wood that are obtain’d by Borers, and these from some others obtainable by other Tools. Some Chymical Examples applicable to this purpose I have elsewhere given you. To which I may add, that whereas in a mixture of Sulphur and Salt of Tartar well melted and incorporated together, the action of pure spirit of wine digested on it is to separate the sulphureous from the Alcalizate Parts, by dissolving the former and leaving the latter, the action of Wine (probably upon the score of its copious Phlegme) upon the same mixture is to divide it into Corpuscles consisting of both Alcalizate and Sulphureous Parts united. And if it be objected, that this is but a Factitious Concrete; I answer, that however the instance may serve to illustrate what I propos’d, if not to prove it; and that Nature her self doth in the bowels of the Earth make Decompounded Bodies, as we see in Vitriol, Cinnaber, and even in Sulphur it self; I will not urge that(401) the Fire divides new Milk into five differing Substances; but Runnet and Acid Liquors divide it into a Coagulated matter and a thin Whey: And on the other side churning divides it into Butter and Butter-milk, which may either of them be yet reduc’d to other substances differing from the former. I will not presse this, I say, nor other instances of this Nature, because I cannot in few words answer what may be objected, that these Concretes sequestred without the help of the Fire may by it be further divided into Hypostatical Principles. But I will rather represent, That whereas the same spirit of Wine will dissociare the Parts of Camphire, and make them one Liquor with it self; Aqua Fortis will also disjoyn them, and put them into motion; but so as to keep them together, and yet alter their Texture into the form of an Oyle. I know also an uncompounded Liquor, that an extraordinary Chymist would not allow to be so much as Saline, which doth (as I have try’d) from Coral it self (as fixt as divers judicious writers assert that Concrete to be) not only obtain a noble Tincture, Without the Intervention of Nitre or other(402) Salts; but will carry over the Tincture in Distillation. And if some reasons did not forbid me, I could now tell you of a Menstruum I make my self, that doth more odly dissociate the parts of Minerals very fixt in the fire. So that it seems not incredible, that there may be some Agent or way of Operation found, whereby this or that Concrete, if not all Firme Bodies, may be resolv’d into parts so very minute and so unapt to stick close to one another, that none of them may be fixt enough to stay behind in a strong Fire, and to be incapable of Distillation; nor consequently to be look’d upon as Earth. But to return to Helmont, the same Authour somewhere supply’s me with another Argument against the Earth’s being such an Element as my Adversaries would have it. For he somewhere affirms, that he can reduce all the Terrestrial parts of mixt bodies into insipid water; whence we may argue against the Earths being one of their Elements, even from that Notion of Elements which you may remember Philoponus recited out of Aristotle himself, when he lately disputed for his Chymists against Themistius. And here we may(403) on this occasion consider, that since a Body from which the Fire hath driven away its looser parts is wont to be look’d upon as Earth, upon the Account of its being endow’d with both these qualities, Tastlessenesse and Fixtnesse, (for Salt of Tartar though Fixt passes not among the Chymists for Earth, because ’tis strongly Tasted) if it be in the power of Natural Agents to deprive the Caput Mortuum of a body of either of those two Qualities, or to give them both to a portion of matter that had them not both before, the Chymists will not easily define what part of a resolv’d Concrete is earth, and make out, that that Earth is a primary, simple, and indestructible Body. Now there are some cases wherein the more skilful of the Vulgar Chymists themselves pretend to be able, by repeated Cohobations and other fit Operations, to make the Distilled parts of a Concrete bring its own Caput Mortuum over the Helme, in the forme of a Liquor; in which state being both Fluid and Volatile, you will easily believe it would not be taken for Earth. And indeed by a skilful, but not Vulgar, way of managing some Concretes, there may be more effected(404) in this kind, then you perhaps would easily think. And on the other side, that either Earth may be Generated, or at least Bodies that did not before appear to be neer Totally Earth, may be so alter’d as to pass for it, seems very possible, if HelmontNovi item modos quibus totum Salpetiæ in terram convertitur, totumque Sulphur semel dissolutum fixetur in Pulvearem terreum. Helmont in Compl. atque Mist. Elementor. Sect. 24. have done that by Art which he mentions in several places; especially where He sayes that he knowes wayes whereby Sulphur once dissolv’d is all of it fix’d into a Terrestrial Powder; and the whole Bodie of Salt-Petre may be turn’d into Earth: Which last he elsewhere sayes is Done by the Odour only of a certain Sulphureous Fire. And in another place He mentions one way of doing this, which I cannot give you an Account of; because the Materialls I had prepar’d for Trying it, were by a Servants mistake unhappily thrown away.

And honestly, I don’t see why it should be necessary for all agents that break down bodies into different types of matter to work on them in the same way and divide them into exactly the same parts in terms of nature and number as fire does. Because, as I mentioned before, the size and shape of small parts of bodies, along with their ability to move easily or not, can cause the liquids or other substances made from these particles to differ from each other just as much as some chemical principles do. Why can’t something similar happen here, like in the coarse division of bodies by mechanical tools? We see that some tools reduce wood, for instance, into pieces of various shapes and sizes, with tools like axes and wedges breaking it into larger parts; some parts are long and slender, like splinters, and others are thicker and irregular, like chips. But files and saws break it down into dust, which, like the other pieces, consists of denser parts. Other tools, like planes, split it into long, broad, thin, and flexible pieces. And within these parts, there’s also a variety based on the different tools used to work with the wood; shavings from a plane differ from the thin, flexible pieces created by borers, which are different from other pieces made by other tools. I’ve given you some chemical examples relevant to this discussion elsewhere. I can also add that in a mixture of melted sulfur and tartar salt combined well, pure alcohol acts to separate the sulfurous parts from the alkaline parts by dissolving the former and leaving the latter behind. The action of wine (probably due to its high moisture content) on the same mixture divides it into particles consisting of both alkaline and sulfurous parts combined. If someone argues that this is just a man-made mix, I counter that this example illustrates my point, if not proves it; and that nature itself creates decomposed bodies in the depths of the Earth, as seen in vitriol, cinnabar, and even sulfur itself. I won’t insist that fire divides fresh milk into five different substances, but rennet and acidic liquids break it down into a coagulated substance and thin whey. On the other hand, churning separates it into butter and buttermilk, which can each be reduced to other substances that differ from the originals. I won’t push this point or provide other similar examples because I can’t easily address any objections about how these composites, separated without the help of fire, can be further broken down into fundamental principles by it. Instead, I would suggest that while the same alcohol will separate the parts of camphor and turn them into a liquid with itself, aqua fortis can also break them apart and set them in motion, but in a way that keeps them together while altering their texture to that of oil. I’m also aware of a pure liquid that an exceptional chemist wouldn’t consider even saline, which I’ve tested with coral (which is as solid as many knowledgeable writers claim it to be) not only to get a beautiful color without using nitre or other salts but also to carry over the color in distillation. If some reasons didn’t prevent me, I could now tell you about a solvent I create myself that oddly separates the parts of very solid minerals in the fire. So it doesn’t seem unbelievable that there might be some agent or method found whereby this or that compound, if not all solid bodies, could be broken down into parts so small and unlikely to stick together that none would be solid enough to remain in a strong fire, making them incapable of distillation and therefore not considered earth. But to return to Helmont, the same author offers another argument against the Earth being an element as my opponents claim. He states somewhere that he can reduce all the earthly parts of mixed bodies into tasteless water; from which we can argue against Earth being one of their elements based on the idea of elements that you might remember Philoponus recited from Aristotle himself when he recently debated his chemists against Themistius. Here we can note that since a body from which fire has removed its looser parts is usually seen as Earth due to its lack of taste and solidity (salt of tartar is fixed yet is not considered earth among chemists because it has a strong taste), if it’s within the power of natural agents to strip the remaining parts of a body of either quality or to give both qualities to a portion of matter that previously lacked them, chemists will find it difficult to define which part of a resolved compound is earth and argue that this Earth is a primary, simple, and indestructible body. There are instances where some skilled common chemists claim to be able, through repeated cohobations and other appropriate processes, to make the distilled parts of a compound carry over its residue in liquid form; in which state, being both fluid and volatile, you can imagine it wouldn’t be regarded as earth. And indeed, through skilled but not common methods of handling certain compounds, more can be achieved in this regard than you might think. On the other side, it seems very possible that either Earth can be generated or at least bodies that previously did not seem nearly entirely earthy could be altered to pass for it, if Helmont has accomplished through art what he claims in several places; especially where he says he knows ways in which sulfur, once dissolved, can be entirely fixed into a terrestrial powder; and the entire body of saltpeter can be turned into earth, which he says elsewhere is done merely by the odor of a certain sulfurous fire. In another instance, he mentions a method of doing this that I can’t recount because the materials I prepared for testing it were, due to a servant's mistake, unfortunately thrown away.

And these Last Arguments may be confirm’d by the Experiment I have often had occasion to mention concerning the Mint I produc’d out of Water. And partly by an Observation of Rondeletius(405) concerning the Growth of Animals also, Nourish’d but by Water, which I remember’d not to mention, when I discours’d to you about the Production of things out of Water. This Diligent Writer then in his instructive book of fishes,Lib. 1. cap. 2. affirmes That his Wife kept a fish in a Glass of water without any other Food for three years; in which space it was constantly augmented, till at last it could not come out of the Place at which it was put in, and at length was too big for the glass it self though that were of a large capacity. And because there is no just reason to doubt, that this Fish, if Distill’d, would have yielded the like differing substances with other Animals: And However, because the Mint which I had out of water afforded me upon Distillation a good quantity of Charcoal, I think I may from thence inferr, that Earth it self may be produc’d out of Water; or if you please, that water may be transmuted into Earth; and consequently, that though it could be prov’d that Earth is an Ingredient actually in-existent in the Vegetable and Animal Bodies whence it may be obtain’d by Fire: yet it would(406) not necessarily follow, that Earth as a pre-existent Element Does with other Principles convene to make up those Bodies whence it seems to have been separated.

And these final arguments can be supported by the experiment I've often mentioned regarding the mint I created from water. Additionally, there's an observation from Rondeletius(405) regarding the growth of animals that were nourished solely by water, which I forgot to mention when I talked to you about producing things from water. This diligent writer, in his informative book about fish,Book 1, Chapter 2. claims that his wife kept a fish in a glass of water without any other food for three years. During that time, it kept growing until it could no longer fit in the spot where it was placed and eventually was too big for the glass itself, even though it was quite large. Since there's no good reason to doubt that this fish, if distilled, would yield similar substances to those of other animals, and considering that the mint I obtained from water gave me a good amount of charcoal upon distillation, I think I can conclude that earth itself can be produced from water; or if you prefer, that water can be transformed into earth. Therefore, while it could be proven that earth is an actual ingredient present in the vegetable and animal bodies from which it can be obtained by fire, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that earth, as a pre-existing element, comes together with other principles to form those bodies from which it seems to have been separated.

After all is said (sayes Eleutherius) I have yet something to Object, that I cannot but think considerable, since Carneades Himself alledg’d it as such; for, (continues Eleutherius smiling) I must make bold to try whether you can as luckily answer your own Arguments, as those of your Antagonists, I mean (pursues he) that part of your Concessions, wherein you cannot but remember that you supply’d your Adversaries with an Example to prove that there may be Elementary Bodies, by taking Notice that Gold may be an Ingredient in a multitude of differing Mixtures, and yet retain its Nature, notwithstanding all that the Chymists by their Fires and Corrosive Waters are able to do to Destroy it.

After everything is said (says Eleutherius), I still have something to point out that I think is important, especially since Carneades himself mentioned it. Because, (continues Eleutherius with a smile) I must bravely see if you can answer your own arguments as well as those of your opponents. I mean (he continues) that part of your concessions where you surely remember that you gave your adversaries an example to demonstrate that there can be basic elements, by noting that gold can be part of many different mixtures and still hold onto its nature, despite everything the chemists can do with their fires and corrosive waters to try to destroy it.

I sufficiently intimated to you at that time (replies Carneades) that I propos’d this Example, chiefly to shew you how Nature may be Conceived to have made Elements, not to prove that she(407) actually has made any; And you know, that a posse ad esse the Inference will not hold. But (continues Carneades) to answer more directly to the Objection drawn from Gold, I must tell You, that though I know very well that divers of the more sober Chymists have complain’d of the Vulgar Chymists, as of Mountebanks or Cheats, for pretending so vainly, as hitherto they have done, to Destroy Gold; Yet I know a certain Menstruum (which our Friend has made, and intends shortly to communicate to the Ingenious) of so piercing and powerfull a Quality, That if notwithstanding much care, and some skill, I did not much deceive myself, I have with it really destroy’d even refin’d Gold, and brought it into a Metalline Body of another colour and Nature, as I found by Tryals purposely made. And if some just Considerations did not for the present Forbid it, I could Perchance here shew you by another Experiment or Two of my own Trying, that such Menstruums may be made as to entice away and retain divers parts, from Bodies, which even the more Judicious and Experienc’d Spagyrists have pro(408)nounc’d irresoluble by the Fire. Though (which I Desire you would mark) in neither of these Instances, the Gold or Precious Stones be Analys’d into any of the Tria Prima, but only Reduc’d to new Concretes. And indeed there is a great Disparity betwixt the Operations of the several Agents whereby the Parts of a Body come to be Dissipated. As if (for Instance) you dissolve the purer sort of Vitriol in common Water, the Liquor will swallow up the Mineral, and so Dissociate its Corpuscles, that they will seem to make up but one Liquor with those of the water; and yet each of these Corpuscles retains its Nature and Texture, and remains a Vitriolate and Compounded Body. But if the same Vitriol be exposed to a strong Fire, it will then be divided not only, as before, into smaller parts, but into Heterogeneous Substances, each of the Vitriolate Corpuscles that remain’d entire in the water, being it self upon the Destruction of its former Texture dissipated or divided into new Particles of differing Qualities. But Instances more fitly applicable to this purpose, I have already given you. Wherefore to re(409)turn to what I told you about the Destruction of Gold, that Experiment Invites me to Represent to you, that Though there were either Saline, or Sulphureous, or Terrestrial Portions of Matter, whose parts were so small, so firmly united together, or of a figure so fit to make them cohere to one another, (as we see that in quicksilver broken into little Globes, the Parts brought to touch one another do immediately re-imbody) that neither the Fire, nor the usual Agents employ’d by Chymists, are pierceing enough to divide their Parts, so as to destroy the Texture of the single Corpuscles; yet it would not necessarily follow, That such Permanent Bodies were Elementary, since tis possible there may be Agents found in Nature, some of whose parts may be of such a Size and Figure as to take better Hold of some parts of these seemingly Elementary Corpuscles than these parts do of the rest, and Consequently may carry away such parts with them, and so dissolve the Texture of the Corpuscle by pulling its parts asunder. And if it be said, that at least we may this way discover the Elementary Ingredients of(410) Things, by observing into what Substances these Corpuscles that were reputed pure are divided; I answer, that it is not necessary that such a Discovery should be practicable. For if the Particles of the Dissolvent do take such firme hold of those of the Dissolved Body, they must constitute together new Bodies, as well as Destroy the Old; and the strickt Union, which according to this Hypothesis may well be suppos’d betwixt the Parts of the Emergent Body, will make it as Little to be Expected that they should be pull’d asunder, but by little Parts of matter, that to Divide them Associate Themselves and stick extreamly close to those of them which they sever from their Former Adherents. Besides that it is not impossible, that a Corpuscle suppos’d to be Elementary may have its Nature changed, without suffering a Divorce of its parts, barely by a new Texture Effected by some powerfull Agent; as I formerly told you, the same portion of matter may easily by the Operation of the Fire be turn’d at pleasure into the form of a Brittle and Transparent, or an Opacous and Malleable Body.(411)

I hinted to you back then (replies Carneades) that I proposed this example mainly to demonstrate how nature might be thought to have created elements, not to prove that she actually has done so. And you know that the inference from a posse ad esse doesn’t hold up. But (continues Carneades) to respond more directly to the objection regarding gold, I must tell you that while I know many of the more serious chemists have complained about the common chemists, whom they consider quacks or frauds for claiming, as they have, to destroy gold, I am aware of a certain Menstruum (which our friend has created and plans to share with the clever) that has such a penetrating and powerful quality that if I'm not completely deceiving myself, I have indeed destroyed refined gold with it, transforming it into a metallic body of a different color and nature, as shown by tests I conducted on purpose. If some valid considerations didn’t currently prevent it, I might even demonstrate to you with another experiment or two of my own that such Menstruums can be created to attract and retain various parts from bodies, which even the more knowledgeable and experienced Spagyrists have deemed insoluble by fire. However, (which I ask you to note) in neither of these cases do the gold or precious stones get analyzed into any of the Tria Prima, but are only reduced to new congealed forms. Moreover, there is a significant difference between the actions of the various agents that disperse the parts of a body. For instance, if you dissolve the purer kind of vitriol in plain water, the liquid will absorb the mineral and break its corpuscles apart, so they seem to merge into one liquid with the water; yet each of these corpuscles retains its nature and structure and remains a vitriolic and compound body. But if the same vitriol is exposed to a strong fire, it will then be divided not only, as before, into smaller parts, but into heterogeneous substances, each of the vitriolic corpuscles that remained intact in the water being itself dissipated or divided into new particles of differing qualities upon the destruction of its former structure. But I have already provided you with more suitable examples for this purpose. Therefore, to return to what I mentioned about the destruction of gold, that experiment prompts me to point out to you that even if there were either saline, or sulfurous, or terrestrial parts of matter, whose parts are so small, so tightly united together, or so shaped as to make them stick to each other (just as we see that in mercury broken into tiny globes, the parts that touch each other immediately re-form), neither fire nor the usual agents employed by chemists are piercing enough to separate their parts to the extent that it destroys the structure of the individual corpuscles; yet it would not necessarily imply that such permanent bodies are elementary, since it might be possible for agents found in nature to exist, some of whose parts could grasp certain parts of these seemingly elementary corpuscles better than those parts do with the rest, therefore they could carry those parts away and dissolve the structure of the corpuscle by pulling its parts apart. And if it is said that at least we can discover the elementary components of things in this way by observing into what substances these corpuscles that were thought to be pure are divided; I would answer that such a discovery doesn't need to be feasible. Because if the particles of the solvent grasp those of the dissolved body so firmly, they must together create new bodies, as well as destroy the old ones; and the strict unity, which according to this hypothesis may be assumed to exist between the parts of the emergent body, will make it equally unlikely that they would be pulled apart except by small parts of matter that, to divide them, would need to associate themselves and stick very closely to those they separate from their previous companions. Besides, it is not impossible for a corpuscle considered elementary to have its nature changed, without its parts being separated, merely through a new structure caused by some powerful agent; as I previously mentioned, the same portion of matter can easily be transformed by the action of fire into either a brittle and transparent form or an opaque and malleable body.(411)

And indeed, if you consider how farr the bare Change of Texture, whether made by Art or Nature (or rather by Nature with or without the assistance of man) can go in producing such New Qualities in the same parcel of matter, and how many inanimate Bodies (such as are all the Chymical productions of the Fire) we know are Denominated and Distinguish’d not so much by any Imaginary Substantial Form, as by the aggregate of these Qualities. If you consider these Things, I say, and that the varying of either the figure, or the Size, or the Motion, or the Situation, or Connexion of the Corpuscles whereof any of these Bodies is compos’d, may alter the Fabrick of it, you will possibly be invited to suspect, with me, that there is no great need that Nature should alwayes have Elements before hand, whereof to make such Bodies as we call mixts. And that it is not so easie as Chymists and others have hitherto Imagin’d, to discern, among the many differing Substances that may without any extraordinary skill be obtain’d from the same portion of matter, Which ought to be esteemed exclusively to all the rest,(412) its in-existent Elementary Ingredients; much lesse to determine what Primogeneal and Simple Bodies convened together to compose it. To exemplify this, I shall add to what I have already on several occasions Represented, but this single instance.

And indeed, if you think about how far the simple change of texture—whether created by art or nature (or rather by nature with or without human help)—can go in producing new qualities in the same piece of matter, and how many inanimate objects (like all the chemical products of fire) we know are named and distinguished not so much by any imaginary substantial form, but by the total of these qualities. If you reflect on these things, I say, and that changing either the shape, size, movement, position, or connection of the particles that make up any of these bodies can alter its structure, you might start to suspect, like I do, that there’s no real need for nature to always have elements ready in advance to create the types of bodies we call mixtures. And that it’s not as easy as chemists and others have thought to identify, among the many different substances that can be obtained from the same piece of matter without any special skill, which should be regarded as exclusive to all the rest, its non-existent elementary ingredients; much less to determine what primary and simple bodies came together to form it. To illustrate this, I will add to what I have already represented on several occasions, but just this single instance.(412)

You may remember (Eleutherius) that I formerly intimated to you, that besides Mint and Pompions, I produced divers other Vegetables of very differing Natures out of Water. Wherefore you will not, I presume, think it incongruous to suppose, that when a slender Vine-slip is set into the ground, and takes root, there it may likewise receive its Nutriment from the water attracted out of the earth by his roots, or impell’d by the warm’th of the sun, or pressure of the ambient air into the pores of them. And this you will the more easily believe, if you ever observ’d what a strange quantity of Water will Drop out of a wound given to the Vine, in a convenient place, at a seasonable time in the Spring; and how little of Tast or Smell this Aqua Vitis, as Physitians call it, is endow’d with, notwithstanding what concoction or alteration it may receive in its passage(413) through the Vine, to discriminate it from common Water. Supposing then this Liquor, at its first entrance into the roots of the Vine, to be common Water; Let Us a little consider how many various Substances may be obtain’d from it; though to do so, I must repeat somewhat that I had a former occasion to touch upon. And first, this Liquor being Digested in the plant, and assimilated by the several parts of it, is turn’d into the Wood, Bark, Pith, Leaves, &c. of the Vine; The same Liquor may be further dry’d, and fashon’d into Vine-buds, and these a while after are advanced unto sour Grapes, which express’d yield Verjuice, a Liquor very differing in several qualities both from Wine and other Liquors obtainable from the Vine: These soure Grapes being by the heat of the Sun concocted and ripened, turne to well tasted Grapes; These if dry’d in the Sun and Distill’d, afford a fætid Oyle and a piercing Empyreumatical Spirit, but not a Vinous Spirit; These dry’d Grapes or Raisins boyl’d in a convenient proportion of Water make a sweet Liquor, which being betimes distill’d afford an Oyle and Spirit much like(414) those of the Raisins themselves; If the juice of the Grapes be squeez’d out and put to Ferment, it first becomes a sweet and turbid Liquor, then grows lesse sweet and more clear, and then affords in common Distillations not an Oyle but a Spirit, which, though inflamable like Oyle, differs much from it, in that it is not fat, and that it will readily mingle with Water. I have likewise without Addition obtain’d in processe of time (and by an easie way which I am ready to teach you) from one of the noblest sorts of Wine, pretty store of pure and curiously figured Crystals of Salt, together with a great proportion of a Liquor as sweet almost as Hony; and these I obtained not from Must, but True and sprightly Wine; besides the Vinous Liquor, the fermented Juice of Grapes is partly turned into liquid Dregs or Leeze, and partly into that crust or dry feculancy that is commonly called Tartar; and this Tartar may by the Fire be easily divided into five differing substances; four of which are not Acid, and the other not so manifestly Acid as the Tartar it self; The same Vinous Juice after some time, especially if it be not carefully(415) kept, Degenerates into that very sour Liquor called Vinegar; from which you may obtain by the Fire a Spirit and a Crystalline Salt differing enough from the Spirit and Lixiviate Salt of Tartar. And if you pour the Dephlegm’d Spirit of the Vinegar upon the Salt of Tartar, there will be produc’d such a Conflict or Ebullition as if there were scarce two more contrary Bodies in Nature; and oftentimes in this Vinager you may observe part of the matter to be turned into an innumerable company of swimming Animals, which our Friend having divers years ago observed, hath in one of his Papers taught us how to discover clearly without the help of a Microscope.

You might remember (Eleutherius) that I previously mentioned to you that, in addition to Mint and Pompions, I was able to grow various other Vegetables of very different kinds from Water. Therefore, I assume you won’t find it strange to think that when a slender Vine cutting is planted in the ground and takes root, it can also absorb nutrients from the water drawn from the earth by its roots, or pushed in by the warmth of the sun, or the pressure of the surrounding air into its pores. You may find this easier to believe if you’ve ever noticed the surprising amount of water that drips from a cut made on the Vine, in the right place and at a suitable time in the Spring; and how little taste or smell this Aqua Vitis, as Physicians call it, has, despite whatever processing or change it may undergo as it travels(413) through the Vine, to set it apart from ordinary water. Assuming then that this liquid, when it first enters the roots of the Vine, is just common water; let’s think a bit about how many different substances can be derived from it; though to do this, I must repeat some things I’ve mentioned before. First, this liquid, after being processed in the plant and absorbed by its various parts, gets transformed into the Wood, Bark, Pith, Leaves, etc. of the Vine; this same liquid can further evaporate and turn into Vine buds, which later develop into sour Grapes that yield Verjuice, a liquid with qualities that differ significantly from Wine and other drinks made from the Vine: these sour Grapes, when heated by the Sun, get processed and ripened into tasty Grapes; if these are dried in the Sun and distilled, they produce a foul Oil and a sharp Empyreumatical Spirit, but not a Vinous Spirit; these dried Grapes or Raisins boiled with the right amount of water create a sweet liquid, which when distilled early yields an Oil and Spirit similar to(414) that of the Raisins themselves; if the juice of the Grapes is pressed and fermented, it first becomes a sweet and cloudy liquid, then less sweet and clearer, and finally yields in standard distillations not an Oil but a Spirit, which, although it can ignite like Oil, is quite different since it is not fatty and readily mixes with Water. I have also, without any additives, over time obtained (and through a simple method I can teach you) from one of the finest types of Wine a pretty good amount of pure and beautifully formed Salt Crystals, along with a large amount of a liquid that is almost as sweet as Honey; and I got this not from Must, but from true and lively Wine; besides the Vinous liquid, the fermented Juice of Grapes partly turns into liquid Dregs or Lees, and partly into that crusty or dry residue commonly referred to as Tartar; this Tartar can easily be separated into five different substances by Fire; four of which are not Acidic, and the other is not as obviously Acidic as the Tartar itself; that same Vinous Juice, after some time, especially if not properly(415) stored, degenerates into the very sour liquid known as Vinegar; from which you can obtain via Fire a Spirit and a Crystalline Salt that are quite different from the Spirit and Lixiviate Salt of Tartar. If you pour the Dephlegm’d Spirit of the Vinegar onto the Salt of Tartar, there will be such a reaction or bubbling as if there were hardly two more opposed Substances in Nature; and often in this Vinegar, you can see part of the matter is turned into countless tiny swimming Creatures, which our Friend noted several years ago and has explained to us how to observe clearly without the help of a Microscope.

Into all these various Schemes of matter, or differingly Qualifyed Bodies, besides divers others that I purposely forbear to mention, may the Water that is imbib’d by the roots of the Vine be brought, partly by the formative power of the plant, and partly by supervenient Agents or Causes, without the visible concurrence of any extraneous Ingredient; but if we be allowed to add to the Productions of this transmuted Water a few other substances, we may much(416) encrease the Variety of such Bodies; although in this second sort of Productions, the Vinous parts seem scarce to retain any thing of the much more fix’d Bodies wherewith they were mingl’d; but only to have by their Mixture with them acquir’d such a Disposition, that in their recess occasion’d by the Fire they came to be alter’d as to shape, or Bigness, or both, and associated after a New manner. Thus, as I formerly told you, I did by the Addition of a Caput Mortuum of Antimony, and some other Bodies unfit for Distillation, obtain from crude Tartar, store of a very Volatile and Crystalline Salt, differing very much in smell and other Qualities from the usuall salts of Tartar.

In all these different types of matter or uniquely qualified bodies, along with various others that I won’t specifically mention, the water absorbed by the roots of the vine can be transformed, partly through the plant's own formative power and partly through additional agents or causes, without any visible input from outside ingredients. However, if we’re allowed to mix in a few other substances with this transformed water, we can greatly increase the variety of these bodies. Although in this second type of mixture, the vinous parts hardly seem to retain any characteristics of the much more fixed bodies they were combined with; instead, they've acquired a disposition that allows them to change in shape, size, or both when influenced by fire, and they combine in a new way. As I mentioned before, I was able to produce a significant amount of a very volatile and crystalline salt with a distinctive smell and other qualities differing greatly from the usual salts of tartar, by adding a Caput Mortuum of antimony and some other substances unsuitable for distillation to crude tartar.

But (sayes Eleutherius, interrupting him at these Words) if you have no restraint upon you, I would very gladly before you go any further, be more particularly inform’d, how you make this Volatile Salt, because (you know) that such Multitudes of Chymists have by a scarce imaginable Variety of wayes, attempted in Vain the Volatilization of the Salt of Tartar, that divers learned Spagyrists speak as if it were impossible,(417) to make any thing out of Tartar, that shall be Volatile in a Saline Forme, or as some of them express it, in forma sicca. I am very farr from thinking (answers Carneades) that the Salt I have mention’d is that which Paracelsus and Helmont mean when they speak of Sal Tartari Volatile, and ascribe such great things to it. For the Salt I speak of falls extreamly short of those Virtues, not seeming in its Tast, Smel, and other Obvious Qualities, to differ very much (though something it do differ) from Salt of Harts-horn, and other Volatile Salts drawn from the Distill’d Parts of Animals. Nor have I yet made Tryals enough to be sure, that it is a pure Salt of Tartar without participating any thing at all of the Nitre, or Antimony. But because it seems more likely to proceed from the Tartar, than from any of the other Ingredients, and because the Experiment is in it self not Ignoble, and Luciferous enough (as shewing a new way to produce a Volatile Salt contrary to Acid Salts from Bodies that otherwise are Observ’d to yield no such Liquor, but either only, or chiefly, Acid ones,) I(418) shall, to satisfie you, acquaint you before any of my other Friends with the way I now use (for I have formerly us’d some others) to make it.

But (says Eleutherius, interrupting him at this point) if you have no restraint, I would really like to know more specifically how you make this volatile salt before you continue, because (as you know) many chemists have tried countless methods to volatilize salt of tartar without success, to the point that some learned Spagyrists claim it’s impossible(417) to create anything from tartar that is volatile in a saline form, or as some of them put it, in forma sicca. I don’t believe (replies Carneades) that the salt I mentioned is what Paracelsus and Helmont refer to when they talk about Sal Tartari Volatile and attribute such great qualities to it. The salt I’m discussing falls far short of those virtues, and its taste, smell, and other noticeable qualities don’t seem to differ much (though they do differ somewhat) from salt of hartshorn and other volatile salts derived from the distilled parts of animals. I haven't yet conducted enough trials to be sure that it’s a pure salt of tartar, free from any trace of nitre or antimony. However, since it appears more likely to come from tartar than from any of the other ingredients, and since the experiment itself is quite noble and illuminating (showing a new way to produce a volatile salt as opposed to acid salts from substances that are otherwise known to yield only, or mainly, acid products), I(418) will, to satisfy you, share with you before any of my other friends the method I now use (since I have previously used some others) to make it.

Take then of good Antimony, Salt-Petre and Tartar, of each an equal weight, and of Quicklime Halfe the Weight of any one of them; let these be powder’d and well mingl’d; this done, you must have in readiness a long neck or Retort of Earth, which must be plac’d in a Furnace for a naked Fire, and have at the top of it a hole of a convenient Bigness, at which you may cast in the Mixture, and presently stop it up again; this Vessel being fitted with a large Receiver must have Fire made under it, till the bottom of the sides be red hot, and then you must cast in the above prepar’d Mixture, by about halfe a spoonfull (more or less) at a time, at the hole made for that purpose; which being nimbly stopt, the Fumes will pass into the Receiver and condense there into a Liquor, that being rectifi’d will be of a pure golden Colour, and carry up that colour to a great height; this Spirit abounds in the Salt I told you of, part of which may easily enough be separated(419) by the way I use in such cases, which is, to put the Liquor into a glass Egg, or bolthead with a long and narrow Neck. For if this be plac’d a little inclining in hot sand, there will sublime up a fine Salt, which, as I told you, I find to be much of kin to the Volatile Salts of Animals: For like them it has a Saltish, not an Acid Salt; it hisses upon the Affusion of Spirit of Nitre, or Oyle of Vitriol; it precipitates Corals Dissolv’d in Spirit of Vinager; it turnes the blew Syrup of Violets immediately green; it presently turnes the Solution of Sublimate into a Milkie whiteness; and in summ, has divers Operations like those that I have observ’d in that sort of Salts to which I have resembled it: and is so Volatile, that for Distinction sake, I call it Tartari Fugitivus. What virtues it may have in Physick I have not yet had the opportunity to Try; but I am apt to think they will not be despicable. And besides that a very Ingenious Friend of mine tells me he hath done great matters against the stone, with a Preparation not very much Differing from ours, a very Experienc’d Germane Chymist finding that I was(420) unacquainted with the wayes of making this salt, told me that in a great City in his Country, a noted Chymist prizes it so highly, that he had a while since procur’d a Priviledge from the Magistrates, that none but He, or by his Licence, should vent a Spirit made almost after the same Way with mine, save that he leaves out one of the Ingredients, namely the Quick-lime. But, continues Carneades, to resume my Former Discourse where your Curiosity interrupted it;

Take equal weights of good Antimony, Saltpeter, and Tartar, and half the weight of any one of those for Quicklime. Grind them into a fine powder and mix them well. Next, you’ll need a long-necked retort made of clay, placed in a furnace with an open flame. The top should have an appropriately sized hole to add the mixture, which you will promptly seal after adding it. This retort should be set up with a large receiver below it and heated until the sides are red hot. Then, add the prepared mixture, about half a spoonful at a time, through the designated hole, quickly sealing it again. The fumes will travel into the receiver and condense into a liquid, which, after being refined, will have a pure golden color and can elevate that color significantly. This spirit is rich in the salt I mentioned, part of which can be easily separated using the method I employ in these cases: putting the liquid into a glass egg or swan-necked flask. If this is placed at a slight angle in hot sand, a fine salt will sublime, which, as I noted earlier, is similar to the volatile salts from animals. It resembles them in that it has a salty taste rather than an acidic one; it fizzes when spirit of nitre or oil of vitriol is added; it causes coral dissolved in vinegar to precipitate; it turns blue violet syrup green instantly; it transforms a solution of sublimate into a milky whiteness; and overall, it behaves similarly to the types of salts I have compared it to, and is so volatile that, for clarity, I call it Tartari Fugitivus. I haven’t had the chance to test its medicinal properties yet, but I believe they won't be insignificant. Moreover, a very clever friend of mine told me he had great success against kidney stones with a preparation quite similar to ours. A very experienced German chemist, knowing I wasn't familiar with the methods for making this salt, informed me that in a large city in his country, a well-known chemist values it so much that he recently obtained a privilege from the authorities stating that only he, or with his permission, can sell a spirit made almost the same way as mine, except he leaves out one of the ingredients, namely quicklime. But, to return to my previous discussion where your curiosity interrupted it;

Tis also a common practice in France to bury thin Plates of Copper in the Marc (as the French call it) or Husks of Grapes, whence the Juice has been squeez’d out in the Wine-press, and by this means the more saline parts of those Husks working by little and little upon the Copper, Coagulate Themselves with it into that Blewish Green Substance we in English call Verdigrease. Of which I therefore take Notice, because having Distill’d it in a Naked Fire, I found as I expected, that by the Association of the Saline with the Metalline parts, the former were so alter’d, that the Distill’d Liquor, even without Rectification, seem’d by smell(421) and Tast, strong almost like Aqua Fortis, and very much surpassed the purest and most Rectifi’d Spirit of Vinager that ever I made. And this Spirit I therefore ascribe to the salt of the Husks alter’d by their Co-Mixture with the copper (though the Fire afterwards Divorce and Transmute them) because I found this later in the bottom of the Retort in the Forme of a Crocus or redish powder: And because Copper is of too sluggish a Nature to be forc’d over in close Vessels by no stronger a heat. And that which is also somewhat Remarkable in the Destillation of good Verdigrease, (or at least of that sort that I us’d) is this, that I Never could observe that it yielded me any oyl, (unless a little black slime which was separated in Rectification may pass for Oyle) though both Tartar and Vinager, (especially the former) will by Destillation yield a Moderate proportion of it. If likewise you pour Spirit of Vinager upon Calcin’d Lead, the Acid Salt of the Liquor will by its Commixture with the Metalline parts, though Insipid, acquire in a few hours a more than Saccharine sweetness; and these Saline(422) parts being by a strong Fire Destill’d from the Lead wherewith they were imbody’d, will, as I formerly also noted to a Different purpose, leave the Metal behind them alter’d in some qualities from what it was, and will themselves ascend, partly in the Forme of an unctuous Body or Oyle, partly in that of Phlegme; but for the greatest part in the Forme of a subtile Spirit, indow’d, besides divers new Qualities which I am not now willing to take notice of, with a strong smell very much other than that of Vinager, and a piercing tast quite differing both from the Sowerness of the Spirit of Vinager, and the Sweetness of the Sugar of Lead.

It's also common in France to bury thin copper plates in what they call Marc, or grape husks left over after the juice has been squeezed out in the wine press. This process allows the saltier parts of the husks to gradually interact with the copper, resulting in a bluish-green substance that we in English refer to as verdigris. I mention this because after distilling it over an open flame, I discovered that the saline elements combined with the metal altered their properties. The distilled liquid smelled and tasted almost as strong as Aqua Fortis and far exceeded the purest, most refined vinegar spirit I had ever created. I attribute this spirit to the salt of the husks transformed by their mixture with the copper (although the fire later separates and changes them) since I found this substance at the bottom of the retort as a reddish powder, known as Crocus. This is significant because copper is too inert to be forced over in closed vessels with any heat that isn’t stronger. Another interesting aspect of distilling good verdigris (or at least the type I used) is that I never observed it producing any oil (unless a small amount of black sludge separated during rectification counts as oil), even though both tartar and vinegar (especially the former) typically yield a moderate amount through distillation. Additionally, if you pour vinegar spirit onto calcined lead, the acidic salt from the liquid will, through its interaction with the metallic parts, become surprisingly sweet within a few hours, even though it starts out bland. These saline components, when distilled from the lead with a strong fire, will leave the metal altered in some ways, and will ascend mostly as a subtle spirit, along with some unctuous body or oil and phlegm. However, they largely appear as a fine spirit that possesses various new qualities, which I don’t wish to discuss now, along with a strong smell quite different from vinegar and a sharp taste distinct from the sourness of vinegar spirit and the sweetness of lead sugar.

To be short, As the difference of Bodies may depend meerly upon that of the schemes whereinto their Common matter is put; So the seeds of Things, the Fire and the other Agents are able to alter the minute parts of a Body (either by breaking them into smaller ones of differing shapes, or by Uniting together these Fragments with the unbroken Corpuscles, or such Corpuscles among Themselves) and the same Agents partly by Altering the shape or(423) bigness of the Constituent Corpuscles of a Body, partly by driving away some of them, partly by blending others with them, and partly by some new manner of connecting them, may give the whole portion of matter a new Texture of its minute parts; and thereby make it deserve a new and Distinct name. So that according as the small parts of matter recede from each other, or work upon each other, or are connected together after this or that determinate manner, a Body of this or that denomination is produced, as some other Body happens thereby to be alter’d or destroy’d.

In short, just as the differences between bodies may be due solely to the way their common matter is arranged, the seeds of things, along with fire and other agents, can change the tiny parts of a body. They can either break them into smaller pieces of different shapes, or join these fragments with unbroken particles, or with each other. These agents can also alter the shape or size of the particles that make up a body, drive some of them away, mix in others, or connect them in new ways. This can give the entire portion of matter a new texture in its tiny parts, which may warrant a new and distinct name. Therefore, depending on how the small parts of matter move apart, interact, or connect in specific ways, a body with a certain name is formed, while some other body may be altered or destroyed as a result.

Since then those things which Chymists produce by the help of the Fire are but inanimate Bodies; since such fruits of the Chymists skill differ from one another but in so few qualities that we see plainly that by fire and other Agents we can employ, we can easily enough work as great alterations upon matter, as those that are requisite to change one of these Chymical Productions into another; Since the same portion of matter may without being Compounded with any extraneous Body, or at least Element, be made to put on such a va(424)riety of formes, and consequently to be (successively) turn’d into so many differing Bodies. And since the matter cloath’d with so many differing formes was originally but water, and that in its passage thorow so many transformations, it was never reduc’d into any of those substances which are reputed to be the Principles or Elements of mixt Bodies, except by the violence of the fire, which it self divides not Bodies into perfectly simple or Elementary substances, but into new Compounds; Since, I say, these things are so, I see not why we must needs believe that there are any Primogeneal and simple Bodies, of which as of Pre-exsistent Elements Nature is obliged to compound all others. Nor do I see why we may not conceive that she may produce the Bodies accounted mixt out of one another by Variously altering and contriving their minute parts, without resolving the matter into any such simple or Homogeneous substances as are pretended. Neither, to dispatch, do I see why it should be counted absur’d to think, that when a Body is resolv’d by the Fire into its suppos’d simple Ingredients, those substances are not true and(425) proper Elements, but rather were, as it were, Accidentally produc’d by the fire, which by Dissipating a Body into minute Parts does, if those parts be shut up in Close Vessels, for the most part necessarily bring them to Associate Themselves after another manner than before, and so bring Them into Bodies of such Different Consistences as the Former Texture of the Body, and Concurrent Circumstances make such disbanded particles apt to Constitute; as experience shews us (and I have both noted it, and prov’d it already) that as there are some Concretes whose parts when dissipated by fire are fitted to be put into such Schemes of matter as we call Oyle, and Salt, and Spirit; So there are others, such as are especially the greatest part of Minerals, whose Corpuscles being of another Size or figure, or perhaps contriv’d another Way, will not in the Fire yield Bodies of the like Consistences, but rather others of differing Textures; Not to mention, that from Gold and some other Bodies, we see not that the Fire separates any Distinct Substances at all; nor That even those Similar Parts of(426) Bodies which the Chymists Obtain by the Fire, are the Elements whose names they bear, but Compound Bodies, upon which, for their resemblance to them in consistence, or some other obvious Quality, Chymists have been pleas’d to bestow such Appellations.

Since then, the things that chemists create using fire are just inanimate objects; these products of the chemist's skill differ from each other in so few ways that it’s clear we can easily make significant changes to matter with fire and other agents, just as much as we need to change one of these chemical products into another. The same material can take on a variety of forms without being combined with any outside substance or element, and can therefore be transformed into many different bodies over time. Since the material, dressed in so many different forms, originally was just water, and throughout its many transformations, it was never reduced to any substances considered to be the basic principles or elements of mixed bodies unless by the force of fire—which itself doesn’t break bodies down into perfectly simple or elemental substances, but creates new compounds. So, I don’t see why we should believe that there are any fundamental simple bodies from which, like pre-existing elements, nature must create all others. Nor do I see why we can't think that she might produce the bodies deemed mixed from one another by variously altering and arranging their tiny parts, without breaking the matter down into such simple or homogeneous substances as are claimed. Additionally, I don’t understand why it’s seen as absurd to think that when a body is broken down by fire into its supposed simple ingredients, those substances aren’t actual true and complete elements, but rather were accidentally produced by fire, which, by breaking a body into tiny parts, generally causes those parts, when contained in closed vessels, to associate differently than they did before, thus forming bodies with different compositions based on the original structure of the body and the circumstances at the time. This is evident (as I have already noted and proven) in that while some compounds yield parts that can be reorganized into structures we call oil, salt, and spirit when dispersed by fire, there are others—especially most minerals—whose particles, being of different sizes or shapes, or perhaps grouped in some other way, will not produce bodies of similar compositions but rather different textures in fire. Not to mention that we observe fire doesn’t separate any distinct substances from gold and other materials; nor do the similar parts of bodies that chemists obtain by fire actually represent the elements they are named after, but rather compound bodies that chemists have chosen to name based on their resemblance in consistency or some other obvious quality.

The Conclusion.


THese last Words of Carneades being soon after follow’d by a noise which seem’d to come from the place where the rest of the Company was, he took it for a warning, that it was time for him to conclude or break off his Discourse; and told his Friend; By this time I hope you see, Eleutherius, that if Helmonts Experiments be true, it is no absurdity to question whether that Doctrine be one, that doth not assert Any Elements in the sence before explain’d. But because that, as divers of my Arguments suppose the marvellous power of the Alkahest in the Analyzing of Bodies, so the Effects ascrib’d to that power are so unparallell’d and stupendious,(428) that though I am not sure but that there may be such an Agent, yet little less than αυτοψια seems requisite to make a man sure there is. And consequently I leave it to you to judge, how farre those of my Arguments that are built upon Alkahestical Operations are weakned by that Liquors being Matchless; and shall therefore desire you not to think that I propose this Paradox that rejects all Elements, as an Opinion equally probable with the former part of my discourse. For by that, I hope, you are satisfied, that the Arguments wont to be brought by Chymists, to prove That all Bodies consist of either Three Principles, or Five, are far from being so strong as those that I have employ’d to prove, that there is not any certain and Determinate number of such Principles or Elements to be met with Universally in all mixt Bodies. And I suppose I need not tell you, that these Anti-Chymical Paradoxes might have been manag’d more to their Advantage; but that having not confin’d my Curiosity to Chymical Experiments, I who am but a young Man, and younger Chymist, can yet be but slenderly furnished with(429) them, in reference to so great and difficult a Task as you impos’d upon me; Besides that, to tell you the Truth, I durst not employ some even of the best Experiments I am acquainted with, because I must not yet disclose them; but however, I think I may presume that what I have hitherto Discoursed will induce you to think, that Chymists have been much more happy in finding Experiments than the Causes of them; or in assigning the Principles by which they may best be explain’d. And indeed, when in the writings of Paracelsus I meet with such Phantastick and Un-intelligible Discourses as that Writer often puzzels and tyres his Reader with, father’d upon such excellent Experiments, as though he seldom clearly teaches, I often find he knew; me thinks the Chymists, in their searches after truth, are not unlike the Navigators of Solomons Tarshish Fleet, who brought home from their long and tedious Voyages, not only Gold, and Silver, and Ivory, but Apes and Peacocks too; For so the Writings of several (for I say not, all) of your Hermetick Philosophers present us, together with divers Substantial and(430) noble Experiments, Theories, which either like Peacocks feathers make a great shew, but are neither solid nor useful; or else like Apes, if they have some appearance of being rational, are blemish’d with some absurdity or other, that when they are Attentively consider’d, makes them appear Ridiculous.


These last words of Carneades were soon followed by a noise that seemed to come from where the rest of the group was, and he took it as a sign that it was time for him to wrap up or stop his talk; he said to his friend: "By now, I hope you see, Eleutherius, that if Helmont’s experiments are true, it’s not crazy to question whether that doctrine truly asserts any elements in the sense explained earlier. But because several of my arguments rely on the incredible power of the Alkahest in analyzing substances, and since the effects attributed to that power are so unmatched and astonishing,(428) although I’m not entirely sure that such an agent exists, little less than autopsy seems necessary to make someone confident that it does exist. Therefore, I’ll let you judge how much my arguments based on Alkahestical operations are weakened by the uniqueness of that substance; I want you to understand that I’m not presenting this paradox that rejects all elements as an opinion equally likely as the earlier part of my talk. From that, I hope you're convinced that the arguments usually offered by chemists to prove that all bodies consist of either three principles or five are far weaker than those I’ve used to demonstrate that there is no certain and fixed number of such principles or elements universally found in all mixed bodies. And I assume I don’t need to tell you that these Anti-Chemical paradoxes could have been presented more favorably; however, since I haven’t limited my curiosity to chemical experiments, I, being a young man and an even younger chemist, can only have a modest grasp of(429) them in relation to such a significant and challenging task you set for me. Besides, to be honest, I wouldn’t dare employ some of the best experiments I know because I’m not yet allowed to reveal them; however, I believe I can already suggest that what I have discussed so far will lead you to consider that chemists have been much more successful in finding experiments than in explaining their causes or in identifying the principles that can best explain them. Indeed, when I read the writings of Paracelsus, I encounter such fanciful and unintelligible discussions that often confuse and frustrate readers, attributed to such excellent experiments that, although he seldom teaches clearly, I often find he understood; I think chemists in their search for truth resemble the navigators of Solomon’s Tarshish fleet, who returned from their long and arduous voyages not only with gold, silver, and ivory, but also with apes and peacocks. Similarly, the writings of several (not all) of your Hermetic philosophers present us with various substantial and(430) noble experiments, along with theories that, like peacock feathers, look impressive but are neither solid nor useful; or like apes, if they appear somewhat rational, they are marred by some absurdity or other that, upon careful consideration, makes them seem ridiculous.

Carneades having thus finish’d his Discourse against the received Doctrines of the Elements; Eleutherius judging he should not have time to say much to him before their separation, made some haste to tell him; I confess, Carneades, that you have said more in favour of your Paradoxes then I expected. For though divers of the Experiments you have mention’d are no secrets, and were not unknown to me, yet besides that you have added many of your own unto them, you have laid them together in such a way, and apply’d them to such purposes, and made such Deductions From them, as I have not Hitherto met with.

Carneades finished his talk against the accepted ideas of the Elements; Eleutherius, thinking he wouldn't have much time to speak with him before they parted ways, hurried to say, "I admit, Carneades, that you’ve presented more support for your Paradoxes than I expected. Although several of the experiments you mentioned aren't secrets and were already known to me, you’ve added many of your own to them. You’ve organized them in a way I haven't seen before, applied them to different purposes, and drawn conclusions from them that I haven't encountered until now."

But though I be therefore inclin’d to think, that Philoponus, had he heard you, would scarce have been able in all(431) points to defend the Chymical Hypothesis against the arguments wherewith you have oppos’d it; yet me thinks that however your Objections seem to evince a great part of what they pretend to, yet they evince it not all; and the numerous tryals of those you call the vulgar Chymists, may be allow’d to prove something too.

But even though I'm inclined to think that Philoponus, if he had heard you, would hardly have been able to defend the Chymical Hypothesis against all of your arguments, I still feel that while your objections seem to support a lot of what they claim, they don't cover everything; and the many experiments conducted by those you refer to as the common Chymists may also prove something.

Wherefore, if it be granted you that you have made it probable,

Wherefore, if you have made it likely,

First, that the differing substances into which mixt Bodies are wont to be resolved by the Fire are not of a pure and an Elementary nature, especially for this Reason, that they yet retain so much of the nature of the Concrete that afforded them, as to appear to be yet somewhat compounded, and oftentimes to differ in one Concrete from Principles of the same denomination in another:

First, the different substances that mixed bodies tend to break down into when exposed to fire are not purely elementary. This is mainly because they still hold onto some characteristics of the original substance they came from, making them seem somewhat compounded. Additionally, they often differ in one mixture from the components of the same type in another.

Next, that as to the number of these differing substances, neither is it precisely three, because in most Vegetable and Animal bodies Earth and Phlegme are also to be found among their Ingredients; nor is there any one determinate number into which the Fire (as it is(432) wont to be employ’d) does precisely and universally resolve all compound Bodies whatsoever, as well Minerals as others that are reputed perfectly mixt.

Next, regarding the number of these different substances, it’s not exactly three, because in most plant and animal bodies, earth and phlegm can also be found among their ingredients. Additionally, there isn’t any specific number into which fire (as it is(432) usually used) can exactly and universally break down all compound bodies, including minerals and others that are considered perfectly mixed.

Lastly, that there are divers Qualities which cannot well be refer’d to any of these Substances, as if they primarily resided in it and belong’d to it; and some other qualities, which though they seem to have their chief and most ordinary residence in some one of these Principles or Elements of mixt Bodies, are not yet so deducible from it, but that also some more general Principles must be taken in to explicate them.

Lastly, there are various qualities that can’t easily be attributed to any of these substances, as if they primarily exist within them and belong to them. Additionally, there are other qualities that, while they seem to primarily reside in one of these principles or elements of mixed bodies, aren’t entirely explainable by it alone; rather, some broader principles also need to be considered to clarify them.

If, I say, the Chymists (continues Eleutherius) be so Liberall as to make you these three Concessions, I hope you will, on your part, be so civil and Equitable as to grant them these three other propositions, namely;

If, I say, the Chemists (continues Eleutherius) are generous enough to make you these three concessions, I hope you will, in return, be polite and fair enough to grant them these three other proposals, namely;

First, that divers Mineral Bodies, and therefore probably all the rest, may be resolv’d into a Saline, a Sulphureous, and a Mercurial part; And that almost all Vegetable and Animal Concretes may, if not by the Fire alone, yet, by a skilfull Artist Employing the Fire as(433) his chief Instrument, be divided into five differing Substances, Salt, Spirit, Oyle, Phlegme and Earth; of which the three former by reason of their being so much more Operative than the Two Later, deserve to be Lookt upon as the Three active Principles, and by way of Eminence to be call’d the three principles of mixt bodies.

First, various mineral substances, and probably all others, can be broken down into a salty, a sulfurous, and a mercurial part. And almost all plant and animal substances can, if not by fire alone, then by a skilled artist using fire as(433) their main tool, be separated into five different substances: salt, spirit, oil, phlegm, and earth. The first three, due to their much greater effectiveness than the latter two, should be considered the three active principles and, as a result, are referred to as the three principles of mixed bodies.

Next, that these Principles, Though they be not perfectly Devoid of all Mixture, yet may without inconvenience be stil’d the Elements of Compounded bodies, and bear the Names of those Substances which they most Resemble, and which are manifestly predominant in them; and that especially for this reason, that none of these Elements is Divisible by the Fire into Four or Five differing substances, like the Concrete whence it was separated.

Next, although these principles aren't completely free from any mixture, they can still be called the elements of compounded bodies without any issue, and they can be named after the substances they most resemble, which are clearly dominant in them. This is particularly true because none of these elements can be divided by fire into four or five different substances, like the compound from which they were separated.

Lastly, That Divers of the Qualities of a mixt Body, and especially the Medical Virtues, do for the most part lodge in some One or Other of its principles, and may Therefore usefully be sought for in That Principle sever’d from the others.

Lastly, the various qualities of a mixed body, especially the medical virtues, generally reside in one or more of its components, and can therefore be effectively investigated in that component separately from the others.

And in this also (pursues Eleutherius)(434) methinks both you and the Chymists may easily agree, that the surest way is to Learn by particular Experiments, what differing parts particular Bodies do consist of, and by what wayes (either Actual or potential fire) they may best and most Conveniently be Separated, as without relying too much upon the Fire alone, for the resolving of Bodies, so without fruitlessly contending to force them into more Elements than Nature made Them up of, or strip the sever’d Principles so naked, as by making Them Exquisitely Elementary to make them almost useless,

And in this too (continues Eleutherius)(434) I think both you and the chemists can easily agree that the best approach is to learn through specific experiments what different components make up specific substances, and how (whether by actual or potential fire) they can be most effectively and conveniently separated. This means not relying solely on fire to break down substances, nor unnecessarily arguing to break them down into more elements than nature intended, or stripping the separated components so bare that by making them overly basic they become nearly useless.

These things (subjoynes Eleu.) I propose, without despairing to see them granted by you; not only because I know that you so much preferr the Reputation of Candor before that of subtility, that your having once suppos’d a truth would not hinder you from imbracing it when clearly made out to you; but because, upon the present occasion, it will be no disparagement to you to recede from some of your Paradoxes, since the nature and occasion of your past Discourse did not oblige you to declare your own opinions, but only to personate an Antagonist of(435) the Chymists. So that (concludes he, with a smile) you may now by granting what I propose, add the Reputation of Loving the truth sincerely to that of having been able to oppose it subtilly.

These things (subjoynes Eleu.) I bring up, not losing hope that you’ll agree to them; not just because I know you value the reputation of Candor over that of cleverness, and that your previous belief in a truth wouldn’t stop you from accepting it once it’s clearly proven to you; but also because, in this case, it won’t hurt your reputation to step back from some of your Paradoxes, since the nature of your past discussions didn’t require you to express your own beliefs, but merely to take on the role of an opponent of(435) the Chemists. So, (he concludes with a smile) by agreeing to what I suggest, you can gain the reputation of genuinely loving the truth alongside that of having skillfully opposed it.

Carneades’s haste forbidding him to answer this crafty piece of flattery; Till I shal (sayes he) have an opportunity to acquaint you with my own Opinions about the controversies I have been discoursing of, you will not, I hope, expect I should declare my own sence of the Arguments I have employ’d. Wherefore I shall only tell you thus much at present; that though not only an acute Naturalist, but even I my self could take plausible Exceptions at some of them; yet divers of them too are such as will not perhaps be readily answer’d, and will Reduce my Adversaries, at least, to alter and Reform their Hypothesis. I perceive I need not minde you that the Objections I made against the Quaternary of Elements and Ternary of Principles needed not to be oppos’d so much against the Doctrines Themselves (either of which, especially the latter, may be much more probably maintain’d than hitherto it seems to(436) have been, by those Writers for it I have met with) as against the unaccurateness and the unconcludingness of the Analytical Experiments vulgarly Relyed On to Demonstrate them.

Carneades’s rush prevented him from responding to this clever flattery; “Until I have the chance,” he said

And therefore, if either of the two examin’d Opinions, or any other Theory of Elements, shall upon rational and Experimental grounds be clearly made out to me; ’Tis Obliging, but not irrational, in you to Expect, that I shall not be so farr in Love with my Disquieting Doubts, as not to be content to change them for undoubted truths. And (concludes Carneades smiling) it were no great disparagement for a Sceptick to confesse to you, that as unsatisfy’d as the past discourse may have made you think me with the Doctrines of the Peripateticks, and the Chymists, about the Elements and Principles, I can yet so little discover what to acquiesce in, that perchance the Enquiries of others have scarce been more unsatisfactory to me, than my own have been to my self.

And so, if either of the two examined opinions, or any other theory about the elements, is clearly proven to me through rational and experimental evidence, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to expect that I won't cling to my troubling doubts if I can replace them with undeniable truths. And (concludes Carneades with a smile) it wouldn't be a big deal for a skeptic to admit that, despite how unsatisfied our earlier discussion may have made you feel about the doctrines of the Peripatetics and the chemists regarding the elements and principles, I still find it hard to settle on anything—perhaps the inquiries of others have been just as unfulfilling for me as my own have been.

FINIS.

THE END.


THe Authors constant Absence from the Presse, whilst the former Treatise was Printing, and the Nature of the Subject it self, wherewith ordinary Composers are not wont to be at all acquainted, will, ’tis hop’d, procure the Readers Excuse, till the next Edition, if the Errata be somewhat numerous, and if among them there want not some grosser mistakes, which yet are not the only Blemishes these lines must take notice of and acknowledg; For the Author now perceives that through the fault of those to whom he had committed the former Treatise in loose Sheets, some Papers that belonged to it, have altogether miscarryed. And though it have luckily enough happen’d, for the most part, that the Omission of them does not marr the Cohærence of the rest; yet till the next design’d Edition afford an opportunity of inserting them, it is thought fit that the Printer give notice of one Omission at the End of the first Dialogue; and that to these Errata there be annex’d the ensuing sheet of Paper, that was casually lost, or forgotten by him that should have put it into the Presse;(438) where it ought to have been inserted, in the 187. printed Page, at the break, betwixt the words, [Nature] in the 13th. line, and [But] in the next line after. Though it is to be noted here, that by the mistake of the Printer, in some Books, the number of 187 is placed at the top of two somewhat distant pages; and in such copies the following addition ought to be inserted in the latter of the two, as followeth.

The author's frequent absence from the press while the previous treatise was being printed, along with the nature of the subject itself—which most ordinary writers aren’t familiar with—should, hopefully, earn the readers' understanding until the next edition. This is especially relevant if the Errata are somewhat numerous and include some serious mistakes, which aren't the only issues that these lines acknowledge. The author now realizes that due to the negligence of those he entrusted with the previous treatise in loose sheets, some pages that were meant to be included have completely gone missing. Fortunately, in most cases, their absence doesn’t disrupt the coherence of the remainder; however, until the next planned edition provides an opportunity to add them, it’s deemed appropriate for the printer to highlight one omission at the end of the first dialogue. Additionally, this Errata should include the following sheet of paper that was accidentally lost or overlooked by the person responsible for submitting it to the press; it was supposed to be included on the printed page at the point between the words [Nature] in the 13th line and [But] in the line after that. It is also noteworthy that due to a printer's mistake, in some books, the number 187 appears at the top of two somewhat distant pages; in those copies, the following addition should be inserted in the latter of the two as follows.

And on this occasion I cannot but take notice, that whereas the great Argument which the Chymists are wont to employ to vilify Earth and Water, and make them be look’d upon as useless and unworthy to be reckon’d among the Principles of Mixt Bodies, is, that they are not endow’d with Specifick Properties, but only with Elementary qualities; of which they use to speak very sleightingly, as of qualities contemptible and unactive: I see no sufficient Reason for this Practice of the Chymists: For ’tis confess’d that Heat is an Elementary Quality, and yet that an almost innumerable company of considerable Things are perform’d by Heat, is manifest to(439) them that duly consider the various Phænomena wherein it intervenes as a principall Actor; and none ought less to ignore or distrust this Truth then a Chymist. Since almost all the operations and Productions of his Art are performed chiefly by the means of Heat. And as for Cold it self, upon whose account they so despise the Earth and Water, if they please to read in the Voyages of our English and Dutch Navigators in Nova Zembla and other Northern Regions what stupendious Things may be effected by Cold, they would not perhaps think it so despicable. And not to repeat what I lately recited to You out of Paracelsus himself, who by the help of an intense Cold teaches to separate the Quintessence of Wine; I will only now observe to You, that the Conservation of the Texture of many Bodies both animate and inanimate do’s so much depend upon the convenient motion both of their own Fluid and Looser Parts, and of the ambient Bodies, whether Air, Water, &c. that not only in humane Bodies we see that the immoderate or unseasonable coldness of the Air (especially when it finds such Bodies overhea(440)ted) do’s very frequently discompose the Oeconomie of them, and occasion variety of Diseases; but in the solid and durable Body of Iron it self, in which one would not expect that suddain Cold should produce any notable change, it may have so great an operation, that if you take a Wire, or other slender piece of steel, and having brought it in the fire to a white heat, You suffer it afterwards to cool leasurely in the Air, it will when it is cold be much of the same hardnesse it was of before: Whereas if as soon as You remove it from the fire, you plunge it into cold water, it will upon the sudden Refrigeration acquire a very much greater hardness then it had before; Nay, and will become manifestly brittle. And that you may not impute this to any peculiar Quality in the Water, or other Liquor, or Unctuous matter, wherein such heated steel is wont to be quenched that it may be temper’d; I know a very skillful Tradesman, that divers times hardens steel by suddenly cooling it in a Body that is neither a liquor, nor so much as moist. A tryal of that Nature I remember I have seen made. And however by the operation that Water has(441) upon steel quenched in it, whether upon the Account of its coldness and moisture, or upon that of any other of its qualities, it appears, that water is not alwaies so inefficacious and contemptible a Body, as our Chymists would have it passe for. And what I have said of the Efficacy of Cold and Heat, might perhaps be easily enough carried further by other considerations and experiments; were it not that having been mention’d only upon the Bye, I must not insist on it, but proceed to another Subject.

And on this occasion, I have to point out that while the main argument chemists use to discredit Earth and Water, claiming they are useless and unworthy of being considered among the basic Principles of Mixed Bodies, is that they lack Specific Properties and only have Elementary qualities, which they speak of dismissively as contemptible and inactive qualities, I don’t see enough reason for this practice. It’s acknowledged that Heat is an Elementary Quality, yet it’s evident to anyone who carefully considers the various phenomena it influences as a main factor that an incredibly vast range of important things occurs because of Heat; and no one should be more aware of this truth than a chemist, since almost all the operations and products of their Art rely primarily on Heat. As for Cold, which is the reason they look down on Earth and Water, if they would read about the astonishing things that can be achieved with Cold in the voyages of our English and Dutch navigators in Nova Zembla and other Northern regions, they might not find it so dismissible. Without repeating what I recently mentioned to you sourced from Paracelsus, who shows how intense Cold can help separate the Quintessence of Wine, I’d like to point out that the preservation of the structure of many living and non-living things highly depends on the suitable movement of their own Fluid and Looser Parts, as well as surrounding bodies like Air and Water. In human bodies, we often observe that excessive or untimely cold in the air—especially when it encounters overheated bodies—frequently disrupts their economy and leads to various diseases. But even in solid, durable Iron, where one wouldn't expect that sudden Cold would cause any significant change, it can have such a strong effect that if you take a Wire or another thin piece of steel, heat it to glowing in the fire, and then let it cool slowly in the air, when it’s cold, it will be almost the same hardness it had before. However, if you immediately plunge it into cold water after removing it from the fire, it will suddenly become much harder than it was before; in fact, it will become noticeably brittle. To ensure that this isn't attributed to any special Quality in the Water or any other liquid or oily substance typically used to quench heated steel for tempering, I know a very skilled tradesman who often hardens steel by quickly cooling it in a substance that is neither liquid nor even moist. I remember witnessing such an experiment. And regardless of the effect that Water has on steel when quenched in it—whether due to its coldness and moisture, or any other qualities—it appears that Water isn’t always as ineffective and contemptible as our chemists claim. What I’ve discussed about the Effects of Cold and Heat could likely be expanded upon with further considerations and experiments; however, since I’ve only mentioned it in passing, I won’t dwell on it and will move on to another topic.


Corrections.

PAg. 5. line. 6. read so qualify’d, 15. 19. Ratiocinations, 25. 15. for a, 33. 17. in a parenth. (that is no more), 51. 24. besides another Caput, 79. 10. employ, 86. 13. structure, 97. 13. Sack, ibid. 22. Sack, 104. 29. instead of appear it, will, leg. appear, it will, 118. 20. leasure, ibid. principal, 126. 20. and till it suffer, 129. 3. leg. in parenth. (notwithstanding, &c. 131. 15. so, 144. 15. Συγχυσις, 151. 5. nor have been resolved, 180. 25. Magistram, 185. 15. lately, 188. 15. tunned, 200. 1. intolerable, ibid. 2. in, 209. 21. tegularum, 210. 7. distill’d from, 215. 25. dele the, 220. 1. bodies, 228. 11. fugitive, 231. 17. instead of all lege a pound, 237. 6. Chymist, 248. 18. Ashes off, 251. 23. Deopilative), 259. 6. it self, 269. 10. ουσια αναλογος, ibid. αϛρων ϛοιχειω, 276. 25. make a parenth. at the words, by the, and shut it after the words in the 27. line at all, 280. 11. Corals, 288. 6. ascribes, 294. 22. porosity, ibid. 28. noted, 296. 1. Bodies, 305. 8. (attended, 307. 12. dele to, 308. 12. devisers, 312.(442) 14. and, 313. 3. too, 314. 24. fugitivenesse, 333. 13. origine, ibid. 24. contrivance of, 339. 1. Nay, Barthias, 142. 3. in; I will, 350. 26. absurd, 356. 11. Goutieres, 358. 6. antea, 360. 1. compertissimum, ibid. 18. Joachimica, ibid. 19 graminis, ibid. 23. sua, 362. 6. Dutch account, 363. 2. diggers), ibid. 11. and 12. lin. read damp as the Englishmen also call it, 366. 25. a height, 368. 19. in use, 370. 9. latter; And, ibid. 24. Water; I, 377. 22. Rest, ibid. 25. know), 378. 23. after Aggregate insert or complex, ibid. 27. dele ), ibid. 28. dele ), 379. 4. before as begin a parenth. which ends lin. 9. at Gold, ibid. instead of Which, put This, ibid. 12. with the word Texture should be connected the next line, Though, and this word Though is to have put before it a parenthesis, which is to end at the word Fluid in the 16th. line, 383. 3. Regulus Martis Stellatus, 382. 3. Relations, ibid. 9. Chymist, 386. 29. confesse by teaching it, 391. 8. and yet may, 392. 1. an, ibid. 12. of, 393. distinct Tasts, 397. 13. Talck, 398. 18. Earth, 399. 18. parts, 404. 8. sal-petræ, 419. 20. after it put in Sal.

PAg. 5. line. 6. read so qualified, 15. 19. Ratiocinations, 25. 15. for a, 33. 17. in a parenthesis (that is no more), 51. 24. besides another chapter, 79. 10. employ, 86. 13. structure, 97. 13. Sack, ibid. 22. Sack, 104. 29. instead of appear it, will, leg. appear, it will, 118. 20. leasure, ibid. principal, 126. 20. and until it suffers, 129. 3. leg. in parentheses (notwithstanding, &c. 131. 15. so, 144. 15. Confusion, 151. 5. nor have been resolved, 180. 25. Magistram, 185. 15. recently, 188. 15. tuned, 200. 1. intolerable, ibid. 2. in, 209. 21. tegularum, 210. 7. distilled from, 215. 25. delete the, 220. 1. bodies, 228. 11. fugitive, 231. 17. instead of all allege a pound, 237. 6. Chymist, 248. 18. Ashes off, 251. 23. Deopilative), 259. 6. itself, 269. 10. essentially equivalent, ibid. αϛρων ϛοιχειω, 276. 25. make a parenthesis at the words, by the, and close it after the words in the 27. line at all, 280. 11. Corals, 288. 6. ascribes, 294. 22. porosity, ibid. 28. noted, 296. 1. Bodies, 305. 8. (attended, 307. 12. delete to, 308. 12. devisers, 312.(442) 14. and, 313. 3. too, 314. 24. fugitiveness, 333. 13. origine, ibid. 24. contrivance of, 339. 1. Nay, Barthias, 142. 3. in; I will, 350. 26. absurd, 356. 11. Goutieres, 358. 6. antea, 360. 1. compertissimum, ibid. 18. Joachimica, ibid. 19 graminis, ibid. 23. sua, 362. 6. Dutch account, 363. 2. diggers), ibid. 11. and 12. line read damp as the Englishmen also call it, 366. 25. a height, 368. 19. in use, 370. 9. latter; And, ibid. 24. Water; I, 377. 22. Rest, ibid. 25. know), 378. 23. after Aggregate insert or complex, ibid. 27. delete ), ibid. 28. delete ), 379. 4. before as begin a parenthesis which ends line 9 at Gold, ibid. instead of Which, put This, ibid. 12. with the word Texture should be connected to the next line, Though, and this word Though is to have a parenthesis before it that ends at the word Fluid in the 16th line, 383. 3. Regulus Martis Stellatus, 382. 3. Relations, ibid. 9. Chymist, 386. 29. confess by teaching it, 391. 8. and yet may, 392. 1. an, ibid. 12. of, 393. distinct Tastes, 397. 13. Talck, 398. 18. Earth, 399. 18. parts, 404. 8. sal-petræ, 419. 20. after it put in Sal.


The Publisher doth advertise the Redaer, that seeing there are divers Experiments related in this Treatise, which the Author is not unwilling to submit to the consideration also of Forraign Philosophers, he believes this piece will be very soon translated into Latin.

The publisher is announcing to the reader that since there are several experiments discussed in this treatise, which the author is open to sharing with foreign philosophers, he believes this work will soon be translated into Latin.

END.

FINISH.

 

 



Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!