Page 40. “The loadstone onely by the affriction of _Garlick_, amits its _verticity_, and neglects the pole, conserving to it self, in the meane time, its peculiar forme, materiall constitution, and all other dependent proprieties. The reason, because _Garlick_ is the loadstone’s proper Opium, and by it that spirituall sensation in the magnet is consopited and layd asleep.... Verily, that alliciency of the pole must be extreame weake and of inconsiderable energy, which passing through so many and so immense orbes of heaven, and striking through great and firme buildings, and thick walls, cannot yet be of power sufficient to pierce the thin juice of Garlick or the fume of Mercury....” Page 42. “There is therefore inhærent in the magnet an _influentiall virtue_, which, being not obliged to the propinquinty or comtiguous admotion of its object, is after the nobler names of coelestiall influences, freely and without interruption or languor transmitted so farre as to the pole it self: since there is a spontaneous _eradiation_, or emission of atomicall _radii_ from the body of the magnet to the pole.” Page 74. “That the magnetisme of the loadstone and other inanimate creatures is performed by a certaine naturall sensation, the immediate anthrix of all sympathy, is a truth unquestionable.” Page 75. “For by one phansy it is directed to iron, and by another to the pole ... the phansy of _amber_ delights to allect strawes, chaffe, and other festucous bodies; by an attraction, we confesse, observe obscure and weake enough, yet sufficiently manifest and strong to attest an _Electricity_ or attractive signature....” REFERENCES.--“Dict. of Nat. Biog.,” Vol. X. pp. 116–119, containing a full list of Charleton’s works; Thomson, “Hist. of the Roy. Soc.,” 1812, p. 3; Munk, “Coll. of Phys.,” 1878, Vol. I. p. 390; “Journal des Savants” for February and March 1850, June 1851; Mme. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled,” Vol. I. p. 170; Eloy, “Dict. Hist. de la Médecine,” Vol. II. pp. 478–482; “Dict. Hist. de la Médecine,” par. J. E. Dezeimers, Paris, 1839, Vol. III. pp. 97–104; “Ency. Brit.,” ninth edition, Vol. XI. p. 638; “History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,” by J. Rutherfurd Russell, London, 1861, pp. 197–204; Larousse, “Dict. Univ.,” Vol. IX. p. 158; Van Swinden, “Recueil,” La Haye, 1784, Vol. II. pp. 351–352, 361–363; Joseph Ennemoser, “The History of Magic,” London, 1854, Vol. II. pp. 242–253.