are neither of them compos'd of the _Tria Prima_; and that consequently those three are not the Universal, and Adequate Ingredients, neither of all Sublunary Bodies, nor even of all mixt Bodies. [Footnote 17: _Ostendi alias, quomodo lib. una aquae vitae combibita in sale Tartari siccato, vix fiat semuncia salis, caeterum totum corpus fiat aqua Elementalis. Helmont. in Aura vitali._] I know that the chief of these Chymists represent, that though the Distinct Substances into which they divide mixt bodies by the Fire, are not pure and Homogeneous; yet since the four Elements into which the _Aristotelians_ pretend to resolve the like bodies by the same Agent, are not simple neither, as themselves acknowledge, 'tis as allowable for the Chymists to call the one Principles, as for the Peripateticks to call the other Elements; since in both cases the Imposition of the name is grounded only upon the Predominancy of that Element whose name is ascrib'd to it. Nor shall I deny, that this Argument of the Chymists is no ill one against the _Aristotelians_. But what Answer can it prove to me, who you know am disputing against the _Aristotelian_ Elements, as the Chymicall Principles, and must not look upon any body as a true Principle or Element, but as yet compounded, which is not perfectly Homogeneous, but is further Resoluble into any number of Distinct Substances how small soever. And as for the Chymists calling a body Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, upon pretence that the Principle of the same name is predominant in it, That it self is an Acknowledgment of what I contend for; namely that these productions of the Fire, are yet compounded bodies. And yet whilst this is granted, it is affirm'd, but not prov'd, that the reputed Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, consists mainly of one body that deserves the name of a principle of the same Denomination. For how do Chymists make it appear that there are any such primitive and simple bodies in those we are speaking of; since 'tis upon the matter confess'd by the answer lately made, that these are not such? And if they pretend by Reason to evince what they affirm, what becomes of their confident boasts, that the Chymists [Errata: Chymist] (whom they therefore, after _Beguinus_, call a _Philosophus_ or _Opifex Sensatus_) can convince our Eyes, by manifestly shewing in any mixt body those simple substances he teaches them to be compos'd of? And indeed, for the Chymists to have recourse in this case to other proofs then Experiments, as it is to wave the grand Argument that has all this while been given out for a Demonstrative One; so it releases me from the obligation to prosecute a Dispute wherein I am not engag'd to Examine any but Experimentall proofs. I know it may plausibly Enough be Represented, in favour of the Chymists, that it being evident that much the greater part of any thing they call Salt, or Sulphur, or Mercury, is really such; it would be very rigid to deny those