I have not yet tryed, sayes Carneades, of what use the mention’d liquors may be in Physick, either as Medicines or as Menstruums: But I could mention now (and may another time) divers of the tryals that I made to satisfy my self of the difference of these two Liquors. But that, as I allow your thinking what you newly told me about Corals, I presume you will allow me, from what I have said already, to deduce this Corollary; That there are divers compound bodies, which may be resolv’d into four such differing Substances, as may as well merit the name of Principles, as those to which the Chymists freely give it. For since they scruple not to reckon that which I call the compound Spirit of Box, for the spirit, or as others would have it, the Mercury of that Wood, I see not, why the Acid liquor, and the other, should not each of them, especially that last named, be lookt upon as more worthy to be called an Elementary Principle; since it must needs be of a more simple nature then the Liquor, which was found to be divisible into that, and the Acid Spirit. And this further use (continues Carneades) may be made of our experiment to my present purpose, that it may give us a rise to suspect, that since a Liquor reputed by the Chymists to be, without dispute, Homogeneous, is by so slight a way divisible into two distinct and more simple Ingredients, some more skilful or happier Experimenter then I may find a way either further to divide one of these Spirits, or to resolve some or other, if not all, of those other Ingredients of mixt Bodies, that have hitherto pass’d among Chymists for their Elements or Principles.
THE
SCEPTICAL CHYMIST.
The Fourth Part.
ANd thus much (sayes Carneades) may suffice to be said of the Number of the Distinct substances separable from mixt Bodies by the Fire: Wherefore I now proceed to consider the nature of them, and shew you, That though they seem Homogeneous Bodies, yet have they not the purity and simplicity that is requisite to Elements. And I should immediately proceed to the proof of my Assertion, but that the Confidence wherewith Chymists are wont to call each of the Substances we speak of by the name of Sulphur or Mercury, or the other of the Hypostaticall Principles, and the [intollerabln] Ambiguity they allow themselves [ie] their Writings and Expressions, makes it necessary for me in Order to the Keeping you either from mistaking me, or thinking I mistake the Controversie, to take Notice to you and complain of the unreasonable Liberty they give themselves of playing with Names at pleasure. And indeed if I were oblig’d in this Dispute, to have such regard to the Phraseology of each particular Chymist, as not to Write any thing which this or that Author may not pretend, not to contradict this or that sence, which he may give as Occasion serves to his Ambiguous Expressions, I should scarce know how to dispute, nor which way to turn myself. For I find that even Eminent Writers, (such as Raymund Lully, Paracelsus and others) do so abuse the termes they employ, that as they will now and then give divers things, one name; so they will oftentimes give one thing, many Names; and some of them (perhaps) such, as do much more properly signifie some Distinct Body of another kind; nay even in Technical Words or Termes of Art, they refrain not from this Confounding Liberty; but will, as I have Observ’d, call the same Substance, sometimes the Sulphur, and Sometimes the Mercury of a Body. And now I speak of Mercury, I cannot but take Notice, that the Descriptions they give us of that Principle or Ingredient of mixt Bodies, are so intricate, that even those that have Endeavour’d to Pollish and Illustrate the Notions of the Chymists, are fain to confess that they know not what to make of it, either by Ingenuous Acknowledgments, or Descriptions that are not Intelligible.
I must confess (sayes Eleutherius) I have, in the reading of Paracelsus and other Chymical Authors, been troubled to find, that such hard Words and Equivocal Expressions, as You justly complain of, do even when they treat of Principles, seem to be studiously affected by those Writers; whether to make themselves to be admir’d by their Readers, and their Art appear more Venerable and Mysterious, or, (as they would have us think) to conceal from them a Knowledge themselves judge inestimable.
But whatever (sayes Carneades) these Men may promise themselves from a Canting way of delivering the Principles of Nature, they will find the Major part of Knowing Men so vain, as when they understand not what they read, to conclude, that it is rather the Writers fault then their own. And those that are so ambitious to be admir’d by the Vulgar, that rather then go without the Admiration of the Ignorant they will expose themselves to the contempt of the Learned, those shall, by my consent, freely enjoy their Option. As for the Mystical Writers scrupling to Communicate their Knowledge, they might less to their own Disparagement, and to the trouble of their Readers, have conceal’d it by writing no Books, then by Writing bad ones. If Themistius were here, he would not stick to say, that Chymists write thus darkly, not because they think their Notions too precious to be explain’d, but because they fear that if they were explain’d, men would discern, that they are farr from being precious. And indeed, I fear that the chief Reason why Chymists have written so obscurely of their three Principles, may be, That not having Clear and Distinct Notions of them themselves, they cannot write otherwise then Confusedly of what they but Confusedly Apprehend: Not to say that divers of them, being Conscious to the Invalidity of their Doctrine, might well enough discerne that they could scarce keep themselves from being confuted, but by keeping themselves from being clearly understood. But though much may be said to Excuse the Chymists when they write Darkly, and Ænigmatically, about the Preparation of their Elixir, and Some few other grand Arcana, the divulging of which they may upon Grounds Plausible enough esteem unfit; yet when they pretend to teach the General Principles of Natural Philosophers, this Equivocall Way of Writing is not to be endur’d. For in such Speculative Enquiries, where the naked Knowledge of the Truth is the thing Principally aim’d at, what does he teach me worth thanks that does not, if he can, make his Notion intelligible to me, but by Mystical Termes, and Ambiguous Phrases darkens what he should clear up; and makes me add the Trouble of guessing at the sence of what he Equivocally expresses, to that of examining the Truth of what he seems to deliver. And if the matter of the Philosophers Stone, and the manner of preparing it, be such Mysteries as they would have the World believe them, they may Write Intelligibly and Clearly of the Principles of mixt Bodies in General, without Discovering what they call the Great Work. But for my part (Continues Carneades) what my Indignation at this Un-philosophical way of teaching Principles has now extorted from me, is meant chiefly to excuse my self, if I shall hereafter oppose any Particular Opinion or assertion, that some Follower of Paracelsus or any Eminent Artist may pretend not to be his Masters. For, as I told you long since, I am not Oblig’d to examine private mens writings, (which were a Labour as endless as unprofitable) being only engag’d to examine those Opinions about the Tria Prima, which I find those Chymists I have met with to agree in most: And I Doubt not but my Arguments against their Doctrine will be in great part easily enough applicable ev’n to those private Opinions, which they do not so directly and expresly oppose. And indeed, that which I am now entering upon being the Consideration of the things themselves whereinto Spagyrists resolve mixt Bodies by the Fire, If I can shew that these are not of an Elementary Nature, it will be no great matter what names these or those Chymists have been pleased to give them. And I question not that to a Wise man, and consequently to Eleutherius, it will be lesse considerable to know, what Men Have thought of Things, then what they Should have thought.