A ternary of paradoxes. The magnetick cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, image of God in man / Written originally by Joh. Bapt. van Helmont, and translated, illustrated, and ampliated by Walter Charleton.

  • Helmont, Jean Baptiste van, 1577-1644.
Date:
1650
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A ternary of paradoxes. The magnetick cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, image of God in man / Written originally by Joh. Bapt. van Helmont, and translated, illustrated, and ampliated by Walter Charleton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    66/216 (page 4)
    the contrary, ‘and by multiplied experience we are Confirmed, that U/nea gathered from the skulls of .füch; who have been broken on the wheel, is in virtue no whit inferior‘to that of men ftrangled witha halter; For truly from Animals thefe is not drawn the Q zizr E fence (in regard the pritci pal, and pa- ramont effence perifheth together with the influent fpirit, and life) but onely the virtze mumial, that is, the originary, 1im- plantate, and confermentate fpivit, fafely raining, and in an obícure vitality furviving, in bodies extin@ by violence. * What-other things Geclenivs hath delivered; of remedies torepair-a ruinous memory, as we cannot but declare them; inno relation, congruent to the fcope intended ; fo alfo we nothing doubttoprovethem meer pageants and impertinent flourifhes, Betwixt our Divine and Phyfician, there is at all no difpute de fatto, about the verity of thefzé's for both unanimoufly concede the cure to be wrought upon the wounded períon : The contention lies onely in this, that the Phyfician affetts this Magnetical Cure to be purely IVarzzal, but the Divine will needs have it Satanical, and that from a compa&t of the firft inventor. Of. which cenfure, in his Anatome of our Phyficians difcourfe, ; he alledges no pofitive reafon ; conceiving it fuffi- ciently fatisfactory, if he, onthe {core of his own folitary judgment, abolifh it, though he fubjoyn no grounds forthe abolition; that is, acquiefcing onely in this, that he hath re- moved.the feeble and invalid arguments of the Affertor’; which, in fobertruth)is a matter of no'diligence, no learning, and of no authority to ere&or eftablifh beleif. For’ what a- vails it, to the procurement of faith, from no ftronger evi- dence, then! the futility of fpecious reafons, urged by fome ignorant head; to Sivea definite judgment on thething it felf > and to declare it impious,’ i£- himfel£ hath not fo much asin'a dream thought upon any onepetty teáfon;: for the fupport of his fentence ? Whatif 1, beinga Laick,fhould with courfe and untrimmed arguments, commend Presbytery; and another re- ject my-reafons as unworthy. and infufficient) will the order of Priefthood it felf be therefore: rejected?” OF whatconcern: ment, I pray, is the ignorance, or temerity’ of any.one fo: | : realities $32 4 ooguo $5» -— — — — 0 x L——a l2]