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
But (interposes _Eleutherus_) [Transcriber's Note: Eleutherius] This
Objection seems no more then may be made against the four Peripatetick
Elements. And indeed almost against any other _Hypothesis_, that
pretends by any Determinate Number of Material Ingredients to render a
reason of the _Phaenomena_ of Nature. And as for the use of the
Chymical Doctrine of the three Principles, I suppose you need not be
told by me, that The great Champion of it, The Learned _Sennertus_,[23]
assignes this noble use of the _Tria Prima_, That from Them, as the
neerest and most Proper Principles, may be Deduc'd and Demonstrated
the Properties which are in Mixt Bodies, and which cannot be
Proximately (as They speak) deduc'd from the Elements. And This, sayes
he, is chiefly Apparent, when we Inquire into the Properties and
Faculties of Medecines. And I know (continues _Eleutherius_) That the
Person You have assum'd, of an Opponent of the _Hermetick Doctrine_,
will not so far prevaile against your Native and wonted Equity, as To
keep You from acknowledging that Philosophy is much beholden to the
Notions and Discoveries of Chymists.
[Footnote 23: _Senn. de Cons. & Dissen. p. 165._]
If the Chymists You speak of (Replyes _Carneades_) had been so modest,
or so Discreet, as to propose their Opinion of the _Tria Prima_, but
as a Notion useful among Others, to increase Humane knowledge, they
had deserv'd more of our thanks; and less of our Opposition; but since
the Thing that they pretend is not so much to contribute a Notion
toward the Improvement of Philosophy, as to make this Notion attended
[Errata: (attended] by a few lesse considerable ones) pass for a New
Philosophy itself. Nay, since they boast so much of this phancie of
theirs, that the famous _Quercetanus_ scruples not to write, that if
his most certain Doctrine of the three Principles were sufficiently
Learned, Examin'd, and Cultivated, it would easily Dispel all the
Darkness that benights our minds, and bring in a Clear Light, that
would remove all Difficulties. This School affording Theorems and
Axiomes irrefragable, and to be admitted without Dispute by impartial
Judges; and so useful withal, as to exempt us from the necessity of
having recourse, for want of the knowledg of causes, to that Sanctuary
of the igorant [Transcriber's Note: ignorant], Occult Qualities;
since, I say, this Domestick Notion of the Chymists is so much
overvalued by them, I cannot think it unfit, they should be made
sensible of their mistake; and be admonish'd to take in more fruitful
and comprehensive Principles, if they mean to give us an account of
the _Phaenomena_ of Nature; and not confine themselves and (as far as
they can) others to such narrow Principles, as I fear will scarce
inable them to give an account (I mean an intelligible one) of the
tenth part (I say not) of all the _Phaenomena_ of Nature; but even of
all such as by the _Leucippian_ or some of the other sorts of
Principles may be plausibly enough explicated.
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