<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2008-12-08</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
x Add DIV TYPEs, validate
x Review structure, use FRONT, BODY, BACK or rarely GROUP
x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
x Proof title page(s)
x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH BIBL OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
x Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c.
x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE -|
x Check q; startq endq Q
- Check ligatures if in black letter &abper; &abpro; &abus; &abquod; &absed; &abser; &abcon; &abrum; &abis;
x ot / ol / of and tr / tb / th
x Correct illegibles from proofsheet
x Check for &punc; and correct if time-effective
x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
x Final validate

Corrected [  ] illegible groups out of [  ].
Converted [  ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B06150">
<STC T="W">t169</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">53299315</BIBNO>
<VID>180042</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<PB REF="3">
<PB REF="3">
<P><HI>Tarrugo</HI> Unmasked, OR An An&s;wer to a late Pamphlet Intituled, Apollo Mathematicus BY GEORGE HEPBURN, <HI>M. D,</HI> AND Member of the Colledge of Phi&s;icians at <HI>Edinburgh.</HI></P>
<Q><L>&mdash;Tarrugus ducitur unco</L>
<L>Spectandus.&mdash;</L></Q>
<P>To which is added by DOCTOR <HI>PITCAIRNE.</HI> The Theory of the Internal Di&s;ea&s;es of the Eye Demon&s;trated Mathematically.</P>
<P><HI>EDINB&V;RGH,</HI> Printed in the Year, M, DC, XCV.</P>
<PB REF="4">
<PB REF="4">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB REF="5">
<PB REF="5">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="6">
<PB REF="6">
<HEAD>TO THE READER,</HEAD>
<P>IT will not, I hope, &s;eem &s;trange that I have under|taken to An&s;wer a &s;currilous Pamphlet lately &s;et forth to defame Dr <HI>Pitcairne,</HI> and all true methods that are, or can be propo&s;ed to advance the certainty of Medicine. Having defended the&s;e methods and Writ|ings when I was abroad, I thought my &s;elf more concern'd to defend them at Home. Abroad I was put to defend them again&s;t the Rea&s;onings of Ingenuous Per&s;ons, who were &s;eeking the truth, and trying every thing that tend|ed to any &s;uch end. But here I find, in&s;tead of Gen|tlemany and Philo&s;ophical Language, a Rap&s;ody of Lies, Calumnies, Scurrilous talk, in a word, a di&s;cour&s;e &s;avour|ing of the Dunghill that gave the Origine and Nuri&s;h|ment to the in&s;ect which brought forth the Pam|phlet.</P>
<P>The Fellow has conceal'd his name, but we mu&s;t &s;peak with him, and therefore a name he &s;hall have: and he has him&s;elf helpt us For having told what a Spani&s;h
<PB REF="7">gravity and con&s;tancy attends tho&s;e who admire what is Old, to which party he inclines, he cannot take it ill if we give him a &s;pani&s;h name; and if we can in the Author of this Pamphlet di&s;cover the ways and Language, and o|ther qualities which are proper to any Spaniard or Portu|ge&s;e who&s;e Character is known in this place, that Per&s;on's name mu&s;t we be&s;tow on the Author of the Pamphlet. No &s;pani&s;h name is better known in this place than <HI>Tar|rugo's.</HI> The farce that was &s;ome years agoe acted under that name in the <HI>Cannongate,</HI> makes the Rogue well enough known: And the Character of Cheating, Lying, Burle&s;|quing, Coining prophe&s;ies for &s;ybilla (&s;ee page 24 of the Farce, and page 20 of the Pamphlet) calling Mathe|maticians Mad and Lunatick (&s;ee page 23 of the farce, and pages 45 and 47 &amp;c. of the Pamphlet) which are the chief Ornaments of <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s Comedy, are al&s;o the chief Ornaments of <HI>Tarrugo's</HI> Pamphlet: For thus we'l hence|forth call it.</P>
<P>There are two humours, or fits rather, that our <HI>Tarrugo</HI> is often ob&s;erved to fall in. Tho he has to deal with Per|&s;ons who are no wayes Mad or Lunatick, nor guilty of drinking Brandy, yet without any occa&s;ion given, he ei|ther fals a railing again&s;t Mad men, Crackt-brain'd, and Mercurial Nodles, Lunaticks, &amp;c. Or again&s;t Brandy-drinkers. May we enquire into the rea&s;on of this behavi|our? &s;ince tho&s;e he has to deal with are not tourly free of both tho&s;e qualifications, it is plain, that he could not entertain any hopes of fixing &s;uch a Character upon them, unle&s;s he were really Mad, or wrote his Pamphlet over a Bowl of Pun&s;h. We have therefore no other thing left us to &s;u&s;pect for the cau&s;e of <HI>Tarrugo's</HI> fits, but &s;ome <HI>Ca|lamit
<PB REF="7" MS="y">as Dome&s;tica.</HI> Now becau&s;e he is unknown to me as well as his whole Family, it is not po&s;&s;ible to define, if both the qualifications he &s;o often complains of, belong to any one in it, or are divided. Yet this &s;eems probable, that <HI>Tarrugo</HI> is the Lunatick, for he &s;peaks like one; and that the Moon has no influence on any other in his Fami|ly except when &s;he is in the <HI>Cow-gate.</HI> This Dome&s;tick evil then that &s;o ea&s;ily be&s;ets him, mu&s;t be the Cau&s;e of his Paroxy&s;ms.</P>
<P>But the &s;trange&s;t thing in <HI>Tarruge</HI>'s Pamphlet is, That the Fellow having publi&s;h'd it on purpo&s;e to defame his Neighbours, and for that end fil'd it with notorious Lyes, and villanous calumnies, yet he has the &s;upererogating Impudence and Hypocri&s;y to complain of <HI>Athei&s;m</HI> and contempt of Religion; while one of the great mo|tives he had to rail at Doctor <HI>Pitcairn</HI>'s writtings was, becau&s;e the Doctor in them has given a demon&s;tration of the Deity's exi&s;tence, the belief of which is &s;o incon|&s;i&s;tent with <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s practice. Yet there is one thing that to &s;ome may &s;eem as &s;trange; Whoever <HI>Tarrugo</HI> be, yet it's known That the papers which I call <HI>Tarru|go</HI>'s were revi&s;ed, corrected, and approven by one who twice in one year changed his Religion, upon how hone&s;t and religious principles I doe not determine: Now it may &s;eem &s;trange, that this Gentleman has not &s;truck out tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages about <HI>Athei&s;me</HI> and Irreligion, both for his own, and for his Author's &s;ake</P>
<P><HI>Tarrugo</HI> has &s;ubjoin'd an appendix about Certainty which gives us a farther proof of his ignorance in Ma|thematicks, and of his want of Common &s;en&s;e too. There he undertakes to prove, That the matters of fact that
<PB REF="8">are told by travellers and &s;eamen about the Towns in <HI>China,</HI> are as evidently true and certain, as it is evident that two and two make four: That he who &s;aw a thing done is not &s;o certain of its being done, as an other is who &s;aw it not, but heard it only by the hundreth hand perhaps. Which are thoughts &s;o widely different from tho&s;e of &s;ober per&s;ons, that to entertain them &s;eriou&s;ly mu&s;t be the highe&s;t degree of madne&s;s. But the paper <HI>de Inventoribus</HI> was not publi&s;h'd for the u&s;e of &s;uch mean capacities as <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s. It was de&s;ign'd as a rule for deciding controver&s;ies about Inventions in Medicine and Mathematicks, as appears from the paper it &s;elf. And in it are cautions delivered to hinder any ignorant or Malicious per&s;on from &s;tretching or wre&s;ting what is there taugh; for in the la&s;t page of it the Doctor has the&s;e words. <HI>Eadem de cau&s;a, &s;i</HI> Ari&s;totelem <HI>vel</HI> Hip|pocratem <HI>concedatur fui&s;se infallibiles, certiores e&s;&s;e po|terimus de us quae illi tradidere, quam de aliis quae alio|rum Hi&s;toricorum fidei acceptum referimus.</HI> By which it is evident that the Doctor treats only of Hi&s;torians or Ob&s;ervators that are not in&s;pir'd; and that in the Doctor's judgement, we have more than an Hi&s;torical certainty of what is taught in the &s;acred Scriptures: But this kind of certainly was not the &s;ubject of that paper <HI>de Invento ribus.</HI> &amp; &s;o I think that paper may be left to defend it &s;elf.</P>
<P>I come then to con&s;ider tho&s;e parts of <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s Pamphlet where he pretends to be &s;erious, and would &s;eem Learn'd. The &s;ubject (as <HI>Tarrugo</HI> pretends) of the Debate is this. Dr. <HI>Pitcairne</HI> wi&s;hing to have Me|dicine brought a greater length towards certainty and perfection than hitherto it has been, propo&s;ed to take the
<PB REF="8" MS="y">help to Mathematics, a very certain &s;cience; He told what affinity the two &s;ciences have, and he en|couraged his hearers to embrace the propo&s;al, by letting them &s;ee how many hard problems in Medicine hall been already &s;olv'd by only two Mathematicians, <HI>Borelli</HI> and <HI>Bellini.</HI> But to this propo&s;al <HI>Tarrugo</HI> re|fu&s;es to con&s;ent, and very often &s;ays, but never proves, That Mathematicks cannot be of u&s;e in Medicine; and withall owns him&s;elf Ignorant of Mathematicks. From this a&s;&s;ertion of <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s we may infer how Ignorant he is of Medicine, &s;ince he knows nothing of the&s;e many and noble purpo&s;es belonging to it, which <HI>Borelli</HI> and <HI>Bellini</HI> have Mathematically demon&s;trated: For how can we &s;uppo&s;e him to know &s;uch things who will nor allow any u&s;e of Mathematicks in Medicine? From this al&s;o we may judge, How fit <HI>Tarrugo</HI> is to di&s;cour&s;e con|cerning the u&s;e of Mathematicks in Philo&s;ophy and Me|dicine; he who by his own confe&s;&s;ion is, and by his way of writing proves him&s;elf to be intirely Ignorant of all Mathematicks, and con&s;equently of all the u&s;es and pur|po&s;es they can be aply'd to. Can One who does not under&s;tand the 47 prop. of the fir&s;t of <HI>Euclid,</HI> be a fit judge indetermining where it can be of u&s;e, and where it can not? And can he pretend to under&s;tand the fir&s;t Elements of Mathematicks, who thinks (&s;ee page 85 of <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s Pamphlet) That there are or can be bodies and particles triangular or &s;quare.</P>
<P>But the&s;e maters are more fully treated of in the fol|lowing papers, in which the Reader is de&s;ir'd not to take it ill, If <HI>Hippocrate</HI> and <HI>Galen</HI> be treated without any re&s;pect to their pretended Infallibility (allowed them by
<PB REF="9"><HI>Tarrugo</HI>) for I thought it always of ill con&s;equence to a &s;cribe Infallibility to Persons who knew much indeed in re&s;pect of their times, but were ignorant of what our times have di&s;cover'd, e&s;pecially &s;ince the lare di&s;coveries are farr more valuable and u&s;eful than the former. And tho our Art be very highly oblig'd to tho&s;e two, and many o|ther Old boys, yet <HI>Hippocrate</HI> and <HI>Galen</HI>'s fault was great in Introducing the &s;ectarian philo&s;ophy into Medi|cine; and our Art had been much more beholden to them, if &s;uch Idiots as <HI>Tarrugo</HI> had not made Idols of them, and endeavour'd to make their fal&s;e Aphori&s;ms pa&s;s for infal|lible conclu&s;ions.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="9" MS="y">
<HEAD>ANSWER TO A late Pamphlet Entitled <HI>Appolo Mathematicus</HI></HEAD>
<P>THe Mathematical Science is the Art of finding out the properties of all figures which can hap|pen to any Body, and of all the motions and effects of them; That is, the Art of finding out all that Bodies can do one with another; for there is nothing done or happeneth in nature, but by Bulk, Figure or Motion: and therefore a perfect Knowledge of Mathematicks is what no Man can pretnd to, for it would amount to a perfect knowledge of all natural things. This does not binder but that many excellent per&s;ons have given them&s;elves to the Study of that Science; for tho' they knew well that they could not
<PB N="2" REF="10">arrive to a perfection, yet they found that by following the &s;teps and method of the preceeding Mathematicians, they could grow wi&s;er than their Ma&s;ters, and &s;urmount difficulties in&s;uperable to tho&s;e who are ignorant of Ma|thematicks. There is nothing in Natural Philo&s;ophy (of which Medicin is a part) that deferves to be taken no|tice of, except what is invented and demon&s;tated by the Mathematicians; and this is the cau&s;e of Philo&s;ophie's being &s;o long in &s;o low e&s;tate The Mathematicians were &s;o intent upon the Geometrical Foundation and the Ab&s;tract Speculation of Figutes that they had no lei&s;ure to look abroad, and to draw tho&s;e Conclu&s;ions which are u&s;eful to the Philo&s;ophers: But now that the Temple of Geometry is built, the Mathematicians have both Lei&s;ure and Inclinations to a&s;&s;i&s;t their Neighbours, and to lend them Propo&s;itions and Truths u&s;eful in bringing their Works to a greater perfection. Mr. <HI>Newton</HI> has effectually helped the Philo&s;ophers; and <HI>Borrelli,</HI> but above all <HI>Bellini</HI> has given great light in Medicipal mat|ters, only by the help of Mathematicks: And it is no|ways &s;trange that the Knowledge of Mathematicks &s;hould be &s;o u&s;eful in the Theory of Medicine, &s;ince Ma|thematicks are the Theory of the effects produced in Na|ture by the means of Figure, Bulk, and Motion, which effects and events comprehend tho&s;e al&s;o which appear to us as Di&s;ea&s;es and the Actions of Remedies; And there&s;ore, tho' it is not expected that Medicine by the help of Mathematicks &s;hould be brought to its ab&s;olute and uttermo&s;t perfection, (for that is not expected in Natural Philo&s;ophy) Yet it is evident from what has been here explained, and from what &s;ome Men have
<PB N="3" REF="10">done as <HI>Bellini</HI>) that we &s;hould have brought Medi|cine to an incredible perfection, if Mathematical me|thods had been u&s;ed, at lea&s;t a far greater perfection than can be had by any other methods. For it is mo&s;t mani|fe&s;t, that if Medicine can be brought to any degree of perfection, it mu&s;t be brought to it by the help of that Science, which teaches what are the effects of &s;uch and &s;uch motions in Bodies Solid and Liquid of &s;uch and &s;uch Bulks, Con&s;i&s;tences, Figures, and velocities combin'd in all manner of proportions: for the Actions, Di&s;ea&s;es, and Cures that hapen and are done in our Bodies, are effects which re&s;ult from tho&s;e Figures, Motions, quan|tities and proportions treated of and demon&s;trated in the Mathematicks; and there&s;ore, it we can have any clear knowledge of Di&s;ea&s;es &amp;c. We muft be beholden for it to <HI>Euclide, Apollonius, Archimedes, Newton,</HI> and to <HI>Borrelli</HI> and <HI>Bellini,</HI> with others who have made u&s;e of <HI>Euclide</HI> to advance the knowledge of Medicine. And it &s;erves to no purpo&s;e to &s;ay, that the Fabrick of our Body is intricate, and many things in it fall not under our Sen&s;es for the more intricate it is, the mote need is there and Rea|&s;on to u&s;e the mo&s;t general and comprehen&s;ive me|thods for finding the my&s;teries of that &s;tructure: And &s;ince the Mathematical methods are the&s;e only which can &s;erve us in this de&s;ign, they ought to be try'd. And we have this motive to encourage us, to wit, that &s;everal things which pa&s;s'd for Truths in Medicine while the Writers of it neglected the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Mathematicks, have been found to be gro&s;s Errors when viewed by a Ma|thematician; And many things that could not be under|&s;tood not determin'd by Phy&s;itians when they did not
<PB N="4" REF="11">con&s;ult with the Mathemeticians, are now by the help of Mathemaricks fully explained and under&s;tood. And of this you have &s;ubjoin'd an In&s;tance. It is a Mathema|tical explication of the moft con&s;iderable di&s;ea&s;es of the Eyes, never before under&s;tood by any Writers of Medi|cine, and that only becau&s;e they did not u&s;e the Mathe|maticks to help them in an enquiry of this Nature. From that explication it appears how ridiculous the Writers of Medecine have been both in the Theory and practice of the di&s;ea&s;es incident to the Eyes, and how naturally the true method of Cure is found out from the true and Ma|thematical Theory of the Di&s;ea&s;e. If &s;ome per&s;ons have quibled and railed again&s;t this Invention, it is only be|cau&s;e they are Ignorant and ill natur'd, for the Doctors Thoery in this affair is pure Demon&s;tration.</P>
<P>But the Doctor has given another in&s;tance of the u&s;e of Geometry in Medicine. There aro&s;e a que&s;tion, If purg|ing be the be&s;t cure for Fever? neither they who af|firm'd it to be, nor they who deny'd it could give any &s;ufficient rea&s;on for their opinion, but quibled and adduc'd arguments too mean to be u&s;'d by School|boys when they di&s;pute about <HI>Ens Rationis,</HI> or if Lo|gick be ane art, &amp;c. (for what learn'der are men di&s;puting without the help of Mathematicks, about natural things, than &s;chool-boys? They have both learn'd their Logicks and Metaphy&s;icks and in|&s;teed of Natural Philo&s;ophy mathematically handled, they have learn'd either from Ari&s;torle and Hippo|crate, that the World con&s;i&s;ts of four Eliments, or from De&s;cartes, that it's made up of three; both equally fal&s;e and u&s;ele&s;s: So that no more can be expected of
<PB N="5" REF="11">&s;olid Theory from the one than from the other. Atla&s;t Docter <HI>Pitcairne</HI> apply'd his Mathematicks to the que|&s;tion, and had &s;olv'd it by a method not to be imitated by tho&s;e Puny Quiblers.</P>
<P>If the greate&s;t part of Phy&s;ick be not Mathemati|cally cultivated, it is becau&s;e few Phy&s;itians have u&s;ed Mathematicall rea&s;ons, and one man or two cna not goe through with &s;o great a work.</P>
<P>How little then is Medicine and Mankind obliged to a Cabal of ignorant Block heads, who do not only not u&s;e any Mathematical rea&s;oning in Medicine, but cry out upon Mathematicall methods as u&s;ele&s;s, yea hurtfull when apply'd to Phy&s;ick! But the be&s;t is, The&s;e men who cry out upon the u&s;e of Mathematicks. What a noble di&s;cour&s;e then can we expect about the u&s;e of that Science and it's reach from them? Certainly no better than from School boys.</P>
<P>The difference will be only here. That if &s;ome of this Anti mathematick Cabal have been Comedians, and earn'd &s;ome money by writting copies of <HI>Samuel Colvins</HI> poem again&s;t the Whigs betor it was printed, or if others have been Readers and School. ma&s;ters in a coun|try-pari&s;h, Then we &s;hall have a book full of &s;craps taken from poets and Rymers, Baudy-hou&s;e language &amp;c: and then when nothing prevails, we &s;hall be at|taqued by a Mr Precentor with a Text of Scripture, which (now haveing lo&s;t the privilege of reading in the Kirk) he throws in&s;tead of a &s;tone or &s;ome heavy argument again&s;t his Nighbour, &amp; makes that an in&s;trument of &s;trife which was brought into the World as comprehending the be&s;t and mo&s;t per&s;wa&s;ive inducements to peace. Now, we
<PB N="6" REF="12">can expect none of the&s;e things from School-Boys who likewi&s;e will &s;how a Ba&s;hfulne&s;s where there men are Impudence it &s;elt: But the &s;erious parr will be the &s;ame as if it were writ by School-boys, <HI>To whom the Mathe|maticks have yet done no good;</HI> Except one &s;hould think that tho&s;e may have forgot much of what they once knew after the manner of School boys, and &s;o &s;peak non&s;en&s;e even in the &s;en&s;e of the Latter, and appear low and mean to the very capacity of Children. Of this I &s;hall give perpetual in&s;tances in <HI>Tarrugo's</HI> pamphlet, where he &s;peaks of any thing after a &s;erious manner, no School|boy being capable of &s;o mean Non&s;en&s;e as he then contents him&s;el&s; with. Every man brings to doe his work the Talents he has, if the work be urgent, and give no delay; <HI>Tarrugo</HI> with his Comerads have no Matha|maticks, yet they would gladly be thought advancers and improvers of Medecine: They have then brought Rhymes, Scraps of School-Authors and Farces, Stage-talk, Buffoonrie, Dialogues with Boyes; and then to plea&s;e both you and the Boyes, they pre&s;ent you with skil|full Rope-dancers, and immediatly after, fall a playing Jugler tricks with Screw-nails. And thus they advance Medicine many wayes; whereas their Antagoni&s;t, who cares for none of tho&s;e things, has only the Mathema|ticks, and nothing el&s;e to tru&s;t unto.</P>
<P>The de&s;ign of the Drs di&s;cour&s;e, being to advice the Writers and practicers of <HI>Medecine,</HI> to ab&s;tain from drawing con&s;equences therein from the po&s;ition or prin|ciples of any Sect of Philo&s;ophy. (a thing every day done both abroad and at home) he thought fit to &s;how them the right way, or put them in company of
<PB N="7" REF="12">tho&s;e who are in it, and to advice them to follow their Ex|ample: Therefore con&s;idering, that Medicine is &s;o far like to A&s;tronomy, that before a Conclu&s;ion can be fram'd in eirber, there mu&s;t be a &s;ufficient number of ob|&s;ervations made; and that the ob&s;ervations made in either of them preceed any Knowledge Men have of the nature of the things anent which they have the&s;e ob&s;ervations; He chu&s;e to per&s;wade Phy&s;icians to make ob&s;ervations with as great care, and in as great a number, in regard of the Medical Art, as the A&s;tronomers (who have al|ready &s;ucceeded in heir de&s;ign) had done in theirs; and to rely as much on ob&s;ervation, and as little on any Sect of Philo&s;ophy as the others doe, &s;ince the principles of the&s;e Sects are intirely uncertain, and &s;ince they have not built their po&s;itions concerning the natures of things upon ob&s;ervation, but upon precarious and ill Rea&s;onings. The Doctor had too good cau&s;e for taking &s;ome pains to inculcat this for the knew that Hippocrat has built mo&s;t of his Doctrine upon the idle and groundle&s;s belief, of all things being made and done by Heat and Cold, moi&s;t and dry, upon which he builds all his Medicinal art, (and for which <HI>Aristotle</HI> is &s;o laughed at) whom in this neverthele&s;s, <HI>Galen</HI> follow'd and extoll'd, and all the Writters of Medicine (except a very few) till this time. And the&s;e two, <HI>Hippocrat</HI> and <HI>Galen,</HI> are by the Author of the Pamphlet &s;er up, &s;ee page 32. l. 13. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as our guides in Medicine, tho they have built and made a Sy|&s;teme of it upon that rotten Foundation of the 4 Ele|ments and the four fir&s;t qualities, &s;ee page 96, where he &s;ayes, Medicine can only be advanced by Hippocrat's me|thod, which they would not have done, had they made
<PB N="8" REF="13">Sufficient ob&s;ervation. And that the Doctor has rea&s;on, ap|pears from the Pamphleteer, who is &s;o addicted to Hippo-crat's &s;ect and philo&s;ophy, that what Hippocrate has deli|vered not from ob&s;ervation, but from his principles of phi|lo&s;ophy, this Author admits for truth, and &s;o could not for|bear to tell us, pag. 46. That Hippocrat's aphori&s;ms are &s;o many conclu&s;ions draw'n from along tract of ob&s;ervations you &s;ee he believes his aphori&s;ms all for unths, whereas mo&s;t of them are fal&s;e, and contrary to every man's ob|&s;ervation; and con&s;equently have never been built on, and draw'n from a long tract of experiences, but on Hippocrat's idle Philo&s;ophy witne&s;s the 31 &s;ect. 5. which has co&s;t &s;o many women theit lives, only becau&s;e they are treated by Phy&s;icians like to our Pamphleteer, and of the &s;ame principles with him.</P>
<P>But that which is as con&s;iderable in this affair, is; That by imitating the A&s;tronomers, we &s;hould have made our ob&s;ervations in medicine, di&s;tinct and well circum|&s;tantiated, and con&s;equently &s;uch as an u&s;eful con&s;e|quence could be draw'n from them: whereas Hip|pocrate very often in ob&s;ervations of the greare&s;t mo|ment has altogether neglected the material conditions and circum&s;tances of the ob&s;ervation, and then gives us aphori&s;ms u&s;ele&s;s in the hands of men of &s;en&s;e, but per|nicious when laid hold on by &s;uch as our Pampheleteer Witne&s;s the 9 aph. &s;ect. 3 and the &s;aid 31 &s;ect. 5. witne&s;s all his aphori&s;ms (which are very many) concerning the Cri&s;es or Cools of Feavers, which he has draw'n either from the principles of his philo&s;ophical &s;ect, and not from ob&s;ervation, or from ob&s;ervation &s;o ill circum|&s;tanciated, that they oftner fail than hold true; and are
<PB N="9" REF="13">pernicious as oft as the patient is traited by one who thinks, that <HI>Hippocrat</HI>'s <HI>aphori&s;ms are conclu&s;ions draw'n from a long tract of ob&s;ervations.</HI></P>
<P>Now Sir, there is one thing to be yet remarked. Some A&s;tronomers before they had made a &s;ufficient number of exact ob&s;ervations, have attempted to make a Sy&s;teme, as they called it, and to draw too large con&s;equences, and &s;uch as required more ob&s;ervations. The&s;e ert'd, by quit|ting the method and way they were in. Others, after there had been made a &s;ufficient number of ob&s;erva|tions, for want of Geometry, that is, Rea&s;on &s;ufficient and judgement how to u&s;e and compare the ob&s;ervati|ons, have ert'd and draw'n wrong con&s;equences. The&s;e errings do not make the right way wrong. For we &s;ee that Mr. <HI>Newton</HI> has perfited the Sy&s;teme by bringing &s;uf|ficient &s;trength of Geometry, or right rea&s;on to be ap|plyed to the &s;ufficient ob&s;ervations, whereof the mo&s;t con&s;iderable was made by the <HI>Kepler.</HI></P>
<P>It the Phy&s;icians would make a number of ob&s;ervati|ons as &s;ufficient and exact in their Trade, as the A&s;tro|nomers have done in theirs, we &s;hould be able to promi&s;e as much in the events of Di&s;ea&s;es as they can do in the events of the motions of the Planets. Till &s;uch ob&s;er|vations, and &s;o many on each Di&s;ea&s;e and Cure be made, the Doctor in his Oration de&s;ires the Phy&s;icians to re|frain from making Sy&s;temes, or drawing con&s;equences, that is, from making Aphori&s;ms. Likewi&s;e, if it &s;hall be found that a &s;ufficient number of exact ob&s;ervations is made in any Di&s;ea&s;e, yet the Doctor had cau&s;e to advi&s;e that Phy&s;ician to ab&s;tain from building a Sy&s;teme on them, or drawing con&s;equences &amp; conclu&s;ions from them,
<PB N="10" REF="14">who had not enough of Judgement and Art to compare them aright. And becau&s;e this Art is not acquir'd but by u&s;e. (for it is more likely that a Man &s;hall judge aright in an affair who has been u&s;'d to weigh circum&s;tances, and con&s;ider things calmely, and look well on every &s;ide, than another of no greater Spirit, who never apply'd him &s;elf to be &s;erious in any thing) Therefore the Doctor re|commended the &s;tudy of Geometry and Mathematicks to Phy&s;icians, that they may learn to rea&s;on ju&s;tly, and com|pare things ob&s;erved in Phy&s;ick as exactly (as far at lea&s;t as the nature of the ob&s;ervations can admit) as they had been u&s;'d to do in Mathematicks. And therefore this Pamphleteer ought not to meddle with drawing conclu|&s;ions in Medicine, &s;ince he is one of tho&s;e (&s;ee page 22.) <HI>To whom the Mathematicks have never done good.</HI></P>
<P>And the Doctor was the more pre&s;&s;ing to this, Becau&s;e all the actions of our Body, and the Bodies that act upon ours, as Medicaments, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are the motions of &s;ome fluid or &s;olid things, and that the&s;e all ob&s;erve the Laws of motion treated of and demon&s;trated in the Mecha|nicks. And for this rea&s;on, did the Doctor recommend the &s;tudy of Mathematicks to his Hearers.</P>
<P>Now how bravely is all this refuted, by our Pam|phleteers &s;aying, That all wi&s;e men know, that Medicine is of a quite other nature than A&s;tronomy? What if it be? Are we therefore not to be exact in our ob&s;ervations, or are we not to follow a Medicine built on ob&s;ervations, becau&s;e the A&s;tronomers build on them? But &s;ayes our Pamphleteer, the ob&s;ervations made by Phy&s;icians in &s;undry places, agree, and tho&s;e made by Phy&s;icians in &s;undry places, as <HI>France, AEgypt, Rome,</HI> doe not a|gree;
<PB N="11" REF="14">and therefor different methods mu&s;t be u&s;ed in diffe|rent places, and the the whole Art of Phy&s;ick mu&s;t &s;till be conjectural in re&s;pect of A&s;tronomy, page 46. and 47.</P>
<P>Here is a new confirmation of the nece&s;&s;ity of imitat|ing the A&s;tronomers in the exact way of making Ob&s;er|vations. <HI>Hippocrate, Gallen,</HI> and many others in dif|ferent Countreys have made different ob&s;ervations con|cerning the &s;ame thing. becau&s;e they did not con&s;ider what influence the Climate and Dyet had upon the ob|&s;ervations; which if they had con&s;idered, the ob&s;ervati|ons in &s;undry places made upon the &s;ame things had been found to be the &s;ame. But the A&s;tronomers, tho in making their ob&s;ervations in different places, they often found the &s;ame Star at the &s;ame time, not in appearance in the &s;ame place; yet they wi&s;ely con&s;idered the different degree of Refraction that is in different places, the different altititude. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And this being accounted for, they found their ob&s;ervations agreeing, becau&s;e they made them with more exactne&s;s than the&s;e made with, which our Pamphleteer would have us to embrace. And it &s;eems to me that all the cau&s;e of this outcry again&s;t the Doctor is this. That the Pamphleteer being very de&s;irous to be e&s;teem'd a learn'd Phy&s;ician, he finds him&s;elf not quali|fied enough to make exact ob&s;ervations; and thefore he'l &s;et up with Hippocrat's, and cry down all better ones, or any de&s;ign of making better ones, and then he knows he cannot be far outdone, if we'll follow his Example. But the Doctor de&s;igning to put Men in a way of bring|ing Medicine to a greater perfeceion, (a de&s;ign not very criminal) advi&s;ed to make more, and more perfect ob|&s;ervations; And that the Hearers might under&s;tand
<PB N="12" REF="15">what exactne&s;s and perfection in the&s;e is required, he de|&s;ired them to take model of that from the A&s;trono|mers. This was precife, and &s;o not very lyable to be mi&s;-under&s;tood.</P>
<P>But our Pamphleteer wonders page, 48. <HI>That Phy&s;i|cians &s;hould be de&s;ir'd to imitate the A&s;tronomer, who are divided into Sects.</HI> For my part I know no Sect a|mong them. If any of them too ra&s;hly built a Sy&s;teme on ob&s;ervations, exact indeed, but not numerous enough, (as they could not be numerous enough before the u&s;e of Tele&s;copes, by which many things are ob&s;erved that were not ob&s;erved at all by the Ancients) what is that to us, who have ways of making more ob&s;ervations, and who &s;ee A&s;tronomy founded now upon exact, and &s;uffi|ciently numerous ob&s;ervation, without any di&s;&s;ention? Becau&s;e &s;ome Men went out of the right way? and others who went not out of it have &s;ucceeded to admiration, mu&s;t we therefore defert the right way? And yet this is our Pamphleteers way of rea&s;oning. If any of the A&s;tronomets of late went wrong, it was not in making wrong ob&s;ervations, but in tru&s;ting to Aphori&s;ms &s;et &s;orth by a Pope, and Cardinals, as our Pamphleteer tru&s;ts to Hippacrats; that is, in taking them for conclu&s;ions draw'n from a long tract of ob&s;ervations: for infallibility isequivalent to all this.</P>
<P>The Doctor thought fit to de&s;ire Phy&s;icians to imitat the A&s;tronomers in building their Art and Theory upon ob&s;ervations, becau&s;e the greater part had built upon the principles of the Sects that &s;et up for Philo&s;ophy, and the&s;e principles being more uncertain than ob&s;ervations, it was no wonder if their Medicine was very uncertain.
<PB N="13" REF="15">And for this the Doctor de&s;ir'd Phy&s;icians to ab&s;tain from the Inve&s;tigation of Phy&s;ical cau&s;es, that is, the ab&s;olute and intimat nature of things; For &s;ince the&s;e Cau&s;es are a&s;&s;igned different by the different Sects, and and none them has any foundation for that they a&s;&s;ert as the Doctor proves in the II page of his Oration, what help can &s;uch precarious cau&s;es bring to a phy&s;ician? It is the principle of a great Sect in philo&s;ophy: That all things are made up of a <HI>Meteria,</HI> a <HI>forma Substantialis</HI> from which i&s;&s;ued forth the four fir&s;t qualities, Heat, Cold, Moi&s;t and dry. The Phy&s;icians generally em, brac'd this opinion becau&s;e it was almo&s;t conform to Hippocrat's, who taught that all con&s;i&s;ted of the four Elements who&s;e natures were Hot. Cold, Moi&s;t and Dry. Now the&s;e Philo&s;ophical Phy&s;icians without any &s;incere and exact ob&s;ervations laid it down as a <HI>Maxime</HI> that <HI>Opium</HI> is Cold, and this according to them was the nature of <HI>Opium</HI> and the phy&s;ical cau&s;e of all its Actions and effects on our Bodies: For by telling it was Cold, they by their principles pretended to have told its nature. This being believed they were &s;ure ro u&s;e <HI>Opium</HI> only in Hot Di&s;ea&s;es (for they as ra&s;hly determin'd about the nature of Di&s;ea&s;es and di&s;tingui&s;h'd them into Hot, Cold, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) and becau&s;s a Feaver, a Phrenzy <HI>&amp;c.</HI> were reckoned Hot, therefore in the&s;e <HI>Opium</HI> was u&s;ed to very bad purpo&s;e. And becau&s;e &s;ome Tumors were by them reckon'd Cold, therefore the <HI>Cicuta</HI> (which they reckon'd Cold without &s;incere and exact ob&s;ervation too) was condemned, as to its external u&s;e in &s;uch Tumors, tho it be &s;ingularly u&s;eful in healing them. This is all the advantagee Medicine has from inve&s;tigating and deter|mining
<PB N="14" REF="16">the phy&s;ical cau&s;es, embracing a phylo&s;ophical Sect and neglecting to intimat the A&s;tronomers. Be|cau&s;e Hippocrat had without any ground or Knowledge of Anatomy taught that our Life con&s;i&s;ted in a <HI>calidum in, natum,</HI> and that this was our nature and the phy&s;ical cau&s;e of all our acrions and had ob&s;erved that a certain quanti|ty of <HI>Opium</HI> had kill'd any Animal, he and his followers inferr'd that the nature of <HI>Opium</HI> con&s;i&s;ted in Cold; And is it not fit to warn phy&s;icians of the in&s;ufficiency and hurtfulne&s;s of &s;uch a method? For tho the humor of building Medicine on the Hypothe&s;is of Hot and Cold <HI>&amp;c.</HI> be not every where predominant among&s;t the phy&s;icians as it was &s;ome years agoe yet the inclination &amp; di&s;po&s;iti|on to build on the uncertain and precarious principles of a &s;ect in&s;tead of making exact ob&s;ervations is predominant: So that tho&s;e who reject <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> philo&s;ophy as u&s;ele&s;s, hurtful to Medicine, admit <HI>Hippocrat's</HI> or <HI>Des. Carter's</HI> that is equally prejudical and uncertain. Now that the Doctor is not the only per&s;on of this opinion is apparent from Mr. <HI>Newton</HI>'s preface to his Book entitled The Mathematical principles of Natural philo&s;ophy, where he has the&s;e words. <HI>Multa me movent ut nonnihil &s;u&s;pi. cer omnia naturae phaenomena ex viribus quibu&s;dam pen dere quibus corporum particuloe per cau&s;as nondum cogni. tas vel in &s;e mutuo impelluntur &amp; &s;ecundum figuras regu. lares cohaerent, vel ab in invicem fugantur &amp; recedunt: quibus viribus ignotis Philo&s;ophi hactenus naturam fru&s;tra tentarunt.</HI> You &s;ee Mr. <HI>Newton</HI> thinks that phy&s;ical cau&s;es are yet unknown, and are like to remain unknown till wee u&s;e a Mathematical method for finding them. This is evident from what he &s;ay in the end of
<PB N="15" REF="16">the 11 Section. lib, 1. <HI>Princip In Mathe&s;i inve&s;tigan|doe &s;unt virium quantitates &amp; rationes illae, quae ex con|ditionthus quibu&s;cunque po&s;itis con&s;equentur: deinde uhi in phy&s;icam de&s;cenditur confer endie &s;unt hae rationes cum phaenomenis, ut innote&s;cat quaenam virium conditiones &s;ingulis corporum generibus competant. Et tuns demum de virium &s;peciebus, cau&s;is &amp; rationibus phy&s;icis tutius di&s;putare licebit.</HI></P>
<P>The Dr, then had rea&s;on and authority for him when he advi&s;ed the Phi&s;icians in their rea&s;onings to ab&s;tain from the Sectarian. Philo&s;ophy and lay a&s;ide the Inve&s;ti|gation of Phy&s;ical Cau&s;es after the mannet hitherto u&s;ed by the Sects: Since the&s;e are altogethet unknown, and are not to be fond till we fir&s;t find out the <HI>virium ratio|nes et quantitates,</HI> which if we could find (and wee can only find them by the help of Mathamaticks) we &s;hould have Medicine made perfect before any Phy&s;ical cau&s;e were known. That which makes this Scribles &s;o much concern'd for Phy&s;ical Cau&s;es is becau&s;e he has learn'd a little of <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> Philo&s;ophey, which is no, thing but a Metaphyfical di&s;cour&s;e, that is, a quibling and &s;peaking non&s;en&s;e about phy&s;ical Cau&s;es, and this he would have pa&s;s for good rea&s;oning in Medicine. The difference then betwixt the Doctor and him is this, The Dr when he applied him&s;elf to Medecine perceived that many things in it were handled a very un&s;atisfactory Method, and therefore-re&s;olved to try a method that he had learn'd in reading Mathamatical Writers, this he found &s;ucces&s;ul, and coming to read <HI>Borelli</HI> and <HI>Bellini</HI> he found they had u&s;ed that &s;ame method in medicinal affairs but with agreat deal of more &s;ucce&s;s, in as much as they are
<PB N="16" REF="17">fat greater Mathamaticians than he is. This our Scri|bler <HI>Tarrugo</HI> perceiving re&s;olved that he al&s;o would make a Noi&s;e among&s;t the learn'd, tho it were no better nor more melodious than that of a Culro&s;s gridiron or girdle among&s;t fine Violins. He had no Mathematicks to car|ry him through but he had learn'd Logicks and Metaphy|&s;icks, had a Natural &s;tock of impudence, and an ac|quir'd one of Stage Buffoonry (as his Book &s;hows) and thus accontred he re&s;olves to burle&s;que and rail at any thing he under&s;tood not, and throw &s;craps of Logicks and Metaphy&s;ic's before his Reader, which beingrealand down|right Non&s;en&s;e, are harder to be under&s;tood than the Ma|thematicks, and &s;o <HI>Tarrugo</HI> mu&s;t appear the profounde&s;t Schollar of the two. Thus you &s;ee every man for im|proving his Art brings the Talents he is endowed with. And if by &s;o doing he has any hopes of bringing him&s;elf into Reputation, he'll hide none of his qualities: For the Dr, has vented his Mathematicks and has inculcated the nece&s;&s;ity of them in a profe&s;&s;or of Medecine very often, well knowing he had &s;ome knowledge of them. <HI>Tarrugo</HI> on the other hand being no le&s;s greedy of repu|tation and imployment, but ignorant of Mathamaticks, pretends there is no u&s;e of that &s;cience in Medicine, and in a Book of 12 &s;heets proves that Metaphy&s;ical Non&s;en&s;e, Impudence, Lying and Calumniating, Ne&s;tie and Scurri|lous Ribaldry can doe as well: Forby the&s;e Arts he has &s;een a Phy&s;ician brough to Reputation. 'Tis true &s;ome Mathematical blades will not e&s;teem him, but the&s;e are Few. But yee'l ask me perhaps if any man be &s;o mad as to think Medicine will be better'd by lying and Buffoonry. for that is the que&s;tion, and improv'd more that way
<PB N="17" REF="17">than by ju&s;t and Mathematically exact rea&s;oning. Yes <HI>Tarrugo</HI> thinks it, for he having &s;een &s;ome per&s;ons by &s;uch artifices brought to &s;ome reputation did by a very Metaphy&s;ical inference conclude that the method which betters and is advantagious to the Arti&s;t is al&s;o advan|tagious to the Art. Here is the depth of Logicks and Metaphi&s;icks, and becau&s;e it is very great, I leave in to the Dr him&s;elf to fathom. The wor&s;t that can be faid is that <HI>Tarrugo</HI> had no mind to better and improve Medicine, but enlarge his own imployment by this method, which he has found to agree with a practical Art more than does the &s;peculative &s;cience of Mathematicks.</P>
<P>But to return to our Pamphleteer who is certainly much di&s;obliged by this propo&s;al the of Doctors, for he rails at him mo&s;t unmercifully; he at la&s;t, page 49 grave|ly tells, <HI>that nothing can be of more dangerous con&s;e|quence, than to &s;et up a Practical Art and a &s;peculative science upon the same foot.</HI> Here we have an in&s;tance given us by our unthinking Pamphleteer, of the folly of medling with the de&s;ign to improve Medicine by the help of the common Philo&s;ophy taken from a Sect, and without the help of Mathematicks.</P>
<P>The Dr in his di&s;cour&s;e de&s;ir'd us to con&s;ider, that Me|dicine was of more u&s;e and moment than A&s;tronomy (pag, 18, <HI>Orat. Inaug, Aequum enim non e&s;t, ut vitae Humanae quam curio&s;itati minus consulatur</HI>) and there|fore we ought to be at lea&s;t as exact in making ob&s;erva|tions anent Di&s;ea&s;es, &amp;c. as the others are in making theirs anent the motions or irregularities of the Cele&s;tial Bodies. This, is it not &s;ufficiently refuted by telling us, that it is dangerous to &s;et up a practical Art, and a &s;pecu|lative
<PB N="18" REF="18">Science upon the &s;ame foot? That is to &s;ay, it is very dangerous to make exact ob&s;ervations in Medicine (the practical Art) &s;ince that is the very thing which tho&s;e &s;peculative men the A&s;tronomers do, and &s;ucceed &s;o well by. What improvement can Medicine expect from one that rea&s;ons thus?</P>
<P>This rea&s;oning is a demon&s;tration at lea&s;t of the hurt|fulne&s;s of vain Philo&s;ophy. Our Author had &s;aid indeed he had never got either good or hurt from the Mathema|ticks: But here he lets us &s;ee, that he has got hurt enough from his Philo&s;ophy. He had heard at School, a di|&s;tinction made between a practical and &s;peculative know|ledge; he had heard it &s;aid by Philo&s;ophers, who were no Phy&s;icians, that medicine is a practical one, and Ma|thematicks is a &s;peculative; he had &s;ince often read it in <HI>Hippocrat</HI> and <HI>Galen,</HI> who &s;pend many words in telling us &s;tories (very u&s;ele&s;s and fal&s;e) anent Medicin's be|ing a practical, and not a &s;peculative knowledge: This he &s;wallowed down greedily, becau&s;e it was like to &s;ave him the pains of thinking and &s;tudying. And &s;o great in|fluence has this Jargon of practical and &s;peculative on him, that it hinders him from &s;eeing that Medicine is to be built on accurate Ob&s;ervations, after he was told that a knowledge (which he was taught to call &s;peculative) is founded upon them. But perhaps it will be charity to In|forme him better. All that a good Phy&s;ician does, is, that he makes ob&s;ervations on plants, minerals, and di|ver&s;e Bodies about us; al&s;o on di&s;ea&s;es and the Bodies &s;ubject to them; and la&s;tly, advi&s;es the &s;ick man to make u&s;e of &s;ome of tho&s;e Plants, &amp;c. if he would be in health. The A&s;tronomer ob&s;erves likewi&s;e, the motions and pro|perties
<PB N="19" REF="18">of &s;ome Stars in re&s;pect of one another, and foertels, in what time and place they'll be in Conjunction, or Oppo&s;ition, and &s;uch like events. Now what is it in Medicine that makes it more a practical Art than A&s;tro|nomy? But our <HI>Tarrugo</HI> knows not what A&s;tronomy is for, he confe&s;&s;es, he never got good or hurt from the Mathematicks, that is, he never learn'd any part of them: And con&s;equently, is not capable to judge, whether they be u&s;eful for a Phy&s;ician, and if Phy&s;icians &s;hould imitate them and follow their methods: and by this it is manife&s;t, that he has medled with an affair which he un|der&s;tands not.</P>
<P>But it is not ami&s;s to con&s;ider a litile more this Meta|phy&s;ical rea&s;on of our <HI>Tarrugo.</HI> It is of dangerous con|&s;equence, &s;ays he, to &s;et up a practical art and a &s;pecula|tive Science upon the &s;ame foot; and therefore A&s;tronomi|cal and Mathematical methods are dangerous and u&s;ele&s;s at the be&s;t in Medicine. Now Sir, every body knows that Navigation cannot be practi&s;ed to any purpo&s;e and with &s;afety or a&s;&s;urrance without the knowledge of Tri|gonometry (a part of Geometry or Mathematicks, and as &s;peculative as the A&s;tronomy) yea without making ob|&s;ervations like the A&s;tronomers. Mu&s;t Navigators leave off this cour&s;e and method of guiding their voyages, becau&s;e Navigation is a practical Art (as practical indeed as Me|dicine) and Geometry or A&s;tronomy are &s;peculative Sciences?</P>
<P>Why but the A&s;tronomers are divided into Sects, &s;ays <HI>Tarrugo.</HI> And therefore Navigators mu&s;t not follow their example nor imitat their ob&s;ervations, as to their ex|actne&s;s. Now I never before heard of different Sects in
<PB N="20" REF="19">regard of ob&s;ervations among&s;t the A&s;tronomers, for this is the affair. But <HI>Tarrugo</HI> hearing the word Sect, found he mu&s;t make &s;ome u&s;e of it: And therefore to hinder us from being as exact in &s;eeing and hearing or ob&s;erving as the A&s;tronomers are, warnes us that they are of different Sects, That is, they &s;ee and hear after different manners. Now Sir tho I have had the occa&s;ion to conver&s;e with &s;ome A&s;tronomers, of whom &s;ome though the Earth is the Center, and others thought the place belong'd to the Sun rather, yet they ob&s;erved after one and the &s;ame manner, and &s;aw and heard like one another. They were all alike exact in remarking the circum&s;tances and conditions of their ob&s;ervations, and of what they &s;aw or heard. And it is this exactne&s;s that the Navigators &s;uc|ce&s;sfully imitat, and Phy&s;icians ought to imitat if they al&s;o would be &s;ucce&s;sful.</P>
<P>But <HI>Tarrugo</HI> will tell us that A&s;tronomy or the Mathe|matical Science is of quite another nature than Navigati|on, even as much as it is of another nature than Medicine: And therefore Navigarors are not to borrow from or imi|tat either the A&s;tronomers, or other Mathematicians, And therefore your &s;hips are to be guided as of old in the days of Hippocrat: they are to creep along&s;t the Shoar (for there is no tru&s;ting to A&s;tronomical ob&s;ervations quoth <HI>Tarrugo</HI>) where often on a Rock it will be found that <HI>Ars longa e&s;t, vita brevis,</HI> the only Aphori&s;m of Hippocrat drawn from exact ob&s;ervation, but not of Phy|&s;icians more than of Seamen.</P>
<P>If the Seamen of <HI>Europe</HI> can be per&s;waded to lay a&s;ide the u&s;e of A&s;tronomy and Mathematicks upon the rea|&s;ons given by <HI>Tarrugo,</HI> I'll ingage for the Phy&s;icians,
<PB N="21" REF="19">that they &s;hall imitate the Navigators. And therefore if <HI>Tarrugo</HI> would de&s;eat Doctor <HI>Pitcairn</HI>'s de&s;ign he mu&s;t addre&s;s him&s;elf to the Navigators fir&s;t. But I know not by what ill fate <HI>Huggens</HI> and &s;ome <HI>French</HI> Mathematiciens have written of late about Navigation and I cannot gue&s;s how <HI>Tarrugo</HI> will behave before &s;uch &s;evere fel. lows.</P>
<P>In the page 56, he is very angry with the Doctor for &s;aying that, <HI>Corpus omne in alterius cuju&s;cunque generis corpus transformari potest.</HI> This, be &s;ayes, is very fal&s;e, unle&s;s he mean, pag. 57. That the thing implies no contradiction, from which, &s;ayes he, nothing at all can be concluded. Now, the Doctor &s;aid only, that the thing is po&s;&s;ible; and our Pamphleteer, after many fine &s;ayings or Aphori&s;ms to the contrary, con|cluds that indeed the thing is not impo&s;&s;ible, but of no con&s;equence. Now Sir, the Dr took this &s;aying from Mr <HI>Neuton.</HI> who at the entry of his third Book <HI>Princip, Mathematic:</HI> &s;etts down the &s;ame thing in the very &s;ame words as certainly true, for he had made it his third Hy|pothe&s;is, by which he means there a Po&s;tulatum, for Hy|pothe&s;is a&s;&s;um'd by Mathematicians is a Po&s;tulatum, or <HI>Propo&s;itio veritats notae.</HI> And accordingly Mr <HI>New|ton</HI> makes u&s;e of it to prove a very material point in the 6, <HI>prop, lib,</HI> 3. But, &s;ayes <HI>Tarugo, nothing can be con|cluded from it.</HI> Has not the Doctor concluded from it, That the parts of all Earthly Bodies are &s;ubject to the &s;ame rules of motion, or Mechanicks? And Mr <HI>Neu|ton</HI> u&s;es the &s;ame propo&s;ition to the very &s;ame purpo&s;e, when the deduces from it, that the <HI>Aether</HI> or <HI>Materia &s;ub|tiles</HI> mu&s;t have weight proportional to the quantity of it's
<PB N="22" REF="20">matter and con&s;equently comes under the &s;ame Laws to which the Earth in it's motion, or any part of it is &s;ubject|ed. I doe ea&s;ily believe, Mr <HI>Newton</HI> never &s;aw the <HI>Ma|teria &s;ubtilis,</HI> yet he adventur'd to prove that it has this property, (if any &s;uch matter be) by vertue whereof it is to be treated Mathematically. Where is then the ab|&s;urdity, that the Doctor without &s;eeing the <HI>Liquidum Nervorum</HI> (much gro&s;&s;er than the <HI>Fluidum &s;ubtile</HI> of Mr <HI>Descartes</HI>) has affirm'd the &s;ame thing to hold in that Liquor, &s;ince Mr <HI>Newton</HI> has demon&s;trated the thing &s;o univer&s;ally, that his proof reaches further than the Animal Spirits? Here again we have a proof of our Pamphleteers Ignorance in Mathematical matters, when (pag, 59.) He bid's the Doctor let us &s;ee the animal Spi|rits, as if that were nece&s;&s;ary for demon&s;trating their pro|perties by which they Act in our Bodies. Did ever any Mathematician &s;ee the Diameter of any Body or a Ma|thematical right line, and yet how many properties doe the&s;e men demon&s;trate anent tho&s;e things! We &s;ee and find the effects of the Animal Spirits; and from &s;uch ef|fects, and from the general Laws of motion common to all Bodies we can demon&s;trate many things anent them without &s;eeing them. But this is a le&s;&s;on he &s;hould have learn'd at the School. In a word, the Doctor affirms, that any body (under what&s;omever form) has weight, and obeys the Laws demon&s;trated by the the Mathemati|cians, or Mechanick Writers, propertionally to the matter it contains: And he concludes from this that as the A&s;tronomers have gone a great length in applying the&s;e rules and propo&s;itions anent motion, &amp;c. to the Stars and Bodies on this Earth both &s;olid and liquid, &s;o Phy&s;i|cians
<PB N="23" REF="20">may come a greater length than they have yet come, if they apply the &s;ame, or like propo&s;itions for determin|ing the motions of the Liquors that run through our Bodies, after that they have made proportionally as many ob&s;ervations in their Trade, and as exact, as the A&s;tronomers have made.</P>
<P>But before I leave this &s;ubject, I mu&s;t examine a pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s Pamphlet which he thinks no body can pro|&s;perou&s;ly attaque, and which neverthele&s;s expo&s;es his weakne&s;s, and ignorance mo&s;t &s;hamefully.</P>
<P>It is the 17 <HI>P</HI> pamphlet, where after having rehear&s;ed a few rude &amp; &s;illy ob&s;ervations, (for he hates all a curat ones becau&s;e Mathematicians love them) upon which he &s;ays Medicine depends, he at la&s;t tells us, <HI>Something, was still a wanting</HI> (to wit after the ob&s;ervations had been made) <HI>to fini&s;h the picture or art of Phy&s;ick and this was rea&s;on</HI> &amp;c. without any Mathematicks. Now this is ju&s;t &s;uch a Ridiculous piece of Non&s;en&s;e, as if one &s;hould de&s;ire the Ma&s;ter of &s;hip to u&s;e his rea&s;on without his Mathe|maticks or what he had learn'd by their help) to find the latitude and longitude <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for would it not be a very ea&s;y and profitable thing to lay a&s;ide his quadrants, compa&s;s and pendulum Clocks, and in&s;tead of them have recour&s;e to the Quakers &s;pirit or rea&s;on? If a Man would u&s;e his rea&s;on to good purpo&s;e, he mu&s;t informe and fortify it with the knowledge of the&s;e Truths which belong to the matter he would rea&s;on about, and therefore &s;ince Medi|cine is a part of natural Philo&s;ophy and mu&s;t be cultivated with it not after the method of the Sectarians but of the Mathematiciens, it is evident that a phy&s;ician who would rea&s;on to purpo&s;e, mu&s;t have &s;trengthned his
<PB N="24" REF="21">mind or rea&s;on with the Mathematical truths that can be applyed to Medicine: for without this what an in&s;igunifi|cant thing is this rea&s;on? If a Myops and Presbyta: (or one who &s;ees ill at a di&s;tance, and another who &s;ees ill what is at hand) came to ask <HI>Tarrugo,</HI> what are the be&s;t means of helping the defects of their &s;ights: are they not like to be mightily helpt by his altogether una&s;&s;i&s;ted rea|&s;on? but wee &s;hall &s;o far help him as to tell him that &s;uch people can only be helpt by the u&s;e of Gla&s;es, and now I de&s;ire him to tell by this rea&s;on without the help of (not his own, for he has none, but of other people's) Mathe, maticks what gla&s;s is fit for the Myops and what for the Presbyta: And that he would give directions for mak|ing each of them. This would perhaps bring naked rea|&s;on (for rea&s;on not a&s;&s;i&s;ted either by Law, Divinity, or Mathematicks is the rea&s;on of Children before they come to have any knowledge of things that are &s;olid) into &s;ome reputation: For I a&s;&s;ure you Doctor <HI>Gregory</HI> the Savi|lian Profe&s;&s;or A&s;tronomy thinks it no &s;mall matter to have taught in his <HI>Element a Optica, lentem fabricare date oculo in&s;ervientem,</HI> that is to make a Gla&s;s fit for any propo&s;ed eye, and that with the help of much Mathem|maticks.</P>
<P>If a per&s;on who&s;e &s;ight or eyes look'd clear and free of any outward or vi&s;ible blemi&s;h, but were di&s;turbed by the images and appearance of Midges or other &s;mall dark objects, &s;hall ask <HI>Tarrugo</HI>'s advice, and withal tell him that a giddine&s;s &s;ometimes accompany'd that &s;ymptom, trouble&s;ome even on the high Street, e&s;pecially afterdrink|ing too much Brandy, what think ye will be his advice? certainly he mu&s;t u&s;e his mo&s;t defecat rea&s;on here, for
<PB N="25" REF="21">for it may be the ca&s;e of his deare&s;t&mdash;for ought I know Well, he has in print told us his advice built on the ob|&s;ervations of his Ancients and fini&s;h'd by his own &s;ingle and preci&s;e rea&s;on or &s;pirit in the hat. He tells us with|out Mathematicks indeed (for it is plainly again&s;t ob|&s;ervation and Mathematical rea&s;on) that the Di&s;ea&s;e is a cataract beginning, and therefore refers the patient to the Cure applied by the vulgar Writers ot eh Cata|ract. But this will not doe, for it is Mathematically certain that it is a Di&s;ea&s;e quite different from a Cataract which the patient complains off. And for this rea&s;on I fancy the patient finding no effect of his advice, may continue in the old trade and di&s;temper too</P>
<P>When wee &s;peak then of u&s;ing rea&s;on to fini&s;h or find out right conclu&s;ions in any &s;cience, wee mu&s;t under|&s;tand by that rea&s;on, a mind or faculty endued and in|&s;tructed with &s;undry propo&s;itions of truth anent the &s;ub|ject of the Art or Science we treat of. And &s;ince Medi|cine is a part of Natural Philo&s;ophy, and Natural Philo|&s;ophy is not right handled by Rea&s;on not a&s;&s;i&s;ted by Ma|thematicks as experience tells us daily, it is evident that Medicine requires that &s;ame help. It is true Philo|&s;ophy has been handled by rea&s;on una&s;&s;i&s;ted with Mathe|maticks, but this is the Philo&s;ophy of the Sects, Non|&s;en&s;e and fal&s;ehoods joined together, and the very me|tod <HI>Tarrugo</HI> handles Medicine. I would &s;ain know a rea&s;on (&s;eparat from and not armed with Mathematicks or Mathematical Philo&s;ophy) that <HI>Tarrugo</HI> can give for his indications (as he &s;peaks) which any old wife &s;hall not give as well? And this is <HI>Turrugo</HI>'s way of em|proving Medicine. In a word, when a per&s;on has made
<PB N="26" REF="22">ob&s;ervations and would know what u&s;e he is to make of them and would be in&s;tructed in the &s;ure&s;t method of drawing u&s;eful con&s;equences from what he has ob&s;erved, To tell him only that he is to follow Rea&s;on, Is as ridicu|lous and u&s;ele&s;s, as it would be &s;illy and impertinently pedantic for one that's asked, Who he is, To an&s;wer he is a Man.</P>
<P>But he gives a mo&s;t &s;ubtile Rea&s;on why Mathematicks are not to be u&s;ed in Medicine: <HI>The Machine &s;ays he of our body is of a quite different nature from artificial ones, which can be taken down and &s;et up again at ones plea|&s;ure.</HI> There could be nothing &s;aid in fewer words &s;o en|tirely oppo&s;it to common &s;en&s;e. Do wee not open and di&s;&s;ect and view the parts of humane Bodies, by doing which wee learn their Fabric, u&s;e and actions of their parts, and what hurt they can or u&s;e to &s;u&s;tain from the operations of other Bodies? Now the&s;e other Bodies &s;uch as Druggs, Air, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in their actings on our Machines do not con&s;ider that they can not be &s;et up again (tho I hope they &s;hall) nor do the parts and li|quors of our Machines con&s;ider any &s;uch matter, but both the one and the other act according to the Laws of motion found out and demon&s;trated by the Mathemati|ciens, and is not then the Mathematical Knowledge u&s;eful for under&s;tanding the properties. Symptoms good or bad and Di&s;ea&s;es of our Bodies, &s;ince the&s;e are the actions or their effects of other Bodies upon out Machines or of the Liquors <HI>&amp;c,</HI> in our Machines acting ac|cording to the Laws of Motion and Mechanics: for tho the <HI>man may be a Rope-dancer or Stage-player,</HI> yet the parts of our Bodies are void of that cunning. But wee
<PB N="27" REF="22">mu&s;t con&s;ider a little, What <HI>Tarrugo</HI> &s;ays that Mathema|ticks are u&s;ele&s;s in unfolding the My&s;teries of our Machines, becau&s;e, &s;ays he, our Machines cannot be taken down and &s;et up again as artificial ones. Now one of the mo&s;t noble parts of our Machine, or rather one of the noble&s;t Machines that compo&s;e our Body is the Eye, which cannot be &s;et up again after its taken down, no more than our Bodies can. Yet this Eye is &s;o well known as to its &s;tructure, action and u&s;e, that it is the &s;ubject of a mo&s;t con&s;iderable part of the Mathematicks or Mathematical Philo&s;ophy: and &s;o great a length have the Mathematiciens come in explaining the &s;ight and de|&s;ects of it and their remedies. That if Phy&s;icians would apply Mathematicks as di&s;creetly to the other parts of our Bodies, wee &s;hould have a Medicine incredibly im+proven. Yet the Eye cannot be &s;et up again after being taken down, a thing that the Writers of <HI>Optics</HI> have not found any hindrance from in their Mathematical atche|vements. So that tho a Machine cannot be ea&s;ily &s;et up again it cea&s;es not to be &s;ubject to the Laws of Mechanics and con&s;equently to Mathematical rea&s;oning. But this <HI>Tarrugo</HI> was loath &s;hould be true becau&s;e he under&s;tands not Mathematicks.</P>
<P>There is yet one advantage that the u&s;e of Mathema|ticks brings ot Medicine, which wee have not men|tion'd, but it is a very great one, and &s;erves to abridge and facilirat that redious work of making ob&s;ervations. The Phy&s;icians have made very many ob&s;ervations, but few good ones. I do not now call mo&s;t of them &s;o, be|cau&s;e they are not exact; but taking them all to be exact, yet very &s;ew of them are of u&s;e or &s;erve to any good pur|po&s;e:
<PB N="28" REF="23">And it is very hard for a man that has no Mathe|maticks to perceive which are tho&s;e few that can be made u&s;e of in building a right Theory or advancing the practi&s;e of Medicine. If once we can by a Mathematical Eye di&s;cern what ob&s;ervation is nece&s;&s;ary to draw &s;uch a conclu&s;ion from (for it were needle&s;s to warn you that the Mathematiciens mu&s;t be mo&s;t skilful in drawing right conclu&s;ions &s;ince they are mo&s;t u&s;ed to it) then we &s;hall ab&s;tain from making or taking notice of the greate&s;t part of ob&s;ervations that wee read or &s;ee others heap up to no purpo&s;e. And this would abridge wonderfully the work of ob&s;erving. That you may under&s;tand this a little better, be plea&s;ed to take notice of what <HI>Tarrugo</HI> &s;ays page 16. <HI>When in Feavers, or violent Head aches</HI> &amp;c. <HI>the No&s;e fell a Bleeding, the Feaver abated and the pain evani&s;hed. And thence they</HI> (the Ancients) <HI>learn'd the u&s;e of Blooding.</HI> Now this is the very fault in Medicine and defect which Doctor <HI>Pitcairne</HI> would have mended and &s;upply'd, and which Mathematicks only can &s;upply. Wee &s;ee by our Pamphleteers confe&s;&s;ion, That the u&s;e of Blooding was fir&s;t introduced becau&s;e they ob&s;erved that the lo&s;s of Blood was &s;ometimes fol|lowed with recovery out of the Di&s;ea&s;e. To make us then able to order Blooding &s;ea&s;onably and to purpo&s;e, wee mu&s;t have made many ob&s;ervations on peoples Blooding in all Di&s;ea&s;es, ca&s;es and times of them, in all climats and in all the different circum&s;tances and conditions in which it is po&s;&s;ible for mens Bodies to be. Now this is not, nor ever &s;hall or can be done; and therefore by this method of ob&s;erving without Matha|matical di&s;cretion, Medicine &s;hall be always a ba&s;e mean
<PB N="29" REF="23">conjectural Trade, fit only to be followed by &s;uch Juglers as <HI>Tarugo</HI> and <HI>Kerkringius</HI> (this <HI>Kerkringius</HI> can|not read Latin, but his wife who is a School ma&s;ters Daugh|ter writes and copies for him, for the Fool will be in print) and by them called <HI>arsproe&s;tanti&s;&s;ima</HI> and the noble Art, I &s;uppo&s;e they mean of gue&s;&s;ing and cheating, for it is no other as they practi&s;e it.</P>
<P>But the Doctor has in his Oration and el&s;swhere pro|po&s;ed methods, by which Medicine &s;hall or may be brought from the low and abject &s;tate of conjecture to a degree of certainty which can ju&s;tly bear the Title of u&s;e|ful and therefore noble. In&s;tead of thanking the Doctor for his propo&s;al and for the progre&s;s he has made in the method propo&s;ed, <HI>Taruge</HI> tells us, pag, 18. <HI>That no|thing can be more extravagant than to imagine that a speculative Science that goes all by demon&s;tration can be of use in a practical Art founded on experience; and in which there are no infallible conclu&s;ions:</HI> but I tell him and the thing is evident, that we &s;hould have abundance of infallible conclu&s;ions in Medicine as to Cures as well as theorie if Mathematicks be u&s;ed. For Tarugo's di&s;cour&s;s implyes no more than this. <HI>All that I</HI> Tarugo <HI>under&s;tand about Medicine is conjectural and I cannot make u&s;e of Mathematicks, therefore they are not of u&s;e to me.</HI> But this does not hinder a &s;peculative Science which goes by demon&s;tration that is a Science that carries certainty with it, from being of u&s;e to bring a conjectural uncertain Art (as <HI>Tarugo</HI> and &s;uch like handle it) to a &s;tate of cer|tainty, as we &s;ee the Mathematicians have done by A|&s;tronomy, Navigation. &amp;c. and parts of Medicine that treat on the Eye, motion of the Members, motion of the
<PB N="30" REF="24">Heart: And the cure of di&s;ea&s;es by blooding. For tho there neither are nor can be &s;ufficient numbers of good Ob&s;ervations made, for ordering blooding. after the manner it was fir&s;t introduced and which <HI>Tarugo</HI> con|tents him&s;elf with, yet a good Mathematician has di&s;|cern'd one good and exact ob&s;ervation (unknown to <HI>Ta|rugo's</HI> ancients, and indeed u&s;ele&s;s to <HI>Tarugo</HI> tho he knew it, &s;ince he has not Mathematicks enough to make the right u&s;e of it) from which he accuratly has deduced all that can be learn'd from any infinite number of &s;uch ob&s;ervations as <HI>Tarugo</HI> builds the Doctrine of blooding upon, and much more than <HI>Tarugo</HI> can under&s;tand. It is <HI>Laurentius Bellini</HI> who a&s;&s;umes no other Ob&s;ervation, nor any <HI>po&s;tulatum</HI> except the circulation of the blood, for to u&s;e his own words, <HI>doctrina mittendi &s;an|guinem pendet ex toto a naturali ejus fluxu &s;eu circuitu in|tra corpus.</HI> From the circulation ob&s;erved by Dr <HI>William Harvey</HI> has <HI>Bellini</HI> taught when, where, and in what ca&s;e or di&s;ea&s;e blood is to be let, and how much of it at a time, and what are the effects and con&s;equences of letting blood. And all this he performs demon&s;tratively, that is, he forms infallible conclu&s;ions in a practical Art and anent cures and di&s;ea&s;es, by help of a &s;peculative, that is, a certain and Mathematical one. And by this <HI>Bellini</HI> explains and confirmes what Mr <HI>Newton</HI> in his pre|face &s;ays thus. <HI>Omnis Philo&s;ophiae (adde etiam Medicinae quae Philo&s;ophiae pars e&s;t) difficuitas in eo ver&s;ari videtur, ut a Phaens menis motuum inve&s;tigemus vires naturae, de|inde ab his viribus demon&s;tremus Phaenomena reliqua.</HI> For <HI>Bellini</HI> has made u&s;e of the <HI>Phaenomina</HI> of the Bloods motion, to find what force and laws it had or ob&s;erv'd,
<PB N="31" REF="24">and having found the&s;e he inve&s;tigats and deduces its ef|fects when its pa&s;&s;age is made free in one place than in an|other, that is, the <HI>Phaenomena</HI> of Blooding in any ca&s;e or di&s;ea&s;e. And yet this Block head <HI>Tarugo</HI> has the face to &s;ay there are no infallible conclu&s;ions in Medicine. But he means it is like, Medicine as he under&s;tands and practi&s;es it.</P>
<P>I come now to the page, 65. Where our Pamphleteer, to his own co&s;t, teaches the World how ab&s;urd it is and fooli&s;h, to write anent matters that one under&s;tands not. He &s;hows there (and over all his Pamphlet) that he comes to di&s;wade men from u&s;ing in their trades as right methods as the Mathematicians have done, and in the mean time proves him&s;elf altogether ignorant of all Ma|thematicks, or methods fit to be u&s;ed for improving Medi|cine. The Doctor had in his fir&s;t di&s;cour&s;e explain'd a|right the Nature (&s;o to &s;peak) or <HI>ratio</HI> of &s;ome di&s;ea&s;es of the Eye that are of the greate&s;t con&s;equence, hitherto unknown to all the writers of Phy&s;ick; and upon good ground had affirm'd, that bodies &s;wiming within the <HI>Cornea</HI> made no image on the <HI>Retina;</HI> (this he could have demon&s;trated, but it would h&acirc;ve &s;eem'd, perhaps, very odd in an Inaugural Oration to propo&s;e Geometrical Arguments) Now, &s;ays our Pamphleteer, I <HI>Tarugo</HI> affirm the contrary. He may as well looking on any pro|po&s;ition demou&s;trated by <HI>Euclide</HI> or <HI>Archimedes,</HI> &s;ay, I affirm the contrary; for he'l. under&s;tand the demon&s;tra|tion of what the Doctor affirms, (and which is &s;et down in a paper &s;ubjoin'd to this) as little as he does <HI>Arcihmedes</HI> Works, or Dr <HI>Gregory's</HI> method of Quadratures.</P>
<P>But it is perhaps plea&s;ant to con&s;ider, what a noi&s;e he
<PB N="32" REF="25">makes that he may be thought learn'd. He crys out on the Doctor, for not telling him what are the Laws of Re|fraction he &s;peaks of and is very glad to be free of them; for it they had been &s;et down, he would not have known what to have &s;aid of them. This is ju&s;t &s;uch a &s;hift as it would be to deny the truth of a proportion plainly flowing from the 47 of the fir&s;t of <HI>Eucli&agrave;,</HI> becau&s;e the Demon&s;trator had not told what that 47 prop, contains, and &s;o had not prom ul|gated it. The univer&s;al Law of refraction is as well known as any propo&s;ition in <HI>Euclid,</HI> among&s;t Mathematicians; and &s;ince all the Science about the Eye is built upon this Law, what an able man in the Opticks and in di&s;covery of the defects in Vi&s;ion is our Pamphleteer like to prove, while he is &s;o gro&s;ly ignorant of it? He adventur's to &s;ay, <HI>pag.</HI> 66. That, of things on, or in the <HI>Cornea</HI> there is an Image made in the <HI>Retina</HI> if he try'd it not, he is too bold to impo&s;e his bad Philo&s;ophy &amp; vain conjecture on men of Sen&s;e; and if he try'd it, he lies mo&s;t abomina|bly. For, be&s;ides experience, the demon&s;tration after this &s;et down, puts it out of que&s;tion. That in the <HI>Retina</HI> or bottom of the Eye there is no image painted of any thing that is not without the <HI>Cornea,</HI> and con&s;equently we have no Image of (that is, we do not &s;ee) the&s;e things that &s;wim within the <HI>Cornea.</HI></P>
<P>Now let us &s;ee what a marvellous rea&s;oner this Fellow is, that without skill in Mathematicks is &s;o bold as to meddle in them. He tells us, that if what is here demon|&s;trated be true, then a man may &s;ee perfectly well through his Eye lids, or through a Mil-&s;tone apply'd to the <HI>Cornea</HI> as the lids can he. For, &s;ays he (<HI>page,</HI> 66.) according to the Doctor, a thing &s;o near the <HI>Cornea</HI>
<PB N="33" REF="25">will make no impre&s;&s;ion on the Eye, and &s;o no ways ob|&s;truct the &s;ight: But the Doctor &s;aid and demon&s;trated, that a thing &s;ufficiently nigh, or within the <HI>Cornea,</HI> makes no Image on the bottom of the Eye and is not &s;een. This fellow, by his fooli&s;h philo&s;ophy infers, O then it will not ob&s;truct the &s;ight. It will certainly if apply'd over all the <HI>Cornea,</HI> for by its opacity it hinders the rayes to pa&s;s from other Bodies. But this he knew not, to wit, that the rayes of the Sun do not ea&s;ily pa&s;s through Mil|&s;tones. Then he infers, that if what the Doctor &s;ays be true. Per&s;ons who have a Cataract growing in their Eyes, would not &s;ee Midges, as it were, that is, the Images of the little Bodies which float within the <HI>Cornea,</HI> and join|ing make up the Cataract. Here is a great in&s;tance of our Pamphleteers prying Judgement. The Doctor to &s;how that in a Cataract there are no <HI>mu&s;cae obvolitantes &amp; obver &s;antes oculis,</HI> ari&s;ing from the Images made on the <HI>Retina</HI> by <HI>Corpu&s;culs</HI> floating within the <HI>Cornea,</HI> Taught, that <HI>Corpu&s;culs</HI> &s;o plac' d would imprint no Image: O then, &s;ays the Fool, there would be no Images of Midges before the Eyes of tho&s;e in whom a Cataract is growing. It is indeed &s;o, there are none; and Experience as well as Demon&s;tration prove it to be as the Doctor affirm'd long agoe. Ye &s;ee how fundamentally he refures the Doctor: For, &s;ays he, if what the Doctor &s;ays (and demon&s;trates) be true, then the contrary is fal&s;e. And who can help it?</P>
<P>However, he makes a wonderful &s;hift in the pages 67 and 68. to make a &s;illy Reader believe he (the Pam|phleteer) under&s;tood the matter he's treating of: for he very impudently comes off with laughing at an Axiome,
<PB N="34" REF="26">the Doctor had adduced from the Opticks. Let him laugh &s;o long as he will, it is an Axiome, and admitted for &s;uch by all the Writers of <HI>Opticks,</HI> and confirm'd by con&s;tant experience; That from every point of a vi&s;ible object (that is, an object illu&s;trated and at a due di&s;tance from the eye) Rayes of light come to all the parts of the <HI>Cornea.</HI> And therefore (&s;aid the Doctor) tho &s;ome parts of the <HI>Cornea</HI> were cover'd with Opacous Bodies, the eye would &s;ee all the parts of the object. Now this I can let any per&s;on &s;ee, by putting Bodies not tran&s;parent on the <HI>Cor|nea</HI> of an eye, or by looking on the opack marks which &s;ome per&s;ons have on their <HI>Cornea;</HI> For they'l not hin|der you from &s;eing the whole object, except the whole <HI>Cornea</HI> be covered with them. But &s;ays our Pamphle|teer, If Rays fall on the&s;e opack Bodies laid to the <HI>Cornea,</HI> or on the Opack Corpu&s;culs within it, will not the&s;e hin|der the pa&s;&s;age of tho&s;e Rays? Yes certainly But in the mean time, other Rays from the &s;ame point of the ob|ject fall on all the other points (and &s;ome are not covered, but give a free pa&s;&s;age) of the <HI>Cornea,</HI> or Aqueous hu|mour; and by help of &s;uch Rays we &s;ee that point of the Object, as experience does teach us. And this al&s;o &s;hews us the truth of the <HI>Optick maxime</HI> adduc'd by Doctor <HI>Pitcairne.</HI> But this fellow is impregnable again&s;t com|mon &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>The pages 72 and 73, are taken up in letting us &s;ee; That he under&s;tands not one &s;entence of what the Doctor had &s;aid, nor of what can be &s;aid in this point; which he needed not have been at the pains to do, having &s;o effectually done it before. And he very rightfully con|cludes, That the Doctor's Oration is &s;tark Non &s;en&s;e;
<PB N="35" REF="26">for indeed the Doctor is a Barbarian to our Pamphleteer, and not to be under&s;tood by a Fellow of &s;o mean un|der&s;tanding.</P>
<P>We come now to the page 76. Where our Pamphle|teer falls a defying of <HI>Archimedes,</HI> who &s;aid, that if he were plac'd near the earth (not &s;u&s;tain'd by it) on a firm point, he could move the earth. This our Cham|pion was not concern'd in; but it &s;eems, he would needs make him&s;elf famous by having defy'd <HI>Archimedes.</HI> Yet he &s;hall be foil'd by a le&s;&s;er one than he. For it is demon|&s;trated by the Writers of Mechanicks, that any body how|&s;oever great can be moved from its place or way, by any other tho never &s;o &s;mall, and never &s;o &s;lowly or weakly making impre&s;&s;ion on it, <HI>In medio minime re&s;i&s;tente vel uniformi;</HI> and Mr <HI>Newton</HI> has demon&s;trated, that the earth and the re&s;t of the planets are in &s;uch a Medium, and <HI>Archimedes</HI> knew the medium to be &s;uch. <HI>Archime|des</HI> then had rea&s;on, which our Pamphleteer &s;hould have learn'd of him, or of Mathematicians who are like him.</P>
<P>We advance then to his page 77. where he &s;ays, that the Doctors principal de&s;ign in the di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>de circu|latione per va&s;a minima,</HI> was to explain how Secretion is made in mens Bodies: Which is fal&s;e. For his great de|&s;ign there was to refute two opinions anent that affair, which are very much talked of where he then was; But this he could not do without explaining Secretion as to &s;ome of its properties: for neither he, nor any man el&s;e has yet explain'd all of them publickly. But let us &s;ee what he &s;ays, page 79, &amp; 80. There he very bravely affirms, that &s;ome bodies, tho every way le&s;s than the
<PB N="36" REF="27">hole they are offered to, yet will not pa&s;s through that hole. Which is a further te&s;timony of his impudent &s;tupidity: He had before told us of <HI>Two &s;crew-nails e|qual, but contrary wayes turn'd, which will not enter the one where the other does.</HI> This Blockhead does not under&s;tand what the Doctor had taught, to wit, that the&s;e two Nails are not <HI>figurae &s;imiliter po&s;itae,</HI> and that as the one is offered, it is not of an equal Diameter with the other as it is propo&s;ed to the pa&s;&s;age. I am convinc'd now, that this Fellow knows not what a Diameter is: el&s;e he would not, I think, with all his impudence deny, that a body who&s;e &s;ides every way are nearer to one ano|ther, than are to one another the &s;ides of a certain hole, may enter that hole; or, that a body who&s;e greate&s;t ex|tent is le&s;t than the lea&s;t extent of a hole, may enter and pa&s;t through it: for thus I have worded the Doctors pro|po&s;ition, that I might not terrify our Pamphleteer with Diameters that he under&s;tands &s;o little; for it's plain, that what is le&s;s than the lea&s;t Diameter of an orifice can be contain'd in it, &s;ince the Diameter is contain'd in it, and &s;o I leave him to &s;peak non-&s;en&s;e about his Screws, while I in a few words deliver the &s;ub&s;tance of what the Doctor alledges; and then I &s;hall leave it to the Reader to judge if he had rea&s;on on his &s;ide. All the Secretions that are made in our bodies are liquid, and liquors; and all liquors can accomodate them&s;elves to the figure of any ve&s;&s;el; what&s;oever be the figure of the parts of the fluid or liquors, yet the liquor it &s;elf yeelds to the figure of its ve&s;&s;el. And if any liquor by rea&s;on of its vi&s;cou&s;nes does not readily enter a &s;mall orifice, when the force impel|ling it is not able to divide it into &s;maller portions, that
<PB N="37" REF="27">liquor is excluded, not by rea&s;on of its figure, but be|cau&s;e it is too great a portion of parts, (in re&s;pect of the impelling force) cohaerent. Now this is a demon&s;tra|tion of the u&s;efulne&s;s of the diver&s;ity of Figures in pores or Secretory ve&s;&s;els; and no more was needful to convince men of their errour in this affair. But this is pa&s;t over by our Champion, becau&s;e it was too plain, and gave him no room to play with his Screws.</P>
<P>Therefor we mu&s;t follow him to the page 84. The Doctor had demon&s;trated, that a &s;olid carried in a liquor, and driven by its current to an orifice, (not circular) if its Diameter be every way &s;maller than the &s;malle&s;t of the orifice, then it would enter and pa&s;s tho it were of never &s;o different a figure from the orifice: But if it be o|therways, the Doctor did demon&s;trat that there would be an infinite number of turns and times in which it could not pa&s;s, for one in which it might, that is to &s;ay, (for I &s;ee our Pamphleteer has a&s;pight at any way of ex|pre&s;&s;ion which forces him to under&s;tand what he reads) in all eternity it would pa&s;s at mo&s;t but once. To this our Champion An&s;wers; O then it may pa&s;s, and that is enough to &s;poil the demon&s;tration. And indeed it was enough for him to make this An&s;wer to a demon&s;tration he under&s;tood nothing of. He falls (after this &s;hortand &s;ub&s;tantious An&s;wer) upon a Rope-dancer, and com|pares him with a corpu&s;cule carried by the current: And becau&s;e the Rope dancer can ballance him&s;elf and do many things as the li&s;ts, he wi&s;ely concluds, that an inanimat particle carried down by an unthinking liquor, can doe the like, and ballance it&s;elf &s;o as to be in the wi&s;h'd for &s;ituation, ju&s;t when it is at theentry of a canal.
<PB N="38" REF="28">This might have pa&s;t when Trees &s;poke. But I mu&s;t here againt put you in mind of the nece&s;&s;ity and u&s;efulne&s;s of that advice the Doctor gave, to beware of the Sects of Philo&s;ophy. Our Pamphleteer needed this advice more than any man alive: For his whole Pamphlet (except where he plays the Comedian) is an in&s;ignificant di&s;|cour&s;e buil on the &s;illy opinions and fal&s;hoods taught by &s;ome &s;ects of Philo&s;ophy. And in this place he manful|ly attempts to &s;poil a Demon&s;tration, by &s;uppo&s;ing, for&s;ooth, that every part of our Blood is a rational and thinking Rope-dancer, he &s;hould have added, and a Comedian too.</P>
<P>Let us goe on to his 88 page. The Doctor had con|cluded, that either there would be no Secretion, or entry of &s;mall-bodies into the &s;ecretory ve&s;&s;els, or, the par|ticles mu&s;t change the orifice to a circular figure, &s;ince no other figure could give them entry more than once in an infinite time. Now let us here what an&s;wer our Champion makes. <HI>There is not (&s;ays he)the lea&s;t &s;hadow of probability, that pores will become circular by corpu&s;|culs of different figures &s;triving to enter, and forcing their way: for a Cube applying it &s;elf to a &s;quare orifice will never make the orifice round, for it cannot en|ter, and will &s;omer be made round than the pore</HI> The Doctor ahd demon&s;trated fir&s;t, that the corpu&s;culs of different figures, and not having all their Diameters le&s;s than the lea&s;t one of the orifice, would not enter. And there our Champion very gravely (but without rea&s;on) pronounce, that they might enter, notwith&s;tanding of what was &s;aid. In the next place; The Doctor told, that if they &s;hould enter, then they'd make the Orifice
<PB N="39" REF="28">round. Hold, &s;ayes the Champion, they cannot enter at all. And indeed, he is in the right on't, for they'll not enter in ones lifetime, and what then becomes of Secre|tion mannag'd by diver&s;ity of Pores? It is &s;trange tho, to &s;ee the dice &s;o much at this fellow's command, that they are in what humour he plea&s;es of entring or not en|tring.</P>
<P>But it is very plea&s;ant to &s;ee, how gingerly he pa&s;&s;es over the Doctor's Demon&s;tration of the Orifices of all our Ve&s;&s;els being Circular. The Demon&s;tration is &s;hortly this. All Liquors running through a Canal who&s;e &s;ides are mem|branous, &amp; ea&s;ily yeild (tho at fir&s;t the Orifice of it be not circular-ways di&s;po&s;'d) do equally on all &s;ides tend from the Center to the Circumference, and con&s;equently ex|tend the containing Membrane equally on all &s;ides; and &s;o its Orifice becomes Circular, &s;ince a Circle is nothing el&s;e but a figure, who&s;e &s;ides every where are equally di&s;tant from a point within them, which we call the Cen|ter. What do you think is his an&s;wer? For&s;ooth, Sir, it is a que&s;tion. How comes it then to pa&s;s, &s;ays he, page 90, That the Valvuls at the Heart, and the <HI>&V;vula</HI> are not worn away? And why has not the Air made our No&s;trils round ere now? I cannot gue&s;s, what propo&s;e it &s;erves for to &s;peak of the <HI>Valvuls</HI> and <HI>&V;vula</HI>'s being not worn away, unle&s;s it be to prove that he'll always have &s;ome|thing to &s;ay, tho never &s;o little to the purpo&s;e; for here the Doctor is &s;peaking only of extending thin membra|nous Orifices: And it is very plain that the Valvuls by the force of the entring Blood are apply'd to the &s;ides of tha Arteries <HI>ex. gr.</HI> and con&s;equently become circular, as every &s;ection of the Artery is. As to our No&s;trils; Our Pamphleteer for the favour I have done him in an|&s;wering
<PB N="40" REF="29">his fir&s;t que&s;tion, is to prove that our No&s;trils are thin and very yeilding Membranes, ju&s;t as the capil|lary Ve&s;&s;els are; Yea as thin and yeilding in re&s;pect of of the Air, as the capillary Ve&s;&s;els are in re&s;pect of the Blood; and here we have pre&s;cinded from the impetus that the Blood has from the Heart, the like whereof the Air has not.</P>
<P>Our Champion finding, that in &s;pite of his An&s;wers &amp; que&s;tions, too the diver&s;ity of Pores would fall; is re&s;olv'd (page 92) to comply, but is not able to overcome that great difficulty, (great to Block heads and Dunces) How it comes, that either Urine does not pa&s;s with the Bile, if the pa&s;&s;age for the Bile be greater than that for the Urine, or that the Bile does not go along&s;t with the Urine, if the pa&s;&s;age for this be wide&s;t? Now this is an|&s;wer'd already by the Doctor int he 18 paragraph of his di&s;cour&s;e <HI>de circulatione per va&s;aminima:</HI> But this man under&s;tood it not, tho the account of the Phaenomenon there given be very plain. Yet to plea&s;e him, I'll let him make the pa&s;&s;age for the Bile wider than that for the Urine, (tho it he make it narrower, it will not avail him) O then, &s;ays he, All the Urine will goe through the Li|ver to the Inte&s;tines. Youare hugely in the wrong, Sir, with your Metaphy&s;icks. For, to tell you in plain Scotch, what you could not under&s;tand when the Doctor told it in plain Lain; There is no &s;incere and homogeneous Se|cretion in the Body of Man: And the Bile when it is &s;e|cern'd in the Liver, has driven along&s;t with it &s;ome parts of Urine, and &s;ome parts like tho&s;e &s;ecern'd in many other places. For when the Blood comes at the &s;ame time by different portions to the Liver and Kidneys,
<PB N="41" REF="29">it is plain, that there will pa&s;s through the Kidneys all that can pa&s;s, (in which company there will be a little Bile, if the pa&s;&s;age there be narrower than in the Liver) and in the Liver at the &s;ame time, out o fthe blood that comes thither will be &s;ecern'd whatever is loo&s;e and re|ceavalbe by the pa&s;&s;age of the Bile: and here we'll find &s;ome part of Urine (which, becau&s;e the Bile flows &s;low|ly, and for the mo&s;t part &s;tagnats in its &s;ecretory ve&s;&s;els, unites by time with the fat like parts of the Bile) and o|ther excretions too; all which join'd together make what commonly is call'd Bile. Now, there is no fear that all the Urine come this way, for the Bile mu&s;t come this way (&s;ince to plea&s;e our Pamphleteer, we have made the pa&s;|&s;age in the Kidneys too narrow for the Bile) and the Urine has &s;ufficient pa&s;&s;age in the Kidneys to tran&s;|mit the greate&s;t part of it; the pa&s;&s;ges through the Liver being too few for both. But there are other rea&s;ons that can be brought, were it not a folly to ca&s;t a Pearle before &s;uch a bea&s;t as this is, that under&s;tands nothing ex|cept to kick. For it was not the Doctors de&s;ign to explain every Secretion in the Body, but only &s;ecretion in general, that is, &s;ome properties common to all Secretions; &s;uch as, that all &s;ecretion is done without any Ferment, and all &s;ecretion is performed in pores of a circular figure. But the particular &s;ecretions depend upon &s;omething be&s;ides, better known to Doctor <HI>Pitciarne</HI> than to <HI>Tarugo.</HI></P>
<P>It is time now to follow him to the page 97, 98, and 99, where he is Angry (or not pleas'd) with the Doctor, for &s;aying, that Mercury (the Doctor is &s;peaking of com|mon quick &s;ilver) acts in our Bodies by its weight C, then, &s;ays the Pamphleteer, <HI>Gold would rai&s;e a Sali|vation, and cure the French. Pox better than Mercury;</HI>
<PB N="42" REF="30">which, &s;ays he, <HI>the meane&s;t Surgeon knows to be &s;alfe.</HI> Here is a mighty in&s;tance of the ignorance of this Fellow. The Doctor had &s;aid, that if Gold were as fluid as Mer|cuty, it would doe greater Feats. And this is the &s;ame as to have &s;aid, that Mercury would doe greater fears than it now does, if it were heavier or as heavy as gold Now, which the Surgeons that are the Pamphleteers friends has told him, that Gold reduc'd to a &s;tate of fluidity, like Mercury, would not cure the French Pox; I cannot tell this I know, it would be kindly done in a Surgion to tell him how to write a Receit or bill for his patient, but he has yet a quarrel with the Doctor, for &s;aying, that baths wrought only by their weight on our bodies. He adduces <HI>Bellini's</HI> authority to prove that they work otherways than by their weight, &s;ince <HI>Bellini</HI> thinks it probable that they penetrat through the Skin to the liquors, &amp;c. But pray good <HI>Tarugo</HI> does <HI>Bellini</HI> &s;ays that they penetrate by any other force than their weight? It is their weight that produces the effects attributed to them, and it is the out|ward pre&s;&s;ure that (as an effect of weight) is the mo&s;t certain operation of Baths. The effects that may be pro|duc'd by penetrating, are not &s;o certain; the penetration being more dubious thatn the pre&s;&s;ure tho both are the ef|fect of weight. But the&s;e things are too clear.</P>
<P>And I therefore pa&s;s to the page 102: which, and to the page 110, he &s;pends, as he would have one think. In refuting what the Doctor advances in a Di&s;cour&s;e about Re&s;piration. But he touches not, nor medles with any thing &s;aid thereanent. Only in the page 105. He leaps to another Di&s;cour&s;e, in which the Doctor <HI>en pa&s;&s;ant</HI> had An&s;wered an Objection made again&s;t his Opinion
<PB N="43" REF="30">about Re&s;piration, &s;ome time after it had been printed. The Objection was How it comes to pa&s;s, That if a Whelp <HI>ex. gr.</HI> once breath, and then be &s;top'd from breath|ing before the old Canals (through which much of the blood pa&s;t before breathing) be &s;topt, yet will dye in a little time. The Doctor gives two an&s;wers to it. The fir&s;t made it plain (from what he had proven in his <HI>de Re&s;piratione</HI>) that the expanded Air &s;topt the pa&s;&s;age of the Lungs, which had never been &s;topt before, the whole Blood never having pa&s;t thro the old Canals with|out touching at the Lungs: And &s;o the Whelp mu&s;t in a little time dye; a part of the Blood being &s;topt in the right Ventricle of the Heart. Here our Champion fir&s;t makes a great noi&s;e, by calling this a lame Demon&s;tration whereas the Block head might have &s;een that it is an an|&s;wer to an Objection. But he had been &s;o harra&s;ied with Demon&s;trations, &amp; put by them to &s;uch pitiful &s;hifts, that the Terrour of them was not gone; and therefore when he fell into a place where the Doctor was giving out his An&s;wers, he took them for Demon&s;trations too. Next, he cry's out that a Clown may laugh at the Doctor who &s;ays, That tho the old Canals be open, yet the Blood will not all go that way, becau&s;e it never all went that way. Now this Fellow lye's. For the Dotor had &s;aid, That the Blood could not all go thro the old Ca|nals; and this, I think, is a rea&s;on for its not going all thro them. The old Canals are not capacious enough to give pa&s;&s;age to the whole Blood, &s;o as to mautain the nece&s;&s;ary Circulation, and Life depending on it. That this Fellow lyes on the Doctor it appears both from what he tran&s;lates out of the Doctors An&s;wer, in the beginning
<PB N="44" REF="31">of the the page 105, and from what he acknowledges in the two la&s;t lines, page 106, and the two fir&s;t of page 107. But he was nece&s;&s;itated to make a Lye, for el&s;e he had nothing at all to &s;ay. Yet after he has acknow|ledged him&s;elf to have ly'd, and that the Doctor had told plainly, That the Blood could not all pa&s;s thro the old Canals, but &s;ome of it at every <HI>Sy&s;tole Cordis</HI> would be left in the right Ventricle of the Heart; he very Magi|&s;terially &s;ays, <HI>Let it e'en &s;tep on &s;lowly, and take the more time, and it will come to its journey's end before night.</HI> This Fellow's bu&s;ine&s;s here was to prove, That all the Blood could pa&s;s thro the old Canals. In&s;tead of doing this, he gives in his word for it, that it will all pa&s;s, but &s;lowly. But he Lyes &s;o often, that I am not re&s;olv'd to take any thing upon his bare Authority. In the mean time, I'll adverti&s;e him, that in a very few Sy&s;toles the right Ventricle of the Heart will be &s;o fill'd with Blood (which &s;hould have pa&s;t thro the Lungs, and cannot yet pa&s;s thro the old Canals timeou&s;ly) that no more Blood can be receiv'dd into that Ventricle; And &s;o the Circula|tion cea&s;es at the Fountain. But after our Champion had acknowledged that he had ly'd, finding no advan|tage again&s;t the Doctor by being ingenuous, he Repents him&s;ef, and falls back into his former Lye, and through almo&s;t two pages makes a fine Dialogue with a Child, (It would &s;eem to have been his Trade) founded on no|thing but his own Lye.</P>
<P>He comes next page 111, To cavil at the account gi|ven by the Doctor of one Thunder-&s;troke &s;ome years agoe, who&s;e Lungs were clapt together in an extraordi|nary manner and degree: This is matter of fact. Here
<PB N="45" REF="31">our Champion cry's out again&s;t the Doctor for having faid, That the Lungs too much blown up with Air, hin|der the Circulation throw them&s;elves; And yet now, &s;ays he, he makes their not being blown at all to &s;top that &s;ame Circulation. If he had any &s;en&s;e or ingenuity he'd &s;ee both to be true. If the Lungs be too much blown, the Blood-ve&s;&s;ells are too much &s;traitned: If they are entirely flaccid, there wants the weight of the Air, and ela&s;ticity to &s;quee&s;e the blood by turnes into the left Ventricle of the Heart, and &s;o it cannot pa&s;s &s;ufficiently in One (who&s;e old Canals are &s;topt) to entertain Life: Now, it when One is puting forth the Air out of his Lungs it &s;hall happen (as it happened to the Per&s;on kill'd by the Thunder) that the Air is ratified, and &s;o made much and &s;uddenly lighter, It will come to pa&s;s That fir&s;t, a &s;mall part of that ma&s;s of Air which he put forth will returne to the Lungs, becau&s;e a &s;mall part now takes up the room of the whole; And therefore, there will be wanting that weight which the whole ma&s;s before exerted for continuing the Circulation thro the Lungs: And Secondly, The Man mu&s;t dye, if the Air continue in this &s;tate of rare fraction made by the Lightning, longer than he can live without Air, as the event &s;heu'd it had done in this Man's ca&s;e And here we have a new proof of the hurt that Metaphy&s;icks doe in Rea&s;oning; For our Champion by vertue of them has found out, <HI>That in Liquors the parts by rare fraction grow le&s;s than before; Whereas, &s;ay's he, they might indeed grow larger, if they were like the parts of bra&s;s or malleable matter.</HI> Now every body knows that the portions of Air are Ela&s;tick, and that when they are libe|rated
<PB N="46" REF="32">rated from compre&s;&s;ion, they like wool (for to this they are by Mr. <HI>Royl</HI> and others likned) exolve and expand them&s;elves without having their parts made Le&s;&s;er, but only by having &s;ome of them re|mov'd farther from &s;ome others than before, and &s;o acquire a greater &s;uperfice, or volume. But out Cham|pion mu&s;t be excu&s;ed for his mi&s;take; for the Metaphi|&s;icks make no mention of Ela&s;tick Fluids. Before I leave him, I mu&s;t take notice how he wre&s;ts and mangles the Doctors words. The Doctor had &s;aid, That (in the ca&s;e of him that was kill'd with Thunder) <HI>The air being &s;uddenly and much expanded (the air which en|viron'd the Man) could not blow up the Lungs, its weight being dimini&s;hed, neither could it enter, its &s;u|perfice being enlarged.</HI> And this fellow makes the Doct|or &s;ay. <HI>That the particles of the Air become larger and lighter.</HI> Now his Metaphy&s;icks would not have furni&s;h|ed him with any quible again&s;t the Airs growing lighter and more expanded; but he had a quible about parts growing le&s;&s;er, which I leave him to pur&s;ue: Only, &s;ince the Air may be expanded, and any portion of it fill a larger &s;pace; I would know, if then its parts do not proportionally grow larger? For, <HI>Totum faciunt partes</HI> I come now to his page. 117.</P>
<P>In this and &s;ome following pages he makes all the u&s;e he can of his <HI>Art</HI> Metaphi&s;ical, which &s;eems to be the &s;ame with <HI>Lullius's,</HI> that is, the Art of raving and pratling of things he knows nothing of at all.</P>
<P>The Doctor in a di&s;cour&s;e had made it manife&s;t, That no ferment in the Stomach di&s;&s;olves our meats. This was his main de&s;ign; and his rea&s;on was, that the &s;ame
<PB N="47" REF="32">Ferment would di&s;&s;olve our Stomachs and Guts. In place of this Ferment he &s;ub&s;tituted the attrition that the meat &s;uffers in the &s;tomach, by the which its parts are &s;eparated, after that by the heat of the Invironing parts and moi&s;ture, it is made tender and ea&s;ie to be divided into &s;mall par|ticles He rejected therefore Doctor <HI>Li&s;ters</HI> Opinion, not as fal&s;e, but in &s;o far as he attributed too much to Putrification; and becau&s;e it is plain, that the efficient cau&s;e (which is mainly requir'd) is the &s;tomach (help'd by other parts) by its motion. But becau&s;e the Doctor knew it would be objected, that the &s;ame attrition might wear off parts of the &s;tomach, he thought fit to furni&s;h his Reader with an An&s;wer to it, taken out of many that could be made, and it is this; that the &s;ame parts and &s;ides of a bit of meat are expo&s;ed to the action of the &s;to|mach, whereas this action is not performed by the &s;ame parts of the &s;tomach, but by diver&s;e parts of it apply|ed one after another. This An&s;wer the Pamphleteer takes no notice off; for he had nothing to &s;ay again&s;t it. Now, it is plain, that the &s;erment is applyed always to the &s;ame part of the &s;tomach, e&s;pecially it being deriv'd from the blood in <HI>Glanduls</HI> which contain it, and furni&s;h the &s;tomach with it: For I make u&s;e of the word <HI>Glandule,</HI> to plea&s;e and comply with the Adver&s;aries.</P>
<P>We are then to con&s;ider what the Pamphleter &s;ays pag 124. There he is very angry at the Doctor for &s;ay|ing, That the Circulation of the Blood is the ground and foundation of all Medicine. For be&s;ides that One might infer from it. That a good friend of the Pam|phleters knew nothing of Medicine, becau&s;e when he was examin'd, he told very gravely, as one who be|lieves
<PB N="48" REF="33">what he &s;ays, That the blood went out by the Veins from the Heart, and return'd to it by Arteries from all parts of the Body; I &s;ay, be&s;ids this, it &s;poils his pretences of being a learn'd Phy&s;ician by reading &s;craps of <HI>Hippocrate</HI> and <HI>Galen,</HI> who were ignorant of it; as the Doctor has prov'd beyond any po&s;&s;ibility of being refuted. But there is great rea&s;on of &s;u&s;pect|ing that the Pamphleteer him&s;elf does not under&s;tand the Circulation, and then he had but rea&s;on to be angry with the Doctor for extolling it &s;o farr. In the &s;ame page the Pamphleteer endeavours to &s;hew that the Circula|tion is not the ground of Medicine, &s;ince after its inven|tion Phy&s;icians practi&s;e after the old method, by Deri|vations, Revul&s;ions, and Bloodings at different parts of the Body. Where he means (el&s;e he &s;peaks arrant non&s;en&s;e) that Derivations &amp;c. are incon&s;i&s;tant with the Circulation; Which proves him ignorant of the Cir|culation altogether, for the&s;e agree exactly,</P>
<P>Let him to this purpo&s;e read the &s;ixth prop of <HI>Bellini de Mi&s;&s;ione Sanguinis.</HI> But &s;ince he under&s;tands not Ma|thematicks, he'll not under&s;tand the demon&s;tration of that propo&s;ition.</P>
<P>In the pag 125. He &s;hows him&s;elf a notable Di&s;|putant. For the Doctor had taught, That if any ob&s;tructi|on &s;hould happen in the Conduits, it would, <HI>ceteris paribus,</HI> more readily happen in the Arteries than in the Veins, &amp;c becau&s;e the blood, which carries the cau&s;es of ob&s;tructions, runs from the wider towards the narrower part of the Artery; &s;o that the &s;ides of the Arteries doe oppo&s;e the motion of the blood, the con|trary whereof happens in the Veins: And the thing
<PB N="49" REF="33">that could make an Ob&s;truction in a Vein, mu&s;t make it fir&s;t an Artery; for it mu&s;t fir&s;t by the law of the Cir|culation come to the &s;malle&s;t part of the Artery and pa&s;s it, before it can come to &s;top in the Vein. Now, the Artery being as &s;mall (or &s;mallet) as the Vein, if it could ob&s;truct the la&s;t, it mu&s;t ob&s;truct the fir&s;t. The Pamphleteer finds here a brave way to e&s;cape, and rai&s;e, as he thought, a great di&s;put. The &s;ides, &s;ays he, of the Arteries are yeelding, and &s;o cannot &s;upport the ends or Arches, as it were, of the ob&s;tructing Body. But are not the &s;ides of the Arteries as &s;tiff as the &s;ides of the Veins, &amp;c. But it is to be remarked, that ob&s;tructions happen in the places where the motion of the Blood is &s;lowe&s;t, and where there is very litle dilatation of the Arteries; &s;o that all our Pamphleteer's quibles &s;erve to no purpo&s;e, unle&s;s to prove, That the is no ob|&s;truction at all: For the Doctor in the 22 paragraph of that Di&s;cour&s;e &s;hews, That the Ob&s;tructing of Vi&s;|cous &s;ticking matter is to be found rather in the <HI>Arteriae Evane&s;centes</HI> than in the Veins: Now, the <HI>Arteriae Evane&s;centes</HI> retain nothing of an Arte|ry. &s;ave the figure. This was told by the Doctor in that paragraph in mathematical termes, that the thing might be le&s;s &s;ubject to ambiguity, and the more comprehen&s;ively expre&s;t. <HI>AEqualis e&s;t velocitas in evane&s;cente</HI> Arteria <HI>&amp; na&s;cente Vena,</HI> &s;aid the Doctor; and therefore no more motion in the One than in the Other. This is manife&s;t, by the Vein's being a continued conduit with the Artery, as the Doctor prov'd, and Micro&s;copes let us &s;ee. And thus our Qui|bler's pitiful &s;hifts are di&s;covered; which depend upon
<PB N="50" REF="34">gro&s;s ignorance of Anatomy and Mathematicks, and every thing that is accurately expre&s;t, that is, put in a Mathematical form of words.</P>
<P>Let us now come up to his page 129. The Doctor had taught that <HI>Willis</HI> and <HI>Sylvius,</HI> and a great many others were in the wrong to place the cau&s;e of Apoplexies, &amp;c, In the Nerves, &s;ince by what is &s;aid in that di&s;cour&s;e <HI>de Circulatione in Genitis &amp; non Genitis,</HI> the &s;aid cau&s;e mu&s;t principally be found in the Arteries. And becau&s;e the Doctor knew it was the common doctrine of the place he then was in, That Apoplexies were produc'd &s;ometimes by a Coagulation of the Blood, in which ca&s;e they reckon'd that Rupturs and Extrava&s;ations follow'd; and &s;ometimes (this was the opinion of <HI>Syl|lvius</HI> a man famous there) by a kind of Coagulation of the &s;pirits, by the force or infection of <HI>Opium</HI> or other bodies having the like quality. Now in this ca&s;e they reckoned no extrava&s;ations of Blood, &s;ince the fault is in the Spirits and not in the Blood. The Doctor made no doubt of the truth of what is alledged in the fir&s;t place; &s;ince ob&s;ervations teach, that Apoplexies often fall out by the Coagulation of the Blood in the Arteries, and con|&s;equently its extrava&s;ation: And therefore he &s;peaks no|thing of it, but in general that whatever it be, it mu&s;t make the fir&s;t ob&s;truction in the Arteries. And then he falls to examine the &s;econd opinion, anent Apoplexie's being produc'd by the immobility and Coagulation of the Animal Spirits; which <HI>Willis</HI> tollowed too. To doe this aright, he explains the way of <HI>Opiums</HI> working; which is not by killing or coagulating the Spirits: But by rari|fying the blood, which compre&s;&s;es the Nerves in the head
<PB N="51" REF="34">where there is lea&s;t re&s;i&s;tance. Now, this is &s;o manife&s;t, that there is no rarifier of the blood of any force, that is, no efficacious &s;udorifick, that does not bring &s;leep on the Per&s;on that is put a &s;weating. Here our Pamphleteer objects; that then, <HI>Spirit of Hart-horn</HI> &amp;c: And &s;uch like rarifiers of the Blood, would bring men into Apoplexies, which neverthele&s;s cure that di&s;ea&s;e. This fellow has never &s;een an Apoplexy that talks of curing it by the rarifying force of Spirit of Hart-horn and the like. The Volatile Salts and Spirits given in good quantities to A|poplectick per&s;ons, work neither by their rarifying qua|lity, nor by their coagulating one, but by their &s;timulat|ing and irritating force (as the Doctor taught us when he treated about Apoplexy) or the force and power they have of rai&s;ing pain: For it's plain, that the foame of Vi|negar from a red hot-iron has as much vertue to recover one from an Apoplectick fit, as the &s;pirit of Hart-horn, tho Vineger be no great rarifier of the blood. <HI>As</HI> for giv|ing the &s;pirit of Hart-horn or volatile Salts inwardly, (a thing not to be done in the fit of an Apoplexy) If they be given in a good and &s;ufficient quantity, they'l bring ea&s;e of pain, and &s;leep, ju&s;t as doth <HI>Opium,</HI> which I de|&s;ire our Pamphleteer to learn, But it is not po&s;&s;ible to &s;ee &s;uch effects of the Volatile Spirit or Salts, if they be given by one gutt or grain for a Do&s;e, as he and his learn'd friend do order them. Now I leave it to a di&s;creet Reader to judge, what an excellent argument this of the Pamphleteer is again&s;t the Doctor. If (&s;ays the Pamphleteer page 130) Wyne or any thing that rarifies the Blood bring a fit of an Apoplexy, then another Do&s;e of the &s;ame will cure you of the fit. I leave this cure to his Friend and Comatade. But I proceed.</P>
<PB N="51" REF="35">
<P>The Doctor teaches; That every thing which rarifies the blood &s;o much, that the Arteries in the Brain contain|ing it, are dilated to a degree &s;ufficient for compre&s;&s;ing the Nerves there, and &s;o hindering the Efflux of Spirits, will bring Sleep; and perhaps a fit of &s;leepy Di&s;ea&s;e. Now this is evident.</P>
<P>O but, &s;ays our Pamphleteer, Then all Sudori&s;icks <HI>&amp;c.</HI> will make us &s;leep. And I tell him, they'll certain|ly do &s;o, when either their quantity or force is &s;uch as to produce a dilatation of the Arteries &s;ufficient to compre&s;s the Nerves in the Brain.</P>
<P>What he &s;ays farther in this affair, is arrant non&s;en&s;e; as is what he talks about the Heart's having an Antagoni&s;t Mu&s;cle, than which nothing could have been &s;aid &s;o con|trary to Anatomy, and &s;o proper to make our Pamphle|teer's gro&s;s Ignorance appear to the meane&s;t Apprentice. The Doctor had taught, That the rea&s;on of the Heart's motion not cea&s;ing was, that the Heart had not an op|po&s;ite Mu&s;cle: For at all times all the Mu&s;cles have an equal quantity of Spirits flowing to them, and keeping them in <HI>Aequilibrio;</HI> el&s;e one Mu&s;cle would move the Member, while the other being de&s;titute of Spirits to blow it and contract it, remain'd idle and u&s;ele&s;s. Now if Mu&s;cles for bowing the Arm <HI>ex gr.</HI> prevail, it is be|cau&s;e they have, over and above the quantity of Spirits and Blood which they got to keep them in ballance with tho&s;e Mu&s;cles which &s;erve to hindet it from bowing, a new quantity &s;ent to ca&s;t the ballance, and to make the contraction &s;tronger on their &s;ide. Now, the Heart hav|ing no Mu&s;cle to act again&s;t it, or to how a Member to the contrary &s;ide, needs fewer Spirits and Nerves le&s;s
<PB N="52" REF="35">free from compre&s;&s;ion; and &s;o can be in motion when other Mu&s;cles are not, which require a quantity of Spi|rits to overcome the quantity of their oppo&s;ite Mu&s;cles, over and above what is requi&s;ite to keep them in <HI>Aequili|brio,</HI> Whereas the Heart requires no more than what would keep in <HI>Aequilibrio</HI> with its oppo&s;ite, if it had any; and much le&s;s. To this our Pamphleteer An&s;wers, That tho the Heart has not an oppo&s;ite or Antagoni&s;t Mu&s;cle, yet it has fir&s;t, <HI>the Motus Re&s;titutionis</HI> to &s;ur|mount; and &s;o have all Mu&s;cles, Sir, (and this is our Pamphleteers depth of Anatomy) as much as the Heart. Next, &s;ays he, it has the Blood to &s;quirt out, and no &s;mall force is requi&s;it to that. And, Sir, other Mu&s;cles have a heavy bone to lift up, a Leg or Arm; and no &s;mall force is requi&s;ite to this; Yea over and above, they have the force of a contrary and equal Mu&s;cle to over|come, which the Heart is not incumbered with. And this is the &s;hallowne&s;s of our Pamphleteer, who has all along &s;poke non&s;en&s;e, becau&s;e he did not under&s;tand what it is to have or want an oppo&s;ite or Antagoni&s;t Mu&s;cle Yet he would needs quible about it, that he might &s;eem to under&s;tand it. He has had the like impudence over all the Pamphlet in medling with Mathematicks of which he is mo&s;t gro&s;ly Ignorant; &s;o mon&s;truou&s;ly Ignorant, that he (<HI>page</HI> 85) brings in Bodies, &s;ome Triangular, &s;ome Square, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> All which are Impo&s;&s;ibilities, but De|mon&s;trations of the Fellows intollerable Ignorance in an affair in which he pretended to give Judgement. I refer him therefore to his Studies, and to the Mathematick-Profe&s;&s;or, who can teach him (if teachable) as much Geometry as will &s;erve to let him &s;ee that the Mu&s;cles
<PB N="53" REF="36">which dilate the Brea&s;t are &s;tronger than the&s;e which con&s;trict it; And that the Mu&s;cles which he has mu&s;ter'd up as con&s;trictors of it perform a very different office, whatever <HI>Galen</HI> has &s;aid to the contrary:</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="36">
<PB REF="37">
<PB REF="37">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
