But my reason for mentioning Mr. Boyle here was, the attempt which he made in 1661, by the publication of his Sceptical Chemist, to overturn the absurd opinions of the iatro-chemists. He raises doubts, not only respecting the existence of the elements of the Peripatetics, but even of those of the chemists. The first elements of bodies, in his opinion, are _atoms_, of different shapes and sizes; the union of which gives origin to what we vulgarly call _elements_. We cannot restrain the number of these to four, as the Peripatetics do; nor to three, with the chemists: neither are they immutable, but convertible into each other. Fire is not the means that ought to be employed to obtain them; for the _salt_ and _sulphur_ are formed during its action by the union of different simple bodies. Boyle shows, besides, that the chemical theory of qualities is exceedingly inaccurate and uncertain; because it takes for granted things which are very doubtful, and in many cases directly contrary to the phenomena of nature. He endeavours to prove the truth of these ideas, and particularly the production of the chemical principles, by a great number of convincing and conclusive experiments. In another treatise, entitled “The Imperfections of the Chemical Doctrine of Qualities,”[169] he points out, in the second section, the insufficiency of the hypotheses of Sylvius relative to the generality of acids and alkalies. He shows that the offices ascribed to them are arbitrary, and the notions respecting them unsettled; that the hypotheses respecting them are needless, and insufficient, and afford but an unsatisfactory solution of the phenomena. [169] Shaw’s Boyle, iii, 424. These arguments of Boyle did not immediately shake the credit of the chemical system. In the year 1691, a chemical academy was founded at Paris by Nicolas de Blegny, the express object of which was to examine these objections of Boyle, which by this time had attracted great attention. Boyle’s experiments were repeated and confirmed; but the academicians, notwithstanding, came to the conclusion, that it is unnecessary to have recourse to the true elements of bodies; and that the phenomena which occur in the animal economy may be explained by the predominance of acids or alkalies. Various other publications appeared, all on the same side. In Germany, Hermann Conringius, the most skilful physician of his time, opposed the chemical theory; and his opinions were impugned by Olaus Borrichius, who defended not only alchymy, but the chemical theory of medicine, with equal erudition and zeal.[170] [170] De Ortu et Progressu Chemiæ. _Hafniæ_, 1674.