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
Since also, though we should grant the Substances separable from mixt
Bodies by the fire to have been their component Ingredients, yet the
Number of such substances does not appear the same in all mixt Bodies;
some of them being Resoluble into more differing substances than
three, and Others not being Resoluble into so many as three.
And Since, Lastly, those very substances that are thus separated are
not for the most part pure and Elementary bodies, but new kinds of
mixts;
Since, I say, these things are so, I hope you will allow me to inferr,
that the Vulgar Experiments (I might perchance have Added, the
Arguments too) wont to be Alledg'd by Chymists to prove, that their
three Hypostatical Principles do adequately compose all mixt Bodies,
are not so demonstrative as to reduce a wary Person to acquiesce in
their Doctrine, which, till they Explain and prove it better, will by
its perplexing darkness be more apt to puzzle then satisfy considering
men, and will to them appear incumbred with no small Difficulties.
And from what has been hitherto deduc'd (continues _Carneades_) we may
Learn, what to Judge of the common Practice of those Chymists, who
because they have found that Diverse compound Bodies (for it will not
hold in All) can be resolv'd into, or rather can be brought to afford
two or three differing Substances more then the Soot and Ashes,
whereinto the naked fire commonly divides them in our Chymnies, cry up
their own Sect for the Invention of a New Philosophy, some of them, as
_Helmont, &c._ styling themselves Philosophers by the Fire; and the
most part not only ascribing, but as far as in them lies, engrossing
to those of their Sect the Title of PHILOSOPHERS.
But alas, how narrow is this Philosophy, that reaches but to some of
those compound Bodies, which we find but upon, or in the crust or
outside of our terrestrial Globe, which is it self but a point in
comparison of the vast extended Universe, of whose other and greater
parts the Doctrine of the _Tria Prima_ does not give us an Account!
For what does it teach us, either of the Nature of the Sun, which
Astronomers affirme to be eight-score and odd times bigger then the
whole Earth? or of that of those numerous fixt Starrs, which, for
ought we know, would very few, if any of them, appear inferiour in
bulke and brightness to the Sun, if they were as neer us as He? What
does the knowing that Salt, sulphur and Mercury, are the Principles of
Mixt Bodies, informe us of the Nature of that vast, fluid, and
AEtherial Substance, that seemes to make up the interstellar, and
consequently much the greatest part of the World? for as for the
opinion commonly ascrib'd to _Paracelsus_, as if he would have not
only the four Peripatetick Elements, but even the Celestial parts of
the Universe to consist of his three Principles, since the modern
Chymists themselves have not thought so groundless a conceit worth
their owning, I shall not think it Worth my confuting.
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