THE Discourse of Mr. Glanvill, was the first oc­casion of my writing about the Royal Society, the provocation which it gave to all sorts of men, of different Professions were such, that it might stir up any publick spirit, to support so common a cause. I was sensible of the injuries he doth unto the dead, the affronts he puts upon the living, the contempt wherewith he decries that University Learning, and those Studies by which Christi­anity hath been supported against the Arrians, the Jews, the Mahometans, and of late the Papists and Socinians: and which if they be relinquished, I profess, that I think that the Christian Religion must inevitably fall without the aid of a Miracle. It is a kind of Apostacy from the Nicene and A­thanasian Creeds to slight Metaphysicks. The distinction of the Trinity, of Essence and Personality, the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures in our Saviour, and the meritoriousness of his death, (which depends thereon,) are undermined with School-Divinity; and whosoever hath any sense or value for the benefits we derive from Controversial-Divinity, either as to the quieting of his Conscience, or convincing of his Adversaries, must detest this Enterprise of Mr. Glanvill. And methinks that whosoever doth but call to mind that variety of foolish Sects, which gave the Church so much trouble in its first In­fancy, and of late years, and considers that they had their O­riginal from want of Logick, should not condemn that Art, by which men argue rightly from sound Principles. It was no less strange to me to finde the names of Reverend, Sage, Grave, Disputer and Logician, perverted into terms of Con­tumely; yet had not all those Motives prevailed with me, but that he had so defamed the Ancient and Modern Physici­ans, until those late Innovators, that many importuned me [Page 2] to revenge my Faculty upon this Insolent Man. Besides, I had been much troubled with impertinent discourses of some, who to excuse their Ignorance in the Prognostick and Thera­pe [...]tick parts of Medicine, indulged themselves in the vili­fying all the ancient learning and reading, and asserting out of the Writings of the Society, the necessity and conveniency of new methods, in curing and abbreviating diseases. I soon espied my advantages over Mr. Glanvill. But perceiving his Defence so complicated, with the History of the Royal So­ciety, that I could not well meddle with the one without re­flecting upon the other; I set my self to peruse that also, and found the Errors therein so numerous and gross, and the tendency of it so dangerous, that it seemed but an easie, yet necessary work, to the Universities, and all Learning, as well as the profession of Methodical Phy­sick, to write against these new-fashion'd Philosophers; I remarked so many defaults in both books, that I was at last weary of taking notice of them, there being still Plus ultra. I resolve to give my Studies no further diversion in pursu­ing Mr. Glanvill; but to leave him to the scorn of some more common Pens, who being at the Universities may have more leisure then I have at present. After all this Ostentation of Learning, the things he talks and writes of are such, as he is utterly unacquainted with: the Authors he mentions he never saw, and all his discourse about the Mathe­maticks, and Mathematicians, procured him no other ac­knowledgements from a Learned and Reverend Prelate, (to whom he sent one of his Books) than a Reprimand for intermedling with what he understood not. Who can choose but smile when he reads how Apuleius im­proved the Mathematicks a [...] [...]clide? who [...]ver heard of such men as Maximus Palanudes, Achazen and Orentius? Plus Ultra. pag. 23. I suppose this last should have been Orontius, and he is so famous a Geometrician, that when Sir H. Savill (as I re­member) was to seek for an instance of a pitiful fellow; this was the man he fixed upon; He tells us that the most learned [...] of all so [...]ts and professions; Mathematicians, Page [...]. Chymists, [...]ns, [...]natomists, Antiquaries, and Philoso­phers, [Page 3] make up the Royal Society: but one would not guess so by their History! He tells us, that the former Methods of Science for so many Centuries, never brought the world so much practical beneficial knowledge, as would help towards the Cure of a Cut Finger, which he says is a palpable Plus Ultra Pag. 7. and 8. Argument, that they were fundamental mistakes, and that the way was not right. Can any one that hath heard of Podalirius and Machaon in Homer prate thus? Quos tamen Homerus non in pestilentia, neque in va­riis Corn. Celsus in Pra [...]at. generibus morborum aliquid attulisse auxilii, sed vulneribus tantummodo ferro & medicamentis mederi solitos esse propo­suit. Ex quo apparet has partes medicinae solas ab his esse ten­tatas, easque esse vetustatissimas. Had our Virtuoso but known how Hippocrates had writ about Wounds and Ulcers, and that Dieg. Laert. in vita Arist. Suidas in Ni­comacho, & Ammonius in vita Arist. Vide notas Menagii in Diog. Laert. l. 5. Aristotle himself was descended of the line of Aesculapius, and that his Ancestor Nicomachus was Physician to Amyntas King of Macedon, And that Aristotle also was a Physician, and writ several books (besides his Anatomy of Man) in that Science, and was upon that account valued by Alexander the Great, as Plutarch saith. And how little the Ancients stood in need of modern discoveries and aids to cure Cut Fin­gers, any man may judge, that knows what Scribonius Lar­gus, and Galen (in his books de Compos. Medicam. sec. genera) have written: and how this last Author (upon Philosophi­cal deductions) compounds several Medicaments to that purpose. In the Augustane Dispensatory, to this day his Tripharmacon, his Diapalma, his Diadictamnum, and o­thers are recorded. And if any thing rendred Paracelsus justly famous, it was the cure of inveterate Ulcers, not green Wounds: and that therein he did out-doe the ancient Physi­cians, is a question, I cannot grant, and have not leisure to dispute.

He reckons up Five Instruments by which the latter Ages Plus Ultra. Page 10. have improved Knowledge above Antiquity. ‘The MICRO­SCOPE, TELESCOPE, THERMOMETER, BA­ROMETER, and the AIR-PUMP. Some of which were first invented, all of them exceedingly improved by the ROYAL SOCIETY. But as for the Telescope, he con­fesses [Page 4] that to have been invented by Metius and Galilaeo.’ Which Confession of his, although it take from the Society all pretences to the invention thereof; yet it is unbecoming an inquisitive person, who might upon better Intelligence from Borellus, in his book about the Inventor of Telescopes, pub­lished in 1656. He might have learned thence that Adria­nus Metius of Alkmaer did not invent them, but one Zacha­rias Joannides of Middleburgh in Zeland, (though perhaps Baptista Porta had obscurely proposed it) and that he who may most justly come in for a second share in the glory of that invention is one Joannes Lapreius of the same Town. And whereas 'tis generally written, that Galilaeo was the first who applied those tubes to the contemplation of Celestial Ob­jects, even that appears to be false, seeing that the first In­ventor, even Zacharias Joannides, (together with his son Jo­annes Borel de vero invent. Tele­scop. c. 12. Zacharides) did make use of them to discover several new Phaenomena in the Moon and Heavens. Which mistake is unpardonable in our Virtuoso (and his Assistants) because that a more particular Enquiry hath been made of late years hereinto, then ever before. The Barometer he allows to have been first invented by Torricellius, not to try the gravita­tion of the Aire, but to prove a vacuum; Afterwards, the different ascent of the Quicksilver, being tried on the top and at the bottom of Hills in France, the opinion of the rising of the Quicksilver from the pressure of the Air, was intro­duced and illustrated. But nether is the gravitation, or pressure of the Air, a new opinion; it is as old as Aristotle, it is Pecquet. Ex­per [...]m 2. in Diss [...]at. p. 54. Ed raris. 1651. his, and he essayed to weigh the Air, in his book de coelo l. 4. sect. 29, 30, 39. He proves the Air to ponderate, because a bladder full of Air weighs heavier then one that is empty. Con­cerning which Experiment I shall adde the words of Scipi Claramontius, that learned Writer, the truth of it having Scipio Clara­mont de uni­verso l 14. c 3. been questioned, ‘ Possum tamen testari observationem Ari­stotelis dicto faventem, fuitque diligens observatio, & à di­ligentissimo pensatore, exactusque stateris & lancibus peracta, me praesente & adsistente, cum pluribus veritatis cupidis viris: pensit avimus ergo primum follem novum penitusque vacuum, primo statera quae solum unciarum differentiam indicabat, in­venimusque [Page 5] unciarum decemnovem, & totidem reperimus eun­dem follem diligenter inflatum, & solo spiritu nulloque hu­more immisso: ac postea usi sumus lance, quae semuncias quoque indicabat, tumque follem inflatum unciarum decemnovem & & semis invenimus, adeo tamen ut ibi libra in aequilibrio abs­que tractu (ut vocant nostri) adamussim permaneret: at idem vacuus non amplius in eodem signo sine tractu, sed cum tractu perstabat.’ Quocirca verum dicit Aristoteles. So that whe­ther we consider the gravitation of the Aire, or its being weighed, (which Mr. Glanvill in his Plus ultra thinks so strange of, as he expresses, ‘ To have said in elder Time, That Plus Ultra p 59. c 8. Mankind should light upon an Invention, whereby those Bodies might be weigh'd, would certainly have appeared very wilde and extravigant; and it will be so accounted for some time yet, till men have been longer, and are better acquainted Many Peripa­ [...]icks (as Claramontius) [...] impure Air of [...]or Atmo­sphear doth gra [...]itate, [...] deny it as to the pure Ele­mental Air. with this Instrument, &c.’ The opinion it self, and the attempt to weight it, is Aristotles: Nor is this Discourse ca­sually proposed once in Aristotle; but sundry times he avows the gravitation of the Air in his Problems, viz. sect. 11. probl 45. sect. 21. probl. 18. sect. 25. probl. 12, 13. From hence we may judge how well Mr. Glanvill is acquainted with the tenets of Aristotle, and how well read he is in him whom he condemns. He and his Philosophick friends dealt only in some pitiful Compendium of Physics, and from thence learned that which was the opinion of Themistius, Simplicius, and o [...]her eminent Peripatetics, as if it had been the avowed doctrine of their great Master; and thereupon they thus deliver themselves. ‘ And on this occasion, Sir, I observe the incompetency of their Mr. Glanvill, p. 122. judgments, who are Enemies to the real Experimental Philoso­phy, in that they do not (as I intimated at all, or very little, understand what they condemn. This I have some reason to say, since in the whole Compass of my Acquaintance, which is not very narrow, I profess I know not one who opposeth the Modern way, that is not almost totally unacquainted with it. And on the other side, upon the most careful turn of my thoughts among my Philosophick friends, I cannot light on one of all those that are for the free and experimental proce­dure, but who hath been very well instructed in the Peripatetick [Page 6] doctrines, which they have deserted, and most of them much Pecquet. Ex­per. Physico-Math. de Va­ [...]uo. pag. 10, &c. Parit 1651. Mersenni Phaenomena Pneumat. pag. 140. Par. 1644. better than those who are yet zealous Contenders for them.’ I might tell our Divine, that the Gravitation of the Air seems proposed in Job 28. 25. Qui fecit ventis pondus, God is said to make weight for the winde: indeed neither the gravitation of the Atmosphear, nor the notion of Aerial cylinders, pres­sing upon subjacent bodies, were any News in the world when the Society was first established. But the News of the Barometer is so pleasant, that I will insert the whole passage.

‘ But (IV.) The BAROMETER is another late Instru­ment, very helpful to useful Knowledge. That there is gra­vity even in the Air it self, and that that Element is only Plus Ultra cap. 8. pag. 59. comparatively light, is now made evident and palpahle by Experience, though Aristotle and his Schools held a diffe­rent Theory: And by the help of Quicksilver in a Tube, the way is found to measure all the degrees of Compression in the Atmosphere, and to estimate exactly any accession of weight, which the Air receives from Winds, Clouds, or Vapors. To have said in elder Times, that Mankind should light upon an Invention whereby those bodies might be weigh'd, would certainly have appeared very wilde and extravigant; and it will be so accounted for some time yet, till men have been longer, and are better acquainted with this Instrument. For we have no reason to believe it should have better luck than the Doctrine of the Circulation, the Theory of Antipodes, and all great Discoveries in their first Proposals. 'Tis im­possible to perswade some of the Indians that live near the heats of the Line, that there is any such thing as Ice in the World; but if you talk to them of Water made hard and consistent by Cold, they'l laugh at you as a notorious Romancer. And those will appear as ridiculous among the most of us, who shall affirm it possible to determine any thing of the Weight of the Wind or Clouds. But Experience turns the laugh upon the confident incredulity of the Scof­fer; and he that will not believe, needs no more for his Conviction, then the labour of a Trial. Let him then fill a Tube of Glass, of some Feet in length, with Quicksilver; [Page 7] and having sealed one end, let him stop the other with his Fin­ger, and immerge that which is so stop'd into a vessel of Mer­cury, the Tube being perpendicularly erected; let him then substract his Finger, and he will perceive the Quicksilver to descend from the Tube into the subjacent vessel, till it comes to 29 Digits or thereabouts; there, after some Vibrations, it ordinarily rests. The reason that this remainder of the Mercury doth not descend also, is, because such a Mercurial Cylinder is just equiponderant to one of the incumbent At­mosphere that leans upon the Quicksilver in the Vessel, and so hinders a further descent. It is concluded therfore, That such a Cylinder of the Air, as presses upon the Mercury in the Vessel is of equal weight to about 29 Digits of that ponderous Body in the Tube. Thus it is when the Air is in its ordinary temper: but Vapours, Winds, and Clouds alter the Standard; so that the Quicksilver sometimes falls, sometimes rises in the Glass, proportionably to the greater or less accession of Gra­vity and compression of the Air hath received from any of those alterations; and the Degree of increase beyond the Standard, is the measure of the additionable gravity.—’

There is something so charming and so divertive in this discourse, that I cannot yet dismiss it, notwithstanding what I have said out of Aristotle and Claramontius. That there is Averroes ad­heres to Ari­stotle, and holds the Air doth gravitate. gravity even in the Air it self, and that that Element is only comparatively light, was of old made evident by the Man of Stagira: nor did the Schools hold a different tenet, if you take Air for this impure mixture and Sphaera vaporosa about the Earth, which we breath, and in a special manner have to do with: as appears from Claramontius in his Book of the U­niverse, and Septalius upon Aristotle's Problems. But Mr. Glanvill neither understands what he opposeth, nor what he Asserts. For in the beginning he speaks of the gravitation of the Element of the Air; whereas that Instrument called a Barometer proposeth only a way to measure the degrees of compression in the Atmosphear, in which Region I believe no man ever denied but that the Aqueous and Terrestrial cor­puscles interspersed had their weight and pressure: Thus the ordinary temper of this Air (which is never pure) the al­terations [Page 8] of it by vapors, winds, clouds, are the subject of those contemplations, as any man knows that reads Mr. Boyle, or even Mr. Glanvill. Thus all the flourish of Rhe­torick comes to nothing, the wonder is ceased, and we come to try only a more particular way of examining the weight of a body, which no man in his wits ever denied to be ponde­rous. And here I must tell our Virtnoso, that his reading or consideration extends not so far as to the writings of Mr. Boyle, and the experiment in him. For it appears out of Him that F eri [...] ▪ Phy­ [...]c-Mechan. E▪ per. 7. the Mercurial Cylinder riseth and falls in the Magdeburgical Air-Pump, according to the lessening or vigorating of the Spring of the Air: and that upon putting in the Barometer, and closing the Engine, there appeared not any change in the height of the Mercurial Cylinder, no more then if the interposed Glass-Receiver did not hinder the immediate Besides, the difference in Quicksilver is such, that all Writers take notice of it, and I am apt to believe the Phaenomenon may be much varyed in the Cylinder, ac­cording to that. pressure of the ambient Atmosphear upon the inclosed Air; which hereby appears to bear upon the Mercury, rather by vertue of its Spring then of its weight. And if this Phaenome­non proved such in a greater and less Receiver, with a greater or less cylinder of Mercury (it being indifferent which is u­sed,) I doubt this Barometer will not determine the strength of the Spring of the Air, much less its weight. For the E­lasticity is a distinct consideration from the weight of the Air: as when some Experimentators went about to weigh the Pike, the Flownce or Spring of the Pike was no part of the weight of the Pike, though it might turn the Scales. This sole con­sideration destroys all the great promises we have from the Barometer, for if the Spring of the Air cannot be exactly known, that we must be for ever ignorant of the nature of those other bodies which influence and press upon our Air, and compress the Spring of the Air, and may have many o­perations upon it which we know not, neither can compre­hend; If the height of the Atmosphear cannot be determined, (which I make a postulatum of) the alterations in the higher Regions are unsearchable, and the mechanismes of those cor­puscular combinations incomprehensible, I shall not doubt to say, that there is not yet found out a way to measure ALL THE degrees of Compression in the Atmosphear: nay, 'tis far [Page 9] from that exactness; for the body of the Quicksilver varies not upon insensible variations in the Air: the intercepted Air in it takes off from the Nicenesse of the Experiment: and since even heat, (and perhaps other circumstances) adds to the Spring of the Air, it cannot give us that account pretend­ed, about vapours, winds and clouds.

The Essay by Tubes and Quicksilver, as ingenious as it is, yields the Society no further glory, then to have illustrated it, and perhaps to have made some further Experiments in it then those had done, to whom, as the first Inventor, (by the concession of the Historian) appertains all or most of the Ho­nour which ariseth from such accessionals. It is true, our Virtuosi fixed on it the name of Barometer, but they had done better to have called [...], or [...], or Gas, or Blas, or Diaceltateston, or some such unintelligible name, ra­ther then have termed it thus: the Appellation signifying no more an instrument to measure the gravity of the Air, then an instrument to weigh a parcel of Tarre, or indefinitely a pair of Stillyards. The Aerometer might have been a little more Emphatical; especially considering that [...] and [...] are Synonimous. Had not Aeroscopium been accom­modated to the Thermometer, it would not have been much incongruous. But I conceive, that Aerobaricon or Aerostaticon would have fitted the Experiment as well as any name I can now think upon. The Barometer was invented by Torri­cellius to prove a Vacuum, and in Mersennus's Cogitata Physico-Mathematica, you may find it applied to the examining the difference of the Air in several places. The Air-Pump was found out at Magdeburgh, and not in England; it was first published by Schottus, under the name of Instrumentum Magdeburgicum. Mr. Boyle amended it, and prosecuted many ingenious Experiments in it, for which all Philosophers are re­devable to him, but cannot proclaim him the Inventor of the Instrument, no, nor of the (notion of the Elasticity Hen. Reg. Philos Nat. l. 2 c. 12. p. [...]4. & l. 2 c. 3 p. 173. ed. 1661. of the Air, which was proposed first to the world by Henricus Regius, under the name of the spontaneous dilatation of the Air: and illustrated by Pecquetus, who first, (that I know of,) spoke of the Elater, Pecquetus pag. 19 ( quem elaterem [Page 10] nuncupo). The Microscope was invented by the aforesaid Borel ubi su­pra c. 12. p. 26. Blancanus de mundi fabr. part. 3. c 2. Zacharias Joannides: The Thermometer, or Thermosco­pium was first the invention of Sanctorius; so Blancanus saith, Audivi Doctorem quendam medicum Patavii degen­tem, qui Sanctorius cognominatur, hujus esse inventorem And now I demand of our Virtuoso, which of these Five In­struments for the Improvement of knowledge have been found out by the Royal Society: The Thermometer is the discovery of a Galenical Physician; but as to our Virtuosi nothing ap­pears but the pretension to other mens discoveries, and the im­proving of them.

‘By the Benefit indeed of one of these Instruments,the Te­lescope, we are put in hopes to find a sure way to deter­mine those mighty Questions, Whether the Earth move? or, The Planets be inhabited? And who knows which way the Conclusion may fall?’—I perceive hereby that Mr. Glanvill is not altogether convinced that the Earth moves; and I am as little satisfied, that the solution of those Que­stions is so mighty and important a thing; for if the Earth stand still, then things will be as they are now: and if it be determined otherwise, yet shall we not need to fear that the Revolution of the Earth in its Diurnal motion, either shake our houses about our ears, or shake us off by the tangent line: and as for those inhabitants of the Planets, in case all our other trading should be lost, we shall not finde out any gainful commerce with them; nor need we dread that they will piss out our Eyes as we look up. So that let their Telescopes be brought to that unima­ginable perfection, whereby to discover the inhabitants of the Planets as plainly as mites in Cheese, and let the Conclu­sion fall which way it will, things will fall out no otherwise than they do.

He inveigheth bitterly against Aristotle for his Heathen-Notions, and in his Preface to the Clergy of B. & W. wishes that the devoted Admirers of Aristotle would study his Rhetorick, History of Animals, and Mechanicks. I wonder he did not re­commend unto them the perusal of his Ethicks. Certainly they deserve as much to be read in these days, as any Piece. [Page 11] And perhaps his Politicks might contribute something to the instruction of a Nation. But how dare herecommend any book of that man of Stagira to be read, if those motives that swayed him to Anti-Aristotelism, be of any validity: Alas! he is troubled at his Heathen-Notions! Oh! rare Puritanism! But my dear Brother Scruple, ought any one to be offended at every thing that is of Heathen-Original, though it contain nothing of Gentilisme in it? Represent your adversary as you please to his Diocesan, nothing hath more of the Presby­terian and Fanatick then this Topick. Moreover, what do you think of those Atoms and Corpuscles? are they not Heathen-No­tions, and decried by the Fathers? what do you think of the terms used by the Mathematicians? what of the Languages, such as are not Sacred? what of the months, days of the year, and the names of the Stars, Constellations, &c. Must every thing be reformed according to the Coelum Stellatum Christianum of Julius Schillerus? Besides, these words in Theology, of Unity and Trinity, have as much of Heathenism in them, as they have of Platonism. I shall here take further notice of his exceptions against Aristotle, as they are Reca­pitulated here (though they are more largely proposed by him in his Letter against Aristotle, which I have fully answer­ed in a distinct Treatise) the generall censure whereof is, That they are nothing but Lies, and such as no man that is ac­quainted with any thing of ancient Literature could have ut­tered. I protest in the Presence of Almighty God, that if there be not great care taken, we may be in a little time reduced to that pass, as to believe the story of Tom Thumb, and all the Legends or falsifications of History, which the Papists obtrude upon us! This Philosophy fairly disposeth us therevnto, by taking us off from the Pedantism of Philology, and ancient reading, and by accustoming us to believe the forgeries they obtrude upon us. Methinks herein he is one as absurd as that Romish Monk was in the Pulpit. Heresbachius I. C. citante Taubmanno, J [...] H [...]n H [...]t­tingerus in [...]. Ori­ental l. 1. c. 2. p. 2 audivi, inquit, Monachum in Ecclesia declamantem, qui, nova, inquiebat, jam reperta est Lingua, quae vocatur Graeca, ab hac sedulò cavendum: Haec enim est quae parit omnes [Page 12] omnes istas heraeses. Ea lingua est liber proditus, in manibus pas­sim habetur & vocatur N. T. Plenus hic liber rubetis, & viperis. Alia etiam oriturlingua, quam vocant Hebraeam, hanc qui discunt, efficiuntur Hebraei. We are running on as fast as we can to this condition of ignorance, and shall be so inu­red to Historical untruths, magisterially imposed upon us, and disused from inquiring into them, as to beleeve any thing. He tells us the Aristotelian Philosophy aims at no more, than the instructing men in Notion and Dispute, that its Design was mean, and its Principles at the best uncertain and precari­ous,——One may guess how well our Virtuoso understands the Old Philosophy, to ascribe that unto it all in general as its aim, which is but the intendment (and that a necessary one too) of the Dialectick and Metaphysical parts. In Natu­ral Philosophy their designs were the same that our Moderns boast of, if they miscarried in the main, let us pity their mis­fortunes, but not blame their intentions. Did Aristotle in his books of Animals, or Theophrastus about Plants, instruct men only to Dispute? Had his Anatomy, and his Problems no­thing but Notion? Must we cast off all Notions? Or ought we to endeavour after the gaining of clear notions of things? If men hitherto did proceed no further, and yet pretended to be Peripateticks, blame the abuse, but condemn not the Philosophy, which hath nothing in it that puts a stop to En­quiries and Curiosity. Nor do I find that those Physicians, and others, who advanced the several parts of Natural Philoso­phy and Physick, did thereby act contrary to the rules of their Master or Tutors. It is true, that their Schools did meddle but with few points mainly, and those were such as related to Divinity, as the Eternity of the World, the Nature of the First and Second Causes, of the Soul and its Faculties, &c. as to an exact natural Philosophy, they did not much trouble themselves, nor had we had what we have, but that Averroes and the Physicians befriended us. But must Scaliger and such like suffer under these Imputations, which particularly relate unto their School-Divines? and must they also be bla­med for not teaching nor putting men upon further Enqui­ries than were necessary to that Christianity, which they were [Page 13] to support against the Mahometans and Jews? He that knows the end of their first institution by Charlemaigne, can best judge how prudential it was, and how they answered expecta­tion. But our Illiterati know nothing of that, and are al­ways reviling them where they are not faulty, and would have had them nglected that part which was necessary to the Edu­cation of all that were to live under and support Christianity, to pursue Studies that contribute little thereto, and such as were never essential to the being of a State, but have been often exploded as prejudicial thereunto. The same Apology may serve the present Universities, who do enough in breed­ing up men to be fitly qualified for Employments in Church and State, and instruct them in so much Philosophy as is ne­cessary for the explaining and defending of our Religion a­gainst Atheists, Papists, and Socinians: and whosoever shall put the accurate debate of these Points, the Art of reasoning, the Validity of Consequences, the unfolding of crytical Syllo­gisms and Fallacies, the general doctrine of Topicks, the Moral Philosophy, and Foundations of Civil Prudence, (besides Ci­vil and Ecclesiastical History and Languages) which are taught there, or ought to be by their Constitution, into the Scales on one hand, and the Mechanical Education (recommended with all the advantages that ariseth from Aphorisms of Cider, planting of Orchards, making of Optick Glasses, magnetick and S [...]e Mr Sprat, p. 329. hortulane Curiosities) on the other hand, will be able to judge easily which Studies deserve the most encouragement by the publick, and which are most useful and requisite. Having said thus much in behalf of our University-Learning (which is now contradistinguished from the Mechanical Education) I shall adde thus much in favour of our Ancestors, who gave so­lemn encouragement to Archery, Cudgel-playing, Foot-ball­playing, and other Exercises, that prepared the Vulgar to Military Performances; as the more Academical did the Gentry to State-affairs: whereas they gave little countenance to the Experimental Philosophers and Naturalists: that the practice is justified by Vegetius l. 3. c. 10. Quis autem dubi­tat artem bellicam rebus omnibus esse potiorem, per quam libertas retinetur, & dignitas propagatur, provinciae conservantur & [Page 14] Imperium? Hanc quondam relictis doctrinis omnibus Lacede­monii, & post coluere Romani. Hanc solam hodieque Barbari putant esse servandam: caetera aut in hac arte consistere, aut per hanc artem assequi se posse considunt. Haec dimicaturis est necessa­ria▪ per quam vitam retineant & victoriam consequantur. But to return to our Virtuoso! Are not the principles of Des Cartes, and the figured Atoms of Gassendus as precarious as those of Ari­stotle, and less subjected to sense? Have [...] si ac [...]piantur h [...]c Chymico­rum p [...]ij [...] assent▪ [...] [...]s p [...]ss [...]mus, ita ut pro Mercurio aqua ponatur, Sulphure ignis & [...]er, S le ter [...]a. Analogiá negatâ negatur omnia eo abire Ex aqua & terra sac li [...]um viscidum▪ & hunc cu [...]ae conglutinari & con­ [...]rescere in [...]apidem: quemadmodum naturā [...] videmus. Si hic resolvatur in ultima non in Mercurium. Sulphur, & Salem, sed in vulgata & Physica resolvetur principia▪ M. Ruland. Progyn [...]n. Alchym Qu [...]. not the Chymical Principles so much of uncertainty, as they have of Equivo­cation? Are not they precarious too, and suspicious? Are there any of those that agree amongst themselves? and do not they as little agree with Nature as those of the Peripatetick way? I will not doubt to maintain that as far as Physick is concerned in the debates; The anci­ent Philosophy better agrees with the Phaenomena of Nature, and carries us on with more assurance to work (as they phrase it) then any other, and that the diligent reading of Vallesius, Mercatus, Saxonia, Claudinus, &c. shall produce better Phy­sicians then Sylvius, Helmont, or Odorode. And whosoever resolves any of the other Questions in the Negative, what­ever he pretend, hath never considerately studied the Points. Give therefore the Aristotelians leave to hold an Hypothesis, which is accommodated to the polity of our Nation) at least as revocable, till a better be introduced; and do not proceed in an exterminative way, till something else be ready to be substituted.

If Notions might be rejected for being first proposed and used by Heathens, then is not Aristotle in a worse condition then Epicurus, Democritus, Plato, or Pythagoras; If Im­piety in the Teacher may authorize us to reject doctrines not impious, I think the condition of our Stagirite not to be worse then that of other ancient Philosophers, and better then some of the New. That there is impiety enough in Gassendus's Answer to Des Cartes, any Christian will grant, especially if he be a Protestant. And the life of Des-Cartes [Page 15] had but little of the Saint: this is I cannot finde any ground to conclude Aristotle so wicked. If we indemnifie him for having an hand in poisoning Alexander, (which perhaps is not true). In his last Will, there is much generosity: in his life, many testimonies of a singular vertue: [...]n his discourses much wit and worth. He writ an Apologie for Piety; got the walls of his destroyed Country to be rebuilt, and made excellent Laws for it. Philip chose him to breed up Alexander. And those are greater assurances that he was not so wicked, as he is reported by his adversaries▪ They repeat nothing but old lies, such as Apellicon refu­ted: and Aristocles saith, [...]. Se [...] Casaubon upon Diog. Lart. manifest. And I desire Mr. Glanvill to acquit Paracelsus from being im­pious in his life, and many of his do­ctrines. If he was a Corrupter of the Wisdom of the Ancients, for mis-ci­ting, and misrepresenting their opi­nions; and must therefore be con­demned and rejected: who can ap­prove of Mr. Sprat, Mr. Glanvill, and their Adherents? He saith, that A­ristotle was of no such superlative Ac­count in the wisest times. But he tells us not which those most wise times were, when he was in disesteem. I have not read of any more wise people, then Greece, Rome, and the Mahometans, under their first Caliphs and King Almansor. And yet all these admired him at several times. He that chargeth Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, and his Successors, (particularly the Ptolomyes of Egypt,) with Folly: and Sylla, Tully, and those other Romans that admired him, with want of wisdom; Or, who thinks that the Empire of the Moors, and their Academies at Bagdod, Fez, and Cordula, were composed of a sort of Simpletons, may go seek for the wise and the prudent in Gotam Colledge. And perhaps those Christians that celebrated Aristotle, and advanced him to that repute in their Kingdoms and Universities, were not Idiots or Changlings. That He was much opposed and slighted by the first Fathers, is an Objection that hath some truth in it, but not much to the particular prejudice of our Stagirite. For at first they hated and detested all humane Learning, and Philosophy; and when they came any of them to admit of those Sciences, then they divided into the Aristotelians and Platonists, as they did into Arians and Catholicks: That the Arians were Aristotelians, is to me as evident, as that Ma­homet taking the advantage of that faction, and of the brutal lives and ignorance of the Catholiques depending upon the Patriarch of Constantinople, did advance the Sect of Christi­ans, called Mahometans; and his Successors the Caliphs, did [Page 16] wholly employ themselves to improve [...] that the Virtuosi would enquire after the Peripatetick Philosophy, at Alex­andria after the Ptolomies and not at A­thens. And when they have done that, and studied the condition of Christianity, during the time of the Arrians, and enquired into the rise of Mahomet, the circumstances that advanced him, and contributed to the spread­ing of his doctrine, and increase of that Em­pire under the Caliphs, then they will be able to judge of the truth of what their Histo­rian, and Mr Glanvill writes in the books animadverted on, and in his Letter concern­ing Aristotle. the doctrines of Aristotle and the Pe­ripateticks. So that Aristotelism, A­rianism, and Mahometanism issued out of the same parts of the world, viz. Alexandria, and the adjacent Coun­treys: Nor was it Chance or the black ignorance of the Age, but great pru­dence in Charlemaine and his Succes­sors in the West, that brought in Ari­stotle: as any man will say that un­derstands the circumstances of those dayes. But so much History is above the reach of my Experimental Philosopher: To supply that defect, Christians must be once more told, that since their minds are enlightned with the rays of the glori­ous Gospel, they have less reason to bow down to the Dictates of an Idolater and an Heathen. And so farewel to the Rhetorick and other works of Aristotle, which our Virtuoso a little while agoe recommended unto us. Let us shake hands with Se­neca, and Epictetus, and Plato: and joyn with Tertullian in that saying. Nobis Philosophia opus non est post Jesum Christum, nec Aristotele post Evangelium. Having said thus much to these grand accusations against Aristotle, with which Mr. Glanvill was so perplexed, I suppose he may think that a more devout Admirer of Aristotle then I am, with more time, may say enough to convince him, that it was his fault, and not the Peripateticks, that he benefited so little by them. And I pray what language did Epicurus, Pythagoras, and Phi­lolaus make use of? He writ better about divine things than Plato, as Vossius witnesseth, Quanquam multa de Deo scripta sunt a Platone, accuratius tamen apertiusque de iis egit Ari­stoteles. He cites a passage of Plato, [...], and adds, that the Universe must be known by the Art, by which it was made. If it be not to be known any other way, it is unintelligible. Let him answer Dr. More's Dialogues upon that point, where he explodes the Mechanism of Nature: and reckons upon Des-Cartes as the most prodigious Fool that e­ver was, for holding that opinion. I shall adde, that Geome­tricians [Page 17] are commonly a sort of men, that being once got out of their Science, they are far from being elevated and improved thereby: And the reason is, because that the se­vere procedure of Mathematical demonstrations, and their ways they take to demonstrate things appertaining to their Science, these do not qualifie a man at all for those argumenta­tions which sway and guide in Metaphysicks, Ethicks, Poli­ticks Arist Eth. l. 6. c. 8. and Religion it self. Upon this account Aristotle ob­served, that a child might become a Mathematician, but not a Politician, or Moralist. Hence it is, that Geometricians, (except their studies have particularly acquainted them with those Dialecticks, which regulate the generality of Man­kinde in such discourses,) seldom, if ever, prove Metaphysici­ans, Religieuse, or otherwise of tolerable ratiocination: either rejecting as false, frivolous, and demonstrable those reasonings and studies, according to which humane affairs are regulated; or else ignorantly, running into Whimseys, and phantastical ways of arguing. Neither is this more manifest, then I think these two Conclusions are, which I deduce from thence in op­position to some Comical Wits in their History, viz.

That by how much more general as to publike and private use and emolument in order to domestick affairs, or Civil Prudence and the preservation of Humane Society and Government those things are, which depend upon perswasive Arguments, and those topicks and methods of ratiocination which are laid down by Aristotle, not Euclide: by so much those courses ought to be pursued, upheld and encouraged by understanding Statesmen which are subservient thereunto, above the less necessary and utile Mathematicks.

Next, That the Mechanical Education, or that whereby Hist of the R▪ [...]. p. 319. Youth are inured at first to vigorous demonstrations, and ne­cessary deductions from evident Principles, and a Philosophy that is purely Corpuscularian, ought not to be premised or prefer­red to other studies in order to the fitting men for humane life: seeing either accidentally, (yet so, as in regard of our depra­ved nature it is almost unavoidable) or intrinsecally those cour­ses dispose mens minds afterwards to Atheism, or an indiffe­rence in Religion, and inhabilitate them towards those more [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] important, but less delightful studies of Law, Policy, and Reli­gion, with their several dependencies.

I finde that Aristotle hath complained of some, that in their Explications of Nature made too much use of Geome­try. Magnenus hath complained also of them; and Conrin­gius, Bullialdus, and Ricciolus, of Kepler; and Bodinus, in his V de Riccio­l [...]m in Alma­ [...]st no [...]. l. 4. p 278. Theatrum Naturae l. 5. and all Physicians almost of Des-Car­tes his ridiculous book de Homine. And if Plato was so solicitous, that none but Geometricians should come into his School, yet he sent them very fools out, if they allowed See Mr. Par­kers censure of the Pla­tonick Phi­losophy. of his Logick and Physiology. I shall leave the further defence of Aristotle to others; only I must tell him, that Vossius in his account of Geometricians allows of Aristotle for no mean one. And we find that he supposeth his Scholars not igno­rant in Geometry, since without that knowledge they could Vide Blanca­num in loca Mathematica Aristotelis. not understand his Analyticks, nor that part of his Ethicks, where he illustrates Justice by the Arithmetical and Geome­trical proportions. And as for his Ethnical opinions, it is ri­diculous to upbraid the University-Learning Epicurus Mathesin insuper habuit: unde ut Plutarch, ait libro contra Epicurum. Philo­sophum quendam nomine Apellem, co no­mine laudabat, quod ab adolescentia nun­quam esset contaminatus disciplinis Mathe­maticis. Vossius de Philos. sect. c 8 sect. 7. with them, since they are not taught, but solidly refuted there, However if Aristotle must suffer on this Account, let not Epicurus tri­umph. He tells us that Archytas, that great Geometri­cian was scared from Mechanical and Organical Methods to the great hinderance of beneficial Improvements that way, so that he kept himself up in Abstractive Contemplations. I can­not finde any such thing in his life written by Diog. Laertius, but the contrary, [...]. Diog. Laert. l. 8. in vit. Ar­chytae. He made a Pidgeon of wood artificially to flie. So Favorinus. [...]. [...]llius x. 12. I wonder often­times how He did to commit so many mistakes; and I cannot believe that He or his Philosophick friends were ever well in­structed in the Peripatetick doctrines, who are so ill taught in all manner of Humane Learning. I resign him up [Page 19] to be the scorn and entertainment of others henceforth. Nor will I engage particularly in the dispute betwixt him and Mr. Cross. I am informed, that the Relation is very false; and I profess I have no mind to believe this Virtuoso in any thing he says. It is easie for him to misreport a pri­vate discourse; His great and admired friend Mr. Sprat re­lates general Encounters salse; He tells us, ‘ Of a mischance that befel the Christian Army in Egypt in the time of the Hist. of the R. S. Pag. 412. Holy Warre. Their strength was great and irresistible, if they had only understood that which every Egyptian could have taught them, the course and the time of the overflow­ing of the Nile. For the want of that slender knowledge, the bravest men of all Christendome, were led up to the Neck in the River, and were forced to yield to the Enemies condi­tions without striking a stroke. This was occasioned by the stupidity of the Cardinal who commanded them. If he had been less skilful in the Schoolmen and more in Nature, that dreadful disaster had never happened.—’ Such an untruth as the Historian tells here, such perhaps is the Narrative of what passed betwixt him and Mr. Cross. I cannot finde any such Story in Fullers Holy Warre, but the contrary, viz. ‘E­gypt Fallers Holy War, l. 3. c▪ 27. is a low level Countrey except some few advantages, which the Egyptians had fortified for themselves. Through the midst of the Land runs the River Nilus, whose streams they had so bridled with banks and sluces, that they could keep it to be their own servant, and make it their Enemies Master at pleasure. The Christians confidently marched on, and the Turks per­ceiving the Game was come within the wile, pierced their banks, and unmuzling the River, let it run open mouth upon them, yet so that at the first they drowned them but up to the middle— not to the neck.’ There is no body charges the Cardinal Pelagius, who was Legate, and commanded the Ar­my there, for invading Egypt in an unseasonable time, nor with being ignorant of the time when Nile did overflow. The Christians were not ignorant of that, who had discover­ed and invaded Egypt before in 1218, and this was but two years after in 1220. The Egyptians, 'tis true, dammed up the River (which was now low) and upon the approach of [Page 20] the Cardinal cut their banks, and so gained the victory. That the Cardinal was no Souldier, and unacquainted with Stra­tagems of war, I grant; and for this Historians▪ condemn him, but not for being ignorant of that part of Natural Phi­losophy. A Member of the Royal Society published lately an account of the Original of Nile. The Description had no­thing of News in it to any Scholar, that was material. But they should have procured an account of the manner of the inundation of Nile, for the Historian is more ignorant then the Gardinal of it. Had it been the time of the beginning of the overflowing of Nile, they might have retired easily to Prosper. Al­pin. de Medic. Aegypt. l 1. c. 8. Damiata without damage; for it never exceeds in rising a­bove ten inches each day, sometimes it ariseth not eight inches. Just such an Account, I fear, doth I know not what Logick Mr Glanvill read at Oxford, but 'tis Ignoratio Elenchi in him, to oppose what Mr. Cross might say about Asia as 'twas of old named, and bounded▪ and travelled over, with the new discoveries of China, Japan, &c. which rather consti­tute a fifth part of the world, then are in­cluded in Asia. That is Asia, which they im­ported that gave it the name, not what others affix to it. By the same Sophistry it may be said that the former Kings were not Kings of France, because late Conquests have enlar­ged the borders. Nor was Aristotle implicitly guided by the relations of those Hunters, &c. he diligent­ly inquired into their reports, and oftentimes refutes the vulgar stories. See this particularly asserted by Federicus Bonaventura de partu Octomestri l. 5. c. 60. Mr. Glanvill give of Mr. Cross's dis­courses, whom report speaks so ad­vantagiously of, that we must give the Lie to general fame, or believe him a very learned Person, as well as pious. Perhaps he, as well as my Lord Eacon might suspect the truth of those Te­lescopes. And perhaps also he might be mistaken in saying that Aristotle did travel all over Asia: yet, however that, that Jonssius ( de Script Philos. l. 1. c. 18.) disproves that opinion▪ yet no less man then Josephus l. 1. adv. Apionem, was deceived as well as Mr. Cross. Solinus also c. 14▪ and Ammonius in the life of Aristotle say, that Aristotle did accompany Alexander in his Asiatick▪ Expedition. And I prosess my self in an errour as well as Mr. Cross, if it be not true, that Aristotle had sundry advantages to pen his Hi­story of Animals which our Virtuosi want. Pliny Nat. Hist l. 8. c. 16. saith▪ Alexandro Magno rege inflammato cupidine ani­malium naturas noscendi, delegataque hac commentatione Ari­stoteli, summo in omni doctrina viro, aliquot millia hominum in totius Asiae, Greciae que tractu parere jussa, omnium quos ve­natus, aucupia, piscatusque alebant: quibusque vivaria, ar­menta, [Page 21] alvearia, piscinae, aviaria in cura erant: nequid us­quam gentium ignoraretur ab eo: quos percontando, quin­quaginta fermò volumina illa praeclara de animalibus condidit.

Let a man now consider the greatness of Alexander, the impatience he had to effect his purposes, how generous he was in acknowledging Services, and how vindicative when neglected, and how understanding to know what was done and omitted: Let any man consider this, and he will think that the Society have not a Patron that interesseth himself so much as Alexander did for Aristotle. He had several thou­sands commanded to give him intelligence: their number transcends any that ours can pretend to: their quality is such as the R. Society wisheth for, viz. Intelligence from the constant and unerring use of Experienced men, of the most unaf­fected Mr. Sprat. p. 257. and most unartificial kinds of life. And if notwith­standing all these circumstances Aristotle were abused or mistaken, or defective in his Narrations, I am confident there is less credit to be placed in the Narrations of some of our Virtuosi, who have been so mistaken in their Accounts of Cider and Salt-Peter, domestick Enquiries; what man will give himself the trouble to inform them, either at home, or abroad? with what negligence and imperfectness will they register things? how un-philosophical will their memoires be? How will they be able by intreaty to procure a second infor­mation? That there are more parts of the world discovered and sailed unto then in Aristotles time, I grant. But what certainty shall we have of Narratives picked up from negli­gent, or un-accurate Merchants and Seamen? What judge­ment have these men of no reading, whereby to rectify or en­large their Enquiries? Mr. Glanvill doth not so much as know who writ well upon the several subjects, in which he pretends that the Moderns have out-done the Ancients. As Improvers of the History of Bathes (by the way we are far in­feriour to them in the practice of Bathing) he reckons Sa­vananla for one: he might as well have recounted Bayrus, Gordonius and Gatinaria: or any of the barbarous Physicians, for advancers of the practick: He might have told us of a Volume of Writers de balneis: But why did he omit Soli­nander [Page 22] de thermis, Libavius, and our Dr. Jordan (who lived at our Bathe) and Bauhinus de fonte Bollensi, and the other Writers about particular Bathes? Alas! He knew them not: nor did I ever hear any man commend Blanchellus up­on that subject. About Minerals, could he not have named Encelius, Caesalpinus, Fallopius, and Lazarus Erkerus, whom I find by some to be preferred before Agricola? In his Ac­count of remote Histories of Nature, could he remember the Author of the Caribby-History, and pass by Carolus Piso, Burggravius, and Bontius about Brasile and the East Indies. So where he speaks of discoveries made by Microscopes (pag. 57.) by naming only Dr. Power and Mr. Hooke, ingenious Mechanicks, Members of the Royal Society; he seems to inti­mate, as if none but the Virtuosi had proceeded in that ad­venture, whereas Petrus Borellus, Physician in ordinary to the King of Erance, published a Century of Microscopical observations An. Dom. 1656. such as have (if true) more of utility then those of Mr. Hooke, though less of curiosity, and destitute of Cuts; and Kircher after many years employed in those contemplations, per exquisitissima Microscopia, did Kerch. de Pest sect. 1. c. 7. publish several Experiments of that kinde, in his book de Peste; and Nicolaus Zucchius about the same time (1656.) Nic. Zucchius Philos. op [...]ic. part. 2. [...]. 3. c. 7. sect. 4. p. 348. published a short account of Microscopical observations, a­bout a Lowse, a Flea, the feathers of a Peacocks tail, &c. encouraging others to prosecute the work. He tells us, ( pag. 56.) ‘ that the discoveries by Telescopes may inform us of the Longitudes: upon which must needs ensue yet greater improvements of Navigation, and perhaps the discovery of the North-west passage, and yet unknown South.’ I grant that the invention of Longitudes will be extreamly beneficial to man-kinde in point of sailing: and the R. S. have made great boasts how that it shall be atchieved by their Members; and thereupon caused some projects to be rejected, which yet perhaps would have proved as unfeasible as the attempt of Ga­lileo's▪ to calculate it by the Medicean Starrs. I desire much to see the happy result of our Virtuosi, though the consequen­ces here affixed to it, as Improvements was very defective. I shall propose some Scruples about the North-west passage, [Page 23] and [...]he utility of its discovery, as also of the hopes of find­ing out the Southern Tracts.

First, I say that the story about the streights of Aman See Mr. Gar­diner in his description of America c. 25. where he pro­fesseth to write nothing but what his own knowledge, or good intelli­gence perswa­ded him unto, he having lived long in the re­mote parts of America: the loss of whose large Account thereof we may deplore. is very improbable, if not certainly a Fiction. It hath been so thorowly search'd into by our Nation, that there is no encou­ragement to a further trial: and this Streight of the North­west passage, is indeed nothing but a narrow difficult pas­sage to Button's Bay, the entrance being properly called Hudson's Streight, in regard of his first finding it; the mouth whereof lies in 62 degrees. But were there such a passage, it would much more concern the Portugals, and the Spaniards, and Dutch, then it doth the English; for their trade is to the North-part of the East-Indies, and ours to the South: theirs to the Moluccoes, Philippinas, Japan, and China; whereas we seldom pass beyond Bant am in Java.

Secondly, were there a passage that way, yet it were not to be chosen before the other: for, could a man sail in a strait line, first from England to the Streight, and thence from the Streight to the East-Indies, it would prove a further way then the other by the Cape of good Hope. But those that know any thing of those Seas, know that the Sea-Course to any part of North-America, is as low as 23, 24, 25, or 30 the highest by reason of the winde which bloweth in the South-sea East and West▪ as well as in the North, that is to say, for the most part West without the Tropicks, and almost constantly East within them. Wherefore you must go out of your way as well from the North-part of America to the East-Indies, as from England to this supposed Streight: and there is as much difference in relation to pleasantness in the Voyages, as between Summer and Winter. For when one is clear of the Bay of Biscay, in all the Voyage by the Cape you find no cold weather till you return to the same place again: but on the contrary, it is so cold and Icy about the Streight in the middle of Summer, that there is no ma­king Judge hence what hopes there is of ma­king discove­ries in the Southerne Tracts. way without much difficulty and trouble. And in the South-Sea, where the Sunne keeps the same course as in the North in June; Sir Francis Drake in compassing the world, found so much cold in thirty eight degrees of North-lati­tude, [Page 24] that he was forced into a Southerly course. Be­sides, if we may take a conjecture from the windes, which have blown when the Undertakers for that discovery passed into those Streights, one would guess by their great coldness, that they did blow from the Land, and consequently that there is no Sea to the North of America, but that the Land of this New World reacheth by the North parts, even to the North­wardly Provinces of Tartary, &c.

I am surprized to finde, that Mr. Glanvill doth not make the Moderns to surpass the Ancients, in Architecture, Scul­pture, Picture, and several other Arts of ingenious Luxury. That he doth not advance the glory of our Mathematical burning- Glasses, above the Specula Ustoria of Proclus; and the Artificial Fires of our Virtuosi above those invented by Cal­linicus, when he burned the Saracens Fleet.

But not to upbraid him with what he hath omitted: I shall resume the discourse about Telescopes, and their falla­ciousness, wherein if Mr. Cross was a little doubtful, yet Mr. Glanvill is so assured, that he makes an ample recital of the contest, and the advantages he gained in it. I shall set down his words, the better to divert my Reader, and to shew how insupportable such kind of men are in all judicious and in­telligent company.

‘To my Discourse about the Dioptrick Tubes, the Tele­scope Mr. Glanvills Plus Ultra. c. 9 p. 65. and Microscope,’ the Reverend Disputer replied,

Upon this Discourse, the first Remark I shall make is, That Mr. Glanvill hath little or no insight into Opticks, and is in a manner as ignorant in that profitable Science, as he represents his Adversary to be. It is something for a Man to be able to give an account how he spent his time, though a­bout Genus and Species; rather then to appear to have idly pass'd it away, without acquiring any knowledge at all. The Solution of Mr. Cross's fallacy, if it were his) by that Inter­gatory, Why cannot he write better with two Pens, then with a s [...]ngle one? is ridiculous, since there is no vis unita there: [Page 28] and in one sort of Tubes, though the Vitrum Sphaericè earum, dilatando radios per ipsum transmissos amplificat nota [...]lit [...]r imaginem si in debitâ distantiâ constitua­tur post Sphaericè convexum. Zucchius phil. o [...]t part. 2. [...]. [...]. c. 7 sect. 5. pag. 360, 3 [...], 362. How it is in Telescopes made up of all con­vex-Glass [...]s, the same Author shews there: and so doth Kepler in his Dioptricks. rays be united in the first convex-Glass, and brought to a Convergency, yet: must the Sphaerical Cavity of the next Glass dilate again, and dispose them sittingly to effect the expected vision in the Retina: and besides this, it is requisite that the Tube be so fitted unto the eye (not to speak of the fitting it differently according as the Medium is) as to exclude all other impressions and radiations, that Zucchius phi­los. opt. p [...]t. [...]. t [...]. 3. c. 7. s [...]ct. 5. p. 358. may divert and impede the sight, viz. Ad consulendum suffici­enti determinationi potentiae per languidiorem & angustiorem impressionem à remotioribus, multum prodest, si ex forma instru­menti & ejus applicatione ad Oculum vel ex conditione loci è quo per instrumentum remotiora, & in minori amplitudine ap­parentia prospectamus, impediuntur radiationes aliunde intra oculum simul & semel diffusae, praesertim validae.

As to what Mr. Cross is said to have argued against Tele­scopes, that the addition of one Glass to another must hinder rather then improve vision, because that the superadding of one pair of Spectacles to another, rather weakens then amends the sight. I must say, that whosoever understands the form­ing of an Argument cannot except against the form of that, nor do the Propositions cohere so ill together, as that one should be as it were for sence, and other, for convenience. All that excursion of our Virtuoso shews his Ignorance, not Mr. Cross's. 'Tis one thing to except against the form, another thing to except against the matter of a Syllogism. I confess there is reason enough for to do the latter; but now for the other procedure. I believe such a dispute was never heard of since the declining of Arcadia, as this was: If Mr. Cross did urge this otherwise then to try the Intellectuals of Mr. Glanvill, (concerning whose inhability he might be well sa­tisfied) there is no defence to be made for him, otherwise then that he was unacquainted with a sort of knowledge which is unnecessary in a Divine, and not expected from him; whose credit is better supported by those Qualifications which re­present him as a man of godly Conversation, faithful and able [Page 29] in the discharge of his Gospel-Ministry. But that Mr. Glan­vill as little understood the subject of a knowledge he pretends unto, it is manifest from hence; that he might easily have de­nied the Assertion of the Spectacles, that two pair did not impede, but amend the sight in some eyes that are very weak. I know a young Gentlewoman that hath two Cataracts breed­ing in her eyes, which reads and works with two pair of Spe­ctacles, whereas she cannot with one pair. There is also an old Gentlewoman of my acquaintance who useth the same helps. I am ashamed to debate these fooleries (as our Virtuoso calls them,) but if Mr. Cross did call in question the integri­ty of the Telescopes, I shall assume the liberty of a digression about that Point, which perhaps may not seem unseasonable in this Age, and which will abate the pride, and evince the great ignorance of Mr. Glanvill.

Either my Memory doth very much deceive me, or else the Lord Bacon did suspect these Telescopes, that they might impose upon our Senses: and I am sure Mr Boyle is in the same Errour with Mr. Cross, for he complains that when He went about to examine those appearances in the Sunne called Maculae, and Faculae solares, he could not make the least dis­covery Tentam. Phy­si [...]log. pag. 144. 145, 146. of them in many months, which yet other Observators pretend to see every day: yet doth Mr. Boyle profess, that He neither wanted the conveniency of excellent Telescopes, nor omitted any circumstance requisite to the Enquiry. Besides Vide Ricciol. Almagest. nov. l. 8. sect. 1. c. 16. these, Scipio Claramontius, he that baffled Tycho about the Co­mets in the judgement of most men, and gained advantages enough against Kepler and Galilaeo to make himself glori­ous, and to shew that instead of Mathematical demonstrati­ons they proceeded upon uncertain To­picks Scipio Claramontius in defensione Anti-Tychoni [...], & libri de novis stellis à se con [...]ri­pti Italico idiomate edit [...], multis contendit Telescopium in repraesentatione objectorum fallax esse, Part. 2 c. 15. ex quibus insert c. 16. ei qui velit apparentias coelestium per illnd exceptas ratas haberi, necessariò osten­dendum esse [...] nulla aberrationum, qui­bus illud obnoxium est, [...]jusmodi niti­atas esse. Quare cum ex una parte assumi nequeat, quasi universaliter verum quicquid per Telescopium repraesentatur; ex alia parte non possit talis propositio universalis restringi ad apparentias [...]oelestium, sine manifestâ petitione principii cum hoc ipsum [...]it quod [...]o [...]trovertitur; an fallaci de se in­strumento observata in [...]lectibus pro certis habenda sint? manifest sequitur nihil ex usu Telescopii [...]stirui posse de dispositione [...]oe­lestium. Zucchius Philos. opt. part. 1. c. 17. sect. 2. p. 175. and Probabilities: this learned and inquisitive person doth avowedly suspect the Telescopes as fallacious more then once, and that there are more then He of that judgement, is a thing unquestionable by any but Su­perficial Scholars: nor do I apprehend any other reason then this to be in their [Page 30] heads, who have till this day employ­ed their thoughts here to contrive new Glasses, and amend defects in the former. Our Virtuosi have com­plained of an Iris in their Glasses, and gone about to correct that by Turn­ing of them; but a friend of mine writes, that he imagines it was after that Eustachio Divini at Rome had given them an hint of it: and then they found it out. A little more modesty in Assertions of this kinde would become our Wits, considering that affairs of this na­ture (it is the opinion of Archimedes, and refers to all Me­chanismes) admit not demonstration. Cum neque visus, ne­que manus, neque instrument a per quae experiri oportet, satis ha­beant fidei ad exquisit am demonstrationem.—Archimed. in li­bro de Arena.

I shall not so far engage in the controversie, as to repeat the Arguments and Replies on both sides. It seems strange, that the Telescopes should so magnifie thirty, fourty, or one hundred times objects on earth, and yet lessen those of the fixed Stars in Heaven, viz. Stellas primae magnitudinis, Cani­culam, Scipio Clara­mont. de uni­ver so l. 9. c. xxi. &c. Jovem, Saturnum minores repraesentat multo, quam oculo libero appareant: & idem instrumentum stellas nusquam apparentes, ut Jovis Satellites justae magnitudinis re­praesentat, & paulo minores repraesentato Jove, imo tantas facit, ut possint pius apparere▪ quam queant apparere stellae primae mag­nitudinis,—at quid? in Octava Sphaera stellas nihil apparentes magnas facit, Nebulosas scilicet, & Galaxiae formatrices.—This is granted all by Galileo to be true, but he solves by an ima­ginary irradiation, the fancie whereof he advanced upon some weak Experiments, most whereof he deserted himself, and the Vide Scip. C [...]m▪ de u­ [...]iverso 9 c. 19. 18▪ 1 [...]. 2 [...] Zucchius ph [...]. opr par 1. c. [...] sect 6 p. 111. Id. ib p. 216. rest are excellently refuted by Zucchius, who introduceth another Salvo from the configuration of the Eye, and that part of it called Uvea: which perhaps may be discovered to be as false as any of the other hereafter: but he adds, Ex quo est, ut in facilitate detrahendae circumfusae sideribus radiationis sit notable discrimen inter Planetas collatos inter se, & inter stellas fix [...] invicem, & aliquas earum cum aliquibus eorum compa­ratas. [Page 31] Thus the Objection in its full force is granted by all (except Sorsius deny it) only the cause of the Phaenomenon was not till Zucchius (if then) sufficiently explicated; Sure Zucchius phil. op [...]. part. 1. c. 1 [...]. sect▪ 5. p 159, 200. I am that he in another place avows, that long Telescopes rightly made do not lessen Jupiter, but represent him great­er then He appears to the naked Eye: insomuch that his Tube of 23 feet-long did represent Jupiter as big as the Moon is when at full, and looked upon without any Telescope: so that He says the Objection holds only in Telescopiis brevi­oribus, in quibus pariter evenit inspiciendo lucida inferiora.

Besides, were there such certainty in the Telescopes, how comes it to pass that there is such a variety of opinions a­mongst those Observators, whose diligence can be as little suspected as their learning? Claramontius did set two per­sons to observe the Spots of the Sunne, (both were inclined to Novelties) they were not 40 miles distant, yet did not their Schemes agree as to number, or scituation. Nor is this a figment of that partial Peripatetick: any man that reads Ricciol Al­mag. nov▪ [...] 3. c 3 Zucchius phil. opr. par 1. c 7. sect 8. p. 233. See this point of the variety about the sp [...] [...] in the Sun, particularly handled by Schottus [...]n his N [...]res up­on Kircher [...]'s [...]er ex [...]. [...]i▪ cum [...]oelest▪ [...] ­ [...]er▪ 1. dia­log. [...]. p 183. And [...]ow dif­ferent the ob­servations of Galilaeo and Scheiner were you may see in a Synopsis [...]n the R [...] U [...] l. [...]. c. 4. & [...]ib. c 10. Ricciolus, and Zucchius, will see that they cannot agree a­bout the number, the motion, the scituation, or so much as colour of them. The words of this last Writer are very re­markable in reference to Mr. Glanvill, and that certainty which he asserts unto the Telescopes, viz. Neque obstat dis­crepantia numeri, vel figurae macularum in observationibus plu­rium, circa idem tempus captatis: tum quia longiores Telesco­pii in ampliori disco plures exhibent, quae spectantem breviore Telescopio, angustiori disco latent: immo eodem Telescopio, ad exactam mensuram suae extensionis redacto, notabiles fiunt ali­quae, ante inobservatae: & facillimum est in tali mensura minus exercitatos decipi; cum tam pauci ex observatoribus, nec nisi monente Scheinero, didicerint ad exacte consignandam Solis imaginem, & in ea maculas, per trajectionem radiorum Tele­scopio in planum directe oppositum, necessariam esse mutatio­nem extensionis Tubi, eo not abiliter magis producto in hyeme, correpto in aestate: Tum quia sicut facilis est, ex allatis varietas in numero macularum, ita in terminatione, quae facilius mutari po­test ex iisdem capitibus in illis, quae in pluribus observationibus consignantur, & ex modo consignandi. Less do they agree [Page 32] about the nature of them: one Joannes Jarde named them Astra Borbonia: and Malapertius, Mastrius, Rheita, do hold them to be Starrs: of this opinion was Scheinerus once, but he afterwards assented to that of Galilaeo, Kepler, Bul­lialdus and Blancanus, that they were not Starrs, but fuligi­nous exhalations arising out of the furnace of the Solar Globe, which he conceives to be a fire. Kircher and others are of the same judgement; but Ricciolus distrusts it, being not Vide Schot­tum ub [...] supra, p. 184. Ricciol. Almag. nov. l. 3. c. 3 P. 7. able to comprehend how fuliginous vapours should arise in such a number, so constantly, so permanently as to keep a motion about, or with the Sunne, of about 27 days.

The like uncertainty there is in the Observations about Sa­turn, Jupiter, Mars, &c. what controversies do they raise Galilaeo [...]n e [...]. ad Velserum, citante [...]a [...]a­montio de uni­vers. l. 9. c. 9. Ricciolus Al­mag. nov. l 7. sect. 1. c. 2. p. 487, 488. Schottus in Kircher. iter exstat. coele­ste p. 301, 302. Christ. Huge­nius ap [...] B [...] ­r [...]llum de con­ [...]pici [...]is, p. 63. and how contradictious are their Relations? Galilaeo doth represent Saturn in one figure, Sch [...] in another▪ the for­mer saith, that the oblong shape in Saturn ariseth from a de­fect in the Telescope, or Eye, that could not distinguish the Comites Saturni from the Planet it self▪ But Ricciolus and others dissent from him in that point▪ and Christi [...]s Hu­genius made observations about Saturn, such as neither An­tonius de Rheita▪ nor Hevelius did ever see; and represents the ansulae of Saturn, differently from what Fontana and the Dantiscan Selenographer do write. The words of Hugenius I shall propose to Mr. Glanvill's consideration, Expectamus ut sub finem Aprilis, si non antea, brachia Saturno renascan­tur, non curva illa, cujusmodi a Francisco Fontana, & He­velio depicta cer [...]untur, sed secundùm lineam rectam utrin­que prominentia, siquis melioris notae perspicillo intueatur. Nam vulgaria si adhibeat binos orbiculos referent, sicuti Gali­laeo primum se obtulere. Nostram quo Saturni asseclam repe­rimus, quinquagies diametrum rei visae multiplicat, duodenos pedes aequans; cui postea duplum longitudine constriximus, mul­tiplicatione centupla. Cum autem longiora etiam hisce Te­lescopia, utpote triginta & quadraginta pedum ab aliis fabri­cari dicantur, aliquid aut vitris vitii inesse, aut haec eadem non debita proportione mutuo respordere credibile est. Neque enim alius hucusque aciem eorum effugisset novus Saturni Satelles. Being to speak of Saturn, I must not forget Zucchius, who [Page 33] after thirty five years diligent observation with variety of the best Telescopes, represents this Planet differently from Zucchius phi­los. opt. part. 1. c. 17. sect [...]. p. 00, 201. what any others write, viz. Assero Saturnum multorum an­norum spatio figura passim oblonga, & in oppositione ad Solem, not abiliter majorem apparuisse, in apparentiae medio visum esse album illustre tumidum, aliquo modo ad rotunditatem vergens, accedentibus hinc inde ad illud duabus velut nigris notis, quas altum illustre, totam apparentiam ad apices terminans ita in­cludit, ut ad apices illius multo sit crassius, ubi vero eas notas complectendo ad medium extenditur, gracilescat.

Assertio est facti, in quo a multis jam, annis conveniunt accu­ratiores, ex variis Provinciis observatores longioribus Telesco­piis instructi.

Scio a prioribus vulgatum, tres a se stellas in loco Saturni spectatas, media multo majori, quae simul mutantes in coelo si­tum, a fixis aperte distinguerentur, & Saturni duobus Planetis minoribus stipati apparentium exhiberent, qui postea, illis a tali situ motis spectatus sit figura rotunda. Verum triginta quinque ut minimum, anni sunt, quibus figura semper oblonga, cum dis­positione in assertione assignata, a me spectatus est pluries quot­annis, pro vario ad Solem situ, acutioribus, minus acutis, ca­vis, convexisque lentibus ad oculum proxime in Telescopio ad­hibitis apparentia eadem, semper magis distincta, & majori, in oppositione ad Solem, etiamsi meliorem vitiorum [...]laborationem in multo longioribus Telescopiis postremo D. D. Evangelistae Torricellii, & Eustachii Divini artificio, & beneficio singu­lari consecutus sim.—Quare in hoc priorum observationes, qui brevioribus, minusque perfectis Telescopiis, ut omnino ratas admittere non audeo.

Concerning Jupiter, and his Satellites, and their number, Vide Schot­tum in Kirch. iter exstaticum coeleste p. 268, 269. &c. Ric­ciol. in Almag. nov. l. 7. sect. 1. p. 486. taking in the Urban Octavian Starrs, I finde a great variety, even when two men observed at the same time, as de Rheita and Gassendus: that both of them were in the right, cannot be said: which of them were in the wrong, I know not. In summe, the observations about Jupiter and his Attendants are so various, Aliter enim apparuerunt Simoni Mario, aliter A­pelli, aliter Galilaeo, that Claramontius takes this advantage of it. Ego igitur argumentum ex ejusmodi diversitate alicio [Page 34] contra veritatem objecti, non contra observationum diligentiam, Scipio Cla­ramonti [...]s de universo l. [...]. c. 8. cum observatio ejusmodi non sit nisi pura per tubum transpectio, eaque defixa: ii etiam viri perfectum instrumentum habebant, es [...]que id verisimile, cum in eam rem toti incumberent, instru­mentum etiam exactum paravisse: oculorum etiam & visus a­cumen, cur demam Apelli & ejus in observando sociis, potius Ga­lilaeo demerem, qui se fatetur oculum minus perfectum ha­bere

Neither are they better agreed about Mars and his Fi­gure, the umbo or spot in him. Gassendus denies that ever he saw it, though he used the Tube of Galilaeo; others avow it: as you may see in Schottus and Ricciolus. In fine, as to Scott [...]s in Kircher. [...]ter exstat. [...]oe [...] p 242▪ &c. Ricciolus Al mag nov. l. 7. [...]ct. [...]. p 486. Zucchius [...]hil opt. part 1 c. 17. sect 4 P. 193. the new Phaenomena about Mars, Venus, and Mercury, to de­send them Zucchius is forced to complain of the Telescopes, and protests thus. Interim te, amice Lector, provoco Spectato­rem, bono & longiore Telescopio instructum, cujus Lens superior ad obtinendam siguram apparentiarum bene praecisam, juxta dicta, maxima ex parte contecta sit, modico ad medium aperto for amine.

I am tired with the further prosecution of this subject; and therefore shall confine the rest of my discourse to the Observations about the Moon: the contemplation whereof, as it is more facile, so it hath been more pursued then any other of that kinde. There is none of our Comicall Wits doubt that it is a World, divided into Hills, Valleys, Seas, Lakes, Rivers, and even peopled as this Terraqueous Globe of ours But it is remarkable, that the use of the Telescope hath not convinced some, that the Moon hath an unequal sur­face, but that the Phaenomena of the spots may be solved by the conceit that some parts of it are more Diaphanous, some more opake. Who hath not heard how Scheiner looked on the Moon in an Eclipse, and did conceive it was fistulous, (at Berigardus C [...]. P. [...] de Luna. id. [...] least translucid in part) and so did transmit the light tho­rough several Cavities in some places, whilst others, not di­rectly subject to the Sunne, are obscure. They cannot agree whether the Spots of the Moon be more bright, or obscure in an Eclipse. The observations and descriptions of the Moon, made by Galilaeo, Scheiner, Fontana, Schottus upon Kircher, [Page 35] &c. are so defective, that we must repute them but as the first rudiments of an intended Science. And as for the descriptions of the Phases of the Moon, made by Langrenus and Hevelius, however there by many things in which they all agree: yet the Telescopes of Ricciolus (made by a Bavari­an Artist) and of Franciscus Maria Grimaldi, either rectified the mistakes, or represented many Phaenomena different from those delineated by Galilaeo, Fontana, Torricellius, and Manzini, viz. Lunaris faciei partes omnes magnas, mediocres, ac Ricciolus Al­mag. nov. l. 4. c. 7. minimas singillatim Telescopio intuens Grimaldus, easque sta­tim cum Langreni & Hevelii Schematibus comparans, deprehendit multa quidem egregie ab iis peracta, non pauca tamen superesse, quae aut addenda, aut quoad si­tum, magnitudinem, siguram, symmetriam, nigroris aut claritatis differentiam corrigenda forent. Such as re­ject the exact Sphericalness of the Moon, introduce Asperities and inequalities in the surface of it, which some explain by Mountains, Valleys, and Waters: but concerning the parts of the Moon, which might be Water, and which Land, our Observators did differ. Ga­lilaeo Glailaeo sy­ [...]m. co [...]mic. p. 131. edit. Lonain. Kepler. Astro­nom. Optic. c. 6. sect. 9. believes the spots or obscure parts to be water. Kepler held the contrary, that the bright parts were water, and pre­tends to demonstrate it out of Opticks. though afterwards he changed his opinion for that of Galilaeo's, which is ge­nerally received. As to those asperities in the surface of the Moon, whether they extend to the Limbus, or utmost circumference, or no, is a doubt amongst them: Gali­laeo Ricciolus Al­mag nov. l. 4. c. 8. qu 2. denies it; Kepler, Ricciolus, and others affirming it: and the latter gives this reason why they are less frequently observed there: Vera causa cur raro asperi­tas illa Limborum videatur, est partim imperfectio Tele­scopii, &c. Neither are they better satisfied about the Atmosphear of the Moon: that there is one, Galilaeo, Kircher. iter exstat. coe [...]est. p 48. Ricciolus Al­mag. nov. l. 4. c [...]. sect. 8. Kepler, Antonius Maria de Rheita, Kircher, Cy­satus, Scheiner, with others do avow: and Langre­nus saith, that we may observe it with a Telescope: e­andem Tubo▪ specillis conspici affirmat Michael Floren­tius Langrenus. But others deny it as peremptorily. [Page 36] Interim mihi (faith Ricciolus) nondum quocunque Telescopio ad­hibito Ricciol. Al­mag. nov. l. 4. c. a. sect. 3. aer hic ita patuit, ut illum potius prope ac circa Lunam, quam in aere nostro, in quo & Halones siunt, cogar agnoscere. And Zucchius at large proveth this Corollary, Non elevan­tur Zucchius phil. optic part. 1. c. 17. sect. 9. p. 2 [...]4. vi luminis Solis vapores e Luna, sicut elevantur ex Globo e terra & aqua integrato: Neque datur circa Lunam Sphaera vaporosa ulla, qualis circa dictum Globum deprehenditur.

Having proceeded thus far, I shall take notice of some extravagant opinions that possess many of our Comical wits, and their Associates or Admirers, which are extended to the prejudice of Christianity, and the growth of Atheism in this Age, viz. That the resemblance betwixt the Moon and the Earth is such, that it is a Terraqueous Globe inhabited by men, and they hereupon concern themselves about their Pro­geny, Salvation, &c. I shall from hence take occasion to instruct those phantastical persons, that even Hevelius, who accommodated the Terrestrial Geography to the Lunar Globe, and seems to conclude that the illuminated part is earth, the darker is water: yet did it only because He knew no fitter comparison amongst sublunary bodies.— Non est autem quod quispiam ideo existimet Lunam ex ejusmodi sabulo, luto, aut lapide esse compositam, ut haec terra nostra, siquidem fortassis ex alia poterit constare materia, ab imaginatione nostra prorsus Joan. Heve­lius Seleno­graph. p. 148. diversa, & modo adhuc incomprehensibili.—Minime etiam hasce Lunares aquas nostris [...] similes assero, sed quod nihil quicquam similius, propter magnam utrarumque affinitatem hic in terra habeamus, cum quo illas comparare valeamus. It was indiscreetly done of Kepler, Kircher, Hevelius, and such Writers to carry on the comparison so far, the resem­blance betwixt the two Globes being so little as the most un­prejudic'd Ricciolus Al­mag. nov. l. 4 c. 7. p. 203. persons findit to be. Hevelius perinde acsi Luna esset altera tellus, Geographica nostratis Telluris nomina in Lu­nam transtulit: licet quoad figuram, situm, symmetriam, &c. nulla fere sit Analogia inter utriusque superficiem. The truth whereof will further appear from those considerations which the inquisitive Zucchius after thirty five years use of all man­ner Zucchius▪ phil. opt. hart. a. c. 17. sect. 9. co­rol. 7. p. 266. of Telescopes at length fixed upon, viz. That the discre­pancy of Parts in the illuminated Moon may be explained with­out [Page 37] attributing thereunto any variety of colours: yea, it ought to be so explained. The first part of which Assertion he proves thus: because in Opace bodies the difference of a greater and lesser Obliquity in their scituation towards the body that shines upon them doth cause a diverse manner of illustration. Thus the same wall, of one uniform colour, ac­cording as it is differently illuminated, seems in some parts to be white, in others pale, in others dark-coloured, and black: besides that, a greater or lesser asperity or inequality of the superficies may cause an intermixture of the enlight­ned and over-shadowed parts, and so create different appear­ances of light and opacity in their most observable parts.

The second part He proves thus: because that the face of the Moon being looked on with a Tube of an extraordinary length, with Glasses excellently polished (such as He used for many years) appears all of it like a great Tract of Land co­vered over with Snow, which the Sunne variously illumi­nates accordingly as the parts are differently framed and scituated. Where there is any change of scituation in the parts illuminated in reference to the body that irradiates them, then do such parts abate of their whiteness: and al­though they still continue in such a position that his beams may in some degree and manner reach them, yet by reason of the unequal surface of the Moon (in which some parts are more elevated then others) some parts are directly opposite to the Sunne, others are glanced upon with an oblique ray, and this mixture of shades and brightness occasions those spots which we so talk of. Thus upon the libration of the body of Jupiter, the girdle, which otherwise seems re­markably black above the other adjacent parts of the Planet, becomes like unto the rest of the body in whiteness, and so disappears.

As to the distinction of the Moon into Sea and Land, con­sisting of Mountains and Valleys; although the Analogy may Existimo ma­teriam globi lunaris non constare terra & aqua Gali­laeo system. cos­mic p. 132. seem allowable by reason of the Asperities in the surface of the Moon, (which is a thing not to be denied: albeit that the calculation of the heighth of those more elevated parts are ridiculous, except the nature of the Cavities were better [Page 38] to be discovered, as Zucchius shews) yet the imagination Zucchias phil. opt. part. 1. c. 17. sect. 9 p 260, 261. of Seas and Lakes therein, or any thing of that Na­ture, except what borders upon the Peninsula deli [...]o­rum in the Lunar Chart of Ricciolus, 'tis all an improbable phancie. For, that the more pale and obscure spots are not water, appears hence, that those spots keep the same Phasis or appearance for many days, though the Site of the Moon, both in respect of the Sunne, and of us the Spectators, do vary much in that time: whereas when the Sunne casts his beams upon Seas or great waters on Earth, the Phaenomena differ according as the Sunne, or the beholder vary their sta­tion: And this alone might convince us, but that I finde now in Zucchius, viz Similiter transitum successiv [...]m radiis So­lis Zucchius [...] supra p. 263. ad fundum usque ad magnis maculis intra margines illustri­ores contentis praebent (ut diximus in apparentiis, pag. 239.) quod non evenit in liquido profundo instar aquae, ut in aquis e [...] ­perimur etiam in multa vicinitate illustratis, quando not abilem habent profunditatem: tum quia constantem inaequalitatem illu­strationis exhibent in horizonte Lunari, & quidem, juxta dicta in Apparentiis (num. 3.) secundum magnam extensionem illu­stratam, intra reliquas partes nondum Solis radiis perfusas; imo aliquae, Soli proximiores, alias sequentes in eadem majori ma­cula inumbrabant: hujusmodi autem convenire non possunt cor­pori Galilaeo pro­ [...]eth, that in the Moon the [...] is no [...]in; no clouds there thick [...]n [...]e a [...]. Long [...]s ac diligentious observationi­bus nunquam id ant [...]nad­vertere p [...]t [...]i, ac semper u­nisormem pu­rissimamque serenitatem ibi deprehen­di. Galilaeo. system. co­mic. p. 133. Zucchius ub [...] supra. p. 264▪ inconsistenti, & liquido aquam referenti, quae tamen cer­tum est convenire aliqu [...]bus Lunae partibus, ab omnibus inter ma­culas computatis. I must confess I think these reasons con­vincing to any persons not prepossessed; and they are much more inforced by him with a discourse concerning e [...] ­halations and an Atmosphear about the Moon, which he de­nies absolutely: yet considering the proportion of the ima­ginary Waters to the Land in the Moon, and the heat and con­tinuance of the Sunne-beams thereupon, common reason would tell us▪ that the vaporous exhalatious would propor­tionably exceed those about the Earth here, and produce an Atmosphear that should be observable, whereas the most accurate inspection at most opportune times with the best Telescopes could not satisfie Zucchius, that there was any such thing at all.

[Page 39] Kepler (and his Master Moestlinus) did believe that the Kepler Astro­nom. Optic▪ c. 6. sect. 9. Moon was a World consisting of Sea and Land, making up one entire Globe, as the Earth does; and that the Moun­tains there were much higher and bigger comparatively then those of the Earth: and adds by way of jocundry, that since the Men and other Animals common­ly Ga [...]ilaeo system. Gosmic. p. 13 [...]. Existim [...] matertam Glo [...]i Lunaris non constare [...]e [...]ra & aqua. Quaeres un [...] ad generationes [...]ltet [...]o­nesque nostris [...] tollendas [...]. [...]un­tamen etiams [...] concede [...]etur [...] ibi [...]er­ramque da [...]i; non tamen plantae & [...] nostris similia nas [...]eren [...]ur, [...] [...] [...]s prae­cipue rationes: p [...]imo qu [...] ad nost [...]s gene­rationes aspectu [...] Solis var [...]s [...]d [...] neces­saria est, ut sine illis esse nul [...]ae [...]. Ja [...] autem ha [...]itudines [...] ad Te [...]ram, ab [...] quae sunt ad Lunam, [...]ald [...] diffe [...]unt. N [...] quoad illumin [...]tionem diar [...]am, in majo [...] parte terrae, singulis h [...]rarum viginti quatuor peri [...]dis noctis atque [...]iei [...] ex­perimur, quae in Luna men▪ ru [...] [...]emum spati [...] absolvitur. Item ille Solis in Z [...]dta [...]o d [...] ­scens [...]s & ascensus annuus, qui hie [...]s aesta­tisque [...] & di [...]rum ac noctium inaequalitatem producit▪ in Luna uni [...]o mense finitur: Cumque S [...]l apud nos si [...] elevetur ao deprimatur, ut inter maximam ac minimam altitudinem intercedat differentia gradum, 4 [...] ▪ qu [...]nta [...] est distantia ab uno tro­pi [...] ad alterum; in Luna non nisi 10 gradibus aut paulo amplius illa differentia constat▪ quan­ta scilicet est maxima latitudo Draconis ultra citraque Ecli [...]ticam Nunc consideretur qua­lis operatio sit futura Solis in Zona torrida, si per quindeci [...] die [...] continuos radiis suis eam ferire pergeret. Per se enim intelligetur, om­nes plantas, herbas & animalia possum itura▪ Quod si vel maxime generationes ibi fierent, illae tamen ab herbis, plantis, & animalitus nostratibus diversissimae sorent. Secundo persu asissimum est mihi, nullas in Luna pluvias esse. Nam si qua parte nubes ibi cong [...]gearentur, ut fit in terra, videremus u­tique rerum illarum aliquid abs [...]ondi, quas ope telescopii in Luna conspicimus: & in summa, in particula aliqua nobis variaretur aspectus. Id quod longis ac diligentibus ob­servationibus nunquam animadvertere potui, ac semper uniformem purissimamque serenita­tem ibi depre [...]endi▪ participate of the nature of the soyl and climate they dwell in, that the in­habitants of the Moon must be of a greater stature, and more robust constitu­tion then those of the Earth: The Day there making up fifteen days of ours: and the Hea [...]s seem so scorching, and so unexpressible by reason of the Suns being vertical to them so long. In fine, he thinks it no absurd opinion of the Gentiles, that made the Moon a kinde of Purgatory for departed Souls.

Upon the most serious consideration of all circumstances, whereunto I could ever engage my thoughts; when I reflected upon the great dif­ference betwixt the Days here and there; the different influence which the Sunne must have here and there through the Diversity of his As­pects, (whereupon depend Terrestrial productions) that there is no rain, no clouds there; no Atmosphear (like ours) proportioned to such re­spiration and life: no intermixture of earth and water: no innate diversity of colours, which occasion the Phaeno­mena that perplex our over-curious Mortals: and that all the Enquiries hitherto made, have so little of evi­dence, that 'tis more clear that the [Page 40] Moon is a Cheese, (not fat, for then it would melt) odly fi­gured and made with Asperities in its Superficies ▪and per­haps a little vinnyed in some parts▪ then an Earth resem­bling ours: I could not but condemn those our Comical and Atheistical Wits, who use so little of modesty or scrupulousness in their discourses about this so uncertain subject. They are men of so little reading and inquisitiveness (whatever they pretend unto; as if this Nation produced no persons equal to them for Learning and Ab [...]lities) that they never exami­ned these debates; but the opinions which they take up and transform into Assertions, are onely the raillery or casual and imperfect pieces of conversation betwixt more intelligent per­sons, or some Coffee house-talk, which they confidently ob­trude and impose upon speculative or more considerate Gentle­men, and render themselves insupportable in any So­ciety.

A young Gentleman, a friend of mine, who was not a little valued in the world, who was no stranger to the Ma­thematicks, and whose wit and learning far transcended any thing I can observe in a droll and Comediantes of these times, entertain'd me with a discourse once of this nature; Ha­ving spoken of the Celestial Phaenomena, how differently they were represented by sundry men, he was more prone to suspect their dioptrick Tubes, then their in [...]egrity: He thought Tuius lenti­bus duabus constans dici potest o [...]uius mere artifi­ [...]i [...]us [...] [...] ­ne [...] Ro [...]. Ur­si [...]. l 2. c. [...]7 quem vide [...]b. a c. 23. usque ad c. 30. our Eyes were Telescopes of God Almighty's making, and the model by which the others were regulated and amended: and that any man who regarded the daily Occurrents in vision, could never believe it possible▪ that any certainty could be de­rived from Telescopes, about such Phaenomena as we could employ only one sense about, and that not in a due distance, and with such circumstances as legitimate the judgement thereof: That we were to look through their different me­diums (granting that our Air makes but one Diaphanum) and those not contrived dioptrically, that we know, and that since every medium, thicker or thinner, (besides the intercurrencies of irregular and unknown particles, like to moats in and up­on Tam ra [...]it [...]s quam densitas potest esse cau­sa r [...]fractio­nis. Me [...]senn▪ a Glass) did cause a different Refraction, and that neither the constitution of our Atmosphear (as not proportionate to our sensible enquiries) and air, nor the intermundial Aether, [Page 41] nor the Sphaera vaporosa of the Planets could ever be accurate­ly and satisfactorily searched into; no man could particu­larly know what he beheld, and deduce with prudence any theoremes and conclusions from such infirm hypotheses. He added, that our senses and the daily objects we converse with on earth, did prejudicate rather then qualifie us for these speculations: that we might easily observe what mistakes a­rise from the contemplation of resemblances: that simili­tudes, though very slender, engage the unwary, (and some that are cautious too) to conclude an identity in objects: that it would be impossible for any man without the aid of a nearer approach, and even of his other senses, to conclude whether a stick lying part in, part out of the water were streight or crooked▪ by reason of the refraction in the different mediums of Air and Water: and that a Glow-worm, or an Indian fire-Fly would create strange disputes and contests a­mongst mankind, had they no other helps to discover the Phaenomenon then a Telescope, magnifying the object and its parts thirty, fourty, or one hundred times. He admired that saying of Aristotle, [...]: Arist meteor. [...] ▪ [...] 4. sect. 2. These are the words, and this the judg­ment of Gali­laeo Syst. Cosm p. 7 [...] [...] Hypo [...] ▪ de vet med. s [...] 3. and commended him, that in his doctrine of Mete­ors he pretended not to arise higher then a low degree of probability. That it was possible to imagine such things to our selves as were not really in the Moon, but not such as were there, except in a very general and indefinite manner. Posse quidem excogitari nonnulla, quae in Luna neque sunt, ne­que esse possunt: nihil autem eorum quae ibi sunt aut esse pos­sunt, nisi largissima generalitate. That the appearance of an Earth, did not infer the inhabitation of men, much less Ani­mals and Plants like ours: that our own Geography might undeceive us herein, some parts of this Globe being not peo­pled, and the animals, and plants, and nature of the soyle, differing so much from our European productions, as we could not have conceived, had not our Eyes and authentick te­stimonies gained us to a belief of it. That the most clear Eyes have in this case a kinde of a suffusion, and the most un­biassed persons their Intellectuals prejudicated, and had no reason to condemn the opinion of that Peasant, who imagi­ner [Page 42] the Grandeur of Rome to be like unto his Village, or the Scot who represented London to be such another town as E­dinburgh. It is an opinion wherein the Peripateticks and Galilaeo sy­stem c [...]smic. p 77. Lyncei are agreed: Quicquid sub nostram cadit imaginatio­nem, id aut jam ante viderimus oportet, aut ex rebus rerur [...]ve partibus jam ante visis compositum sit, quales sunt Sphynges, Sirenes, Chimerae, Centauri, &c. He smiled at those who thought they had much improved solid knowledge, by tel­ling men of Quasi-terra, Quasi-mare, Quasi-sylvae, which he suppposed to be as insignificant termes as the Canting of Chymists, or the Quasi-corpus, and Quasi sanguis, in the gods of Epicurus: that it was intolerable in a Philosopher to phrase it thus, however a Poet might say,

But nothing created in him a greater laughter, then the Proposals some made of flying to the World in the Moon: this design he thought superlatively ridiculous, though the con­trivance of wings for mankind were then but projecting at Wadham-Colledge: It did not appear to him then that this World was no Magnet: he wished that first these Opiniatours would go to both Poles, and placing themselves there try the Observations of Des-Cartes with some dust of Iron: that they would consider whether the more remote Air would bear up their wings and weight, (perhaps there might be that dif­ference in Air that there is in water▪ where those Ships which sail in salt-water do sink in fresh streams) and how it might a­gree with their respiration, since the Air upon the tops of Andes of Peru is so sharp, that those Mountains are as dif­ficult Vide P Alph Ovag [...]ium [...] [...] Chi­lensi [...] ▪ [...]. Ricciol Al­mag nov. in append. ad part. primam tomi primi, P. 730. to pass, or live upon, as Aristotle represents Olympus to have been, where men are forced to breath through Sponges: whether that inhability of the Air for men to breath in it did arise from the real nature of so elevated a place, or that it was occasioned by some destructive exhalations (since Mount Athos is reputed higher then Olympus) he knew not: but he thought they might enquire well into this particular, and into those regions (which are different) wherein storms, [Page 43] thunder, and snow are generated; what tempests might arise therein (of which we are not sensible here below) what provision there is against them before one arrives at the twelve Celestial houses: what accommodation of meat and drink, what money currant in those parts, all which ought Concerning a voyage to the Wo [...]ld of the Moon, the dif­ficulties of the passage and of the air, water, and other cir­cumstances the [...]e, read Kircher his [...]ter exs [...]at. unto the Moon; and you will find how just a ca­ [...]at I give here. to be regarded lest our Experimentators should come off as ill as the Knight of the Mancha did, when he had not where­withal to defray the expence of his Inne: besides that, he was much afraid, that at their arrival, agreeably to what Kepler saith, they might finde their lodging too hot for them.

Having said these things, that great young man, (who died before that Ignorance and the Virtuosi grew prevalent) presen­ted me with the works of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, publish­ed by D. Meric Casaubon, opening it at that place where that understanding Emperour acknowledgeth it to have been the special favour of the Gods, that he never troubled himself a­bout these Meteorologies and extravagant speculations, where­unto nothing humane can reach: He added, that in these kind of speculations he knew enough that was secured from superstition, that for a man to desert those Studies which qua­lifie him for a sociable life, and were of importance to the preservation of the Government and Countrey he lived in, this was a kinde of salvagenesse, had more of the A [...]chorete, then of Civil Prudence, and was to be encouraged in a Cloy­ster, or in the deserts of Thebais, then to be made a practice among wise Statesmen.

I have somtimes entertained my self with the remembrance of this Gentleman, and guessed how he would have sported vt that passage of Mr. Glanvill, in his Scepsis Scientifica, where he complements the R. Society, to whom that book is Ad­dressed.

We expect greater things from Neoterick Endea­vors. Scepsi Scien­ [...]. p. 13 [...], 134 The Cartesian Philosophy in this regard hath shewn the World the way to be happy. And me thinks this Age seems resolved to bequeath Posterity somewhat to remember it. The glorious Underta­kers, [Page 44] wherewith Heaven hath blest our days, will leave the World better provided then they found it. And whereas in former times such generous free-spi­rited Worthies were as the Rare newly observed Stars, a single one the wonder of an Age: In ours they are like the Lights of the greater size, that twinkle in the Starry Firmament: And this last Century can glory in numerous Constellations. Should those Heroes go on as they have happily begun, they'll fill the World with Wonders. And I doubt not but Posterity will find many things, that are now but Rumours, verified in­to ( God [...]orbid.) practical Realities. It may be some Ages hence, a Voyage to the ( 'Tis very cold going thither, if you believe Sir Fr. Drak [...]; as I have shewed afore in my discourse of the North­west-passage..) Southern unknown Tracts, yea, possiblie the Moon, will not be more strange then one to ( Yes a little more; the Ancients had been there before; be­sides, the dif­ficulties ingo­ing to the Moon are more insupe­rable.) America. To them that come after us, it may be as ordinarie to buy a payr of Wings to flie into Remotest Regions; ( Pacole [...]'s Horse; Fortu­natus's wish­ing-Cap; the skill of Me­dea in resto­ring youth, all ancient and modern fables shall be really atchieved!) as now a pair of Boots to ride a Journey. And to conferre at the distance of the Indies by Sympathetick conveyan­ces, may be as usual to future times, as to us in a lite­rary correspondence. The restauration of Gray hairs to Juvenility, and renewing the exhausted marrow, may at length be effected without a Miracle. And the turning the now comparative desert World into a Paradise, may not improbablie be expected from late Agriculture.

Now those that judge-by the narrowness of for­mer Principles and Successes, will smile at these ( They that do not so, laugh at you, and think such expectations thence para­doxical.) Pa­radoxical Expectations: But questionless, those great inventions, which have in these latter Ages altered the [Page 45] face of all things, in their [...]aked Propo [...]alls, and meer Suppositions, ( Prove that they ever did think of them: if they did not, they could not be ridicu­lous [...]o them.) were to former times as ridiculous. To have talked of a New Earth to have been disco vered, had been a ( Et q [...]i [...]e in­to the Navi­gations of Antiquity and then [...]ay this.) Romance to Antiquity: And to sail without sight of Stars or Shoars by the guidance of a Mineral, a storie more absurd then the H [...]g [...]t of Daedalus. That men should speak after their tongues were ashes, or communicate with each other in differing Hemi phears, before the invention of Letters, could not but have been thought a Fiction. Antiquity would not have believed the almost incre­dible force of our ( The stran [...]e­ness lies more in the incre­dible force of the powder: had they known that, they would not have thought the other strange.) Canons; and would as coldlie have entertained the wonders of the Telescope. In these we all condemn ( I know not any that con­demns the an­ [...]nts [...] [...] in­credulity a­bout such matters as were never proposed un­to them, but [...]or the credu­lity of th [...]s Age, expect scorn rather then pity.) antique incredulity, and 'tis likelie Posterity will have as much cause to pity ours. But yet notwithstanding this streightnesse of shallow Observers, there are a set of ( Tis a pretty philosophy in­deed, it is all ▪ invention.) enlarged Souls that are more judiciously credulous, and those who are acquainted with the fecunditie of ( Not of the Paracea, not of the [...]hilo­sophers stone, n [...]r any thing in Ovids Me­tamorphesis, Atlantis, o [...] Utopia. [...]lus ultra, Page 66.) Carte­sian Principles, and the diligent and ingenious En­deavours of so many true Philosophers, will despair of ( ^m) nothing.

This is a most extraordinary Flourish: Yet I finde the Rhetorick defective in the suiting of the Antitheses and An­tapodoses: but I shall not take notice of that fault now, it is so general in our Comical Wits. I shall now quit my Di­gression, and resume the controversie betwixt the two Dis­putants. Mr. Glanvill, for the credit of those Dioptrick Glasses, told Mr. Cross, ‘ That he might try them upon Objects near, and easily visible, by the unassisted sight; and if he made triall, he would finde they altered the Objects in nothing but their proportions, which are represented larger for the ad­vantage [Page 46] of vision in things small and remote; and we have all the like reasons to distrust our Eyes, as these Glasses ( for their informations are the same in all things, but the men­tioned difference) and there is no man such a fool as not to make allowance for that.—’ I see Mr. Glanvill is not on­ly ignorant of the Opticks, but altogether unacquainted with Telescopes: for first there are some made by Mr Smith­wick (a very ingenious and worthy man) Duobus vitiis convexis instructo Tele­scopio, habetur simul & semel objecti medo­ocris, vel multarum partium grandioris re­praesentatio, sed inversa: si debite adda­tur tertium convexum, multiplicatis adhuc refractionibus, una unius obtinetur ap­parentia, & in situ conformis Objecto. Zuc­chius phil. opt. part. [...]. c. 17 sect. 2. p. 180. which represent the Phases of the Moon very well, and yet invert all Ob­jects, but that is no default or impedi­ment where the thing looked on is round. These convex Telescopes a [...]ter the Object in some thing else besides their proportions: nor doth any such thing happen in a well­disposed Eye upon vision Secondly, he might have known this further difference betwixt an un-assisted sight, and what is performed by the best and longest Telescopes abo [...]t ordinary Objects, that the Dioptrick Tubes do represent the light and colours of bodies more d [...]lute and remiss then they appear to Zucchius ubi supra p. [...]81. the naked Eye. Per Telescopia, praesertim longiora, objecta spectantur luce & colore dilutiora, quam libero oculo. This is granted by Zucchius and others; and the reason is given by Zucchius, because that so great an expa [...]on o [...] amplification of the Object, and [...] of its Expansion [...]m repraesentativorum aequ [...] ­valere remissioni, & densationem corum intensioni, & utramque non à medio, sed a propria conditione propagationis radio­rum pendere. id ib. Si Telescopium sit extraordinariae longitudinis, ex nimia ex­pansione, quae a quivalet remissioni quali­tatis visibilis, apparet nimis dilutum: ut minus in eo varietas partium internosci pos­sit▪ Zucchius phil opt. p 2. tr. 3. c. 7. sect. 5. p. 366. Zucchius phil. opt. part 1 c. 17. sect. 6 p. 204 parts one from the other, is equivalent to a remission of those qualities therein. But to shew Mr. Glanvill a little more of his ignorance in Telescopes, I shall shew him some further differences be­twixt the naked sight, and what is per­formed by those Glasses. For some of them represent some Objects greater then they appear to the naked eye: Some (in the shorter Tubes) are represented no bigger, or ra­ther less then they otherwise seem: Some Objects in the longer Telescopes are magnified indeed, but nothing so much as other Objects are by the same Glasses. The Experi­ments [Page 47] are obvious: place a candle in the dark at some con­siderable distance, and the flame will appear round and en­compassed with rays: then take a short Telescope fitly made and placed, and look through it, and you will see the irradiation taken off, and the flame represented as ob­long, not round, and rather seemingly less then greater then it appeared before to the naked Eye. Then turn your eye unto any coloured Object, and take notice how big it seems: as­sume the same Telescope, and you shall find that to be mag­nified above what it seemed to the naked eye by much. Af­ter this, take a long Telescope, and view the aforesaid can­dle through that; and at the same distance view some other coloured Object, and you shall see that this last Telescope will represent both Objects much magnified; but the Candle less of the two by far.

But I shall adde further, that it is not to be doubted but that the Telescopes of Galilaeo, Scheiner, Rheita, Gassendus, Grimaldi, Eustachio Divini, Hevelius, Hugenius, Ricciolus, and Zucchius, were good in their kind, and that they did represent Objects as truly here on earth, as Si Lunares discos, post tot inspectores, & inspe­ctiones▪ publicatos videas, neque▪ numero, neque con­formatione si [...]i correspondent: quam multae partes vel prae aliis circumpositis illustriores interjectae & saa multo mino [...]i illustrationis exhibitione illas in­terrumpentes, aliquos latuerunt, & in angustiori­bus, vel minus accuratè expressis. Discis omissae, q [...]ae verè internoscibiles sunt in luna, & ab alii [...] consignantur? quantum totius Disci lunaris termi­natio▪ & insigniorum in ea partium, variata? Zucchius phil opt. part. 1. c. 17. sect 8. p 2 [...]3. any could; yet when they come to be applied to the Celestial Phae­nomena, what difference is there in their Observations? How do they complain either of the de­fault of the Telescopes, or want of care or skill, each in the o­ther? Simon Marius boasts of his accurateness: Scheiner in his Apelles tells us, Observationes omnes factae sunt summo studio coelo sere­nissimo, semper cum observatum est, & obscurissimo, ple­rumque Vide Scipion. Claramont. de Univers. l. 3. c. 8. in absentia videlicet Lunae: talis vero variis & ex­cellentissimis, quorum uno meliorem adhuc ad stellas non vidi. But enough may be collected to this purpose out of the foregoing discourse, so that I need not repeat it over again: out of all which as I would not be understood totally to dis­credit the use of Telescopes in celestial discoveries, (I do not [Page 46] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 48] deny but some things and some motions are observed by them, which a naked Eye cannot discern; but this knowledge arrives to a slender degree of certainty, when the Phaenomena come to be particularly explicated; and theoremes or assertions framed thence) so I would not have them too much relied on, nor men be too confident in principles and Conclusions which have no surer Foundation then those probabilities: and I do herein joyn with Claramontius in that Epiphonema, In tanta diversitate, quid certi ex tubo Optico habemus? If I must sus­pect the skill or accurateness of Galilaeo, Scheiner, Gassen­dus, Hevelius, Fontana, Ricciolus, and Zucchius, and such like; pardon me, if I know not whom to believe.

I have been the more large in this Point because of the insolence with which Mr. Glanvill persecutes that Reverend, and otherwise learned person, whom he represents to the world as He pleaseth, and accordingly treats him with that contempt and scorn which is less allowable towards a Divine, and such a one as is, and always hath been in that Coun­trey very much esteemed by several honourable Families, as well as others. However God hath so providentially order­ed the dispute, thereby to check the pride of our Virtuoso, that The Man of Words cannot triumph over the Man of Axiomes. And if it be true, that our Aristotelean was amazed at the hard words of Dioptrick Tubes, &c. as if there had been Magick in them: I doubt not to Justifie Him in it; for the insolent Virtuoso made use of them, not as be­came a knowing person, but as Conjurers use strange termes, and of an uncouth sound, though perhaps really Hebrew, La­tine, or Arabique.

Besides all this, perhaps Mr. Cross seems to have been offended at something in that mixt discourse or dispute, that might derogate from the Authority of the Scripture: many sayings are not innocent, but as they are worded or uttered. To say the Scripture was written to mens fancies is an expres­sion very unwary in a Divine: although a convenient inter­pretation may excuse it. To say it is not written according to vulgar Methods may so be spoken, that the action may render the words culpable. And in another Age they might [Page 49] have passed better then now, when men are prone to vilifie the Scripture, especially the little Wits. I perceive Mr. Sprat is not over-tender of the dignity of the Scripture: for although there be an ancient Canon of the Church a­gainst the applying the Sacred Word of God ad scurrilia & adu­latoria (which Canon is authorised even by the Council of Trent) yet doth he encourage men to apply it to ordinary Raillery. ‘ The Wit that may be borrowed from the Bible is magnificent, Plus ultra Page 4 4. and as all the other Treasures of knowledg it contains, inexhau­stible. This may be used and allowed without any danger of prophanenesse. The Ancient Heathens did the same. They made their Divine Ceremonies, the chief subjects of their phan­sies: But this pra­ctice of theirs was the ruine of their Re­ligion, as any man may judg who sees what use Cle­mens [...]lexan­d [...]inus and Lictantius make of it a­gainst Paga­nism. And the Greeks thought so when they pu­nished on [...], [...] by that means their Religions had a more awful im­pression, became more popular, and lasted longer in force then else they would have done, And why may not Christianity admit the same thing, if it be practised with Sobriety and Reverence. What irreligion can there be in applying some Scripture-expressions to Natural things? Why are not the one rather exalted and purified, then the other defiled by such Applications?—’ The Case is clear Gentlemen, Hath not the Lord said, What hast thou to do to take my words into thy mouth since thou hatest to be reformed? Besides, me­thinks our Divine might have remembred the feast of Bel­shazzar, and the resentment that the Lord expressed upon the applying of the consecrated vessels to the serving in a festival banquet, though to a Prince. He might have cal­led to minde the hand-writing upon the wall, and very pro­bably have inferred with himself, that if God was so con­cerned at the misapplication and abuse of those Temple-Ves­sels, he would much more severely interess himself where that Word of his, which he hath so many ways hallowed and recommended to our Veneration, is abused to raillery: This Humour is no part of the words or works in which the Man of God is to be perfected by reading of the Holy Scripture. I fear the great Judge will one day say unto these Drolls, Ye are weighed in the ballance, and found too light. To con­clude, the generality of Raillery amounts to no more but so many idle words, and they become doubly criminal by be­ing profane.

‘CHymistry hath indeed a pretence of the great Hermes for Plus ultra, Page▪ c [...]1. its Author, ( how truly I will not dispute.) From him 'tis said to have come to the Egyptians, and from them to the Arabians; Among these it was infinitely mingled with va­nity and superstitious devices: but it doth not appear at all in use with Aristotle and his Sectators: Nor doth it appear that the Grecians, or the disputing Ages, were con­versant in these useful and luciferous Processes.—’

Our Virtuoso is not willing to dispute whether Hermes were the Author of Chymistry, or not: It had become one that is encharged with the Cure of Souls very well, to have declined all these other disputes, as being remote from those Studies, by which he ought to qualifie himself for a be fitting discharge of the Ministry. But to tell him further, what I am sure he is ignorant of, the Egyptians did never attri­bute to Hermes the Invention of Physick, or any part of it, but to Apis and Aesculapius; and as for that Chymistry which they practised, which consisted in melting down and improving of Metalls, or making of Gold: Chemiae nomine olim haud [...] [...]vi [...] aliud significatum▪ quam [...] aut vero [...] [...]am quae vi­liorum metallorum la pdumque in me­lius commutationem pollicetur Ne q [...]i dem legere est, vel medicamentis praepa­randis operam aliquam impendisse pri­mos Chemiae professores. Con [...]ng. de Med. Herm. c. 3. p. 15. the Egyptians did never reckon the dis­covery of that Art amongst the praises of their Hermes, though they were very forward to magnifie him, and to ascribe unto him a great many Elogies. Nay, when they do recount the Authors of their Chymistry, though they do not a­gree about them, yet there is none that transfers that ho­nour upon this Trismegistus. But whether Aesculapi­us, or the wicked Angels, (to both which the In­vention is attributed) were the discoverers of Chymi­stry, I think I may allow the Egyptians to have been the first Practisers of it, and that there wanted not [Page 51] those who did mention Hermes amongst them that used that Art, and were esteemed Philosophers. Nor is the Egy­ptian Chymistry of any great Antiquity, there being no men­tion of it in any Greek or Latine Writer, till almost the Vide Coming. c. 3 p. 28. fourth Century after Christ. Neither is the name only of Che­mia or Chemistry of so modern a date: but there is not any record of any book In the time of Constantine A. D. 320. Firmicus is s [...]id to be the first that is re­corded to have named A ch [...]mia; he saith, that S [...]turn disposeth to [...]chimy. Whence Libavius argues that it was then an Art, and had been long practis [...]d, or else how comes it under Astrological Prediction? But there is no consequence in that reason of his it being usual for Astrologers to ac­commodate the Stars so as to have an in­fluence upon noveliny [...]ions. Under The­odasiv [...] the Great, A. D 38. He [...]odorus writ a book to the Emperour about the Chrysopoeia; and something about that [...] to er [...]lius, as Cedrenus witnesseth. Li­bav in Exam censur. P [...]. written, or work performed, that im­ports any such thing. Yet have the Alchymists (it is true) pretended to a greater Antiquity, entitling several spu­rious books to Hermes, Moses, (and Miriam his Sister) Democritus, Plato, Aristotle; and made as if their Art were intimated in the fable of the Gol­den Fleece, the H [...]sperian Orchards, and the Song of Solomon. In which I can­not but take notice of the different pro­cedure of those Chymists, and our Experimental Philoso­phers: the one attributed all glorious discoveries to the An­cients, their Predecessors; these will not allow them those praises which indisputably belong unto them. But how­ever, that I may grant our Virtuoso, that Chymistry did flou­rish in Egypt in such manner and at such time, as I have de­clared out of Conringius, (to whom I refer the inquisitive Reader) yet I must not gratifie him with this other conces­sion, that from them it came to the Arabians, the followers of Aristotle not being at all acquainted with it, nor the Gre­cians, or those disputing Ages, being at all conversant with it. For it is made eviden [...] by Conringius, ( c. 26. p, 368.) that it passed from the Egyptians to the Greeks. There are of Greek Writers, Zosimus▪ Panopolita, O­lympiodorus, Stephanus, Synesius, Michael Several of these Greek Writers were seen by Salmasius in the King of France his Library, and by Reynesius, (vide var. lection l. 2. c. 5 p. 5 [...].) who tran­scribes this passage [...]s the Conclusion of one of them. [...] lest any one should think that by [...] were meant our Wits, and Poets, and inventors. I must adde, that it is a name long ago fix­ed upon the Chymists and Chrysippore­ticks, as Reynesius declares. Psellus, Blemmydas, and many others, which are instanced in by the same Au­thor, and deduced through the several Centuries anteceding the Saracen Em­pire. The very name of [...] or [...], [Page 52] is Greek, as Vossius observes, de Philos. c. 9. The Moorish particle Al being prefixed. Nor is the word Alembex of any other original, being compounded of the said [...], a term used by Dioscorides to signifie a vessel, not much unlike our Limbecks. Diosc. l. 5. c. 64. vid. Conring. & Voss. ubi supra. From the Greeks together with other Learning, even Chymistry was transmitted: and Geber himself (as Leo Afer relates it, lib. 3. pag. 136.) was but an Apostate Grecian. This Geber is the most ancient of Arabian Alchymists, their Idol, and styled Magister Magistrorum. I am not ignorant that Conradus Gesnerus (in praef. ad Evon.) and some others Geberus quem volunt circa annum Portus virginei sex­centissimum in vivis fu­isse Libav ex­am. censur. P­risiens. have reckoned upon Geber as if he had been originally a Saracen, and the Nephew of one Mahomet: some say he was the Grandchild of the Impostor Mahomet: but their credit is not equal to that of Leo Afer, who appears a most learned person, and inquisitive even to Curiosity into the Lives as well as Customs of the Moors, his Countreymen. Habent Fessani Arabes multa Chemicae artis opuscula a viris Aser Hist. Afric [...] l. 3. doctis conscripta, inter quos potiorem locum habet Geber, qui centum annis post Mahometen vixit, quem natione Gidum aiunt fidem abjurasse.—Gesner cannot tell at what time he lived, but he saith he was not the Inventor, but Illustrator of the Art of Distillation.—Quanquam non illum primum hujus Artis Inventorem, sed Illustratorem fuisse existimo. Hoc in opere quod summae perfectionis inscribitur, de distillatione in Ge­ner Conrad Ges [...] ­ [...] praes. ad E [...] ­onym. Multa pulchre disserens, varios distillandi modos fere omnibus notos esse scribit: nimirum ut vetus quoddam suo seculo, non recens quoddam inventum.

But though the Greeks were not free of the Metal­lurgical part of Chymistry, yet did they not prepare any Medicines Chymically (that I know of,) except it were the Alcalisate Salts, and Ecchylomata, or Juices formed into Extracts, and Oyls drawn per descensum. This seems manifest in that Oribasius, Aetius, Paulus Aegineta, A­lexander Trachcanius, PAULUS & JOANNES Jatroso­phistae [Page 53] of Alexandria, Simeon Sethus, Actuarius, Nonus, Conringius c. 26. p 370. Gesner, in prae­sat. ad Euo­nym. and others mention no such Medicaments: no, nor Michael Psellus, though he writ a peculiar Tract a­bout Chemistry. Neither hath Nicolaus Myrepsus (though a modern Grecian) any Chymical Preparation.

The Arabians seem the first that ever accommoda­ted Chymistry in an eminent manner to Physick; if it be true, as Libavius imagines; that Abulchasis did live in the time of Muhauia the Saracen, that set­led their Empire at Damascus Anno Dom▪ 660. Chy­mistry then seems to have been regulated into an Art; He writ a Book of Physick called Servitor, Libav in ex­am. sent. Paris. which principally treats of Medicines Chymically pre­pared, and useth the terms of reverberation, calcina­tion, coagulation, distillation per ascensum & descensum: and many such like expressions, together with Processes purely Chymical. It was then that Alchymie was cal­led Perfectum Magisterium; and that which we call Oyle of Bricks, did bear the name of Oleum Sapi­entiae & Perfecti Magisterii.

So Avicenna speaks not only of Rose-water distilled: but of Mercury and Arsenick sublimed: after him Jo­annes Mesues shews how to make several Chymical Conring. ubi supra, p 374. Oyls, as of Amber, Wheat, Oleum Philosophorum, &c. Neither is it to be doubted, but that there were an infinite number of Chymical Processes latent in the hands of particular Artists, since Joannes Mesues re­fers us unto them, viz. de quibus loquuntur, qui quae Vid. Conring. ubi supra. sunt occulta in rebus manifestant & detegunt. Hos quo­que aggredere rei hujus cupidus tam famosae apud illos. After that the Western Christians were civilized and in­structed in the Sciences by the Moors inhabiting Spain, Reade Liba­vius more ful­ly upon this [...] subject in E▪ am. censur. Parisiens. and that Physick superstructed upon the principles of Galen, Avicenna, and Averroes, was derived unto them, those Sectators of the ancient Philosophy impro­ved Chymical Pharmacy very much. [Page 54] nor were Albertus Magnus, Aponensis, Gentilis de Fulgineo, Ar­noldus de villa nova, Raymundus Lullius, or Joannes de Rupe­scissa, or Isaacus Hollandus, or Basilius Valentinus, or Antonius Conring. ubi supra, c. 27. p. 379. 380, &c. Guainerius, or Michael Savonorola, or Montagnana, or Hie­ronymus Schallerus, and Magenbuchius (Chymical Physicians at Norimbergh before Paracelsus) or Guilielmus Varigana, or Antonius Fumanellus, or Wolfgangus Talhenserus, or Hiero­nymus Brunsvigus (the first that writ of Chymistry in the German tongue) any other then Pretenders to the ancient Physick and Philosophy. There was no faction betwixt the Physicians in those days; nor did they undervalue or decry each other; They rather represented themselves to be Ad­herents and Sectators of Aristotle, then his Enemies; and chose rather to sophisticate his fourth book of Meteors, to Conring. ibid. c [...]8. p. 387. Erastus de metall. p 34. shew that great Man knew all things, then condemn all his o­ther works, as if he knew nothing. Nor were they only fol­lowers of the PERIPATETICKS, but I finde the Chymists that did precede Paracelsus to be accounted Hippocratical Physicians: witness this passage in Caspar Bravo, who in­quired more into them then I have had leisure to doe.

But when Paracelsus was seised with the same spirit that seems to sway some of the Virtuosi: then did he begin to decry the study of Languages, as loss of time; our Wits call it Pedantry. He vilified Logick as that which caused endless disputes, and darkned rather then discovered Nature: He calls it matrem odii, rixarum & litium; He prohibited the reading of other good and Ancient Authors. He seemed to be of no Religion; and if for any, it was to be without Me­taphysicks, without the mixture of Glosses and Interpretati­ons, Solum textum Scripturae legendum, interpretationem nul­lam adhibendam. He calls upon all Universities and Coun­treys to resort unto him, to follow him and his new discove­ries, his real Philosophy, his Essential Anatomies, all other performances being but empty and verbose.

Because I observe som resemblance betwixt the invitations of Mr. Sprat and his, I will set one of his passages down in the Preface of his Paragranum, viz. Me sequimini; Non ego vos se­quar. Me, me, inquam, sequimini, Avicenna, Galen, Rhases, Mon­tagnana, Mesue. Me sequimini; non ego vos sequar, Parisienses, Monpelienses, Suevi, Misnici, Colonienses, Viennenses, qui Da­nubium & Rhenum accolitis. Vos item Insulae marinae, Italia, Sed in primo de pestilitate tractatu pri­mo, ubi d [...] Chelidoniae contra imagi­nationes Ma­gicas amuleto disserit, adeo non rejicit Galeni & Hip­pocratis de­creta, ut etiam amplius vider velit Galeni- i cus, quàm omnium sc [...]o­ [...]a [...] Dalmatia, Athenae, Graeci, Arabes, Israelitae, me sequimini, non ego vos sequar. Mea enim Monarchia. Hereby any one may see that He was as conceited of himself, and as great a con­temner of all ancient Learning, and of Aristotle, and Galen, &c. as some of the Virtuosi: and as ignorant of Latin and other tongues; and as false and imperfect in his relations; as va­riable in his hypotheses, as if he held nothing but with the power of revoking it, which is a great qualification of a modern Philosopher. He was not for the particular me­thods in vogue, but for a general Enquiry into the Experiments of old Women, Mountebanks, Hangmen, Husbandmen, &c. He could make use of the writings and inventions of others, con­cealing their [...], and [...] [Page 56] as becomes a modish Experimentator. To evince this last assertion, I shall set down some passages of Crato, and o­thers, to shew that the disputing Ages were not so ignorant of Chymistry as Mr. Glanvill pretends. Crato in a Letter to Erastus writes thus; Remedia quibus aliquando usus esse dici­tur, Erastus part. 4. p. 300. non illius esse ex eo certus sum, quod librum vidi ante du­centos fere annos a Monacho quodam Ulmae scriptum, in quo ea­dem medicamenta, quae ille frustillatim, nunc in has nunc in illas chartas sparsit, perspicue sunt scripta.—And elsewhere, P [...]ae [...] ad Ex­ercit. Scali­ger. Hartman & Crollius pub­lished no new medicines. Caeterum ne (que) Crollium neq me aliquid nov [...] protulis­ [...]e libenter sa­temur, ne (que) ea unquam utri­us (que) nostrum mens fuit. Hartman▪ in not▪ ad Croll. p. 138. Libavius ubi supra. Fuit in bibliotheca viri optimi & integerrimi Marci Singmoseri Sacratissimi Impp. Consilii a Secretis primi, liber ante ducentos annos a Monacho quodam exaratus. Eo multis mensi­bus usus sum, & omnia quae isti (Paracelsici) tanquam in E­leusiniis sacris mussitant, tam evidenter tradita, ut neminem fallere possent animadverti. He himself confesseth who were his teachers in Chimistry, and that he was far from be­ing the first Inventour of it. ‘ Theophrastus Paracelsus natus anno Christi 1493. mortuus 1541. Hic non erubuit con­fiteri seremedia in Chymicis accepisse, & his ipsis Scien­tiam Artis Chymiae debere. Antiqui Philosophi (ait in [...]. parte Chirurgiae mag. tractat. 3. c. 1.) studiosi indagandarum longae vitae causarum (recitamus breviter sententiam) de­stituti vero perfecta praeparandorum componendorumque me­dicamentorum scientia ab Alchymistis eam petere non sunt ve­riti, atque sic utronemque laboribus conjunctis genuina praepa­randorum remediorum Scientia exorta, & variis Chemicis ex­perimentis in medicinam transfusis est aucta, maxime vero tincturis & floribus metallicis, quarum tincturarum quant a fuerit efficacia, antiqui ea de re Codices testantur, quos diu a Pseudomedicorum turba suppressos, nos publicos facere non du­bitavimus. Remedia nostra ex Chymicorum Schola prodiisse non dubito fateri: & quoniam Chymica ars infinitis errori­bus scatere visa est, illud quoque Augiae stabulum repurgandi laborem sumpsimus: in quo felicius mihi versari licuit, quod ob ineunte aetate magnae Artis studio captus summa diligentia sub excellentissimis praeceptoribus Arti huic studuerim. Praece­ptores enim fuerunt Wilhelmus Hohenheimius Pater, & alii infiniti: praeter hos quoque scriptis adjutus sum Setthagii E­piscopi, [Page 57] Erhardi Laventalii, Nicolai Hipponensis Episcopi, Matthai Sohechtii Suffraganei Treisingensis, Abbatis Span­heimii, aliorumque doctissimorum Chemistarum: Quin & va­riis corum experimentis factus sum locupletior, inter quos ho­noris causa nominandus mihi venit nobilissimus vir Sigismun­dus Fueger Schwathensis, qui magnis sumptibus pluribus mi­nistris sustentatis Chemicam accessione locupletavit. Haec ibi Paracelsus. Neque vero falsa scribere est putandus, quandoquidem seculum istum & exercitiis Chymicis & voluminibus scatuit, cum jam plures tractatus typis publicis sint impressi, nihilominus cernimus, subinde ex tenebris prodire plures, ita ut ne Thesauri quidem multi videantur sufficere cupiendis, nec Theatra.’

His followers confess, that he borrowed much out of Ba­silius Valentinus, and more out of Isaacus Hollandus, as Pe­nottus declares, Cum incidissem in Isaaci librum de opere ve­getabili, De dena [...] ▪ me­dic. reperi de verbo ad verbum doctrinam de tribus prin­cipiis, & de separatione quatuor Elementorum ab eo desumptam, Unde constat illum praecipua sua Opera suffuratum fuisse, atque hinc inde expiscatum: ut de gradationibus medicinarum ab Ar­noldo, Vide Con­ring. de med. Herm. c. 2 [...]. p. 252▪ 253. Archidoxa a Raymundo Lullio ex sua Arte operativa: de Arcanis a Rupescissa; nihil prorsus a seipso praeter convitia: & maledicta: a Trithemio varia.—The same is confessed by Quercetan somwhere as I remember, and he himself intimates it by adding to many preparations the words, Ex nostra corre­ctione, ex mea emendatione. Out of all which it is evident, that neither the Grecians, nor the disputing Ages were so igno­rant of Chymistry, as Mr. Glanvill asserts; as it is certain that the Arabians as well as the Grecians were disputers and followers of Aristotle and Galen, and that particularly Al­bertus Magnus and Roger Bacon were Schoolmen. Nor can a­ny man doubt the same of those other Bishops and Monks, who knows with what perfect Veneration, in those days Ari­stotle was regarded. How useful and how luciferous their Processes were, it is not for Mr. Glanvill to judge, who is ignorant of them: but any one will allow them, both the one and the other, recommmendation, who considers that their Chymical Processes which passed amongst them gave occa­sion [Page 58] to all, and make a great part of the improvements in Chy­mistry, in Dioptricks and other Subjects, wherein our Virtuosi pride themselves. Particularly as to Chymistry, it is as clear that the disputing Ages and followers of Aristotle were acquainted with it, and eminent for it, as that there were Monks and Schoolmen. Those men whom Mr. Glanvill so explodes, and with whom the Historian disports himself, had of late years before Paracelsus, in a manner, solely the knowledge of this Art by which Nature is unwound, &c. This Sennertus De Cons. Chym. c. 3. granteth. Proximis seculis fere inter Monachos latuit Chymia, quorum non pauci illud, quo abundabant, otium post sacras me­ditationes & orationes, arti huic praestantissimae honeste tribu­erunt: inter quos fuerunt Raymundus Lullius, Albertus Ma­gnus, Joannes de Rupescissa, Savanarola, Morienus, Rogerius, Trithemius, & Frater Basilius Valentinus: quorum scripta mul­ta hoc seculo in lucem edita sunt, & multa adhuc manuscripta passim latent. I hope there is no exception against Sen­nertus, how partial soever Erastus or Crato may seem. And to affront our Virtuoso a little more, it was a follow­er of Aristotle, and those Disputers, a pitiful School-Divine that discovered the making of Gun-Powder, which single invention out-does all that our Collegiates boast of. In the year 1354. Bertholdus Schwarz a Benedictine Monk dis­covered it, and I dare warrant him in those days no enemy to the man of Stagyra, the Idol of disputers; A very anc [...] ­ent Manuscript gives him this Character. Bertholdus Schwarz Goslariensis Monachus ordinis Sancti Benedicti, cum mire Chy­micis delectaretur, atque eorum peritia jam magnam sili nominis existimationem acquisiisset, &c. Any one may read the rest in Kirchers Mundus subterraneus l. 12. sect. 5. part. 4.

I shall relate some particular processes in Chymistry, V [...]ssi [...]s de philosoph c. 1 [...]. sect 12. Gesn. in prae [...] [...] E [...]ny [...]n. Vossius▪ [...] philo c 13▪ [...]ring de med. Herm▪ c. 26 p. 371. which are mentioned by such as were not Arabians, but of a much more ancient date. In the time of Julianus and Valentinianus Emperours lived Aetius Amidenus; he and Nicolaus Myrepsus (who is indeed later then Mesue) do mention the distillation of Oyls per descensum, as Ges­ner shews; and Vossius together with Conringius avow— [Page 59] Nicolaus Myrepsus (or Praepositus)— in quo illud miror nullam ab eo aquarum oleorumve Chymisticis instrumentis paratorum mentionem fieri. Capnistum tantum oleum, quod per descensum distilletur, describit, ut Aetius quoque. As to the ways of making Chymical Extracts, let any man judge whether the Grecians were ignorant of them, by these passages, as they are Obscr [...]at & paradox. chym. l. 1 c. 2. p. [...]2. cited by Gunterus Billichius, viz. Chylismata extrahun­tur aut exprimuntur. Extrahendi nec ars nova est, nec novus modus, quanquam Heurnio ita visum sit Method. ad praxin. lib. 1. & lib. 2. c. 25. Rationem ejus a Dio­scoride accipe, verbis interpretis Ruellii lib. 3. c. de Gen­tiana. Contusa, inquit, radix quinque diebus aqua macera­tur, postea in eadem tantisper decoquitur, dum extent ra­dices, & ubi refrixit aqua, linteo excolatur: mox disco­quitur, dum mellis crassitudo, fiat fic [...]ilique reconditur. Similia cap. 9. ejusdem libri de Centaurio minore habet. Dioscorides i [...]ed in the days o [...] [...]leo­pa [...]ra and [...]a [...]c. Anton. whose Physi­cian he was a so lower of Herophilus, and conse­quently of [...]ppocrates and Aristotle, Vide Vess d [...] philos. c. 11. sect. [...]0. & Jonsium de script. hist. & phil. l. 2. c. 6. p. 145. Dabo tibi ipsissima Dioscoridis verba; [...]. Ne­quid ad plenitudinem artificii deesset, subjungit; Quod siquid concretum faucibus vasis adhaerescat, deradunt, re­liquoque humori permiscent. Item haec; Quae autem siccis radicibus aut herbis liquamenta exprimuntur, decocta (ut in Gentianae mentione retulimus▪ praepa­rantur. Ita Lycium & Abscynthium, hypocistis, & consimilia coguntur. De Lycio vide cap. 135. lib. 1. de hypocistide libri ejusdem cap. 128. Chylismatis de­nique absynthini, cap. 26. meminit. Nec aliter Extra­ctum Melampodii clarissimus Raymundus Mindeserus con­cinnavit, quod in Pharmacopoeia Augustana inter Ecchy­lismata▪Cathortica locum non postremum reperit. Ut [...]i­queat, extrahendi artificium, dignum omnino fuisse, quod & erudita antiquitas inveniret, & non degener posteritas imitaretur. Nec quicquam Chymia novi, praeter liquorem attulit.

[Page 60]Concerning fixed and Alcalisate Salts, the Chymists and Chymical Physicians make a great noise: and undoubtedly the Invention is very extraordinary, and their use very singu­gular in Medicine. Yet both See the antiquity of the use of Alcalisate and other Salts by the Ancients, largely proved by M. Ru [...]andus progymn. alchym. qu. 14, 15. Vide Galen. de Theriaca sub finem, & Pharma­cop. Augustan. in append. ad an [...]idot. class. de Salib. Theriacal. G. Bellichius observat. & paradox. chym. l. 1. c. 2. p. 30. & in Thessalo chymicum. c. 7. p. 90. the preparation and the use of them is set down by Dioscori­des, Galen, and Aetius, in their discourses about Theriacal Salts; Though latter days have refor­med the preparation, as Galen endeavoured to do that which he found in use in his time. Besides, I observe out of Gunterus Bellichius, that Aristotle was not ignorant of it. Aristoteles auctor est, Umbros cine­rem harundinis & junci decoquere aqua solitos, donec exiguum superesset humoris: qui ubi refrixisset, salis copiam fecerit, lib. 2. meteor. cap. 3. Hoc se apud Theophrastum invenire Plinius te­statur, lib. 31. cap. 7. Idemque non harundinei tantum juncique salis meminit, sed colurni insuper, & querni. Amborum au­toritate (nam de Theophracto nihil mihi constat) Chymicorum castigabitur temeritas, quae suis inventis salem cineritum an [...] ­merare ausa est.

The preparation of Salt-peter with Sulphur, in order to the making of what the Chymical Physicians call Sal pru­nellae, was known to Hippocrates, and others of the ancients, and they used it in Squinonsyes in Gargarismes for the tongue and throat. Desinant in posterum Chymici de lapide Prunellae magnifice gloriari. Nam & apud Hippocratem [...] G Bellichius obsciv. chym. l. 1. c. 5. p 49. quater invenimus. Semel quidem in tertio de morbis: bis in de internis affectionibus: denique semel in lib. de morb. mulier. Ac ne dubites erudite antiquitati cognitum eum lapidem fuisse, Plinius auctor est, nitrum frequenter liquatum cum Sulphure coqui in carbonibus, sulphuri concoctum in lapidem verti. Haec recognosce ex lib. 31. cap. 10. And the same Author saith elsewhere, Prae aliis omnibus inclaruit [...] Hippocra­tis G Bellichius [...] l. 2. c. [...]. p 119. seu lapis Plinii nitrarius, dictus a barbarorum pruna se [...] angina, cui singulariter mederi perhibetur. Nec nova est quae­cunque ea laus. Nam & Hippocrates abstergendae Salivae & muco, ac facilit andae exscreationi nitrum anginosis obtulit, indi­ditque [Page 61] [...]llationibus Oris. Lib. 2. de morbis, sect. 49.

Neither is the way of subliming Flowers of Benzoin, any thing else then the imitation of that way which the Anci­ents had of condensing Soot. So Bellichius informs me, Fu­ligo, Id ib. l. 1. c. 2. p. 31. definiente Scaligero, cujusque rei pinguis crematilis pars est, ac demum aliarum rerum fumus condensatus, Exerc. 56. Modus conficiendae ejus, siquid artificii subest, apud Dioscori­den extat, lib. 1. c. 85, 86, 94, 97. imitatio apud Beguinum, quando Benzoinum defloravit, l. 2. c. 18.

It may perhaps be granted by most intelligent persons, that the making of Extracts, and fixed Salts, and such instances of Vegetables being prepared as I have given, and the glory of those inventions cannot justly be denied unto those disputing Ages; but that the preparation of Minerals, and the medicinal use of them inwardly, is a discovery the ancient times were not acquainted with. And this is the judgment of many learned men. But in refutation of it, seeing that the inward use of Antimony, as it is several ways prepared, re­fers to Basilius Valentinus, and before his days; since that, sundry preparations of Mercury are more ancient then the humour of Novellism; since Paracelsus, Hartman, Crollius did but publish the processes of Aristoteleans, Avicennists, and such like Monks and Physicians; all that our Virtuoso can de­rive from this Plea is, that the Arabians, adherents to the old Philosophy and their followers, did improve the extent of Chymistry, and added thereunto as they did in the other pra­ctice of Physick, the use of Rhubarb, Cassia, Manna, Tama­rinds, and other benign medicines: and this demonstrates that Philosophy and those notions not to be so steril, as they are represented in comparison of the Fecundity of the Carte­sian Principles, from whence Physick hath received little (if any) benefit or advantage. But to raise this Enquiry be­yond the times of the Saracen Empire, it is manifest out of Pliny, that mineral-waters were drunk in those ancient times: and that the Stomoma or rust of iron, as also that drinks in which Iron was quenched, was given in the time of Dioscorides and Galen. That Brimstone was given inwardly Diosc. l. 5. [...]. 53. Galen. l. 1. de cuporist. c. 17. by Hippocrates to asthmatick persons. That the Squamma [Page 62] aeris was given inwardly, as a purge and vomit by Hippocrares, Hippocr. de vict. in morb. acut. Vide Doring. de medicina, p. 217. Ru­land▪ pro­gymn. qu. 20. Brassavol. de me [...]. purg. p. 177. [...]oterius. Pharmacop. Spagir, l. 2. c 6. Galen, Dioscorides and Gelsus: and the Experiment happily tried by Brassavolus, that great Experimentator again of la­ter years. So the giving of Sandaracha, or Orpiment in­wardly for old coughs; and the suffiment made out of it, are recorded by Dioscorides: the trochises of it recommended anew by Mesue, and the more modern trials in Riverius. E­ven Chalcitis is an ingredient in the ancient Treacle of Andro­machus. I shall conclude all with the passage of Doringius in the place already cited, Praeter Sandarachum Isidorus, A­thenaeus, Idius, Eubulus, Heras, Gemellus, Agathius, Nico­stratus, Doring. de medic. & med. p. [...]19. Vide & Ru­land. pro­gymn. Alch. qu. 20. Menander, Thanyros, Deletius Epagathus, Ascle­piades, & alii: Alumen scissum, Auripigmentum, Aeris squam­mam, Aes ustum, Calcem vivam, Sulphur vivum, faeces unde ustas, Cadmiam, Cerussam, Gypsum, Stibium sive Antimoni­um in pastillos redacta dysentericis praescripserunt: quorum prae­parandi rationem & utendi modum vide apud Galenum lib. 9. de compos. med. sec. loc. c. 5. Out of which passages any Reader will guels what President later Authors had out of the more remote Ancients for the giving minerals inwardly; and if we are just to the Arabians and their followers, we shall scarcely allow them any further honour, then to have found out some new ways to serve up o [...]d dishes.

I shall adde, that in Egypt, at such time as the repute of the Egyptian Priests, and their phantastical Philosophy had gi­ven way to the followers of Hippocrates, Aristotle, Herophilus, and others, that introduced the Grecian Learning there, that is, in, and somewhat before the days of Dioclesian, the Egyptians were Masters of that Secret of making Gold, which our inquisitive Moderns have so vainly sought after. Before that Age there is no mention of it, and then it is said they had such knowledge of the Art of making Gold, that thereby they were enriched and impowered to make War upon the Romans; and being overcome by the Empe­rour Dioclesian, he burned all the books which they had, containing the Mysteries of that Art, to prevent any future commotions of that Nature. So Suidas in the word [...] ▪ [Page 63] [...]. And in the word [...] he says, [...]. The renown of this Story is not questioned by the Chymists, and I finde the learned Joannes Langius to give cre­dit Joan. Langii Ep. med. l. 1. ep. [...]3. de O­rig. Alchym. But Or [...]s. and Paulus Diaco­nus were cre­dulous Wri­ters, and of little reput [...]. Libavius in exam. censur. Parisiens. Rolfincius chym. Art. [...] redact l. 1 10 & Con ring. dem. Herm. c 3. 21. Erastus de metallis, p. 103. unto it, quoting for the truth of it in his margin, be­sides Suidas; Orosius l. 7. c. 16. And Paulus Diaconus in tho life of Diocletian: Neither doth Libavius or Rolfincius elevate the authority thereof, though he mention the pas­sage of Suidas. And to give a further colour unto this re­lation, I am informed that Aeneas Gazaeus, who lived in the latter end of the fifth Century, when Zeno and Anasta­sius were Emperours, treating of the Resurrection, hath this passage, [...]. But these Nar­rations are rejected by such as deny that other metalls may be transmuted into Gold: It is replied by Erastus, that either those Egyptian books contained nothing but the Art of melt­ing down of metalls, and separating the latent Gold there­from: or that Suidas being a late writer, living but 500 years ago, about 800 years or more after Diocletian, might have been imposed upon by the Chymists of those times (in Greece, and during the disputing Ages! mark that Mr. Glan­vill) Conring de med. Herm. c. 3 p. 23. who even then might have feigned some such stories as that (and the Allegorising of the Golden Fleece) just as they have within the last Centuries counterfeited the Works of Moses and Solomon, and entitle them unto their Fictions. There are an infinity of stories in Suidas, which render his Assertions suspected: and in this he hath not the counte­nance of any ancient Writer to second him. It seems strange, that the Romans having so long ruled in Egypt absolutely, and their Governours, they not being to be supposed free from all desires of gain, how they should never apprehend the Ar­tifice, nor have the least mention of it in their Writers [Page 64] ( Greek or Latine) till the end of the fourth Century: and that so remarkable a passage as this is should be omitted by those ancient Writers, who relate both the war and actings of Dio­cletian Id ib p. 22. after his victory. As for that saying of Aenaeas Ga­zaeus, it is replied that he speaks by hear-say, rather then certain knowledge of the operation: that there have not want­ed many learned persons, who have with a great deal of con­fidence, De plant. re­suscit. vide Bellich. Thes­sal, [...]ed. v. c. 7. Rolfinc. art. chym. l. 6. c. 3. & l. 7. c. 19. illustrated the Resurrection by contemplations of the Phoenix, and of the forms of Plants resuscitated in their se­veral Salts, as if both were realities: yet is there no such thing as either the one or the other.

Out of all which it is evident that Chymistry was a practice known and in use among the Sectators of Aristotle: and that the Grecian and disputing Ages were not unacquainted with those Processes, though these latter times have been more va­rious and inquisitive, and have reduced that Art into better Method, and enlarged the Practice of Physick, with an infi­nity of Medicines: and indeed we must confess our selves very much obliged by the labours of ingenious Chymists, and that they have afforded multitudes of Experiments, such as contribute to the delight of all Philosophical heads, and to the Cure of many that being sick, have either better opinion of Chymical Medicines then of others, or are pleased with their small, and commonly more pleasant dose.

But that those parts into which Chymists reduce things, [...]ee this larg­ly disputed by Libavias in exam. censur. Parisiens. are latent in the compound body, otherwise then by the A­ristotelean distinction of formaliter and materialiter (so much laughed at by Mr. Glanvill, pag. 119.) This is an Assertion which doth not become any man that pretends to have read Mr. Boyle in his Sceptical Chymist, where that Point is too amply debated to be here transcribed. or ever (I think) refu­ted. Vide Kerger. de fermentat. sect 1. c. 3. p. 10. & Rolfinc▪ chym. in ar. red. l. 1. c. 19. Conring. de med. Hermet. c 22. Having denied Mr. Glanvill, that by those useful and luciferous processes, Nature is unwound and resolved into the minute Rudiments of its composition. Which Rudiments were not made use of at the first Creation, when one Fiat cre­ated those compound bodies, which Artful Fires sometimes (and but sometimes) analyse into several parts, as Salts, Oyle, or Sulphur and Spirit, and those grosser Elements of Earth [Page 65] and water. All which are not found in many bodies, (and when they are, it is with a great discrepancy betwixt those of one Concrete, and those of another) nor any of them to be De serment. c 1. p. 4. separated from Gold. Which Libavius, no, nor Dr. Willis doth not make to be the last unmixt, and simple Constituents of natural bodies, sed ejusmodi tantum substantias, in quas ve­luti partes ultimo sensibiles res Physicae resolvuntur: Sub­stances into which natural bodies are resolved finally as far as sense can judge, and when the Analysis is prosecuted in one sort of procedure: for another method, different Solvents, and different Fires discover different parts, and those sensible too from what the usual Chymistry builds upon. Having de­nied him this, I must further tell him, that when the Coun­treywoman sets her Eggs to be hatched, she produceth by those means such bodies as no Chymical fires with their vex­atious Analysis ever would discover: so she doth when she doth brew and churms her butter. Nor is this more evident, then it is clear that the Chymical principles, when they come to be accommodated to the solving of the Phaenomena in na­ture, or in diseases, have as much of darkness and dissatisfa­ction in them, as occurs in the Peripatetick way: so that now we are more dubious, not more knowing, then before: and this any man that hath considered how the Chymical Phy­sicians disagree about the causes of diseases, and even about the common Phaenomena of Nature, will easily grant me: nor will it appear less manifest, that if the Chymical hypotheses do take place, that it will subject the Mechanick Philosophy, and establish that of Anaximander, revived by the ingenious Berigardus.

But Mr. Glanvill adds, ‘ That Chymistry directs Medi­cines Plus ultra, p. 11. less lothsom, and far more vigorous, and freeth the spi­rits and purer parts from the clogging and noxious appen­dices of grosser matter, which not only hinder and disable the operation, but leave hurtful dregs in the body behind them.—’ This Plea for the preferring CHYMICAL Medicines before those commonly called Galenical, is much insisted on by Beguinus, Quercetanus, and others of that way. Yet, first it is observable, that whether we regard taste or [Page 66] smell, those very Authors recommend as odious medicaments, and as loathsom, as ever Coerdus or Foesius in their Dispensa­tories, if not worse. Will any man in his Wits condemn Worm­wood and Centory because of their bitter taste, or Castoreum for the smell? Secondly, every thing is not the better for being ex­tracted. [...]reictag. nect. med. c. 75. p. 325. See Mr. Boyle of the useful­ness of Philos. part 2 p. 148, &c. Thus the Extract of Rhubarb, though quickned with its Salt, is not so efficacious as plain Rhubarb, except it be so­phisticated with Diagridium. Nor is Cynnamom improved by Extraction. Their being more vigorous and freed from grosser parts is not always a commendation, and sometimes it carries danger with it. That those grosser parts, and those natural ve­hicles are requisite, seems even thence clear, that their spi­rits & essences must be tempered and mixed often with other gross bodies before they be given. Those appendices of grosser See this point fully debated in the Vulgar Errors of Primrose, l. 4. c 3. which I desire Mr. Glanvill to read. In Pharma­cop▪ August. De CC philo­sophice calci­nat. p. 805. matter are not always noxious to Nature, since in our meats we finde none to be able to live on Chymical viands, but good Kitchin-Preparations. How many ways are there of pre­paring Harts-horn, yet is there not one that equalls the crude Horn. I shall set down Zwelfers words, whose credit no Chy­mist almost will extenuate. Licet ex cornibus vel ossibus it a Philosophice calcinatis distillationi subjectis de spiritu sale vo­latili, & oleo ipsorum foetido nonnihil eliciatur, non tamen pro­pterea existimandum ipsa adhuc iisdem quibus crudum cornu pollere viribus vel majoribus etiam (prout nonnulli sibi imagi­nantur & asserunt) vel etiam, ut alii arbitrantur, hac calcina­tione nihil aliud peractum fuisse quam quod friabilia, ad pul­verandum aptiora, & magis pura reddita sunt: Neutiquam, Quippe, qui ambo cornua, tam crudum quam Philosophice cal­cinatum, examini ignis subjiciet, reipsa deprehendet multum de nativa sua humiditate, de sale volatili & oleo huic cornis Philosophice calcinato detractum esse, & eorundem vix parte quarta adhuc gaudere, ut propterea & hanc calcinationem Phi­losophicam, licet totali exustione aliquanto meliorem, approbare In prosecution of this point let any man consider, that Chymical oyle of Anniseeds is not so effectual as the powder. Heurn. meth. adv. l. 1. c. 5. Nor doth the like oyle of Camomile equal the infusion, as Simon Pauls Cl. quadrip. p. [...]55. practically observed. So the com­mon Pillute de succino and Franckfort-pills transcend the minute doses of divers and the most famed Pan­chymagoga. This is an▪ observation so common with all practitioners, that none but Mountebanks and Quacks can deny it. Crato, Steeghius, Hofman, and others, generally taking notice of it. nequeam: e contra vero ipsum cru­dum cervi cornu subtiliter & minutim raspatum pluris aesti­mem, quod tamen diversimode [Page 67] parari, inque virtutibus suis ex­altari potest. Ut vel in substantia, forma nimirum pulveris, vel in aqua decoctum & in mucilaginem vel gelatinam conversam tuto & sine nausea propinari possit. Nor is this more true in Harts-horn than in Vipers, which are more effectual being eaten as Eeles, or by a common infusion in wine, or gi­ven in powder ( plain powder) then when reduced to volatile Salt and Essences. It is also false, that Chymical preparati­on always amends, or doth not render some things worse: The ingredients of sublimated Mercury are not poison; the result is. How much is the nature of Antimony and Mer­cury altered by preparing, so that a few grains prove mortal to the taker, who might without prejudice devour great quan­tities of either of them unprepared, Hydrargyrus, Antimonium M. Ruland. progymn. Alchym. qu. 33. crudum larga saepius porriguntur: The infusion of crude An­timony, (a pound in four Gallons of Ale) often rectifies all impurities of the blood, as well any viper-wine: and Mer­cury, which being crude is not only given in Pills by sundry Physicians, but drunk without any hurt in greater or lesser Poterius Pharmacop. Spagir. l. 1. p. 352. This ex­periment is not down in the two Trea­tis: sof the Vi­t [...]osi about the sophistication of wines: but in short, those▪ pieces (as much as they are famed be­fore they came out) have been laughed at by all knowing persons and Wine-coop­ers. quantities in several cases. Non desunt qui Mercurium cru­dum in dolioli fundo detinent, ferunt vinum ne arescat, aut va­porem contrahat, aut pendulum fiat, ea ratione fieri. Nos tale vinum ad ventris lumbricos plurimum valere certo scimus. As for the hurtful dregs which the Galenical Medicaments are said to leave behind: I am confident, that whosoever shall enquire into the ill consequences of the two Pharma­ceutics, will say, that if the Galenical be not always the most efficacious, it is always the most safe and innocent: and any man will be more apt to dread the violent impressions which the powerful spirits and minerals may make upon the mem­branes of the Stomach (which may introduce an irrelievable distemper in the torenus of that part, whereupon depends the nutriment, health, and vigour of the whole body) then any noxious faeces or little and remediable hurt from the genera­lity of the Galenical Medicaments. Qui Deum credit male­factorum vindicem ultoremque, is a noxiis medicamentis, cum ad manum sunt alia, diligenter abstinebit: ne quando homicidii, [Page 66] [...] [Page 67] [...] [Page 68] accusant [...] conscìentìa, reus fiat, parum profuerit novendecim cu­rasse periculoso curationis genere, quo vigesimus, aut trigesimus sit necatus. Erastus disp. de propr. medic. c. 65. And there is this to be said in Justification of that Course—that those who have most decried it, and raised their repute upon a dif­ferent way, yet have practised with it. In ipsius Paracelsi scri­ptis Conring. de med. Herm. c. 21. p 2 [...]9. Paludan. epist. [...] H. Sme [...]. Ea ha­betur in Bar­tholini cista med in vita Severini. p. 127. passim laudantur remedia morborum vulgari modo & com­posita & praeparata. Etiam Petrus Severinus teste Paludano, Medicamentis Paracelsicis non semper us [...]s est, verum & com­positionibus Galenicis saepe. Nor are Paracelsus & Petrus Severinus Danus singular in this action: it is the common usage of Quercetan, Crollius, and Hartman; not to mention Dr. Willis: I shall adde, that Chymical medicines have n [...] ­ver or very seldom answered their expectation, which men raise of them: and whosoever shall inquire into the credit which Paracelsus, Petrus Seve­rinus, Vide Conring. de med. Herm. c. 25 p. 358. &c. de Paracelso, de Phedrone, & Pharmacis Paracelsicis vi­de Bernardum Dissenniam Croneburgium in def med. veter. c. 40, 41, &c. & de Petro Severino Dano. Vide epistolam Palu dani, ubi supra. De Scheunemanno vi­de Rolfinc chym. l. 1. c. [...]8. p. 51. Phedro, or Scheuneman­nus, or Helmont gained by these refined Medicaments, he shall observe that either they are in­famous for their destructive courses of Physick, or at best atchieved nothing beyond o­ther Mortals, except by Chance. In fine, though I have seen very good success of many Chymical Medicines; yet dare I not express so great an admiration for them as Mr. Glanvill declares: and if he in all the number of his Philosophick friends, had but one understanding Physician, or two, they would tell him, That there are some diseases in themselves, or by accident incurable; that men will die under the most able Physicians, and that the most best and innocent Physick will sometimes have effects dif­ferent Nec Paracelsi sectatores probo, qui medicina dog­matica explosa & relicta, [...]lixir vitae. quintas essenti­as▪ Axungiam Solis & Lunae, &c. & a [...]ia perniciosa & deterrima pharmaca in parva dosi, magno cum super­cilio exhibere solent, aegrorum palato consulere vo­lentes: cum hoc titulo tenus saltem medicamenta sin [...], ipsorum quidem opinione singularia, revera au­tem mortis fercula & pocula, quibus plerumque cor­pus humanum vehementer exagitatur, & magna cum jactatione satigatur, & ita debilitatur, ut aut ae [...]e aut nunquam amplius, pristinas vires recuperet. [...]a­belchover. Cent. 6. hist. 7. in annot. p. 24. from the wishes and hopes of the Doctor: and he would finde that by ordinary medica­ments not purged from their dregs,, nor exalted into spirits and essences, as great Cures are done by Countrey-Physicians and [Page 69] Countrey. Gentlewomen oftentimes, as any ever were wrought by Chymistry. The Physick which is celebrated in the Scri­pture, that which St. Luke, St. James, Cosmas and Dami­anus, Joannes Damascenus, and others followed, was that which our Divine scruples, at least it leaves dregs in the body.

I confess that among the Egyptians, and Arabians, and Paracelsians, and some other Moderns, Chymistry was very fantastick, unintelligible and delusive; and the boasts, vanity, and canting of those Spagyrists brought a scandal upon the Art, and exposed it to suspicion and contempt: but what the Society have done in order to its improvement, I understand not so well as Mr. Glanvill seems to do: the Treatise of Dr. Willis about Fermentation was writ before he was of that number: and I know not how he hath improved Chymistry much since. And in that famed Piece, all is not to be reck­oned upon as invented (much His notion of Fermentation, as thereby he expres­seth the natural and praeternatural occurrences in our bodies, is taken from Bellich. defermentat sect. 89. His notion of the fire in the heart it very near related to the doctrine of Conringius de calid [...]; and the comparison of the bloud with wi [...]e is derived from Carolus [...]i [...]o. so that those things which are the principal in his book) [...]em rather illustrated excel­lently well, then new discoveries and dypotheses. less is improved) that is written. Those that have improved it most, and made it intelligible, are Beguinus, Crollius, Querce­tan, Hartman, Angelus Sala, Schroder, Zwelfer, Sennertus, Glauber, and others, that never conversed with the Society, whose Improvements are not men­tioned by Mr. Glanvill, though so great, that (considering what men now write or do, is but by their Example, and af­ter they had removed away all difficulties) all that our In­ventors have done, doth not deserve to be mentioned.

I shall adde, that we owe not only the invention, and rude improvement of Chymistry to the Disputative followers of Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, those superstitious Porers upon the Writings of the Ancients, those ridiculous Schoolmen, and Monks, and Physicians, but even the present credit and e­steem which it hath in the world, and upon which it hath so farre advanced it self. It was not Paracelsus with all his noise and Insolence, but the Dogmatical Physicians, who ob­serving the benefit thereof in Pharmacy gave it fame, and in­troduced [Page 70] it into the Shops, and Cabinets of Princes, and the use of serious and considerate Persons. Crato introduced it Cra [...]o medi­cin. [...]p 137. Erast. ad [...]. Para [...]s. part. 4 p. 285. & de metall. p. 8. into the Emperours Court at Vienna: not a Chymical Oyle, or Extract was prepared there, till he gave Encouragement to the thing. So did Erastus, a greater enemy to Pa­racelsus than to Chymical Physick: as appears by that saying which he uttered in the midst of his Disputes and ani­mosities against the Paracelsians. Equidem ne absoluta est Ars nostra sine distillatoria. And had not Langius, Auder [...]a­cus, Gesuerus, Fernelius, Zwingerus, Schegkius, Augenius, Sennert de cons. chym. [...]. 2. Minadous, Matthiolus, Libavius, and many other Phy­sicians of the Hippocratical way introduced the sober and ho­nest practice of it, and rendred it helpful to common life, per­haps our Virtuosi had never medled with it, at least not have been able to give it any esteem in the world. But now that the Galenists and Aristoteleans, (as they are commonly called) have refined it from its dross, and cast off the Chrysopoietick and delusory designs, and magical intermixtures, and Rosicru­cian vapours and superstitions, all which they effected; and gave Mr. Glanvill the opportunity of this Cant, with which I conclude this discourse.

‘ I confess, Sir, that among the Egyptians, and Arabians, Mr. Glanvill, p. 12. and Paracelsians, and some other Moderns, Chymistry was very phantastick, and unintelligible, and delusive: and the boasts, vanity, and cantings of those Spagyrists brought a Scandal upon the Art, and exposed it to suspicion and con­tempt. Perhaps not so delusory as Mr. Glanvill thinks: but I am sure the projects some go upon are delusory, have much of the Rosicrus­an humour in them: and [...]he design of introducing a sensible Phi­losophy is the pretence of Crollius, and of the Rosi­ [...]rusive Order. But its late Cultivators, and particularly the ROY­ALL SOCIETY have refined it from its dross, and made it honest, sober, and intelligible, an excellent Interpreter to Philosophy, and help to common life. For they have laid aside the Chrysopoietick, and delusory designs, and vain transmutations, and Rosicrucian vapors, Magical Charms and superstitious suggestions, and formed it into an instru­ment to know the Depths and Efficacies of Nature.—’All this without dispute the Society hath done; and without dispu­ting. And hereupon I do agree with our Virtuoso, that they have no small advantage above the old Philosophers of the No­tional way.

‘ VVE have another advantage above the Ancients in the study, use, and vast Improvements of Ana­tomy, Plus ultr [...] ▪ p. 12. which we find as needful to be known a­mong us, as 'tis wonderful 'twas known so little among the Ancients, whom a fond Superstition deterr'd from dissecti­ons. For the Anatomising the bodies of men was counted barbarous and inhumane in elder Times: And I observe from a learned man of our own, that the Romans held it unlawful to look on the Entrails. And Tertullian severely censur [...]s an inquisitive Physician of his time for this pra­ctice, saying, That he hated man, that he might know him. Yea, one of the Popes ( I take it 'twas Boniface 8.) threatens to excommunicate those that should do any thing of this then-abominable nature. And Democritus was fain to ex­cuse his dissection of Beasts, even to the great Hippocrates. Nor does it appear by any thing extant in the writings of Ga­len, that that other Father of Physicians ever made any Anatomy of humane bodies. Thus shy and unacquainted was Antiquity with this excellent Art, which is one of the most useful in humane life, and tends mightily to the eviscerating of Nature, and disclosure of the Springs of its Mo­tion.’

I have set down without any interruption the words of this English Bravo and Hector of our Modern Philosophers, that my Reader might come with a greater expectation to the perusal of my Animadversions: so high a charge of ig­norance upon the Ancients, such useful discoveries of the Moderns render the former to be contemptible fellows▪ [Page 72] and the latter a very beneficial and important p [...]r [...]y in this Age. But if it do appear that the Moderns have not as yet convinced us by their works and great performances in Phy­sick, that the knowledge of these new inventions is so neces­sary to Physicians, and so advantageous to mankind, but that those which either slight or ignore their discoveries, acquire a greater repute, are more employed and possessed of a more honourable and gainful practice, and, in fine, do greater Cures in general, then our Braggadochios; then is there no such rea­son for this Triumph of Mr. Glanvill, as he imagines. The better to judge hereof, I desire all considering men to look back upon the several Physicians, who have flourished in Greece, Rome and Barbary, and to view the present state of Physick in Italy, Spain, and France, and try his most severe judgement if it be possible for him to condemn that Physick as imperfect and pitifully deficient, which gave that credit to Hippocrates, Galen, Rhases, Avicenne, Fernelius, Lacuna, Mercatus, Vallesius, Christophorus, and Thomas a Veiga, Claudi­nus, Massarius, Septalius, Rondeletius, Hollerius, Ballonius, Rodericus a Castro, Fonseca, Saxonia, Sennertus, Crato, Pro­sper Alpinus, Antonius Musa Basavola, Hofman, and many others whom I shall not name; as indeed I name these with­out any order) which they now enjoy. Let him set his most ambitious thoughts on work, and see if he can propose to his desires greater things then they attained unto, and atchiev­ed. Let him employ all his envy, and yet condemn their Diagnosticks, Prognosticks, or that Secretorum Secretissimum, their method of curing, and their Medicines. If there be little or no fault in these parts, it signifies not much what principles they went upon in Philosophy, nor whether they did mistake or ignòre some things in Anatomy, as long as they were not such as hindred a Physician from the obtaining of that end which is designed by his Art: And as to the im­provement of the Therapeutick part of Physick, by new Me­dicaments, or new and more pleasant preparations of old Me­dicaments, if they be no more efficacious then the former, we pay to the Inventors those acknowledgements, which we do to the introducers of new garbs and fashions of clothes, the [Page 73] best contrivances whereof, howsoever they may excel in con­veniency, cannot be endeared unto us by the representati­ons of being necessary. I have named practical Physicians; I shall now instance in Chirurgery: What man is there in this Age, that would not be content with the repute of In­grassias, Vesalius, Fallopius, Carcanus, Aquapendens, Spigelius, Marchettis, Severinus Paraeus, Chalmetaeus, Pigraeus, Guille­meau, Hildanus, &c? or what man is there in this inquisi­tive Age, that any sober man would compare with them, much less prefer before them? If the Posture of Physick be such, and that the value we ought to place on every thing be to be regulated by its subserviency and conduciveness to some end, ( finis conciliat mediis gratiam) it is easie to judge what certain esteem we are to put upon the modern Improve­ments of Knowledge in order to Physick, and how far we may justly censure the Ancients, and such as either slight or are ignorant of them. I profess my self not to know what dis­ease it is that the Virtuosi cure better, or with more certainty then those that follow those other of the Dogmatical way. If it were done, there would not want such as should cry such performances up; besides the interest of the Novellists, the sence of their great Cures, would gain them all the pra­ctice that is now in the hands of such as vary not from the ancient Method, and Rules of that Art. I shall adde, that I could demonstrate by undeniable testimonies, and such as are confirmed by modern trials, that the introducing of new Me­dicines, either Chymical, or otherwise, and the neglect of a diffused reading, hath occasioned the dis-use and ignorance of several Medicines for Consumptions, the Gout, Plague, and o­ther grievous diseases, which might be attempted with much more assurance, then is to be placed upon the later Methods. To prosecute this point further, I shall tell you, that Physi­cians hitherto looked with a great indifference upon the Principles of natural Philosophy, whether they were true, or no; so that they did but serve as convenient Memorials to regulate them in their practice, and that they did guide them to their wished end with such certainty, as if they were true. All disputes about Natural Philosophy that did not refer to [Page 74] practice, they looked upon as Curiosities, going beyond their Art, and about which they would not contend, so as that the Method of curing were not undermined thereby. Upon this account they did allow of two sorts of Truth, the one in Physick, the other in Natural Philosophy, and that what was such in one, might not be such in the other. This President they derived from their great Master, Hippocrates, who in his discourses sometimes proceeds upon the Doctrine of the four Elements, as if that were true: Sometimes he goes up­on the doctrine of Atomes, as if he regulated his Cures there­by: sometimes he seems to favour the Tenets of the Chy­mists; See Otto Ta­chenius' s Hippocrates redivivus▪ and his Clavis Me­dic. Hippocr. Devet. medic § 24 Concer­ning the mea­ning of which place see Era­stus adv. P [...] ­rac. p. 3. pag. [...]6 & Con­ [...]ing. de Her­met. med. c. 16 p▪ 191. and he cries out as Mr. Boyle, and other Chymists cite him, Non calidum, frigidum, humidum, siccum esse quod maximam vim agendi habet in corpore, verum amarum, & fal­sum, & dulce, & acidum, &c. Somtimes he proceeds as it were upon the principles of the old Methodists, and ascribes the origin of diseases to the altering of the texture of the body, to the different conformation of parts, the different configura­tion of pores, &c. This was the course that Great Man took: he was willing to observe in all diseases the motions and the course Nature took; to take those for ill signs and symptoms, which he found to be such from that great Instructor; how­ever [...], those ways whereby Nature did usually terminate diseases, were the ways he thought they ought to be terminated by; and he made that the scope to be aimed at in the curing of diseases: those evacuations that had helped naturally to cure, he endeavoured to promote ar­tificially, by such Medicines as Experience shewed to be ser­viceable to those ends, when administred at due times and seasons. In short, he made himself absolutely the slave of Nature, attended on her motions, sometimes gently lead­ing her on, as it were a Gentleman-Usher; sometimes follow­ing her, as a Page, never pretending to command her by his Medicines: So cautious he was, that he would not adven­ture to do good unseasonably, and at other houres then his Teacher directed him, lest he should do harm: he would not adventure to shorten a disease, lest he should shorten his Pati­ents life. As if he had foreseen the truth of that observation▪ which Vallesius, and others in these days experiment, Celerior [Page 75] quam pro morbi longitudine curatio, detrahens plus virium quam Consultius esse nullus nescit tempo­re paulo lon­giore & tuto curari, quam paulo brevi­ore cum certo vitae periculo sanari. Era­stus disput. de propriet. med. c. 65. sub finem. pro morbi ratione, facit in tempore curandos ante tempus mori. Agreeable to this Method of Hippocrates, was that counsel which Dr. Bathurst (of Black-friers) gave me, when I first seri­ously set my self to study and observe his practice in Physick, viz. Nunquam ille Medicus magnus erit, quisquis patitur sese principiis Philosophicis alligari atque constringi. It is impossible for any person to be a great Physician, who ties up himself to one sort of Natural Philosophy, as if it were really true and cer­tain: the operation of Medicaments is oftentimes such as an­swers not the Principles of any Philosophy, and the digestions of Nature are so different from those of Chymistry, her fires, her solvents, her filters, her furnaces & vessels, her mixtures and de­grees of heat so discrepant, that there is no arguing from the one to the other: nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Phy­sick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal Phisiology (founded upon observation, not principles) semeiotics, method of curing, and tried, (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines: where this course fails (as somtimes it will) we then try uncertain Medi­cines, rather then abandon the Patient to those Prognosticks, which are seldom so fatal as to destroy all hope; and where Skill is at a loss, we frequently behold Chance to be successful. And this last is the Mystress of our Reforming Physicians, it is under her conduct that they will enrich our Therapeutick part of Me­dicine, and alter our Method. I shal not enlarge further hereup­on, being content to have shewed what esteem Physicians have had Philosophy in, and how they have had as little regard to the truth of their principles in natural Philosophy, as a man ought to have to the hand of a Dial, or which points out the way to any place: It is not requisite that it be a real hand, whatever men call it; nor would we endure the impertinencies of any that should go about to perswade us out of our way, because they that cald that an hand, were mistaken: In sum, so the way be good and cer­tain, I am content to be one of those whom the Italian Proverb commends, for going that way which the Mules go. Ito qua Muli eunt. In this opinion I have amongst late Writers the learned Hofman, whose words are these. Quae enim necessitas est Instit▪ med l. 2 c. [...]. 11▪ 1▪ &c. & [...]. Medicum semper loqui cum Physico, siquidem usus, a quo pendet ars nostra, aliud velit, vel certe permittat? Quid enim ibi VE­RIT AS est, hic UTILITAS est.

[Page 76]Nor will it be amiss to propose the Judgment of the learn­ed Practitioner Joannes Antonides Vander Linden, which he Jo. Ant. Van­der Linden de circuitu sanguin. exer­cit. 1. sub finem. passed not long before his death at Leiden A. D. 1659 after a mature consideration of all the new speculations in Natural Philosophy, which this last Age had produced and acquaint­ed him with. ‘ Physici ab imaginariis incipiunt, per ratio­cinia pergunt, & in frivola desinunt. Cordatos obtestor, an apud se non [...]? Ad quid igitur Physica, ut nunc constituta est, Medico? Etiam quae nunc docetur optima ( praeter quod Principiis nitatur non necessariis, & ob id certa non sit) quid ad medendum, si scitur, utile; aut, si nescitur, noxii confert? Etiam, si extaret, quae absolute cer­tis principiis & perfectis regulis constaret, tamen Medicina: non esset, nisi Institoria, non Institutoria. Institoria, in­quam; nam id Medicis est Physica, quod Fabris omne ge­nus taberna mercium Novicarum. Instituriam Medicinae qui volunt, nae illi sciunt, quid velit detritissimum, ubi de­sinit Physicus, ibi incipit Medicus. Medicina non habet opus aliena; nedum a Physicis ficta & emendicata prin­cipia: habet sua, & certa, & ausa stare contra omnem du­bitationis impetum. Qua fiducia concludo: Physica ho­dierna optima Medicinae parum aut nihil utilis est. Qui habet aures ad audiendum audiat, mentemque sanam in corpore sano habeat. Saltem vos, vos iterum alloquor [...], sapite; & ab ea quae Medicinae larva se tegit, Physica cavete; & hoc agite, ut quam aliquando salutis hu­manae praesidem Artem in bona conscientia vultis facere, eam ante cum certo fructu regia via velitis discere.’

Upon this account I often laugh at our modern Virtuosi, when they dilate themselves with a great deal of ostentation and confidence, about the qualities and correctives of Opium, whether it be hot or cold? which controversie how great so­ever, hath no influence upon practice, because both agree pretty well in the cases in which it is to be used, and man [...] of the modern preparations and corrections are foolish, and make it worse; And as to that Laudanum of Helmonts a­mongst the Virtuosi; I have seen much more simple prepara­tions stupifie less, and produce greater Cures, then that did [Page 77] when made by the hands of one of the Society, and given by another of it: whilst the best of Modern Chymists, Pharmacop. August in­cons. Archi­genis. Zwelfer; bestows this commendation upon that old medi­cine of Archigenes and Mesues— Erit sic rite praeparata opiata, quae merito Laudani opiati, multarumque aliarum Opiatarum vices supplere posset. I could enlarge here, but that Mr. Glanvill will think I have forgot him.

Having made this general Apology for Physicians, which is sufficient to justifie them, both as to their care of their Pati­ents, and their skill; I shall come to apply my discourse par­ticularly to Mr. Glanvill. It is hard to reconcile the neces­sity of Anatomy, with the Mosaical Constitutions, it seeming strange that God should make it so unclean a thing for any one to touch a dead body, and yet the knowledge of Sceletons should be so necessary. To supply this, the Jewish Rabbins say, that God Almighty did reveal unto Moses the accurate knowledge of Anatomy: and when we consider how they em­balmed their dead, and that embalming doth infer a knowledge of dissection, and of the Entrails; when we observe (out of Buxtorfs Synagoga) that artifice with which the Jews kill all Animals, thereby to let out the blood exactly: when we consider that the multiplicity of accidents in war, or other­wise, would render the knowledge of the inward and outward parts necessary to them, and experience acquaint them with their nature (not to mention some Jewish relations about the Vid. Riolan. Anthropo­g [...]. ph. l. 1. c. 3. opening of the Os pubis and the partus Caesareus) I am apt to think that the ancient Jews were not ignorant of useful A­natomy, nor so superstitious as totally to avoid the practice of it; nor dare I say (with our Virtuoso) such Superstition is fond, which is ascribed to God as its immediate Au­thor.

As for the Greeks, the study of Anatomy was very ancient amongst them, since it is attributed to Alcmaeon▪ that ancient Physician (a Scholar of Pythagoras) as the first Author of it, if we will believe Chalcidius upon the Timaeus of Plato. From him it was derived to posterity by tradition and manual operation, children being bred up unto it, such as were to be Physicians, as also Philosophers. So Democritus, Hippocra­tes, [Page 78] and many others came to be acquainted with it. But none of the Ancients, until the time of Diocles Garystius, did Hieron. Mer­curialis Var. Lect. l. 1. c. 10▪ write any thing about it: which notwithstanding, that Sci­ence seems to have been in ne­ver These Anatomical o [...]erations of the Youth were called [...], which Hofman thinks may be rendred fitly in▪ a [...]n [...], Exercitia Anatomica. Adding, Didiceram enim ex ejus operis (apud Ga­lenum) l. 2. initio has [...] ab ipso artis incu­nabulo suisse puerorum [...]a Asclepiadea, alto▪ rum ad factitandam medicinam. Sciebam etiam ali­unde, longe alium fuisse tum Anatomiae rationem, quam nunc est, seorsim inquam fuisse traditam histo­riam partium ipsarum, semperq▪ fultam oculari inspe­ctione. Vide Hofman Var. Lect. l. 2. c. 13. The same is avowed by Vesalius in his Preface to Charles V. the worse condition, as Mercurialis thinks. Anatomen etsi a nullo veterum usque ad Dioclis aetatem Scriptis manda­tam referat Galen. in 2. de anat. admin. melius tamen sic conser­vatam & amplificatam inde in­telligere possumus, quod tunc ho­mines a primis annis Anatomen (ut caeteras artes,) non ex scriptis sed ex Parentum sermonibus ipsaque exercitatione addiscebant; sicque melius ipsam compa­rantes, non modo tenacius in animis servabant, verum etiam as­siduis studiis augebant. But to put this question more out of doubt, I shall appeal to Galen, who could give a better ac­count of what they did in the elder times then Mr. Glanvill. I have not his Works by me; but Lacuna in his Epitome thus expresseth him. " Quod veteres nihil scripserint de Lacunae Epit. Galeni de ana­tom. admin. l. 2. consectionibus administrandis, vertendum illis vitio non est: quan­doquidem erat iis tum frequens tamque in communi usu ipsa A­natome, ut domi apud Parentes etiam ab ipsa pueritia, in illa omnes olim exercerentur. Postea vero tam praeclaro illo exer­citio intermisso, opus certe nobis fuit Commentariis, quae Ana­tomicam disciplinam Chirurgicae medendi rationi maxime ne­cessariam, integram conservarent. That Aristotle did dissect the bodies of men is manifest out of his Hist. Anim. l. 3. where he informs us how he made an inquiry into the nature and se­ries Vide Riolan. Anthr. p [...] ­g [...]aph. l. 1. [...]4. of the veins in humane bodies: and as to his anatomizing of other creatures, beasts, birds, I would not be understood to justifie every passage in Aristotle relating to Anatomy: he hath many gross errours opere in longo: but have not also Harvey, Highmore, Silvius, and others, so many as may excuse his incogitancy sometimes? fishes, insects, (and how he had some thousands employed under him to that purpose) no man can doubt who reads Riolanus and Pliny l. 8. c. 18. How accurate he was (however his brevity doth not represent every circumstance, nor fully describe things) [Page 97] we may judge by this that there are few of the new inventi­ons, but are ascribed unto him; and Dr. Harvey is known D [...] ▪ Pearsoni [...] Dedic. Laer­tii ad Ca­rol. II. commonly to have said, Nihil fere unquam in ipsis Naturae pe­netralibus invenisse se▪ quin cum Aristotelem suum pensiculatius evolveret idem ab illo, aut explicatum, aut saltem cognitum re­periret. After Diocles, I find these other reckoned as notable A­natomists by Volcherus, Coiter, viz. Polybius, Erasistratus, Callistus, all Scholars of. Aristotle: And after them Marinus, and Lycus, Vol. Coiter in­tro. inanat. c. 6 Galen in his Coment upon Hippocrates de nat. hum. reckons up a­bove [...]0 emi­nent Ana [...] ­mists of the ancients. Vide Riolan. Anthropogr. the Master of Galen, and Satyrus, and Pelops, and Numesi­anus, besides several others at Alexandria all which Galen went to converse with. But I must not pass by Herophilus without an especial Character, who did not only correct the mistakes in Anatomy which his Master Praxagoras fell into, but by his industry and skill acquired a repute so great, that his name is equal to the most famous that ever were before, or since his time: This great man is preferred by Vesalius before Galen: And it was an usual saying of Fallopius, that any man might as easily contradict the Gospel, as contradict Moebius fun­dam. med. c. 1. p. 10. & V [...]ssius de philos. c. [...]1. sect. 2. Herophilus in Anatomy. Contradicere Herophilo in Anato­micis est contradicere Evangelio. This man is that inquisitive Physician, of whom Mr. Glanvill speaks, and who is blamed by Tertullian not for dissecting humane bodies, but for dissect­ing them alive, which he terms Butchery. Because, I think Mr. Glanvill never read him, and because I will make it evi­dent that one of the Ancients did dissect more bodies of men, then all the Society put together, and that with an extraordi­nary caution. I shall set down the words of Tertullian, and Tert [...]llian. de anima. c. 10. Gagr [...]us, Mercurialis, & Vossius read it se, ringentos exsecuit. they are these,—— Herophilus ille Medicus aut Lanius, qui sexcentos eexecuit ut naturam scrutaretur, qui hominem odiit ut nosset, nescio an omnia ejus interna liquido explorarit; ipsa morte mutante q quaevixerant, & morte non simplici, sed ipsa inter artificia exectionis errante. Upon which passage, Phi­lip le prieur notes thus, Anatomia quae & celebris magnoque in precio fuit apud Ethnicos, a veteribus Christianis odio quam maximo afficiebatur. Quamvis hic dictum Lanium Hero­philum constet, quod vivos homines dissecaret▪ Id autem facere solitos Erasistratum, Dioclem, & Herophilum docet Claudius Galennus 8. de plac. & 2. anatom. administr. Agreeable to [Page 80] of Tertullian, is that passage of Cornelius Celsus in his Pre­face. Celsus l. 1. in prooemio. Necessarium ergo esse incidere corpora mortuorum, eorum (que) viscera atque intestina scrutari, longeque optime fecisse Hero­philam & Erasistratum, qui nocentes homines a regibus ex carcere acceptos, vivos inciderint, considerarintque etiam Spiritu rema­nente, ea quae Natura clausisset, eorumque posituram, colorem, fi­guram, magnitudinem, ordinem, duriciem, molliciem, laevorem▪ contactum: processus deinde singulorum & recessus, & sive quia inseritur alteri, sive quid partem alterius in se recipit. This Herophilus was undoubtedly a person of vast parts, great lear­ning and curiosity. He brought the Hippocratical Physick to its heighth and perfection, compleating the Anatomical part, and illustrating the Doctrine of the Pulses. His followers had a School not far from Laodicea, as Strabo saith, wherein it is not to be doubted but that Anatomy was taught, and so in that other School of Erasistratus at Smyrna. [...] Strabo Geo­graph. in fine lib 12. citante Mercuriali Var. Lect. l. 2. c. 12. From whence it is clear, that in the Reign of Augustus Caesar (when Strabo lived) Anatomy in the East was in great request, and that the Physicians and followers of Herophilus had a great Academy betwixt Laodicea and Garura. And that before those times at Smyr­na, Erasistratus that was a great Dissector of men (even a­live) had another Academy of his followers: whose works Vesalius de rad. Chinae, p. 163. though they are lost, yet Vesalius saith, that one may con­jecture out of the passages in Galen that relate to them, that they were very accurate Anatomists.— Veteri­bus dissectionum proceribus, quos ex Galeni libris in corporum anatome sedulo versatus esse nobis persuasum est.—Not much unlike this character of Vesalius is that Elogy which Veslin­gius bestows upon the Ancients in an Epistle of his to C. Hof­man, enquiring whether the venae lacteae of Asellius were a part of the portavena known so long ago? Sic habeas, incertum mihi esse quid primi illi qui ante Dioclis Carystii aevum privatis a [...]ffectionibus in corporis humani partes inquirebant hic viderint, [Page 81] cum nihil eorum quae cognorant scriptis divulgarint. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona multi, ait Lyricus: & proculdubio ante Herophilum eximii, & in hoc dissectionum studio exerci­tatissimi, quos ob monumentorum defectum longa nocte oblivio premit. Veslingius Ep. 20. edit. per Bartholin.

I shall conclude this discourse of Herophilus, with an ob­servation about the time when he lived; which was not in the days of Tertullian, though Mr. Glanvill represents them as Contemporaries: but many Centuries before, in the time of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, and he is famed for his raillery up­on Diodorus Cronus, who denied there was any motion, yet had his shoulder dislocated. See Conring. de medic. Hermet. c. 9. p. 83. Some make him more ancient, but none ever brought him so low as our Virtuoso. Vide Voss. de Philos. c. 11. Jonsium de Script. Philos. l. 1. c. 15.

As to the Romans, and their skill in Anatomy, I cannot say much of it, except it be to their disparagement. They were a military sort of people, rough-hewen, and thought all that below their studies or serious thoughts, which our Expe­rimental Philosophers boast of, and recommend unto our care with so much vanity. All the Mechanick, I had almost said the Liberal Sciences, they thought to be excellent qua­lifications in their slaves, not in themselves: And they who gave Laws to all the world, scorned to be instructed by their vassals, and a conquered Nation. Upon this account, not onely in the time of Tully, but afterwards to the days of Quintilian and Tacitus, (I know not which writ the Book De Oratoribus) it is evident, that however many Gentle­men did inform themselves of the several parts of ingenious Learning, yet did that haughty people behold those persons with indignation, and some thoughts of hatred, in so much as that those who were best versed in it, pretended igno­rance and scorn of it. Things being in this condition, and the Romans having no other Physicians then their Slaves, it is not to be wondered if they were not emi­nent for Anatomy. Cato had banished the Physicians long ago, and after-ages gave them little encouragement. [Page 82] I do not at present remember any Physician, whose name hath any thing of the Roman till Cornelius Celsus, and after him Vectius Valens. Pliny saith, that even to his time, in the reign of Titus Vespasian, the Romans did not care to profess and practise Physick. Solam hanc artium Graecorum nondum exer­cet Romana gravitas in tanto fructu: paucissimi Quiritum at­tigere, & ipsi statim ad Graecos transfugae: imo vero autoritas aliter quam Graece eam tractantibus, etiam apud imperitos ex­pertesque linguae, non est. Nat. hist. l. 29. c. 1. In the time of Augustus Caesar, his [...]reed man Artorius Musa, and his bro­ther Euphorbus gave some credit to Physick, and afterwards Ideo d [...]se [...] ta est haec disci­pli [...] qu [...]a [...]ecess [...]c [...] in [...]. several eminent Greeks are said to have flourished; but whe­ther it were that the Romans were impatient to learn so much as was requisite (or thought to be so) to make a man eminent in the Hippocratical and Herophilian way; or whe­ther they thought it more becoming their grandeur, rather to learn (with all the world) a new Method of Physick, then seem to have been so long as it were brutish and ignorant in comparison of the Greeks; or During the flourishing of the Roman Empire, the study of Physick was principally pursued at Alexan­dria in Egypt. There Herophilus and his Scholars had given it credit, and the Empiricks and Metho­dists had their Academies. and the Jacrosophistaes were endowed professors The repute of Alexandria being such▪even in the da [...]s of Valentinian, that it was cre [...]it enough for any Physician to say he had been b [...]ed these. Ammian. Ma [...] cell. lib. 23. whether that the new principles and method were more agree­able to that Empirical way, they had been accustomed un­to (See Plin. nat. hist. l. 26. c. 3.) and so more easily received by the populac [...] then that of Hip­pocrates made up of a Grecian dyet, and medicaments; what­ever was the reason, I finde that the Romans did generally incline to that Sect of Physicians, called the Methodici, be­gun by Asclepiades and Themison in the time of the Triumvi­rate, or Vectius Valens, and compleated by Thessalus in the time of Nero: This Sect seems to have had the advantage over all other the Physicians amongst the Romans from the time of Augustus, to the reign of Severus, which is near three hundred years. Pliny calls Themison, Summum authorem, [...] 14. c. 17. and by that place in Juvenal one would guess him to have been a man of great notice and general practice in the days he lived.

Thessalus, against whom Galen and Pliny inveigh was cer­tainly a man▪ not only of great Eloquence, but also of ex­traordinary Learning and Judgement, as we may guess by those parcels and fragments of that excellent man, which are all that remains of him, and they preserved in the works of others. His Books de Communitatibus & Syncriticis are peeces whose losses I much lament. The Memory of his Tombe is not lost upon which he inscribed himself, [...], or, The Conquerour of Physicians. His Letter to Nero had something of a gallant confidence in it, which may become Heroes, and is justified in men of great Learning. Cum no­vam sectam condiderim, & quae sola vera sit, propterea quod qui ante me fuerunt omnes nihil utile prodiderunt, vel ad sanitatem tuendam, vel ad mor bos propulsandos—. The generality of his followers seem to have been excellent Physicians, as Dionysius, Proculus, Archigenes, Soranus, Attalus, Julianus, and others. I shall not insist upon a particular relation of their tenets, Prosp Alpin. de medic. methodica. which one may see excellently illustrated by Prosper Al­pinus. This sect of Physicians seems to have left impressions Quintilian being to describe Physick, renders an a [...] count of it agreeable to the Methodists. In declam. 8. Gemini Languentes. of its method and principles, in all places where the Roman Em­pire swayed. They placed lit­tle They called Gallen▪ when he put himself [...]orth in the world by the ostentation of Anatomy and Philosophy, Logiater: Logiatri autem nomen sui tempori: medi­ci Romae Galeno per contemptum imponchant; ut ita eum traducerent, quasi non reipsa, nec usu▪ & [...]x­ercitio artis peritus esset: Sed ad loquacit▪ tem d [...]n­taxat & disserendum de iis quae ad a [...]tem pertinent comparatus. Gesner. in Schol [...]is ad Cassium P. 57. value upon the exact know­ledge of Anatomy, being content with a general skill therein, and enquiring no further than was necessary. They knew that the Romans had formerly banished the Physicians (as Archagathus) from amongst them, for using their Patients with much cruelty, cutting and burning them; and understood the humour of the people so well, how they disliked the dissections of humane [Page 84] bodies, especially alive, and therefore they closed with that popular prejudice, and turned it to their advantage; neither dissecting of bodies, nor tormenting them with those odious or cruel methods of Cure, which were practised by the fol­lowers of Herophilus. Nor do I doubt that those objections in Celsus against Anatomy, were put into his mouth by the Methodists, as well as Empirics, viz. that all Anatomy of bo­dies was a nasty performance; but to dissect the living, most barbarous and cruel: that as much of Anatomy as would in­struct one sufficiently, might be learned in a Camp, where the Physician need not make wounds, but learn at once and practice Cures. Hence it was that the study of Anatomy was so much out of request at Rome in Galens time, that I think he mentions not one curious Anatomist there, though he tell how Satyrus taught him at Pergamus, and Pelops at Smyrna, and Numesianus at Corinth, and others. There were some that were excellent Ostrologists at Alexandria. And I am apt to think, that even he durst not for fear of publick odi­um, dissect any living men there, because, as Celsus saith, most people held it to be cruelty, and perhaps would not have thought well of him, who should have dissected any dead men. Whereupon he set up with Apes, dissecting them, as being nearest to men in resemblance, Vesalius in his Treatise de [...]ad. Chinae sheweth bow Ga en dissected Apes, and was thereby led into sun dry mistak [...]s But even such as did blame Galen were themselves faulty, as Vesalius and Columbus; which appears by what they say about the kidneys; which they describe out of brutes, not men, as Piccolomine­us and Beverovicus observe [...]everovic. dc calculo, p 3 Read also Fallopius Observations and imagining the fabrick of their bodies to have as great an affinity with the parts of men, as their shapes had; that this was the cause of many mi­stakes in him, is certain; and de­monstrated by Vesalius. But that he never made any Ana­tomies of humane bodies, or considered any as they came in his way, is a calumny which might be refuted by sundry in­stances Vesalius in ded [...]c. lib. de sabric. corp. hum. ad Carol V. Imper. In the same place [...]e cals Galen, dissectionis professorum facile prima­riam. out of his Works, and some thereof are to be seen in Riolanus Anthopogr. l. [...]. c. 12.

Vesalius never raised his imputations to this heighth; all that he saith of this nature, is, Nobis modo ex renata disse­ctionis arte, diligentique Galeni librorum praelectione, & in ple­risque locis eorundem non poenitenda restitutione constat, nun­quam [Page 85] ipsum nuper mortuum corpus humanum resecuisse. At vero suis deceptum Simiis (licet ipsi arida, ac veluti ad os­sium inspectionem parata hominum cadavera occurrerint) crebro veteres Medicos, qui hominum consectionibus se exercu­ [...]rant, Galen. l. 3. sec, gen. c. 2. immerito arguere. Nay, it is evident out of Galen, that the Roman Physicians which were in the Army of Antoni­nus did dissect the Germans that were killed by him in bat­tel. As for that Learned man of our own, out of whom he tells us, That the Romans held it unlawful to look on the En­trails: I know not who it should be. Mr. Boyle indeed doth say, that in Galens time it was thought little less then ir­religious, if not barbarous, to mangle the bodies of men: which how far it is true, one may guess out of what I have said; But that Honourable Person speaks in such a manner as gives us little of exception; Mr. Glanvill is so peremptory, that I wonder that he did not deny, that the Romans did not use a­ny Augury from the inspection of the bowels, heart, and liver of beasts; or that they did not eat the Livers of Geese, and o­ther Guts of several Animals. This is so well known to every School boy that hath read Martial, or Horace, or Virgil, that I need not speak of it. Had the Romans held it so unlawful a thing to behold the Entrails of Animals, I wonder they gave the name of Visceratio to those distributions of flesh which they publikely used: to such unlawful customs, Vir­gil would not have alluded, when he brings in Dido her self,

Nay, they carried the bodies of beasts open with their En­trails displayed to be sold publickly, as Mart. shews l. 6. ep. 64.

But perhaps he will confine his discourse to the Entrails of men, why then did not he speak more plain­ly? And even in this case, that some superstitious persons might hold it impious and unlawful is possible▪ [Page 86] and that others out of enmity to the Anatomical Physicians, (as Pliny l. 28. c. 1.) Aspici humana exta nefas habetur, might▪ [...] that pla [...]e in Pliny relates onely [...]o Argu [...]y, that i [...] was not lawful a­mongst m [...]n t [...] make use of humane bo­dies, and search their bowels to th [...]se ends: this was ne­ [...]as: but no­thing else. call it so, I deny not. But what Law was there against it? How comes it to pass, that Celsus in his debate about the law­fulness of Anatomizing even living bodies, saith (or maketh o­thers to say) that it is only cruel, or nasty and abominable; not impiety or a breach of Religion? Besides, how could any Phy­sician in those days have dressed such wounds in which their Entrails either gushed out, or were hurt, in case it had been unlawful to look upon them? It is manifest that Celsus saith, a prudent Physician may from such accidents learn Anatomy; Ita sedem, positum, ordinem, & figuram, similiaque alia cog­noscere prudentem medicum, and adviseth him to improve the occasion: And he was a Person learned not only in the Physick, but Civil Laws of his Countrey.

To convince our Virtuoso a little more, out of School­books, in which he ought to be conversant. Is there not a controversie agitated in Seneca, Controvers. l. x. contr. 6. a­bout Parrhasius the Painter? how he brought an old Olyn­thian, and dissected him alive, thereby to draw the picture of Prometheus with a vulture preying upon his Liver! Is it not agitated pro and Con, by Romans and Grecians? Is there any one that saith it was unlawful for him to behold the En­trails? Nay, is it not said in the midst of Rome, that it was always LAWFUL? In argumentis dixit, quantum semper Artibus LICUISSET, Medicos ut vim ignoratam morbi cog­noscerent, viscera rescidisse HODIE cadaverum artus rescindi, ut nervorum articulorumque positio cognoscipossit. In Quin­tilian is there not a Declamation Declam. 8. ( Gemini lan­guentes) in which the Mother accuseth the Father for per­mitting the Physician to dissect one of the sick twins, there­by to discover the disease of the other! Doth not the Mo­ther there bid him dissect the bowels of the dead youth? Differ saltem, pater, hanc calamitatem: quicquid ex filio fa­cis, facies ex cadavere. Si deprehendi potest languor dum occi­dit, facilius cum occiderit. Doth she not describe the cruelty of that Anatomy very tragical [...]y? Passus est miser discur­rentem per omnia reserati pectoris improbum vagae artis erro­rem. [Page 87] Contentum fuisse medicum toto homine discurrentem pri­mo putatis aspectu? Egesta saepe vitalia, pertractata, diducta sunt: fecerunt manus plura, quam ferrum. Stat juxta me­dicum pater apertis visceribus inhians, stillantem animae sedem cruentis manibus agitantem: ne festinet, hortatur; jubet alti­us diligentiusque scrutari: Interrogat, dubitat, contendit, af­firmat, & accepit de filii morte rationem—Inter haec reficie­batur miser haustibus, detinebatur alloquiis, comprimebatur re­siduus cruor, claudebantur aperta vitalia. Nemo unquam tam nova pertulit commenta [...]evitiae, tanquam sanaretur occisus est—Vos tunc putatis illius tantum languoris medicum quaesiisse cau­sas? quaesivit quicquid nesciebat, & usus occasione rarissima in omnem voluit proficere novitatem. After this she tells in what manner she gathered up his bowels, and by closing up his Corps fitted him for the Funeral. Corpus quod medicus, quod reliquerat pater, hoc sinu misera collegi, ac vacuum pectus fri­gidis abjectisque visceribus rursus implevi, sparsos artus ample­xibus junxi, membra diducta composui. If any one can ima­gine, that this great Oratour in so solemn a Declamation would have omitted so important an objection as the unlaw­fulness and impiety of beholding the entrails of the youth, cer­tainly he thinks too meanly of the judgment of Quintilian, and too well of his own. It appears out of that Oration, that they had seldom opportunities of dissecting men alive, and therefore he calls it rarissimam occasionem. And that they were not ignorant of Anatomy and the inward fabrick of hu­mane bodies, it is evident further out of that Oration, where the Mother says the Physicians must needs already have learned that part of their Art. Sufficit quod aliquando jam facta How could they behold the Ludi Circenses, the Gladiators fighting in the Theatre, and at the tombs of the deceased; or those s [...]d spectacles described by Martial? I profess I think it as gross a mistake to say they held it unlawful to behold the entrails▪of men, a [...] to deny the Augury by beasls. ex unius hominis inspectione, ad totius intellectum naturae medi­cina pr [...]fecit. Quid allaturus huic aegroto es, quod non tot secu­lorum, tot languentium experimenta deprehenderint?

As for what Mr. Glanvill saith about Democritus, that he was fain to excuse himself to Hippocrates for dissecting of beasts; this is as true as all the rest. Never was there a fitter second [Page 88] for Mr. Sprat, then Mr. Glanvill. They do not cite, but in­vent stories, and that with so much confidence, that a man must be assured by his own reading, before he can suspect theirs. That Hippocrates was a diligent Anatomist, is a thing every one must confess who either knows the manner of their education then, or hath looked into his Anatomi­cal books de locis in homine, de fracturis, and sundry other pieces of his. That he not only contemplated the seat and action of parts in the dead, but living, appears by this pas­sage, De Articulis sect 43▪ where he speaks about the setting of the Sphondyles of the back; Itaque si tale contingat, palam Pag. 800. [...]om. 2. edit. Van­der Linden. est quod neque concutiendo, neque alio quodam modo reponi possit, nisi qui dissecto homine & manu in ventrem injecta, in­quisitionem faciat, ut ex interna parte ad externam manu re­trudat: atque haec in mortuo quidem facere possent, in vivo au­tem non ita. But I shall give an account of the Anatomy of Hippocrates, in the words of the learned Riolanus Anthropo­graph. l 1. c. 2. Testatur Galenus Comment. in lib. 3. de artic. Hippocratem potissimum rationi corporum incidendorum sedis­lam operam dedisse, cum Anatomen mirum in modum ad ar­tem medicam conferre sciret, quod nunc aperte docet cum spinae naturam intelligi voluit, quam Empirici non secus atque caete­rarum partium contemplationem inutilem esse dicunt. Ipsemet Hippocrates lib. 3. de artic. Commentarios de venis & arteriis pollicetur, quos nunquam videre potuit Galenus. Praeterea li­brum de dissectione conscripsit, quem imperfectum habemus. Ipsemet Galenus libros de Anatome, secundum Hippocratis do­ctrinam composuerat, quorum deploranda est jactura. Hippo­crates canes dissecuit ut pulmones observaret. lib. de corde. Ibi­dem monet quod dissectio accurata hujus partis non est opus cu­jusvis, sed periti artificis, & appellat istud opus Chirurgian. l. 6. Epidem, scribit hominem habere cola intestina cani similia. Idem lib. de intern. affect. testatur se in bove, in cane, & s [...]e, quod impedibus dissectis tubercula in pulmone aqua referta in­venisse, unde natus fuerat hydrops thoracis. Idem testatur se ex hominis ossibus ossa descripsisse: primus spinae admirabilem fi­guram descripsit: primus vesiculas seminarias, earumque si­tum, omenti usum, valvulas venarum, ortum nervorum, lienis [Page 89] actionem, uteri oonformationem. Atque ut extaret aliquod mo­numentum aeternum & immutabile suae diligentiae, laborisque in hoc fludio exantlati, sceletum aere fabricatum Apollini Delphico consecravit: ut Author est Pausanias lib. 10. And is it cre­dible that ever Democritus should be forced to excuse him­self to Hippocrates for cutting up of Animals, as if it were so uncouth and strange to him? I cannot answer for the In­tellectuals of our Virtuoso, but no man of an higher capacity can believe it. The pleasantest part of this Narrative is, that there appears no such thing upon record. First of all the story of Democritus, how Hippocrates came and found him busie in dissecting of Animals, is called in question by Cortesius in Miscellaneis, as Riolanus tells me. And indeed I cannot perswade my self that those Letters in the end of Hippocrates works are genuine. But to pass by this exce­ption. All that Hippocrates writes in his second Letter to Damagetus amounts to this. That at the request of the people of Abdera, he came to cure Democritus of his suppo­sed madness, that being conducted to his house, he found him sitting under a Plantanus tree in a garb not much differ­ing from a madman, and postures that had something of the same humor: Ipse Democritus sub ampla & humillima planta­no sedebat, in veste crassa citra humeros desinente, solus, dis­calceatus, super lapidea sede, valde pallidus ac macilentus, pro­missa barba——Ipse vero cum inculto ornatu, super genibus, librum habebat, sed & alii quidam ex utraque parte adjace­ [...]ant. Accumulata etiam erant Animalia multa per totum re­secta. Et ipse quidem aliquando concitate incumbens scribe­bat, aliquando quiescebat, diu multumque se continens, & in seipso m [...]ditans. Deinde non longe post, his peractis, exurgens deambulabat, & viscera animalium inspiciebat, & depositis ipsis digressus, rursus desidebat.—When Hippocrates appro­ched near him, he was busie writing, and even then his de­portment had something odde and Enthusiastical in it. [...] After the first complements (which arr great [...] usual in those days) Hippocrates demand [...] of him [...] [...]e was writing? He replied about [...] [Page 90] about that, said the great Physician? To which he answers again thus. [...]. Quid enim, inquit, aliud quam quid sit, & quomodo in hominibus generetur, & quomodo allevetur. Nam animalia haec, quae vides, inquit, hujus gratia reseco, non quod odio habeam opera Dei, sed bilis naturam ac sedem quae­rens. How much this and the whole passage of that E [...] ­terview makes for Mr. Glanvill's purpose, I see not. Hip­pocrates doth not blame him for anatomizing of animals, nor is surprized at the novelty, nor troubled at the impiety of the action. Democritus knowing what apprehension the peo­ple had of him, and fearing lest the garb and posture he was in might confirm to Hippocrates, the truth of the report tells him how he employed his thoughts, and that the Animals that lay there upon the ground, were not slaughtered by him in a frantick rage, out of hatred to the creatures of God; but cut up Anatomically by him, thereby to discover the seat and nature of the gall, and the effects it had upon Ma­niacks. Whereupon Hippocrates was wonderfully pleased with the testimony he gave of the soundness of his judgment, and after some other prudential discourses, departed, satisfied about the good condition of his Patient. But if Democri­tus were not out of his Wits, I believe Mr. Glanvill was to alledge such an impertinent story. But idle persons, that would upon easie termes acquire the repute of Learning, by citing quotations, are often thus imposed upon, and liable to mistakes. And perhaps there may be some person in the world that I know not of, who may have abused our Virtuoso in this case: but He should have minded the Text better.

What Pope Boniface the Eighth did, I know not. But I am apt to suspect a person that hath told me so many un­truths. The place in the Canon-Law, which I am apt to be­leeve Mr. Glanvill never saw: It is lib. 3. Extravag. titulo de Anthropogr. l. 1. c. 12. sepultura. And Riolanus, whom I had rather credit, gives this account of it; Inter Christianos Papa Bonifacius octavus bar­barum [Page 91] & inhumanum judicavit, peregre mortuorum corpora ex­enterare, carnibusque spoliare, ut ossa le [...]ta & tersa in locum sepulturae, quem vivi delegerant, commode perferri possent. It seems that Pope thought it an inhumane and barbarous thing not to dissect bodies for information sake; but to embowel them, and reduce them into Sceletons, and so to carry their bones to distant places to be buried according to the desire of the deceased. I am apt to think this Canon was never ap­plied to Anatomy, and perhaps there is nothing of Excom­munication in it, since Riolanus doth not mention it.

As for the gross errours in Anatomy which Galen is char­ged with, I know not one that incommodates a man in point of Practice, but that the Method he took (however founded on false principles) was secure and good. Upon which it hap­pened Hinc [ Gale­no] universi fidem dedere, ut nullus re­pertus sit me­dicus, qui in Galeni Ana­tomicis volu­minibus vel levissimum quidem Jap­sum depre­hensum esse, multoque mi­nus depre­hendi posse censuerint. Vesalius in dedic. lib. de Fabric hum. that all his followers implicitly submitted to his Ana­tomical relations without further Enquiry, and taught his Errours for truths: And perhaps a certain vanity seised Ga­len to contradict the famous Herophilus out of dissected Apes, thereby to raise his own credit. However it was, from him arose most of the mistakes in Anatomy, that were transla­ted to the Moors, and from them to our Ancestors. The Moors are said by their Religion, to forbid the medling with dead bodies: Which Assertion, how true it is, I know not, because that Avicenne and Albucasis commend the study of Anatomy, as necessary in a peculiar manner to Chirurgeons. They practised sundry Chirurgical operations in Cauteries, and opening Arteries, which seemed to require an Experi­mental skill in dissections; and which were their own inventi­ons. In fine, Averroes pleads not any scruples of Religion for his ignorance in Anatomy, but laments the Civil Wars of the Moors, which hindred him from inquiring by dissection into those controversies betwixt Galen and Aristotle, which he had occasion to debate. Yet did Averroes at all adventures, assert the credit of Aristotle against Galen, out of an emulation a­gainst Avicenne who was a Galenist. From these two great men amongst the Moors, as the knowledge of Physick and Phi­losophy, happened to be imparted to the barbarous Christians of the West, so was there a [...]eud propagated betwixt the Philo­sophers, [Page 92] and the Physicians▪ and the controversies were the more intricate, because the Sciences had not been so well translated out of Greek into Arabick, as was requisite; and they were worse put into Latine. After the taking of Con­stantinople by the Turks, when some learned men had fled thence into Italy, they began to impart unto the world new books, to acquaint the West with the Greek tongue, and with the Greek Works of Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen; and thereby multiplied many Controversies in the practice of Physick, about Phlebotomy, and Purging, and the like; espe­cially about bleeding in a Plurisy, on which side it should be done. The contention was fierce, and some proofs being fetcht out of Anatomy, some persons were excited to enquire into humane bodies dissection, thereby to determine this contro­versy, and also the others betwixt Aristotle, Galen, and o­thers. Amongst these Vesalius was (I had almost said) the first and principal, and by his indefatigable pains prevented much the industry of others. After him Fallopius and Eusia­chius were the most remarkable; though many others came in with their little inventions to make up the cry, and failed not to supply the inutility of their discoveries with excessive clamor. What Apologies were made for Galen by Sylvius, and others, would be tedious to relate; Yet neither are all the exceptions made by Vesalius against Galen allowable. Ga­ [...]num aliquando in verbis potius quam in [...]ententiis carpit, aliquando mutilum (quod sacere debuerat) minime excusat▪ ac saepe indignius, quam Anatomieum▪ Philoso­phum, ac Medicum tam insignem [...]eceret, carpit at accusat. Fallopius observat. ana­ [...]om. p 3. they being so ridiculous, and repug­nant to common sense, that nothing could stop the growing glory of Vesa­lius and his followers. The issue of all was, that as Hippocrates lost no cre­dit by an ingenious confession of his mistake about the Sutures in the head of Autonomus; small errors being not observable in great Authors: So Galen still retained a great repute in the world, his other Works ha­ving advanced him above the effects of petty calumnies, or defaults. And the great Guinterus And [...]maeus, a compe­tent Judge of old and new discoveries in Physick and Anato­my, gives this censure upon those curious Disquisitions: De vet. & no­va med com­ment. 8. dial. 5. p. 261. Multa in rerum natura extant, quorum notitia non quidem Medicum aptiorem▪ facit, sed medicinae tantum profectum red­dit, [Page 93] Sic nulli ob accuratam illam, ne dicam curiosam nimis, partium corporis perscrutationem Medici excellentiores, sed ob curationes dextre sentatas absolutasque censentur. Ideo etiam Hippocrates, Galenus, Erasistratus, & plures id genus alii, tantum ex rerum natura & corporis humani fabricatione scruta­rivoluerunt, quantum ad medicinam probe exercendam ex usu esse putarunt. Non eadem enim semper omnibus similem ob cau­sam conducunt. Sic Anatome aliter physicis inseruit, qui disci­plinas ipsas propter se amant; alterii, qui illam non adeo affe­ctant, sed nihil temere a natura factum esse demonstrant: ali­ter his qui argumenta (ut ille ait) ad actionem quandam vel naturalem vel animalem cognoscendam, ex partium humani corporis historia adferre nituntur: aliter medico qui manum acu­leis, telonumque cuspidibus probe exprimendis vel alicui parti apte excidendae vel sinubus & fistulis & abscessibus incidendis adhibiturus est; quo Anatomes usu nihil aeque est necessa­rium.

Certainly it had been an action of greater ingenuity in our Novelists to have acknowledged the many excellent things that are in Galen, which are so advantageous to Phy­sick, then to endeavour to render a man multi ingenii multaque nihilominus habiturum, contemptible by the repre­sentation of a few defects in him, relating to things not much material to his profession. It must always be said of Galen, that he was the man who by his dextrous wit, happy practice, and great eloquence, as well as universal learning, did restore the glory of the Hippocratical Physick, which was in a man­ner extinct in his days. He again brought Anatomy into re­quest, which had been slighted and dis-used so long: he him­self dissected bodies privately, and publickly in the Temple of Peace; and amongst other Discoveries of his own, it is ob­servable that he found out the use of recurrent nerves, whose Vide Colum­bum Anat. l. 14 & Vesali­um de fabrica corp. hum. l. 4 c. [...]. influence upon the voice is such, that as they are pressed or cut into two, so a Dog becomes perpetually mute, or onely howls, never barks. Had that curiosity been but the discove­ry of some Novelists, what a noise would they have made? what boastings should we have had? But all that is good in Galen is passed by, and to make way for the glory of our new [Page 94] Inventors, Vesalius, Fallopius, Carcanus, Eustachius, Ingras­sias, Columbus, Arantius, Varolius, are not so much as men­tioned by Mr. Glanvill; to the end that we may (if we will) believe that it is the genius of this Age alone, which puts men upon discoveries, and that before them there were none that had merited this remark.

‘I instance in the most remarkable of their discoveries Plus ultra, pag. 13. Riolanus as­serts the first invention of the Valves in the veins to Hippocrates. Anthropogr. l 5. c. 49. briefly: and those I take notice of are, The valves of the veins, discovered by Fabricius ab Aqua pendente: The valve at the entrance of the Gut Colon, found as is generally thought by Bauhinus.—’ I cannot think these to be so re­markable discoveries, but that he might have found out ma­ny more, since the time of Vesalius, I shall name one wo gave a great light to the Circulation of bloud, and that is the discovery which Realdus Columbus made, that the blood did pass through the Lungs out of the right ventricle into the left, and so into the Aorta, and all the body. As for the val­ves in the veins, I believe there are few that think that Fabri­cius ab Aquapendente, was the first discoverer of them: for they were shewed to Fabricius by father Paul, that famous Venetian Monk, as appears in his life written by Fulgentio, and extant in English. Neither indeed was Father Paul the first Inventour of them, for they are described before by Ja­cobus Sylvius, Professor of Physick at Paris, as Riolanus, and Riolanus An­thropogr. l. 5. c. 49. Mar­quard. Slegel. de circul. sangu. l. [...]. p. 7. Bartholin. in libello de venis c. [...]. Varolius Anat. l. 3. c. 3. Rio­lan. Anthro­pogr. l. 2. c. 14. Bartholin, A­nat. [...]es. l. [...]. c. 11. Plus ultra, pag. 14. Slegelius, and Bartholinns do inform the world. And as to the valve in the beginning of the Colon-gut (if there be such a one, and that it be not rather a protuberant circle, arising from the joyning of the Ileon and Colon, as Pavius, Falcobur­gius, and Riolanus hold) whatsoever it be, it was discovered by Varolius, and called the Operculum Ilei, before that ever Bauhinus was born, as Riolanus doth demonstrate: there are two others that may as justly pretend to it, to better me­rit the credit then Bauhinus, and those are Solomon Albertus, whom Bartholin inclines unto: and Joannes Posthius of Mont­pelier, whom Riolanus also favours.

‘The Sinus of the veins, and their use found out by Dr. Wil­lis—’ I wonder Mr. Glanvill should not acquaint us with those particular Sinus which Dr. Willis should finde out; for [Page 95] since in common discourse, when we speak undeterminately of the Sinus, we understand those of the brain, it did become him to tell us which others he meant: lest a man that knew his skill, should apprehend him so ignorant as to think that Dr. Willis had newly found out those Sinus, one whereof hath for above two thousand years born the name of Herophilus, and was called Torcular Herophili, in Greek [...]. But I shall Dr. Willis de cerebro c [...]. p. 82, 83. be so favourable as to think that these are not the Sinus he meant, Dr. Willis having tried nothing more in prosecution of them, then to pursue the Circulation of the blood there by the injecting of Inkish liquor, whereas Wepferus used a tin­cture Jo. Jac. Wep­ferus Apo­plex. p 116. Bartholin. A­nat. l. 3. c. 7. of Saffron; and Bartholin evidenced the same thing by a pair of bellows, or tube and winde insufflated. I do beleeve that He, or they that suggested this to him, did mean the Sinus or venae vertebrales, which are described exactly in the Doctors Book, in the thirteenth Table. But I must tell him, that whatsoever there is in that Piece, which is Anatomical, the glory thereof belongs to Dr. Lower, whose indefatigable in­dustry produced that elaborate Treatise; and any man that knows the great practice of that other Doctor, will grant, that although he could not want abilities, yet he wanted lei­sure to attend to such painful and tedeous inquiries. Dr. Willis indeed candidly doth relinquish this honour to Dr. Lower, and his pains deserved your commendation (Mr. Glanvill) if that be of any value, so much more then those other inventions that are celebrated by the Virtuosi, by how much the subject was more minute and subtile which he was to trace. All that Dr. Willis contributed, that I hear, was the discourses and conjectures upon the Anatomical deductions of Dr. Lower, which as ingenuous as they are, I am sure neither are, nor ever will pass all for inventions. But in the case I now mention, I am confident that Dr. Lower is so ingenuous, asto acknow­ledge that what He exhibits there, is taken out of the Cuts of Varolius, as far as where they empty themselves into the subclavian veins: but I think that as to the Synus, or veins, and arteries all along the Spine, as there is not any Cut of them extant before that I hear of, so I allow them to pass as his invention: but the accurateness of his Neurology equals to the best Inventors.

[Page 96]But if Mr. Glanvill injur'd Dr. Lower in attributing what he invented unto Dr. Willis, he will [...]l his own discoveries, you shall see what a Divine can d [...] in Physick. 'St. St"! I adde the origination of the Nerves, which were of old supposed to arise out of the substance of the brain, but are found by late Anatomists to proceed from the medulla oblongata. This is such an Addition as becometh our Novel­lists, most that they pretend unto being no more then▪ Mr. Glanvill here boasts of; and which is so pitiful an accessio­nal in Anatomy, that none ever bragged of it, or upbraided the Ancients about it, that I remember, except Bartholin may be said to do it. As to the late Anatomists, unto whom he ascribes this invention, I would he had told their names. The difference betwixt the cerebrum, cerebellum, and medulla oblongata, is a modern (but not very late) distinction. Some have made the medulla oblongata and the spinal marrow to be but productions of the brain and cerebellum, from whence it raiseth it self by four foundations or roots: the discrepancy betwixt that and the other parts whence it is originated, not being such as to justifie any great contest about it: since it is the usual course of Nature in its progress from the union of two different bodies, to produce an intermediate substance, participating of the nature of both. Spinalis medulla ortus principium rectius cerebro atque cere­bello Vol. Coiter. observ. anatom miscel. Ex substantia cerebri & cerebelli quatuor radicibus oritur primum troncus insignis, Medulla spinalis appellatus, ex quo multi emergunt surculi, nomine nervorum insi­g [...]iti. Varolius Anatom▪ l 1. c. 13. [...] 12. acceptum fertur, unde non immerito caudex, sive processus, sive soboles cerebri appellatur: nam vix in ullo, nisi in du­ritie (est enim cerebro aliquanto solidior & firmior) videtur a cerebro differre. Some have made the brain & cerebellum to be productions of the spinal marrow, which enlargeth it self within the skull, and generateth those two Apophyses called the cerebrum & cerebellum. In fine, it doth not appear that the Ancients mistook much the place of the origination of nerves, if you reckon amongst them Vesali­us and Fallopius: but they said they rose all from the brain, understanding by that word all that which is included with­in the skull, and termed that to be the spinal marrow, which was without the skull, and whence those other paria nervo­rum [Page 97] seem to rise, which Anatomists describe. And this sub­tilty of Mr. Glanvill is so little regarded by late Anatomists, that Moebius (a man of as great note as most are) slights it Moebius fun­dament med. c. de usu ner­vor. p 606. Caspar Hof­man. ins [...]t. med. l 2. c. 65. sect. 1. by the example of Hofman, whose sense I shall here report: Monendi sunt adolescentiores, ne forte morentur illos qui ne­glecta veteri distinctione dicunt, Omnes nervi sunt a medulla, sed alii ex illa, antequam cranio excidat, alii ex eadem, cum jam in spinam delapsa est, & Spinalis dicitur. Quid enim hoc aliud est, quam frustranea nominum So Dr. Charlton in his Discourse to the Royal Society concerning the Brain, takes the liberty to understand by the Cerebrum as well as others, totum illud corp [...] quod Calvariae concavo continetur ( pag. 67. de Propr. cerebri humani) though after­wards, when he comes to speak more accu­rately, he treats of the Medulla oblongata thus: Cerebro proxime subjicitur alma nervorum ad sensus spectantium mater, & funis argentei (sicut Sapiens in Ecclesiaste eleganti sed obscu [...]a Allegoria vocat Me­dull [...]m spinalem) principium Medulla sci­licet intra cranium oblongata. Behold the addition of Mr. Glanvill! novatio? Cum dico me de nervis ex cere­bro ortis acturum, intelligo totum id quod cranio continetur. There is another Origination of the nerves, which is as an­cient as Aristotle, and which Hofman and Vander Linden assert, wherby they are deduced immediately and formally from the brain, but immediately and materially from the heart; for so much as they hold each nerve to be an Artery vested with the membranes of the brain, and so issuing to several parts. This opinion is very agree­able to the observations that occurre in the practice of Physick, and their arguments seem to me so plausible, that I am so a­verse with Mr. Glanvill to proclaim a new origination of the nerves, that I much doubt whether the followers of Galen were not deceived, and the Peripateticks in the right. See Van­der Linden Disp. 38. de vasis & nervis, and Hofman de par­tib. similar. in thes. de orig. nerv. sec. Aristot.

It is clear now that Mr. Glanvil [...]s new addition amounts onely to this, that the Ancients did some of them hold that the nerves had their original from the brain; others deduced Vide Varoli­um l. 1. c. 3. them from the heart. Some (perhaps before Varolius) did subdivide the brain into several parts, If Varolius found it out, as I believe be did, by a peculiar way of dissecting the head, what is it that Mr. Glanvill then [...]DDS? I am sure that Fracassatus saith, Varolius primus principium spinalis me­dullae vel intra cranium sobolescere in ner­vos, quorum origo olim á cerebro peteba­tur, docuit. and said that the nerves had their origi­nation from the medulla oblongata, and not from the cerebrum and cerebel­lum. This nicety Dr. Willis makes some use of, but since he explicates no­thing [Page 98] of the brain with a mechanical accurateness; I shall on­ly subjoyn, that whosoever shall view or eat that which they call Medulla oblongata & spinalis, and compare it with the marrow that is in the bones otherwise, he will think it a less impropriety of speech, to say the Medulla oblongata is a part of the brain, then to term it a Medullary substance.

‘ And though the Succus Nutritius be not yet fully agreed upon by Physicians, yet it hath so much to say for it self, that it may not unreasonably be mentioned amongst the new Inventions—’ It's strange Mr. Glanvill should entitle this opinion about the Succus Nutritius to so great a degree of probability, as he doth. Physicians are so far from being fully agreed upon it, that, excepting Dr. Glisson, Dr. Charleton, and perhaps one or two more, the rest do generally reject it. Highmore de affect. hypo­chondr. c. 4. Willis in Ana­tome cerebri c 20. Bartholin spi­cileg. 1. c. 3. Dr. Highmore, Dr. Willis, and Bartholine have written against: it; and so hath Deusingius writ a particular discourse against: it. Nor do I doubt, but whosoever peruseth those Authors which I refer unto, will be so far from imagining it reason­able to ascribe the Succus Nutritius to the number of mo­dern Inventions, that he will term it at best but an ingenious Paradox, which when the first surprise is over, vanisheth with the appearance of being ridiculous. How much doth our Virtnoso, and Bartholine differ? Prodeat Herophilus, ex Bartholin. spicileg. 1. de vasis lym­phat p. 23. autro educatur Democritus, advocentur prosectores cujuscunque sortis & aetatis, si in dissectis corporum nervis ullum invene­rint liquorem nutritioni opportunum, nolim inter eos locum me­reri.

‘But of all Modern Discoveries, Wit and Industry have Plus ultra, pag. 15. made in the Oeconomy of humane nature, the noblest is that of the Circulation of the blood, which was the invention of our deservedly famous Harvey. 'Tis true, the envy of ma­licious Contemporaries would have robb'd him of the Glory of this Discovery, and pretend it was known to Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others among the Ancients; but who­ever considers the expressious of those Authors, which are said to respect the Circulation, who finde that those who form the inference, do it by a faculty that makes all kind of Compositions and Deductions, and the same that assists [Page 99] the Enthusiasts of our days, to see so clearly all our altera­tions of State and Religion, to the minutest particulars in the Revelation of Saint John. And I think it may be as well concluded from the first chapter of Genesis, as from the remains of those Ancients, who if they had known this great and general Theory, how chance they speak no more of a thing, which no doubt they had frequent oc­casions to mention? How came it to be lost without Memory amongst their followers, who were such su­perstitious Porers upon their Writings? How chance it was not shewn to be lodged in those Authors before the days of Dr. Harvey, when Envy hed impregnated and de­termined the Imaginations of those who were not wil­ling any thing should be found anew, of which themselves were not the Inventours? But 'tis not only the re­motest Ancients, whom time hath consecrated, and di­stance made venerable, whose Ashes those fond men would honour with this discovery; but even much later Au­thors have had the glory fastned upon them. For the Invention is by some ascribed to Paulus Venetus; by o­thers to Prosper Alpinus; and a third sort give it to Andraeas Gaesalpinus. For these, though either of them should be acknowledged to be the Author, it will make as much for the design of my discourse, as if Harvey had the credit: and therefore here I am no otherwise concerned, but to have justice for that excellent man: and the World hath now done right to his Memory, Death having overcome that Envy which Dogs living vertue to the Grave; and his Name rests quietly in the Armes of Glory, while the Pretensions of his Rivals are creeping into darkness and oblivion.’

Whether those that have gone about to deprive Dr. Harvey have been incited by Envy and Malice, it is hard for any considerate man to judge; since those which first proposed the doubt about the Author, were great friends to the Theoreme; such as Walaus, who first mentioned it; [Page 100] Riolanus, Nardius, Fracassarus, and Joannes Antonides Van­der Linden: All of them pay a great respect to Dr. Harvey's Performances; All of them concur with him generally in his Assertions, saving that Riolanus made some variation there­in, and perhaps his passion might blinde his candour; though I do not think so, because I finde him zealously vindicating of Dr. Harvey from those imputations by which Walaeus endea­voured to transfer the credit of the invention upon Father Paul.

Another thing I must take notice of is, that Mr. Glanvill speaks very peremptorily about a thing he hath not enqui­red into, for it is evident that he never read the passages out of the Ancients, which are cited by Walaeus and Riolanus, to to shew they were not altogether ignorant of that motion of the bloud which is called Circulation. He thinks it may be as well concluded from the first chapter of Genesis, as from the remains of the Ancients. And why so? Is there any thing mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, that sounds like the Circulation of the blood, or any words that can be applied unto this late discovery? not one. But any man that un­derstands Greek, must confess that the words [...], and [...]. in Hippocrates (whatever he meant by them) do most emphatically signifie the Circulation of the blood, as it is now proposed. If I merit not to be believed herein, take the judgement of Julius Caesar, Scaliger upon A­ristotle de insoma. xiij. 1444. [...]. I shall not from this place deduce the mystery of the Circulation of the blood, by saying that rivers circulate under ground thorough that sandy earth, which those that dig in Wells, when they come unto, they can descend no further: (which Helmont in the Brabant Dia­lect calls Quellem, other Dutch-men name Well-ground and Well-sand, and after return unto the Sea again by open Chan­nels: But whatever the intent of the Philosopher was, that [...], properly imports such a thing, and that we have the name given it by Aristotle, this Scaliger confes­seth, Ejus ad apotelesma xxxi. haec sunt verba.. [...] motum; ut infebribus accessionem. Circuitum [Page 101] Calvus cum dicit, fideliter, non pleno explicat. Neque enim. circumducitur sanguis, ut [...] impleat significationem Nam in febribus idcirco dicitur [...], quia revertitur pa­roxysmus: quasi circumductus ob diem parum & vacuum a morbo. From which it is evident, that if Scaliger had known that the blood had circulated, he would have granted it to have been properly expressed here in the Text: which is more then He would say of any Apocalyptical discoveries, or de­ductions of that opinion out of the first Chapter of Genesis. And if the word [...] be so significant, it is hard to deny that Hippocrates did not set down the thing it self in this pas­sage, [...], Hippocrates de oss. nat. t. 17. [...]. Venae per corpus fusae spiritum, & fluxum, & motum praestant. Ab una multae propagantur: sed illa una unde incipiat, aut ubi desinat, non scio. Circulo enim ducto, principium non invenitur. And in that other; [...]- E [...] lib. de a­lim. t. 4. 1 [...]. [...]. In pilos alimentum [id est, sanguis nutri­ens] & in ungues, atque extremam superficiem intus advenit: faeris alimentum ab extrema superficie intime revertitur. Corri­vatio una, conspiratio una, consentientia omnia. Certe quod ad communem naturam omnia: in quavis parte partes ad opus. Principium magnum [id est Cor, per transmissos spiritus & sanguinem] ad extremam partem pervenit: ab extrema parte ad principium magnum revertitur. There are more passages in the same Authour which seem to import the same thing, though his usual brevity and obscurity is such, that had not Harvey and others dilucidated the point, we had never, I be­lieve, fixed this explication upon him, which amounts to no more then a new gloss upon an old Text: which yet is suffici­ent to check the largeness of Mr. Glanvills assertion. The [...] of Plato, and his making the Heart to be the original [Page 102] of the veins, [...]; Plato in Ti­maeo. these are something more then is to be found in the first of Genesis. And that passage of Aristotle de Gen. Anim. l. 4. c. ult. is so unlike any thing of Moses's, and so like to the doctrine of Harvey, that any man must blame Mr. Glanvill, for rashness of what he says. The words are thus set down by Riolanus, and I have not the Original by me to consult: Cum coelestia corpora circulariter moveantur, inse­riora' corpora motum illum imitari debent, cumque Oceanus fluxu & refluxu moveatur ab influxu Lunari, similiter humores talem motum habere necessum est. Which words seem clear enough, so as to justific the Epiphonema of my Author, in op­position to our Virtuoso. Quid ista significant nisi sanguinis Circulationem. He that would be informed more fully about the judgement of the Ancients, whether there be any thing in them that discovers the Circulation of the blood, to have been known unto them; or that they were not totally-igno­rant, and without any apprehensions of it: let him reade the first letter of Walaeus, and the several Pieces of Joannes Ri­olanus about the Circulation of the blood, and the disputati­ons of Vander Linden about the Circulation of the blood, in which he vindicates it in a prolixe discours unto Hippocrates. I wil not trouble my self to transcribe them: It is evident that all men do give unto Harvey the credit of having so explicated it, and Anatomically proved it, that he may as well be termed the Author of it, as Epicurus and others the Authors of that Phi­losophy which they derived from Pythogoras, Democritus, Leu­cippus, and Ocellus Lucanus. Nor hath Harvey any other Plea and Right to the Invention, then that he did more fully and perspicuously declare it, and in the most judicious and so­lid manner assert what others had but hinted at, or fainily insisted on.

Nor is Mr. Glanvill any better acquainted with the noti­ons of the Modern Writers, then he is with those of the An­cients. He saith, that some have ascribed the Circulation of the blood to Paulus Venetus. I must inform the Reader (who may easily mistake, if he be one of the ordinary Comical Wirs) that it is not to be ascribed to Paulus Venetus, the great Tra­veller, [Page 103] who is generally understood, when that name is menti­oned; none can say that he brought it from the Kingdom of Cathay. But Pater Paulus Sarpa (or Serpa) or Father Paul, the famous Venetian Monk, of the order of the Servi; who signatised himself during the time that Venice was in­terdicted. He was a Student at Padoa at the same time that Harvey was there, and discovered to Aqua pendens the valves in the veins, which discovery that great Anatomist ap­propriated to himself; and so Harvey was thought to have abused the same Father. But since Fulgentio in the life of Vide Slegel. de motu San­guin c. 2. & Riolan. in not. ad ep. Walaei. Padre Paolo doth not challenge Harvey for this Cheat, as he doth Fabricius for that other; and since Marquardus Slegelius could not hear of any such thing upon a strict En­quiry at Venice and Padua, I know not any since Walaeus and Franciscus Ulmus, that have ascribed the invention to Paulus Venetus Servita.

Neither did I ever reade of any man that attributed it to Prosper Alpinus: nor is it credible that any ever did so. For that great Physician established his glory by being an ex­cellent Practitioner, and not by any Anatomical curiosities, which he rather contemned, then pursued: and till I know what Author Mr. Glanvill follows, I believe the mentioning of him was occasioned by that way of discoutse which is common to the Wits of this Age, to blunder out any thing: and by laughing at improbabilities (of their own suggestion) to explode substantial truths, or represent them as forgeries. But if any did deceive the world in attributing the Circula­tion of the blood to Padre Paolo and Prosper Alpinus, it doth not follow but that Andreas Caesalpinus was the first Inventor of it, and proposed it to the world in his Medical and Pe­ripatetical Questions, thought not in any Set Discourse, but as it casually falls into the discussion of other Problems: Whereupon it was little regarded, and not enquired after; the book being also scarce, and he being of that faction of Phy­sicians which adheres to Aristotle against Galen, whence it hapned that few read his Paradoxes, and one of the bravest men of the latter Age hath been almost buried in oblivion. However, an ingenious Florentine, call'd Joannes Nardius, [Page 104] hath asserted the repute of Andraeas Caesalpinus, for prece­dency to Harvey in the Discovery; nor doth the same Author doubt, but that Erasistratus was of the same opinion: but he saith of Caesalpinus this: Foelix cui contigit post mortem nan­cisci clarissimum Patronum Guglielmum Harveium Regium Medicum, nobisque per charum, qui abortivam illam opinio­nem excoluit adeo, ut nihil cultius nostro seculo, nilque mirabi­lius occurrerit curiosis & amaenarum literarum amatoribus. To decide this question▪ and to put an end to those disputes which trouble some of our Virtuosi so much, by reason of that little converse they have with Books, I shall draw out the opinion of Caesalpinus, as he expresseth himself in his Dispu­tations.

As a great abettour of Aristotle, he avows that the Heart is Andraeas Cae­salpinus Qu. peripatet. [...]. 5. qu. 3. the principal part in man, and the original of the veins, ar­teries, and nerves; which is the opinion of Hofman, Van der Linden, and other Aristotelian Physicians.

He describes the Fabrick of the Heart as exactly as any of the Circulators in reference to the Valves, so much talked Ib. qu. 4. of; but he declares not their shape: Vasorum in Cor desinen­tium quaedam intromittunt contentam in ipsis substantiam, ut vena Cava in d [...]tro ventriculo, & arteria venalis in sinistro: quadam educu [...] ut arteria aorta in sinistro ventriculo, & vena arterialis pulmonem nutriens iu dextro: omnibus autem mem­branule sunt appositae & officio delegatae, ut oscula intromittentia non educant, & educentia non intromittant.

And for the account of the Vena arteriosa, and Arteria venosa in the Lungs, Harvey is not more perspicuous, then he is afterwards, where he makes the one to be an Artery, the other a veine, viz. Putaverunt autem Medici usum hunc non videntes commutatae fuisse vasa in pulmone, ut Arteria quidem similis esset venae, vena autem similis Arteriae: appellantes ve­nas vasa omnia quae in dextrum ventriculum desinunt, Arterias autem, quae in sinistrum: figmenta multa & absurditates excogi­tantes ut usum invenirent. Pulsat igitur in pulmone vas dextri ventriculi, haec enim e corde recipit, ut Arteria magna, & si­militer fabricatum est ejus corpus. Vas autem sinistri ventri­culi [Page 105] non pulsat, quia introducit tantum, & ejus corpus simile est reliquis venis.

He holds that the motion of the Heart and Arteries de­pends not upon any pelsifick Faculty, but that it ariseth from the [...], ebullition, or effervescency of the blood in the Ventricles; and that the Heart and Arteries are dilated at the same time, the blood dilating the Heart, and issuing out thorough the valves of the Aorta and Pulmonique Artery at the same instant, which is pure Cartesianism.

He holds that the Blood comes up from the veins to the Heart, and there acquires the last Perfection, and becomes vital and spirituous: in the mention of the Arterious Blood, he useth indifferently the termes of Blood, spi­rit, and natural heat, which I desire may be observed, lest the proofs seem not full enough, and he be con­strued to speak of nothing but spirits and natural heat in the Arteries. He saith, that this Blood having acquired its Perfection in its passage through both the ventricles, is distri­buted through all the parts of the body, for its nutriment by the Arteries, in which Arteries there is such a constant quantity of Blood, that the effervency of that in the Heart impells the whole continuation of the Arteries, so that they beat all at once. Cum enim pulsatio Cordis & Arteriarum sit accidens quoddam quod ex necessitate insequitur humoris in corde effervescentiam, qua sanguinis generatio per ficitur, ut in caeteris quae igne elixantur, accidit. lib. de vita & mort. c. [...]. intumescente corde necesse est simul omnes Arterias dilatari, in quas derivatur fervor: non enim repleri po­test una pars, quin totum fiat majus: ubi non omni ex parte vasa quae continua sunt fuerint exinanita. Nam nul­lo intus existente corpore, non contingit simul repleri prin­cipium & extrema, cum motus non fiat in instanti: exi­stente autem per totos canales aliquo spiritu, simul ac in principio alius fuerit genitus, necesse est totum simul di­latari, unum enim sit spiritus accedens cum toto. Cum ergo totum reddatur majus simul ac accesserit pars, non potest una pars dilatari, quin eodem tempore dilatetur totum. [Page 106] Est autem veluti totum quoddam Arteriae omnes cum corde; Mark this, where he makes the Heart and Arteries to be one conti­nued rece­pracle of per­fect blood: by which you must explain what he says in some p [...]a­ces, as it only spirits or na­tural heat went into the Arteries, or returned by the veins. Continuum enim est vas sanguinis perfecti. Spiritu autem ef­flante inhabitum corporis, & distributo particulis sanguine, ne­cesse est tumorem vasorum desidere, quae est pulsus contractio. Continue autem hoc fit, quia continua est partium nutritio, & continua sanguinis generatio in corde. Elevatio igitur Spiritus a calore fit, non tamen temere, sed alicujus gratia. Nam sine hujusmodi amplificatione non fieret distributio alimenti in om­nes partes.

He plants a kind of Flammula cordis, or fire in the heart, which causeth the ebullition, and imprints a spirituousness in the blood that issueth out into the Arteries. Hujusmodi loc [...]s Cor est in quo secundum Naturam elementum praeparatum ar­dere possit, & fieri spiritus: venae alimentum suppeditant, Arteriae flammae spiritum recipiunt.

He saith, that the Blood moves towards the Heart, as the Oyle to the flame of the burning Lamp, and that the Valves as the orifice of the Vena Gava which immit the blood, are placed there to moderate the source of the blood, lest it should fall in too fast, & extinguish the vital fire: and that the valves at the entrance of the Aorta do flie open upon the effer­vescency of the blood, by the pressure of it every way, to get more room: it finding no out-let but by those yielding val­ves, which were so placed, lest upon any accident, or vic­lent passion, the arterious blood should regurgitate into the Heart, Motus fit ex venis in Cor caliditate alimentum traben­te, ex corde autem in arterias, quia hac solum patet iter pro­pter membranarum positionem, positae autem sunt hoc modo membranae, ne unquam contingeret contrarium motum fieri, quod accidere posset in vehementibus animi perturbationibus, aut aliis causis, a quibus sanguinis retractio fit ad Cor: Obsistunt enim huic motui membranae. Nam si hoc modo condite non essent, ignis cordis vel levi causa extingueretur. Si enim me­tus fieret contrarius simile esset, ac si flamma compingeretur de­orsum ad alimentum, quod cum minime sit praeparatum, aut ce­piosius quam oportet, ignem suffocat. Oportet enim alimentum praeparari, & paulatim dispensari ad locum flammae.

He saith that this arterious blood, or spirit, is distributed [Page 107] into all parts of the body, with great celerity, and that it is that which nourisheth the parts: and that upon its diffusion into the habit of the body, the spirits are very much exhaust­ed, and the corpulent part of the aliment doth remain, being coagulated partly by heat, and partly by cold.

He saith, that the variety of the pulse, as to strength or de­bility, celerity and slowness, depends upon the nature of the vital fire, the nature of the aliment with which it is fed, and sometimes upon the particular Fabrick, or conformation of the Heart, in which that Fire is seated.

He placeth Anastomoses betwixt the veins and arteries e­very where in the body. Osculorum communio est non solum in corde, sed etiam per totum venerum & arteriarum ductum,

He saith that the blood is never extravasated, but where it is aggregated to any part by way of nourishment, or else it putrifies: he doth not understand how it should not coagu­late if once extravasated; nor can he comprehend how it should be reassumed into the veins in such a case. Venam continuam esse oportet, usque ad cordis ventriculos, ut inde omnis virtus descendat: nec ullibi contingit disjunctam esse; sanguis enim calore cordis destitutus concrescit, & tandem pu­trescit.

He makes the Blood to pass betwixt the right and left ven­tricle of the Heart; partly by the Lungs, and partly by the Septum Cordis. Pulchre igitur condita sunt omnia. Cum enim fervere oporteret in corde sanguinem, ut fieret alimenti perfectio: primo quidem in dextro ventriculo, in quo crassior adhuc conti­netur sanguis, deinde autem in sinistro, ubi sincerior sanguis est: partim per medium septum, partim per medios pulmones refri­gerationis gratia ex dextro in sinistrum mittitur. Interim au­tem pulmo abunde nutriri potest: totum enim eum sanguinem absumere, quem recipit, egreditur fines rationis. Non enim rara esset ejus substantia & levis, ut videtur si tantum alimenti, vim in suam naturam converteret. This he thus further explains. Pulmo per venam arteriis similem ex dextro cordis ventriculo fervidum hauriens sanguinem, eumque per anastomosin arteriae venali reddens quae in sinistrum cordis ventriculum tendit, trans­misso [Page 108] interim aere frigido per asperae arteriae canales, qui juxta arteriam venalem protenduntur, non tamen osculis communi­cantes, ut putavit Galenus solo tactu temperat. Huic Sangui­nis Circulationi ex dextro cordis ventriculo, per pulmones in si­nistrum ejusdem ventriculum optime respondent ea quae ex disse­ctione apparent. Nam duo sunt vasa in dextrum ventriculum desinentia, duo etiam in sinistrum. Duorum autem unum in­tromittit tantum, alterum educit, membranis eo ingenio con­structis. Vas igitur intromittens, vena est magna quidem in dextro, quae cava appellatur: parva autem in sinistro, ex pul­mone introducens, cujus unica est tunica, ut caeterarum venarum. Vas autem educens Arteria, est magna quidem in sinistro, quae Aorta appellatur, parva autem in dextro ad pulmones derivans, cujus similiter duae sunt tunicae, ut in caeteris arteriis.

He holds that the spirituous or arterious blood is cast ou [...], and diffused vigorously into the habit of the body, that the veins and arteries being continuous by Anastomosis, it returns to the Heart again, vigorating the blood of the vena peria and Cava as it returns: which is sufficiently intimated in that he deduces all the vigour and vitality of the blood from the Heart, and that this vigour or natural hear is carried o­ver the body by the Arteries alone, and that it is necessary that the whole venous Systeme, or contexture of Arteries and veins be continuous, lest the blood in the veins, being de­stitute of the cordial heat, should coagulate and putrifie. He holds that this motion, or Circulation of the blood is without intermission: and that the swelling▪ of the veins upon the Ligature is a sufficient proof of it. But he holds, that the recourse of the blood by the veins is greater in the sleep, then when we awake; which he proves thus, in that the veins are more full and tumid during sleep, then waking: and the pulse weaker, and more slow; as any man may observe. From whence he concludes, that the natural heat (which is the Arterious blood, as I observed before, to prevent all possible mistakes) which was otherwise in great part expended up­on the nerves and sensories, doth in sleep return: and fill the veins more visibly (that exhaustion ceasing) then when we are not asleep.

[Page 109] His opinion will be best set down in his own words; and I think it necessary to do it, because Nardius hath done it so imperfectly, that one would attribute as little to his al­legations, as to those which are cited out of the Ancients; and if I had not read Caesalpinus long before, I should have thought the Florentine to have intitled Caesalpinus to the opi­nion out of envy to Harvey, or out of a partial desire to ad­vance the glory of the Tuscan Academy at Pisa, when Cae­salpinus was Professour. Thus that learned man writ a­bout the year 1590. or a little after.

‘ Andraeas Caesalpinus Quest▪ Medic. l. 2. Qu. 17. edit. venetae secunda in 4 ^to. A. D. 1593. fol. 234. col. 1. Sed illud speculatione dignum videtur, Propter quod intumescunt venae ultra locum apprehensum, non citra: quod experimento sciunt qui vena secant: vinculum enim adhibent citra locum sectionis, non ultra: quia tument venae ultra vinculum, non citra. Debuisset autem opposito modo contingere, si mo­tus sanguinis & spiritus a visceribus fit in totum corpus: intercepto enim meatu, non ultra datur pro­gressus: tumor igitur venarum citra vinculum de­buisset fieri. An folvitur dubitatio ex eo quod scri­bit Aristoteles, de Som c. 3. ubi inquit, Necesse enim quod evaporatur aliquousque impelli: deinde converti & permutari, sicut Euripum: calidum enim cujusque animalium ad superiora natum est ferri: cum autem in superioribus locis fuerit, multum simul ite­rum revertitur, ferturque deorsum. Haec Aristoteles. [Page 110] Pro cujus loci explicatione illud sciendum est: Cordis meatus ita a natura paratos esse, ut ex vena Cava intromissio fiat in Cordis ventriculum dex­trum, unde patet exitus in pulmonem: ex pulmone praeterea alium ingressum esse in Cordis ventriculum sinistrum, ex quotandem patet exitus in Arteriam Aortam, membranis quibusdam ad ostia vasorum appositis, ut impediant retrocessum: Sic enim perpetuus quidam motus est ex vena cava per Cor & pulmones in Arteriam Aortam: ut in Quaestionibus Peripateticis explicavimus. Cum autem in vigilia motus caloris nativi fiat extra, scilicet ad sensoria: in Somno autem intra, scilicet ad Cor: putandum est in vigilia multum spiritus & sanguinis ferri ad ar­terias, inde enim in nervos iter est. In somno au­tem eundem calorem per venas reverti ad Cor, non per Arteriam. Judicio sunt pulsus, qui expergi­centibus fiunt magni, vehementes, celeres, & cre­bri, cum quadam vibratione: in somno autem parvi, languidi, tardi & rari notante Galeno. 3. de caus. pul. 9, 10. Num in Somno calor nativus minus vergit in arterias: in casdem erumpit vehementius cum expergiscuntur. Venae autem contrario se modo habent: nam in somno fiunt tumidiores, in vigilia exiliores, ut patet intuenti eas quae in manu sunt. Transit enim in somno calor nativus ex ar­teriis in venas per osculorum communionem, quam A­nastomosin vocant, & inde ad Cor. Ut autem sangui­nis exundatio ad superiora, & retrocessus ad inferiora ad instar Euripi manifesta est in somno & vigilia, sic [Page 111]non obscurus est hujusmodi motus in quacunque parte cor­poris vinculum adhibeatur, aut alia ratione occludan­tur venae. Cum enim tollitur permeatio, intumescunt rivuli qua parte fluere solent.’

From hence it is clear that He held that the blood did cir­culate continually, falling into the Heart by the vena Cava, and issuing out by the Aorta into all parts of the body: that this motion of the blood was perceivable by the Ligatures at any time, but most manifest in the intumescence of the veins in sleep: at what time also the blood or natural heat (which is all one to him) did pass by way of Anastomosis out of the arteries into the veins, as well as at other times. So that we are not to imagine any interrupted circulation in him, but that it did constantly flow night and day, sleeping and wa­king, though with unequal celerity. In letting of blood he tells us, that the blood which first issues out is venous, and blacker then that which follows, and comes more immedi­ately Qu. Med. l. 2. qu 5 fol. 212. col. 1. lit. [...]. out of the Arteries.—Venas cum Arteriis adeo copulari osculis, ut vena secta primum exeat sanguis venalis nigrior; de­inde succedat arterialis flavior, quod plerumque contingit. And Qu. Med. l. 2. qu. 15. fol▪ 230. col. 1. l. c. he explains the motion of the blood, and natural heat thus, to prevent all ambiguity. At instabit quis in somno nequaquam prohiberi calorem in cerebro & sensoriis: pulsant enim arteriae in toto corpore etiam in somno. At praesente calore innato debu­isset duci in actum facultas animalis. An calor innatus in som­no viget in venis & arteriis, non in nervis sine quibus, non sit sensus & motus? Extra igitur ferri est nervos petere, intra autem non solum ad viscera, sed in omnes venas & arterias; unde operationes naturales magis perficiuntur in toto cor­pore.

I hope I have now determined the Question which hath occasioned so many heats in the world concerning the Cir­culation of the blood, who was the first Inventor of it? I have de­monstrated that Andraeas Caesalpinus, a rigid Peripatetick up­on sensible Experiments & Mechanical considerations, not notio­nal apprehensions, did not only discover this motion of the blood [Page 112] (even through the Lungs) but gave it the name of CIRCU­LATIO SANGUINIS; which name is not so proper in it self, considering the Fabrick of the veins and arteries, and the Labyrinth in which the blood moves universally, describing a Line no way circular, as that a man would have pitched up­on it in any other Age then when Caesalpinus lived, when the knowledge of the Learned Languages was less general then now, and such a barbarous stile in fashion, as our Inventour u­sed. But it was not so in the days of Dr. Harvey, who pub­lished his Treatise in 4 ^to. at Francfourt in the year (as I take it) 1628. I must confess I am apt to think upon▪ this con­sideration, that Dr. Harvey (who was a Peripatetique Phy­sician, and in whose time at Padoa, those Physicians did flourish with the greatest repute of Learning and skill in A­natomy, as well as Philosophy) did take up this opinion from my Author. And although there wanted not occasion by reason of what Walaeus, Riolanus, Slegelius, and others had said upon the point, for him to declare the original of the dis­covery, yet in his two Answers to Riolanus, and his Book of Generation, He no where asserts the Invention so to himself, as to deny that he had the intimation or notion from Caesal­pinus; but leaves the Controversy in the dark: which silence of his I take for a tacite Confession. His Ambition of Glory made him willing to be thought the Authour of a Paradox he had so illustrated, and brought upon the Stage, when it lay unregarded, and in all probability buried in oblivion. Yet such was his Modesty, as not to vindicate it to himself by tel­ling a Lie. And such his Prudence, as rather to avoid the debate, then resolve it to his prejudice. Had Dr. Harvey been a Chymist, I should have guessed that he might have fixed up­on the word Circulation, upon other reasons, and those con­gruous enough to his Hypotheses: but since (especially in the days when he writ) those Studies were Narravit mih. Nobiliss. & Ampliss. Ni­colaus Oudart, illustrissimi Principis Auri­a [...]i Consi [...]iarius, meminisse se audire ipsum Harveium profitentem se revera primam circuitus sanguinis n [...]titiam, & in eum se­ctione viventium inquirendi occasionem ex Herioto▪ accepisse. Fuit▪ is serenissimi quondam Regis Jacobi gemm [...]rius, & Ma­theseos peri [...]s, eoque nomine Londini ce­lebris.—Si verum hoc, verisi milius quoque est, vel ipsum, vel Sarpium, vel He­riotum, a Caes [...]lpino accepisse. Nemo enim mihi persuaserit, ab corum nemine visum suisse scriptum [ venetiis impressum] quod vel titulo se, nedum eruditionis varietate atque sublimitate commendet. Jo. Arter▪ Vander Linden disput, de circuit. sangu exercit. 9. sect. 196. & exercit. 16. sect▪ 582. unknown to him, and not valued by him, I am inclined to think that He did receive his first Iutelligence from this Professour at Pisa (where Harvey also was) and so improved those hints, [Page 113] that in the divulging of his Opinion, they are as little to be seen, as the first indeclines which Painters draw in Pi­ctures that are lost, when the Pourtraict is finished: or as in the first Appear­ances of Plants above-ground, where those leaves and buds, which often give growth to the succeeding stemme, flower, and fruit, are lost, or altered so as not to be known. Let it suffice, that Dr. Harvey had parts and industry enough to have discovered it, had he not been prevented therein. And I should have imagined that our Countreyman had found it out, without any communication with those other books (a thing possible enough, and of which we have instance in the case of Rudbek, Bartholine, and Jolice) but that the reasons I have alledged render the case suspicious. Had Caesalpinus writ a distinct Treatise, I doubt not but much of the Glory had been his: since there are as great differences between one Circulator, and another, and greater, then betwixt him and Harvey: but his notions be­ing confusedly laid down here and there in his Peripatetick and Medicinal Questions, and he being not ambitious to pre­tend to any new discoveries, only to illustrate Aristotles te­nets. I shall allow Harvey the possession of his present re­pute: nor do I give my self this trouble of collecting up into a method these confused assertions of Caesalpinus out of any envy to the dead, but out of animosity to Pretenders to Wit and Learning, that brave it thus amongst us; yet if to be ignorant of what hath passed in the world heretofore, be an argument of childishness, there is not any thing more pue­rile then this sort of Virtuosi.

I might not dismiss my Reader, but that the great noise which this Circulation of blood makes in the World, enfor­ceth me to speak a little more about the utility of this dis­covery, which our Authour describes to be the most noble of all those discoveries in the Oeconomy of humane nature, which Wit and Industry have made. I do confess I think the Argu­ments for it to be such as admit of no Answer in general; [Page 114] but when we come to debate how it passeth through the Lungs▪ (which Riolanus almost invincibly disproves) or through the Septum Cordis, (which Riolan and Bartholin asserts, but Harvey, Slegelius, Vander Linden, and others, reject it o [...] good grounds) what it is that causeth the pulsation of the Heart? what continues on the motion of the blood in the veins, even when a Ligature is made betwixt the antecedent and subsequent blood. Whether the blood be diffused into the habit of the body, and reimbibed by capillary veins, or conveyed on by Anastomoses? whether there be any difference betwixt the venous and Arterious blood? How the Phaenomena (which undeniably are observed) about the pulse can be made out▪ and particularly how some have lived without any Pulse, others (which I have known) in the palpitation of the Heart, suffer no change in their Pulse? How upon dissection or wounds som­times both ends of the veine divided do bleed? How some bleed at the arme without any Ligature; some upon a double Ligature? These, and many other questions, when I come to dispute with my self, methinks I am forced to constrain my judgement in the assent I give to that Probleme: and what I am ashamed to deny, I finde I cannot own without some reluctancy, which is daily encreased in me by scruples arising from the Practick Part of Physick; nor do I blush to declare my self an Abettour only of such Tenets, as are consistent with, and illustrated by Practical Physick: it was thought at first that this Circulation of blood would over­throw all the usual Methods of Physick, and introduce new and beneficial discoveries in that part of Medicine which is Therapeutick. But Harvey denieth that it varieth the Me­dicine of the Ancients; and Slegelius asserts the same opini­on, avowing it to be rather an happy illustration, then [...] subversion of the former praxis, though it alter the Theory much. In fine, those little advantages and Diorismes, which we derive from that Invention merit not our notice; nay, any man shall with more assurance bleed in many diseases in sun­dry manners and different places, upon diverse indications upon the old observations and rules, then on the new hypotheses, wherein as to the use of parts, and nature of humors, there [Page 115] is as little of clearness and certainty; as there is efficacy it▪ that practice▪ which is regulated most thereby.

I had forgot to take notice of the venae lacteae ascribed to Nardiu [...]. noct G [...]al. 4. p 412. Asellius, the invention of them is thought a great discovery, and such as signatiseth a man in this Age. Yet even those vessels were known to Galen, as Nardius proveth out of his book against Erasistratus, c. 5. and out of the last chapter of his Anatomical Administrations. It is true, he calls them Arteries; he saith they were in the Mesentery filled with Milk, and that he observed them in young Kids. And Hof­man in his Variae Lectiones doth produce out of Galen, de usu part. l. 4. sect. 19. a place so evidently shewing that Galen and Herophilus did recover those Venae lacteae; that Veslingi­us cries out in a Letter to him, Existimo aut nihil cum Hero­philo Galenum vidisse, aut has [...], hos Epist xxi. ipsos ductus esse, quos lacteos cum Asellio nominamus. Quae ad Pancreatis [...] (ex multarum enim glandu­larum compage constructum videtur) pertinent. The place in [...]. H [...]sman v [...]r lect. l. 2. [...] c. 2. Galen is this, as Hofman represents it. [...]. Which proof as it is perspicuous enough to ruine the discovery of the Venae La­cteae, and the deducing of them unto the Glandules of the Mesentery (beyond which Herophilus and Galen did never trace the journey of the Chyle, but imagined those veins to nourish the Mesentery) so I think that the invention of the Ductus Thoracius belongs to Andr. Vesalius, and Barthol. Eu­stachius: the one more obscurely proposeth it, the other more openly.