The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject.Boyle, Robert
Philosophy
The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject.
Boyle, Robert
Chemistry -- Early works to 1800
differing Bodies from Gold (for Instance) or _Osteocolla_, as we can
do from Wine, or Vitriol; or that the Mercury (for Example) of Gold or
Saturn would be perfectly of the same Nature with that of Harts-horn;
and that the sulphur of Antimony would be but Numerically different
from the Distill'd butter or oyle of Roses.
But suppose (sayes _Eleutherius_) that you should meet with Chymists,
who would allow you to take in Earth and Water into the number of the
principles of Mixt Bodies; and being also content to change the
Ambiguous Name of Mercury for that more intelligible one of spirit,
should consequently make the principles of Compound Bodies to be Five;
would you not think it something hard to reject so plausible an
Opinion, only because the Five substances into which the Fire divides
mixt Bodies are not exactly pure, and Homogeneous? For my part
(Continues _Carneades_) I cannot but think it somewhat strange, in
case this Opinion be not true, that it should fall out so luckily,
that so great a Variety of Bodies should be Analyz'd by the Fire into
just five Distinct substances; which so little differing from the
Bodies that bear those names, may so Plausibly be call'd Oyle, Spirit,
Salt, Water, and Earth.
The Opinion You now propose (answers _Carneades_) being another then
that I was engag'd to examine, it is not requisite for me to Debate it
at present; nor should I have leisure to do it thorowly. Wherefore I
shall only tell you in General, that though I think this Opinion in
some respects more defensible then that of the Vulgar Chymists; yet
you may easily enough learn from the past Discourse what may be
thought of it: Since many of the Objections made against the Vulgar
Doctrine of the Chymists seem, without much alteration, employable
against this _Hypothesis_ also. For, besides that this Doctrine does
as well as the other take it for granted, (what is not easie to be
prov'd) that the Fire is the true and Adequate Analyzer of Bodies,
and that all the Distinct substances obtainable from a mixt Body by
the Fire, were so pre-existent in it, that they were but extricated
from each other by the _Analysis_; Besides that this Opinion, too,
ascribe [Errata: ascribes] to the Productions of the Fire an
Elementary simplicity, which I have shewn not to belong to them; and
besides that this Doctrine is lyable to some of the other
Difficulties, wherewith That of the _Tria Prima_ is incumber'd;
Besides all this, I say, this quinary number of Elements, (if you
pardon the Expression) ought at least to have been restrain'd to the
Generality of Animal and Vegetable Bodies, since not only among these
there are some Bodies (as I formerly argu'd) which, for ought has yet
been made to appear, do consist, either of fewer or more similar
substances then precisely Five. But in the Mineral Kingdom, there is
scarce one Concrete that has been evinc'd to be adequatly divisible
into such five Principles or Elements, and neither more nor less, as
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account