Substances the names ascribed them, only because of some sleight
mixture of another Body; since not only the Peripateticks call
particular parcels of matter Elementary, though they acknowledge that
Elements are not to be anywhere found pure, at least here below; And
since especially there is a manifest Analogie and Resemblance betwixt
the bodies obtainable by Chymical Anatomies and the principles whose
names are given them; I have, I say, consider'd that these things may
be represented: But as for what is drawn from the Custome of the
Peripateticks, I have already told You, that though it may be employ'd
against Them, Yet it is not available against me who allow nothing to
be an Element that is not perfectly Homogeneous. And whereas it is
alledg'd, that the Predominant Principle ought to give a name to the
substance wherein it abounds; I answer, that that might much more
reasonably be said, if either we or the Chymists had seen Nature take
pure Salt, pure Sulphur, and pure Mercury, and compound of them every
sort of Mixt Bodies. But, since 'tis to experience that they appeal,
we must not take it for granted, that the Distill'd Oyle (for
instance) of a plant is mainly compos'd of the pure principle call'd
Sulphur, till they have given us an ocular proof, that there is in
that sort of Plants such an Homogeneous Sulphur. For as for the
specious argument, which is drawn from the Resemblance betwixt the
Productions of the Fire, and the Respective, either _Aristotelian_
Elements, or _Chymical_ Principles, by whose names they are call'd; it
will appear more plausible then cogent, if You will but recall to mind
the state of the controversie; which is not, whether or no there be
obtain'd from mixt Bodies certain substances that agree in outward
appearance, or in some Qualities with Quicksilver or Brimstone, or
some such obvious or copious Body; But whether or no all Bodies
confess'd to be perfectly mixt were compos'd of, and are resoluble
into a determinate number of primary unmixt Bodies. For, if you keep
the state of the question in your Eye, you'l easily discerne that
there is much of what should be Demonstrated, left unprov'd by those
Chymical Experiments we are Examining. But (not to repeat what I have
already discover'd more at large) I shall now take notice, that it
will not presently follow, that because a Production of the Fire has
some affinity with some of the greater Masses of matter here below,
that therefore they are both of the same Nature, and deserve the same
Name; for the Chymists are not content, that flame should be look't
upon as a parcel of the Element of Fire, though it be hot, dry, and
active, because it wants some other Qualities belonging to the nature
115