Mikrokosmographia a description of the body of man. Together vvith the controuersies thereto belonging. Collected and translated out of all the best authors of anatomy, especially out of Gasper Bauhinus and Andreas Laurentius. By Helkiah Crooke Doctor of Physicke, physitian to His Maiestie, and his Highnesse professor in anatomy and chyrurgerie. Published by the Kings Maiesties especiall direction and warrant according to the first integrity, as it was originally written by the author.

A Dilucidation or Exposition of the Controuersies concerning the Subiect of ANATOMY.

The Praeface.

AS in the knowledge of Diuine Mysteries, Implicit Fayth is the highway to perdition, so in humane learning, nothing giues a greater checke to the progresse of an Art, then to beleeue it is already perfected and consummated by those which went be∣fore vs; and therfore to rest our selues in their determinations. For if the ancient Philosophers and Artists had contented thē∣selues to walke onely in the Tracke of their predecessours, and had limited their Noble wits within other mens bounds, the Father had neuer brought foorth the Daughter, neuer had Time broght Truth to light, which vpon the fall of Adam was chained in the deepe Abysse. There is, as of the World and gouernement thereof, so of arts a frame, the matter whereof comes downe from heauen, but is gathered heere by dis∣course of reason and experience. The beauty and glory of whose Columns wer not perfe∣cted in one age, but the ground worke was first laid in the times which were neerest to the Originall of Nature; afterward addition was continually made by the vigour of the soule of Man, and shall be vnto the end of the world. It were not hard to giue instances heereof in all arts, nor happely would it be very tedious; but it shal bee sufficient (to auoyd prolixi∣ty) to insist a little vpon generals, and so descend vnto our owne art we haue in hand. The first man (saith the Diuine story) saw all the Creatures, and gaue them names according to their Natures, but that Sun-shine was soone clouded, that Image defaced, that stampe battered by his fall. Afterwards, as a Marchant that had lost all his inheritance in one bot∣tome, he was to begin the world anew, and to gather an estate or stocke of knowledge, by the trauell and industry of his soule and body; yet was not his soule Abrasa Tabula, a play∣ned Table, there remained some Lineaments which the Scripture calleth The Lawe of Na∣ture; not such as could exhibite any sufficient originall knowledge, but such as whereby, hauing gotten knowledge from without himselfe, might make him again acknowledge the darke and defaced foot-steppes that remained in himselfe, and to polish and refresh them somewhat, though it was impossible to reduce them to the former perfection. Thus the soule by discourse of reason, that is, by her owne acte, knewe her naturall immortality, and by induction of particulars, came to informe her selfe of the Natures of other things: not as she knew before, from the vniuersall to particulars, but by gathering particulars toge∣ther to frame generall and vniuersall notions.

And surely in the first age, by reason of their long life, and consequently of their infinite obseruations, haply also because they were neerer to integrity of nature, the Defection not being so suddenly confirmed, men laide the grounds of arts, which were deliuered by tradition from the first Fathers simply and faithfully; but afterward by enuy or corruption were wrapped vp in Mysticall Hierogliphickes, or poysoned with superstition, or forfeited by negligence, many of them also were worne out by length of time, for want of Letters and meanes to preserue them. Those which remained, ran in Families, and from Families

were deuolued vnto Nations as the world encreased; First as is supposed to the Chaldeans, then to the Phoenitians, after to the Egyptians; all which as the Nature of man is prone to worke vpon that, it can least attaine vnto; or else, because the Diuinity of the soule findeth no contentment, in that she conceiueth to be lesse then her selfe, did therefore neglect all sublunarie things, & applyed it selfe to speculations of heauen and heauenly bodies, where∣in they were farthered by that olde and cunning Serpent, who put to his helping hande to seduce them from the acknowledgement of their owne imperfection, by goading them forward in an addle and veine disquisition of friuolous and impious secrets. So the traditi∣on of God, as being of too high a pitch for their imped wings, was peruerted vnto an vn∣knowne Numen; the Tradition of the Angels into feigned spirits, gouerning the motions of the Heauens. That of the true vse of the Startes into iudiciall and Genethliacal Astro∣logie. That of the fall of Adam and Eue into the Fable of Isis and Osyris. The Deluge into Deucalions flood. The Diuinity of the minde and soule, into the tale of Mitris and Arimi∣nis, and a world of such superstitious toyes. And verily almost all such was the learning of the former ages, till the Graecians fell vpon the grounds of Demonstrations: and then men first began to fall from those abstruse and transcendent contemplations, and to bring home Philosophy vnto themselues. Their Metaphysickes were Logicall, their Physicks Elementary; the Diuinity of the soule was tyed to the Principles of generation, and sup∣posed to result out of the power of the matter of the body: and in a word, Philosophy fell from heauen into the Elements, wherein they so accumbred themselues, and those that followed them, that to this day we are scarse vninthralled from them. Yet there wanted not some, who laboured in all kindes, to bring Learning to better thrift. Homer, Hippocra∣tes, Plato, all of them in their kindes, the very Oracles of Philosophy, so as we may truelie say, that whatsoeuer we haue solide and substantiall, it is but deriued from theyr Foun∣taines.

Neyther were these men onely happy in their owne sublime and diuine wits and ap∣prehensions, but also in their Interpreters, Virgil to Homer, Aristotle to Plato, and Galen to Hippocrates. The former two we let passe, as belonging to another Forum. Hippocrates as the first head of our Tribe, the Father and founder of the Family of Physitians, lefte a goodly inheritance to his posterity, which Galen (to passe by the rest) hath not mispent, but much improoued, and wee who are Artis Filij may worthily be accounted decoctors and prodigals, if we keepe not our Patrimony together; nay, in this kinde of Thrift, not to go forward, it is to go backeward. Yet I must confesse, that after Galens time, and his Epitomizer Oribasius, who liued but in the next age, Anatomy (for that is the ende wee driue at,) lay raked vp Patrio in puluere, till within some of our Memories, Vesalius albeit somewhat importunately, yet verie Learnedly, blew vp the almost deade sparkes into a most Luculent Flame, at whose Beacon, all since his time haue teened theyr Tor∣ches, though happelie beeing put together, they may seeme to dimme his light by their multitude.

There is, and will alwayes be left Locus Philosophandi, scope enough, euen in this Lit∣tle World for such as list to exercise themselues; and many haue with no small commen∣dations made proofe of their agility, yet we must needes acknowledge, that the Ground∣worke of the building, and not onely so, but the whole frame was by the ancients reared vp; and therefore now if any Ornaments be added, they must be fitted thereunto. Where∣fore, we haue laboured to bring all the subtilties and nouell inuentions of the later Wri∣ters, to the Touch-stone of the ancients Monuments; that as no man should be defrauded of his due Commendation; so the Crowne may remaine, where with so much dust and sweate it was gloriously merited; whereby we do not desire to be accounted amongst the number of the Antagonists, but as a Herald of Honor, do indeauor to marshall the fielde, and sometimes where the case is cleere, to ioyne in vmpeirment with the Spectators; or where it is difficult to assist them.

Of the definition of a Part. QVEST. I.

HIppocrates, whose happy workes are the very Oracles of our Arts, and Galen his interpreter, doe promiscuously vse the names of a Part, a Member, and a Place, for the same thing. The Eye (sayth Galen in the first Book of his Me∣thod) we call a Member; neyther is there any oddes which you call it, a Member, or a Part: if any man shall say the Eye is a Part and not a Member, or a Member, and not a Part; I will not in either contend with him. In his first Book de locis affectis; Not onely the latter Physitians (sayth he) but many also of the antients doe vse to call the particles of the body, Places. Hippocrates in his Book de locis in homine, and de victus ratione in morbis acutis, calleth also Parts, Places: yet there are some who distinguish a Member from a Part, and a Particle from a Place. Aristotle calleth those only Members which are compoun∣ded of parts of diuers natures, as the Head, the Feete, and the Hands; and those that are similar he calleth properly Parts. Theodorus in Aristotle, thinketh that the name of a Part or Place, is of larger extent then the name of a Member. So also Galen in the sixt of his Me∣thod, sayth that the Eye may be called a Part or a Member; and the horny tunicle a Part, but not a Member: but because in these Philosophicall disquisitions, it becommeth vs better, to stand vpon substances, then vpon wordes; wee take no care whether you vse the name of a Part, a Member, a Particle, or a Place; it concernes vs more to find out an essen∣tiall definition of a Part.

Auicen defineth a Part to be a body ingendered of the first permixtion of the humours, as the humors doe consist of the first mixtion of the meate, and the meate of the Elements. But this de∣finition of the Arabian, is too presse, straight & narrow, because it agreeth only to homo∣genie parts, & not to heterogenie: for euery man may easily perceiue that heterogenie or dissimilar parts are compounded immediately of similar, not of the first mixture of the hu∣mors. And this Galen teacheth in plaine and expresse words, in his first Book de Elemen∣tis, where hee sayth; that compounded partes are immediately made of the simple or similar, the simple of humors, humors of Aliments, Aliments of the Elements. They which would salue the Arabians credite, say that his definition is materiall, nor formall; for both similar and dissimilar do communicate in the matter, though their forme or difference be diuers; but they forget that an essentiall definition must expresse the forme especially, because it is the chiefe part of the essence, as that which giueth Being to the thing. Aponensis defineth a part to be a solid and thick body, begotten of humidities or moystures, and adorned with the po∣wers of Nature; which definition laboureth of the same disease with the former, compre∣hending onely simple not compounded parts.

Galen hath two definitions of parts. The first, in the first Booke of his Method and the fift Chapter, and in the first booke de Elementis, cap. 6. The second is in his first Booke de vsupartium. The first is this; A Part is that which accomplisheth or integrateth the whole: Or whatsoeuer addeth any thing to the frame of a humane body. The second is this, A Part is a body which neither hath a proper circumscription of his owne, nor yet is on euery hand ioyned with others. Both these definitions seeme to bee too large, comprehending not onely li∣uing particles (which are onely, truely and properly partes) but those also which haue no life, as the haires, the nailes, the fat. Hippocrates also vseth this large and ample significati∣on of a part, in Lib. 6. Epidemi••n, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, humors & spirits he calleth parts. So Aristotle calleth seede, bloud, milke, marrow, phlegme, and fatte, or grease, Parts. Fernelius the french Galen, giueth vs a perfect definition of a Part, in the first Chapter of the second Booke of his Physiologia, and disputeth and scanneth the particu∣lar branches of his definition learnedly and at large. Argenterius (a common Calumni∣ator sayeth Laurentius) taxeth Fernelius definition, assuming a diuerse consideration of mans body; first as it is a substance, and so hee sayeth the parts of it are the Matter and the Forme; next as it is a body, and so the parts of it are all the Corporeall substances therein contained. Finally, as a liuing and animated Creature, and in that respect (sayth he) what∣soeuer liueth, may be called a part of the liuing Creature, not a part of the body. Where∣fore Fernelius did ill define a Part of mans body to bee a body cohearing or cleaning to the whole, and ioyned to it in common life, framed for his vse and function.

But these are but nice and friuolous cauils, and indeede extrauagant from a Physitians consideration: for a Phisitian doth not consider the body of man as it is a naturall body,

consisting of matter and forme, but as it is obnoxious or liable to sicknesse or health. And therefore Fernelius doeth well determine that those bodies onely are to bee called partes, which may be the Subiects of sicknes and health. Now those parts only are afflicted with diseases, which performe some actions in the body, and actions belong to liuing parts, not to those which haue no life. For sicknes is an indisposition which at the first hand and immediately hurteth or hindereth the action. And therefore Fernelius his definition is ex∣quisite and perfect, beseeming a true Physitian.

Of the principalitie of the Parts against the Peripateticks, proouing that there is not one onely Principall; to wit, the Heart. QVEST. II.

COncerning the principalitie of the partes, there is a famous diffe∣rence betweene the Physitians and the Philosophers. The great Genius and interpreter of Nature Aristotle, in the seauenth and the tenth Chapters of his second booke de partibus Animalium; in the fourth Chapter of his third book de partibus Animalium; in his second booke de generatione Animalium; in his booke de vita & morte; in his bookes de somno, and de causa motus Animalium, de∣termineth that there is but one Soueraigne in mans body, and one Principle, which in his bosome and imbracement conteyneth and comprehendeth all the faculties. And this he resolueth is the Heart, the fountaine (sayth he) of the veines, arteries, and the sinewes; the source of heate, spirits, and quickning Nec∣tar, the first and onely storehouse of bloud, or worke-house of sanguification; and finally, the seate and mansion house of the vegetatiue, sensatiue and reasonable Soule. In Art∣stotles foot steps haue walked Auerrhoes in the second of his Collectanies; Aphrodiseus in his first booke de Anima, and many other both Greeks and Arabians: but they bring for confir∣mation of their opinion no necessary arguments, but such onely as are probable, shadow∣ed ouer with a veile of truth.

It is more honourable (say they) and monarchical, that there should be one principle then many; and that the very name of a principle doeth necessarily import so much. For if the soule of the Creature be but one in number, and that indiuisible, then must the bodye likewise of it bee, either one whole, or at least haue some one principall part; for essences must not be multiplied without necessity. And as in the great vniuerse which we behold, there is one Principle, which Aristotle in his eighth booke of his Physicks, calleth Primum mouens, and Primus motor, that is, the First mouer:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ti's naught to haue moe Kings then one, Let him that raygnes, raygne King alone.

So in the Microcosme or Little world, there must be but one principle, one prince, which is the Heart, whose excellencie and dignity aboue the rest of the partes, these things doe cleerely demonstrate. First, because it first liueth, and dyeth the last; and therefore is the originall of life, and the seat of the soule. Next, because it endureth no notable disease, but yeildeth presently to Nature if it be afflicted. Againe, because it obtaineth the most ho∣nourable place, that is, the middle of the body. Fourthly, for that by his perpetuall mo∣tion, all thinges are exhilerated and doe flourish: and nothing in the whole Creature is fruitfull, vnlesse the powerfull vigour of the Heart do giue foecundity vnto it. There (say they) is the mansion and Tribunall of the soule where heate is to be found, the first instru∣ment of all the functions; but the Heart is the springing fountaine of Natiue heate, which by the arteries as it were by small riuerers, is deriued into the whole bodie. Moreouer, the seate of the faculties is there, where the Organs of the same faculties doe appeare; but all the veines, arteries, & sinewes, doe arise out of the Heart. For the arteries no man euer made doubt. The veines doe surely arise thence, where their end and termination doeth appeare: but that is about the Heart; for the implantation of the great arterie and the hol∣low veine are alike. Beside, all the veines are continuated with the heart, to it are they fix∣ed, where they also haue membranes set like dores vnto them, which seeme to bee the be∣ginnings and heads of the veines; but through the Liuer they are onely disseminated, and the rest of the entralles they make a passage through, and so end into haire strings. Aristo∣tle also is of opinion, that the hart is the originall of the nerues; for his flesh is hard, thight,

and somewhat membranous; but the ventricles thereof haue in them infinite textures of manifest sinewes.

Finally, the Heart is the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, Sanguifier, Liuer, Mouer, & Sensator. That it is the first Sanguifier or the work∣house wherein the bloud is made, the Philosopher demonstrateth; because in it the bloud is contained as in a vessell or conceptacle and receptacle; whereas in the Liuer it remay∣neth but as in a pipe or conuayance; and beside, no where in the whole body is the bloud contained out of his vessels, saue only in the Heart, which therefore is the Treasurie there∣of; and therefore in all sudden passions of the minde, it returneth and flyeth to the heart as to his fountaine, not to the Liuer or to the Braine.

That it is primum sensorium, the first sensator (that is,) that the faculties offence, moti∣on and appetite, are deriued from the heart, the Peripateticks proue by these arguments. Because in a Syncope, that is, a swounding where the vital spirits faile, there appeareth a so∣daine and head-strong ruine and decay of all the faculties. Because in all sodaine motions of noysome and hurtfull things, as also when we would auoide them, the heat of the heart being drawne inward, there appeareth a pale wannesse in the face; and on the contrary, when we conceiue ioy for any thing that is profitable, or when wee pursue such things, the heate of the heart being called outward, there appeareth in the countenance a ruddinesse and alacritie. Because if the arteries called Carotides be tyed or obstructed, then follow∣eth presently a sencelesse dulnes, and a priuation of the Animality, if I may so speake, the patient lying like a senceles stocke. Because Ioy, Sorrow and Hope, are motions of the Heart, in which consisteth all the Appetite wee haue to pursue that which we like, or to flye and auoyde that we dislike and abhorre. Finally, because in sleepe the Animall fa∣culties doe rest and cease from their labours: now sleep is nothing else but a retraction or calling backe of the heate to the heart from the other partes wherein it was in continuall expence; and that is the reason why a man after sleepe is so much refreshed, and riseth strong againe to the labour either of minde or body, albeit in both he were well wearied, yea tyred out before. As for the Braine (they say) it cannot be the authour of sence, be∣cause it is of a cold temper, vnapt for motion and made only to refrigerate and coole the exceeding heat of the Heart, being of it selfe without all sence. These and such like are the arguments of the Peripateticks, by which they perswade themselues, that there is but one Principle of mans body, which is the Heart.

But these conceits of Aristotle and the Philosophers, are long since hissed out of the Schooles of the Physitians, and banished from amongst them; because they assume those things for true which are vtterly false, and obtrude things probable as if they were ne∣cessary. And what I pray you is more absurd, then to preferre the probability of a Logicall argumentation, before the euidence of sence, reason, and experience, ioyned togither? Nowe that the veines doe arise from the Liuer, that the nerues or sinewes which are soft and medullous or marrowy within, and without cloathed with membranes, are deriued from the substance of the Braine, he that hath but one eye may clearely discerne. That great Philosopher obserued in the heart many Fibrous strings in both his ventricles, wo∣uen out of the extremities of the smal membranes, and mistooke them for threddy nerues; whereas indeede it hath but one smal nerue arising from the sixt coniugation of the brain, which looseth it selfe in his substance. Hee saw the hollow veine in the heart very large and ample; but he did not obserue, that it onely openeth into the heart; (gaping at it with a spacious orifice or mouth, to poure into the right ventricle, as it were into a Cisterne, sufficient bloud for the generation of vital spirits to supply the expence of the whole body) but goeth not out of the heart; as doeth manifestly appeare, by those three forked mem∣branes, or values and floud-gates, yawning outward, but close inward. But because wee shall haue fitter occasion hereafter to dispute this question with them, of the originall of the veines and the sinewes, it shall bee sufficient that we haue sayd thus much of it at this time.

As for the seate of the faculties of sence and motion, is it not against all reason and ex∣perience to place them in the heart? The heart indeede is moued, and that perpetually; but that motion is not Voluntarie but Naturall; it is moued, yet not at our pleasure, but ac∣cording to it owne instinct. Dayly practise and experience teacheth vs, that when the ventricles of the Braine, are either compressed, or filled and stuffed vp, as in the Apoplexy, Epilepsie, and drowsie Caros, then all the faculties are respited and cease from their functi∣ons;

but when the heart is offended, the life indeede is endangered, but neither motion nor sence intercepted.

Againe, if the heart were the seate of all the faculties, as the Peripatetikes would faine haue it, then vpon any affection of the same, or notable deprauation of his temperament, all the functions should be impeached; because all actions come from the Temper. But we see that in a Hectique ague or Consumption, wherein there is an vtter alienation of the temper (as being an equall distemper, of all distempers the most dangerous) yet the volun∣tary and principall faculties, do remaine inviolate. In the violent motions, and throb∣bing palpitations of the heart which (some say) haue beene seene so extreame that a rib hath beene broken therewith, yet neither the voluntary motions of the parts are depraued, nor the minde at all alienated or troubled. Who will deny, but that by pestilent and con∣tagious vapors and breaths, comming from the byting of venomous beasts, or the taking of poyson, the vitall faculty is oppugned, and as it were besieged in his own fortresse? But yet those that are so affected, do enioy both sence and reason, euen to the last breath most times.

When the Braine is refrigerated, sleep presently stealeth vpon vs: now Aristotle him∣selfe defineth sleepe to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The rest of the first sensator. If any of the principal Faculties, either Motiue or Sensatiue be affected, where do the remedies ap∣plyed auaile? Surely at the Head, not at the Heart. The Braine therefore, not the Heart is the first Moouer, and first Sensator. But the Peripatetiks obiect that the Braine hath no sence, and therefore cannot be the author of it. We will giue them a learned answere out of Galen, The Braines sensation is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, not passiuely, but operatiuely. It receiueth not the species or Images of sensible things; but like a Iudge it ta∣keth knowledge of their impressions, and accordingly determineth of them. They say, the Braine is vnapt for motion, because it is cold: we answere, it was necessary it should bee cold, that is, lesse hot, for the better performance of the functions. For if the Braine had exceeded in heate, then would his motions haue beene rash and vnruly, and his sensations giddie and fond as in a phrensie. In a Syncope the Animall faculties do faile. It is true, but why? Because there is an exolusion, and so a defect of vitall spirits, by which the animall are cherished. The Ligation or interception in like manner of the arteries of the necke, called Carotides, induceth a priuation of motion and sense, onely because the vitall Spirits are intercepted, which minister matter to the Animall.

But one Principle is better then many. That we confesse is very true; but yet we know there are many reasons why it is not possible it should be so in this Little world. We will instance but in a few. It is granted by all men, that the substance of the arteries is di∣uerse from that of the veynes; and the substance of the sinnewes differing from them both; and as their substance, so is their structure very different, and their temper not one and the same: how then could it be, that Organs of so distinct kinds, should yssue all from one and the same part? Againe, it was necessary that these organes should in their originall be ve∣ry large and ample to transfuse sufficient spirites, and a common matter suddenly and to∣getherward into the whole bodye. Now the magnitude or proportion of any one part, (much lesse of the heart) could not be sufficient for this purpose, either to affoord a foun∣dation for so large vessels, or to supply a competent allowance of matter for them all. Adde¦heereto, that the faculties of the soule, follow the temper of the body, and therefore so di∣uers faculties might not issue from one part, which hath but one single temperament. How can we imagine reasonably, that three distinct & different faculties, yea oftentimes quite contrary, Reason, Anger and Concupiscence shoulde reside altogether, as if they were sworne friends in one Organ? Or how when the heart is on fire with anger, should reason make resistance, which delighteth in a middle and equall temper? Do not the vital and animall faculties require a different temper? Their Organs therefore must also neces∣sarily be different and distinct. For the heart is by nature fitted to contain and propagate the vital faculty; but for the preseruation of the animall, it is vtterly incompetent. The reason is at hand. The vitall spirit is very hot, impetuous, raging, and in continuall moti∣on, and therefore stood in neede of a strong organ wherein it should be wrought and con∣tained, that the spirit might not because of his tenuity, be exhaled, nor the vessell by which it is conueyed, breake in perpetuall pulsing and palpitation; which both wold easily haue hapned, if the heart and arteries had bin thin, and of a slender texture. The animall fa∣culty required another temper in her organ, otherwise the motions would haue beene fu∣rious,

the sences giddy and rash; Reason would continually haue erred, because the pro∣perty of heate, is to confound and make a medley of all things, shuffling in one thing hud∣lingly vpon another, through his continuall and indesinent motion. And these are the ar∣guments whereby the opinion of the Peripateticks is expulsed out of the Schoole of the Physitians.

Auicen, Fen prima primi, doctrina quinta, cap. primo, interpreteth Aristotles opinion, play∣ing the stickler in this manner. All the faculties (sayth he) do reside in the heart as in their first Root, but yet they Shine in the other members; that is, the Heart is the originall of diuers faculties, but vseth the Braine as the instrument of sence, so that Radically (that is his word) the Animall faculty is in the heart, but by manifestation in the braine.

Some againe intercede for the Peripateticks; and say, that the principal faculties motiue and sensatiue are in the heart, as in their originall and fountaine. That the rootes of the nerues are in the heart, but because it is too narrow to yeelde out of it selfe all their propa∣gations, they think the braine was framed as a second principle, wherin the animall func∣tions might, not obscurely as in the heart, but euidently manifest and exhibite themselues. And this power or faculty when the braine hath once receiued it from the heart, standeth in no neede of continuall and immediate assistance therefrom, but onely of a supply after some time: Euen as the Commander of an Army, who hauing receiued his authority and his company from the Prince, standeth in no farther neede of the Princes protection, vn∣lesse it be now and then vpon especiall seruices. They conclude therefore that the Braine and the Liuer are truely called principall parts; but this principality is but delegatory from the heart, no otherwayes then the Lieutenants of Princes, by them chosen for such and such imployments, doe receiue from them an order and power of dispensation and disposi∣tion, whereby they are authorized, and so taken, as if they were immediate commaunders themselues. Some others vse another distinction, and say that materially the nerues pro∣ceede from the Braine and the veines from the Liuer; but the first and the formall princi∣ple they say is in the heart.

That Prince of humaine learning (at least he that affected that soueraignty) Iulius Cae∣sar Scaliger, in the two hundred fourescore and ninth Exercise of his booke de subtilitate, maketh many principles in the Heart. The first or primarie is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the liuing, the se∣cōdarie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the mouing principle; these do neuer cease, neither are they hindred or intercepted in our sleep or repose: yet are they not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tametsi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, they are not the first Sensators, though they be of or from the first Sensator. Thus learned men labor to reconcile the Peripateticks & the Physitians. But they seem not to hold themselues close to Aristotles meaning: for hee doeth not thinke that in any sence, the Braine can be sayd to bee the author or original of Sensation, neither that the nerues doe arise from it. No where doth he attribute any delegatory power of Sensation vnto it; but thinketh it was onely made to refrigerate or coole the heat of the heart; whereas not∣withstanding all he can produce, it is the first principle of sence and motion, neither recei∣ueth any power for the performance of either of them from the Heart.

And whereas the Arabians say, that the Animall facultie is Radicall in the heart, and but by Manifestation in the braine; we can no way admit of that distinction: for if that faculty were in the heart as in the roote, then when the braine is obstructed, the body should not become senselesse and without motion, because there should be a remainder both of sense and motion in the roote, that is in the heart. But though the heart bee obstructed, or the passages intercepted between it and the braine, yet there followeth not any sodaine priua∣tion of sence and motion. Instances hereof wee haue in Sacrifices, where the Beast some∣times hath beene heard to cry, and sometimes also seene to runne a little way after his heart hath beene cut out: and we haue seene the same tryed in a Dogge, which ran crying a while after his heart was cut out, the vessels arising from it vpward, being before bound.

Galen in his first booke de Placitis, illustrateth the whole matter, by an elegant demon∣stration. If the Heart (sayth he) did giue vnto the Braine the Animall faculty, then should that power be deriued either by veines, arteries, or sinewes; for there are no other vessels which goe betweene them, and are common to them both. By veines or arteries, Aristotle himselfe doth not thinke it is conuayed; beside, these vessels do not directly passe vnto the Braine, but after diuers contorsions and aberrations from a right & direct progresse. That it is not deriued by or through the nerues is manifest; because, if the nerue which is disse∣minated through the substance of the Heart, be either diuided and cut asunder or intercep∣ted,

yet the Creature doth not presently fall, but onely groweth mute and dumbe.

It is therefore more consonant to right reason, that seeing the soule is but one and a simple substance, and wholly in the whole, and wholy in euery particle of the body; and therefore must necessarily haue the helpe of Organs, for the accomplishing of her seuerall functions: to assigne the seate of the faculty there where the Organs of those faculties are especially to be discerned. Wherefore seeing the Peripateticks doe confesse, that the Or∣gans of sence and motion are more conspicuous in the Braine then in the heart: why will they not yeeld to the Physitian, that the Animall faculty is in the braine, the Vitall in the Heart, and the Naturall in the Liuer; but make all the worlde witnesses of their refractarie mindes, then which in a true Philosopher nothing is more illiberall? Howsoeuer, to con∣clude, we subscribe to the opinion of the Physitians, who haue banished this Vnitie of Principles out of their Schooles.

QVEST. III. How many principall parts there are.

BY those things which we haue thus at large discoursed, it is manifest to all men, that there is not one, but many principall parts of mans body; it remaineth that we shew you now how many there are. The number wee cannot better aportion, then from the nature and definition of a Principle. First therefore, we must make it appeare (because Physitians heerein doe not agree) what a principall part is.

Galen in his Booke de vsu partium, defineth this principality by Necessity. That is a Principall part, which is of absolute necessity for the life of Man. I will shew you (saith he) by what markes you shall know a principall part, to wit, by the profit it bringes; now the profit of a part is threefold, either it is simply for life, or for better life, or else for the preseruation of them both; and all such parts without doubt, are truly principall. And in the first Chapter of the xiiii. Booke de vsu partium; Nature hath a three-folde scope in the structure of the parts of Mans body. The first is of those which are necessary for life; and such parts are called Principall, as the Braine, the Heart, and the Liuer, &c. We wil ther∣fore define a Principall part to be that which is absolutely necessary for the preseruation of the whole indiuiduum or particular Man.

Argenterius, who in a humor of contradicting Galen, opposeth himselfe vnto him, reie∣cteth this definition; because if a principall part be defined by necessity, the Stomacke, the Loynes, the Spleene, the Bladder and the Kidneyes, will all fall into the reckoning of prin∣cipall parts. For the action of the Stomacke, is necessarie also for life. The motion of the Lunges we cannot misse, no not for a moment of time; the interception of the Vrine is mortall; and therefore the excretion or auoyding thereof, which is accomplished by the Kidneyes and the Bladder is necessary. But he seemeth to me not to haue attained to the thorough vnderstanding of Galens mind: for there is a double necessity of the parts, one ab∣solute for the preseruation of the indiuiduum, another not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, simply and abso∣lutely, but secundum quid, or hauing reference to the former. The first maketh a part prin∣cipall, as the Braine, the Heart, and the Liuer: the second kinde of necessity is but relatiue or collaterall, by which some parts owe obseruance to the principall, as necessary seruitors vnto them. For example: What necessary and immediate offices do the Lungs, the Kid∣neyes, the Bladder, and the Spleene performe to the arme, the legge, or the stomacke? But the heart giueth them life, the Liuer affoordeth nourishment, and the Braine supplieth them with sence and motion.

This may seeme somewhat obscure to those that are but Catechists in our Art, but by examples we shall make it sufficiently perspicuous. The Liuer is the onely Prince in the lower region or belly, being therein alone absolutely necessary, and at his owne cost, nou∣rishing the whole family of the body; all the other parts within his precinct are made for his vse. The stomack as a seruant ministreth meate vnto him, the bladder of Gaul purgeth away the Choller from that meate, the Spleene drayneth away the Melancholy iuice, and the Kidneyes the serous or whayie humor, all concurring to depure and cleanse it from ex∣crements to his hand. If therefore they be necessary, it is not for the preseruation of the whole Man, but because they be necessary Ministers to assist the Liuer in his worke. A∣gaine, the Heart sitteth in the middle Region as in his pallace, the Lungs, the Midriffe, and all the arteries attending him for his vse, whom he employeth in quickning the whole body;

the same may be saide of the braine. Wherefore the braine, the heart, and the liuer, are onely principall parts, because they alone are immediately and absolutely necessary for the preseruation of euery particular creature. Galen also answereth this cauill another way, on this manner. The action of the stomacke is not absolutely necessary, but only for the con∣tinuance and prorogation of life. Witnesse those Creatures which mew themselues vp all Winter, neuer eating, and so not vsing the action of the stomacke, albeit they liue nathelesse. Furthermore, nourishing Clisters do not ascend vnto the stomacke, yet they are sucked by the Meseraick Veynes, and transported vnto the Liuer, and so sustaine the body, as may be instanced in that malefactor, who after hee was taken from the Gallow, was found to be aliue, and a good while sustained by such Clisters, when it was not possi∣ble to get any thing into his stomacke. A Creature therefore may for a time liue without Chilification, which is the action of the stomacke, but not without sanguification, sayth Galen, which is the proper function of the Liuer.

That which is obtruded concerning the Lunges, is of no moment; for they worke ra∣ther for the commodity of the heart, then for the immediate maintenance of life. The hart might satisfie it selfe with aire attracted through the rough and smooth Arteries; but least the outward impurity thereof suddenly rushing into the Ventricles shold offend it, Nature hath cautelously set the Lunges betweene them, as a shop wherein the aire is broken and dulcified before it come vnto the heart. And thus much may suffice to satisfie the former obiection, and to euince that onely those partes are principall, which are absolutely and immediately necessary for the preseruation of life.

But there are others which oppose Galen to Galen, who in his first Chapter of his first Booke de Locis Affectis, affirmeth, that the heart onely is absolutely necessary for the life of the creature: his words are these, If the Creature bee neither nourished, nor haue sence or motion (which hapneth in such as lye within the earth) yet may it liue as long as the heart is not violated; but if the heart be defrauded of respiration, the Creature instantly perisheth. To this we answere: That in bloody and perfect creatures, the action of the braine and the Liuer, is absolutely necessary; but those creatures which liue so mewed vp in winter, are vnblou∣dy or without bloud, although it cannot be denied, that hystericall women, that is, such as haue violent fits of the Mother, do liue some good space without breathing, as we could instance in many, if it were not so ordinary, as that no man will deny it.

There is also another very elegant definition of a Principle, in the tenth Chapter of Galens sixt booke de Placitis, in these words; That is called a Principal part, which alloweth or affoordeth to the whole, either some faculty, or at least some matter. According to this defini∣tion also, there will be three principall parts. For that the Braine doth transmit the Ani∣mall faculty, and the Heart the Vitall, will be easily yeelded vnto vs. All the scruple is a∣bout the Liuer, because it seemeth not reasonable; that it should affoord to the particular parts, a naturall influent faculty, seeing euery part hath such an one bred, and seated in it selfe. For the time we let passe that Controuersie, it is sufficient for our present purpose, to prooue it a principall part, though it yeeld no faculty, if it yeeld a matter to the vvhole body, which no man in his right wits but will easily confesse, or let him but pricke his fin∣ger and he shall see it. Auicen Fen prima, doctrina 5. Cap. primo, defines that to be a principal part, which hath in it selfe the Originall or beginning of the first and chiefe faculties of the body; or wherein the power or efficacy of those faculties, by which the body is dispersed or gouerned, doth as in his chiefe seate especially reside and manifest it selfe. Some of the late Writers haue defined a principall part to bee that, which out of it selfe exhibiteth and communicateth to other parts, some actiue Instrument; as for instance, a Spirit. So that which of all these definitions we accept of, it will still remaine that there are three princi∣pall parts, the Braine, the Heart, and the Liuer. For if we respect Necessity, these only are absolutely necessary; if the originall of the faculties, in the Braine resideth and shineth the animall, the vitall in the heart, and the naturall in the Liuer; if the Instruments, then from the Braine floweth the animall spirits by the sinnewes, the vitall from the heart by the arteries, the naturall from the Liuer by the veins; and by those passages are all diffused from their fountaines in the whole body.

Galen in his Booke de Arte parua, addeth to the principall partes a fourth, to wit, the Testicles: not in respect to the indiuiduum or particular creature, but because they are of absolute necessity for the conseruation of the kinde, and production of encrease. For the Testicles indeede do not make allowance to the whole body of any matter, or facultie, or

spirit, but only of a quality, together with a subtile and thin breath or aire, from which the flesh hath a ranke taste of the seede, and the bodye a strength or farther ability in the per∣formance of his actions.

QVEST. IIII. Which of all the principall Parts is the most Noble.

HAuing praemised this disputation concerning the number of the prin∣cipall parts, it remaineth (because wee would haue nothing wanting which may giue satisfaction to such as desire it) that we inquire which of all the principall parts is worthily to be preferred aboue the rest. Galen in his first Booke de semine, preferreth the testicles to the heart; where he saith, The Heart is indeede the author of liuing; but the Testi∣cles are they which adde a betternesse or farther degree of perfection to the life, because if they be taken away, the iollity and courage of the Creature is extinguished; the Male followeth not his Female, the Veynes loose their latitude, and become sunke & narrow; the Pulse abateth of his strength, and becomes weake, dull, and languishing; the skin is pilde and bare, whereupon such men are called Glabriones; and in a word, all virili∣ty or manhoode vanisheth away. Galen addeth. The Testicles are another Fountaine or Well-spring of in-bred heate; the Feu-place or Fire-hearth, where the Lares or houshold-Gods of the body, do solace and disport themselues: from hence the whole body recey∣ueth an encrease of heate, and by that meanes not onely foecundity, but also a great alte∣ration of the temper, the habite, the proper substance, yea and of the manners themselues: so that to say true, their power is very great, and almost incredible, then especially knowne when it is wanting, as we may obserue in Eunuches.

Wherefore as to be and liue well, is more excellent then simply to liue and haue an I∣dle and sluggish existence, so the Instrument of the former which is the Testicles, is more excellent then that of the latter, which is the heart. A probable but a sophisticall argu∣ment. True it is, that which giueth better life, if it giue life also, is more excellent then that which giueth life onely: but the testicles do not giue life at all, the creature can liue with∣out them; they adde indeed a perfection, not to life, that is, to the concreate as we say, but to liuing, that is, to the abstract; so do the eyes, so do other parts, without which a Man should liue, but in liuing should be miserable: the heart therefore giueth the substance, the testicles exhibite but an additament, which may be away, albeit it bee with notable detri∣ment; detriment I say, not of that which the heart giueth, which is the substance; but of that which themselues affoord, which is a complement. Now that a substance is of more excellence then a complement no Man will deny, the heart therefore is more noble then the testicles. But the heart hath a greater concurrent in this plea of honour, which is the braine.

The Peripatetikes and Aristotle their Prince, together with the whole family almost of the Stoickes, especially Chrysippus, do giue the preheminence to the heart, as well because it is seated in the middest, which is the place of honour; as also because it is a liuing and a∣bundant Fountaine of Natiue heate; and finally, because it is the speciall habitation of the soule; for euen Hippocrates himselfe, the Oracle of Physicke, in his booke de Corde, placeth the soule in the left ventricle of the heart; and hence it is, that they call the heart 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth Empire or rule comming from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Command.

But all this notwithstanding, we are enforced to yeelde the superiority to the braine, because his functions are more diuine and more noble then those of the heart. For exam∣ple: All sence and voluntary motion proceede from it, the habitation it is of Wisedome, the Shrine of Memory, Iudgement and Discourse, which are the prerogatiues of Man a∣boue all other Creatures. This is the Prince of the Family, and the head is the head of the tribe, all other parts are but attendants (though some serue in more honourable place then others,) and owe homage vnto it, yea all were created onely for his vse and behoofe. For the braine being the seate of the intelligible or vnderstanding faculty, it was requisite first, that it should be supplied with phantasmes or representations; these representations could not be exhibited and represented to the vnderstanding, but by the ministerie of the outward sences. For it is a rule in Philosophy, Nihil est in intellectu quod nō prius fuit in sen∣su. There is nothing in the vnderstanding or intellect, which is not first in the sence. It was necessary therefore, that the sences should be created for the intellect. Furthermore, the

sences could not haue beene perfect vnlesse the Creature could haue moued locally to ga∣ther his phantasmes out of diuers obiects, as the Bee flyeth from one flower to another to gather hony; and therefore Nature ordained the organs or instruments of motion, the muscles, the tendons, and the nerues. These (vnlesse wee should haue crawled vppon the earth like wormes) did necessarily require props and supporters to confirme and establish them, whereupon the bones and the gristles were ordained; and ligaments also to knit and swathe them together: now all of them stand in neede of perpetuall influence, of heate to quicken them, and of nourishment to sustaine them; both which are supplied, the former from the Heart by the arteries, the latter from the Liuer by the veines: so that truth to say, there was no other end of the Creation of all the parts and powers of the body, but onely for the vse and behoofe of the Braine.

It will be obiected, that the braine cannot accomplish his functions without the spi∣rits of the heart, and the influence of his heate; I answere, that that is an inuincible argu∣ment of the soueraignty of the Brain; for the end for which a thing is ordained, is more no∣ble then the thing ordained for that end; the life therefore and the heart are but handmaids to the Braine. We will adde also this argument, which happely will seeme not incompe∣tent: The Braine giueth figure vnto the whole body; for the head was made onely for the Brayne; how Hippocrates sayth that the nature of all the rest of the bones dependeth vpon the magnitude of the head: not that all the bones deriue their originall from the head; but because it behooued that they should bee all proportionably answerable to the bones to which they are articulated, as the legges to the thighes, the thighes to the haunches, the haunches to the holy bone, the holy bone to the spondles or racke bones, the racke bones to the marrow of the backe, and that to the braine.

For satisfaction to the arguments before vrged by the Peripatetians and the Stoicks, we say. That the Etymon or deriuation of the name of the heart, is but friuolous & not worthy the standing vpon. For the scite of the heart in the middest, it doeth weigh tantundem, as much as nothing; neither indeede is the ground of it true: for of the whole body the nauel is the Center; and for the trunke or bulke, who euer said (that was an Anatomist) the heart was in the middest of it? But if wee will draw an argument of dignity from the scituation, then will the true superiority fall to the Braine, because it is placed vppermost, as the fire a∣boue the inferiour elements; the highest heauen the seate of the blessed soules aboue the subiected orbes; for to be placed aboue, is high superiority and praeeminence; to be thrust downe below, betokeneth base subiection and inferiority. As for that place of Hippocra∣tes, where he placeth the soule in the left ventricle of the heart, either he speaketh to the capacity of the vulgar, or else by the soule he meaneth the heate, as happely wee shall haue more occasion to shew hereafter. We conclude therefore, that of the principall parts, the first place belongeth to the Braine, the next to the Heart, the last to the Liuer. Againe, in the Oeconomie or order of the parts, this rule is obserued; that those which are first in or∣der of nature, are last in dignity and excellencie: so the Infant first liueth the life of a plant, then like a beast it mooueth and becommeth sensible; finally, it receiueth it's perfection when it is indued with the reasonable soule; as hauing then the last hand and consumma∣tion from the Creator, when he setteth his stampe or image vpon it.

Galen in the last Chapter of the seauenth booke of his Method, compareth the dignity and necessity of the three principall parts one with another in these wordes. The dignity of the Heart is very great, and in sicke patients his action and the strength of it, of absolute neces∣sity; the Brayne is of equall moment for the preseruation of life, yet the strength of his actions is not so immediately necessary in those that are diseased for their recouery: the action of the Liuer is as necessary as eyther of them for the maintenance of the particular parts, but yet for present & immediate sustentation of life, it is not so instantly necessary as both the former. To conclude this question, there is a threefold principle; one of Beginning, another of Dignity, a third of Necessity. The parenchyma or flesh of the Liuer is the originall principle; the Braine is the most noble principle; and the Heart of most necessity; yet they all haue such a mutuall connexion and conspiration, that each needeth others assistance, and if one of them decay the rest doe forthwith perish. Euen as in a wel gouerned Citty or Common-wealth there is a wise Senate to guide it, a stout and valorous strength of souldiours to defend and re∣deeme it; and an infinite multiplicity of trades and occupations to maintaine and support it; all which though they be distinguished in offices and place, doe yet consent in one, and conspire together for their mutuall preseruation. And this conspiration Galen expresseth

to the life, in his booke deformatione foetus, and the fift chap. thus: When the Heart is depri∣ued of respiration it ceaseth to moue, & immediately death ensueth; now it is depriued of respi∣ration when the nerues (which come from the Brayne) are either cut, or obstructed, or intercepted. As therefore the Heart needeth the helpe of the Braine, and being forsaken by it, maketh a diuorce betweene the soule and the body; so it also maketh retribution to the Brain, sup∣plying it with spirits of life, out of which the Animall spirits of the Braine are extracted; and the Liuer though it lye below, yet it yeeldeth matter to them both, wherof and where∣by their spirits are made and sustained.

But against this doctrine of the consent of these principall parts, there is a notable place of Galens, in the fourth chapter of his second booke de placitis, which needeth to bee clea∣red before we fall from this discourse; for hee sayeth: As Pulsation and voluntary motion be∣long to diuers kindes of motion; so neyther of those principles needeth the helpe one of another. Which place we interpret thus: that the hart doth not transmit the Animal faculty to the braine, nor the braine the faculty of Pulsation to the heart, because the temper and formes of the faculties are diuers; and therefore the heart conferreth nothing to the Idea or forme of voluntarie motion, neither the braine to the power of pulsation; yet hence it must not be inferred, that the braine needeth not the help of the heart, or on the contrary the heart of the braine: and thus much of the definition, and number, and precedency of the princi∣parts.

QVEST. V. Of similar and dissimilar parts, and first of the number of them.

THE nature and number of the Similar parts because they are much contro∣uerted, we will examine for their sakes, who are not so well exercised in these schoole poynts; that if they be not able to draw out of the fountaines them∣selues, they may dip their vessels in this shallow foord of ours, to satisfie their thirsty minds.

Some there bee that contend, that there are no similar parts at all, because the most simple are not voide of composition; and they alledge Galens authority for it; who in the eight chapter of his first booke de Elementis, sayth: That the simple parts are made of humors, humors of Aliments, Aliments of Elements. And in his first booke de semine. All parts are generated of seede and bloud. But the answere to this is easie and obuious; for parts are cal∣led similar, not because they are exquisitly simple and incompounded, but because they cannot bee diuided into Parts of diuers kindes, neither yet are compounded of any other Parts, though of diuers substances. So the Philosopher calleth the Elements simple bo∣dies, because they are not compounded of other bodies, although they consist of matter and forme. Yea the very soule of man is not in this sence truely simple, nor yet the Angelicall substance; for if they were, they should be impatible: and indeede nothing is truely simple but God himselfe; but we of purpose giue ouer this mysterie before wee enter into it, be∣cause euery one is not a fit auditor of this kinde of Philosophy. The number of the simi∣lar particles concerneth vs at this time more, wherein there is great heate and contention of opinions. Galen in his commentaries vppon Hippocrates booke de natura hominis num∣breth seauen: Bones, Gristles, Ligaments, Membranes, Fibres, Fat and Flesh. And where∣as there is a threefold kind of flesh, one of the muskles, which is indeed true flesh; another of the entrals which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the last of the particular parts; he accounteth them all similar, for so he speaketh in the sixt chapter of his first booke de naturalibus facul∣tatibus. Among the similar partes are to bee accounted the flesh of the Liuer, the Spleene, the Kidneyes, the Lungs, and the Heart; as also the Coates of the Stomacke and the Guts, and the proper body of the Braine. For if from all of these you shall exempt or take away, either re∣ally or in your imagination, the veines, the arteries, and the nerues; the body which re∣mayneth will be simple and elementary. In the sixt chapter of the first booke de Elementis, he addeth to the former seauen, Sinewes, Marrow, Nayles and Haire. In his booke de inae∣quali intemperie, Tendons and Skin. In his booke de differentijs morborum: and in the se∣cond booke de Elementis, he addeth Veines and Arteries. So that according to Galen in the places alleadged, if wee summe vp the similar parts, they will arise to foureteene: Bones, Gristles, Ligaments, Membranes, Fibres, Nerues, Arteries, Veines, Flesh, Skin, Fatte, Marrow, Nailes and Haires.

Many accuse Galen of leuitie and forgetfulnesse, because in diuers places hee calleth veines, arteries, and nerues similar parts; & yet in his booke de inaequali intemperie, hee ac∣counteth them dissimilar and organicall. Argenterius answeres for him; that in a similar part, he hath a double respect to their matter and their form; and wheras he calleth nerues, veines, and arteries, similar bodies, he doth it with respect to their matter, which is simple and vniforme; where he calleth them organicall, he hath respect to their forme and figure, which is round and more or lesse hollow: but Argenterius by this answere, rather betray∣eth then redeemeth his maister: for the matter of the veines, nerues, and arteries, is not v∣niforme. Galen in his booke de placitis, and de vsupartium, teacheth that nerues are with∣inward, soft and marrowy; outward, membranous; as also the bodyes of arteryes are wo∣uen of membranes and fibres.

The common and vulgar answere for Galen, we rather approue, which is after this sort. There are two kinds of similar parts, some are so in trueth as bones, gristles &c. others simi∣lar to the iudgement of the eye; such are veines, arteryes, and nerues; because at the first view when we cast our eye vpon them, we perceiue an vniformity in their substance. But some man will vrge farther, that euen in the iudgement of the eye those three vessels aboue named are not simple but compounded; for our eye bewrayeth the inside of the nerue to bee medullous, and the out-side membranous. And Galen in the sixt chapter of his first booke de naturalibus facultatibus, sayth: That similar particles are by no other meanes to bee di∣scerned, but by dissection and autopsia; that is, by the eye of the Anatomist. This scruple Mon∣tanus thus remoueth: there is, sayth he, a double Anatomy, one most exquisite and artifici∣all, another more rude according to the times wherein Hippocrates, Diocles, and Erasistratus liued, when the Art was in her infancy: and to these times, the nerues, veines, and arteries, seemed at the first sight similar parts, albeit since, as the Art hath gathered strength, and men growne more occulate priers into the nature and frame of the body, there hath beene some difference discerned.

It will be further obiected, that there are more similar parts then Galen and the Schoole of Physitians haue described. For the marrow or substance of the braine, the Cristalline humor of the eye, the pith of the backe, as also the other humors of the eye are truly, and in the nicest construction similar parts. We may answere, that all these are indeed truly similar, but yet they all concurre to the frame of one part; but Galen spake onelie of those similars, of which as of sensible and common Elements, many dissimilars were compoun∣ded.

Quest. 6. Whether a similar part may be called Organicall; and whether the acti∣ons belong to the similar Parts, or to the Organicall.

ACcording to the Doctrine of Aristotle and Galen, a dissimilar and an or∣ganicall part are not distinguished. But because according to the same Galen, the essence of an Organicall part consisteth onely in the confor∣mation, that is, a conuenient figure, magnitude, number and scituati∣on, all which are found also in similar partes; I am easily perswaded to be of the opinion of some of the late Writers, who thinke that similar particles, may also be called organicall, and therefore that the dissimilar is better opposed to a similar, and to an organical a rude & vnformed part. Neither do I think that Galen was heereof ignorant; but because the variety of composition, and the neatnesse of the Figure was more conspicuous in those that are dissimilar (the similar being vniforme) hee pleased to call them absolutely and by an excellence, organicall. So the Philosopher in his first Booke de ortu & interitu, calleth the head, the chest, and the belly, principall-Organs, be∣cause the most irresolute Scepticke, cannot but acknowledge their action and diuerse com∣position.

Some vntie this knot on this manner. An organicall part is to be considered either as it is figurated, or as it performeth some organicall action. In the first respect, almost all si∣milar parts are organicall; for euen the bones haue a proper figure, magnitude, number & scite. In the second onely dissimilar, because these alone do performe organicall actions. For who will affirme, that in a bone there is any action organicall? It is true, that their Fi∣gure, magnitude, and scite are of good vse, but they performe no action. Whereas the Veine and the Muscle, although of all Organs they are the most simple, do performe each

of them a manifest organicall action; the one distributing and dispersing the blood, the o∣ther accomplishing voluntary motion. But that these things may be more manifest, and descend deeper into the capacity of those that are but initiated, it shall not be amis to recal them againe to the ballance, and weigh them ouer more precisely.

Galen in the sixt Chapter of the first Booke of his Method, and in his Booke de inaequali intemperie, defineth an Organ to be that part of the creature which can perform a perfect, that is, a proper action. More fully it may be defined thus. A Part which onely produceth an action proper and peculiar to it selfe; so a Muscle and an Eye may be called Organes, because only the Muscle mooueth, the Eye onely seeth. As for the similar parts, their action is perfect indeede, but common, not proper or peculiar to themselues, to wit, Nutrition; & there∣fore they cannot properly be called Organs. Now that nutrition is a similar, and not Or∣ganicall actiō, it appeareth by both their definitions. That action is said to be similar, which is commenced or begun onely by the temper of the part, and by the same perfected, and is beside wholly and perfectly wrought by the least portion of the part, as well as by the whol. That Nutrition is of that nature, it is so manifest, as it needeth no demonstration; for eue∣ry part or portion of a Bone, draweth, retaineth, boyleth the Aliment; and beside expelleth that which is superfluous; the reason is, because euery part of a bone is a bone, and hath the forme and nature of the whole bone: this forme is called temperies or the temper, wher∣fore onely from the temper proceedeth the original and perfection of nutrition. Againe, Flesh (as Galen saith in the 9. Chapter of the first booke de vsu partium) is flesh onely through his temper, and a Nerue is a Nerue by his temper. And in the first booke de Naturalibus facul∣tatibus, He that endeuoureth to preserue the action of the similar parts, it is necessary that he pre∣serue their temper. So that it is manifest, that Nutrition accordeth with the definition of a similar action. Now how repugnant it is to the definition of an organicall action, it remai∣neth that we shew. That is called an organicall action, which neither is begun, nor absol∣ued or perfected by the temper alone, but requireth to his integrity and perfection the whole instrument. So vision which is the proper action of the eye, is not accomplished by the Christalline humour alone, nor alone by the opticke nerue, or the coates of the eye, but by all togither. Neyther is the forme of this organicall action the temper, but the lau∣dable conformation of the whole instrument. The eye seeth not, the hand handleth not, the foote goeth not forwarde, the muskle mooueth not onely by the temper; but because the organs are thus or thus disposed or framed.

Here some ouertaken with irresolution, because of the obscurity of the question, doe sweate and contend to proue, that all actions belong to the similar parts and proceed from them, none from the organicall. And they alledge the authority of Galen for their war∣rant; who in the second chapter of the seauenth booke of his Method, and the third chap∣ter of the sixt booke de locis affectis, and in his booke de optimo corporis habitu; sayth, That in euery organ there is one particle similar, which is the principall cause of the organicall action, and that the rest are onely assistant, conferring some vse but no action. So vision proceedeth from the Christalline humour, sanguification from the parenchyma of the Liuer, voluntary moti∣on from the flesh of the muskle; but the coates of the eye, the muskles, the nerues, the two humours, doe eyther make the sight more perfect, or onely conserue it. Moreouer, in the fift chapter of his booke de constitutione artis; hee writeth that the actions are primarily and perse, that is, of it selfe, from the similar part; and secondarily and by accident, from the orga∣nical. Adde hereto that the functions doe flowe from the faculties, the faculties from the temperament; now the temper is the forme of the similar part, not of the organicall: and in the fift booke de locis affectis, he sayth: That the very essence of al the faculties doeth consist in the temper. In the sixt booke de locis affectis: he sayth, that the actions doe flowe from the proper and peculiar essence of the parts not from the position: for if the Heart or the Lyuer should change their place, yet would they performe the actions they doe in the places wherin now they are. And in the tenth booke of his Method, speaking of a cold bath: Those that are Hectical, that is, in a consuming and lingring ague, are easily offended by the occursion or touch of cold water or ayer, because theyr solid and similar parts, (they being more neare the threds) are bare and na∣ked, by which all the actions of lyuing creatures are performed. Aristotle also is of opinion that all sence commeth from the similar parts.

This their deuice I must needs say is probable, but yet they trouble the pure fountain of Galens Philosophy. It is true that he acknowledgeth in euery perfect organ one similar particle, which is the principall cause of the action, but yet hee neuer meant to referre the

cause of the perfect action onely to the temper of that particle: so hee acknowledgeth the temper of the Christalline humor, to be the efficient cause of vision or sight, together with his purity, smoothnesse, and scituation, which are all organicall. For if the position of the Christalline humor be changed, if it be drowned too deep in the glassy humour, although the temper of it remaine neuerso exquisite, yet the vision cannot bee perfect. In a word therefore I answere, that the originall of the action dependeth vpon the similar part and his temper, but the perfection of the action followeth the frame of the whole organ. And this Galen teacheth in the sixt chapter of his book de differentijs morborum, and in his book de optima corpor is constitutione, where he willeth and resolueth, that the actions doe first of all and originally, issue from the similar particles, but their accomplishment and perfection depen∣deth vpon the frame of the whole organ.

Whether the Spermaticall parts be generated of seede. QVEST. VII.

MAuing thus handled the distinction of the parts, & the natures of them all; it remayneth that we entreat of those parts which are called Spermaticall. concerning which, there are three questions among the rest most notable: Whether they be immediately made of the seede; whether they can grow together againe or bee restored; and whether they bee hotter then the san∣guine or bloudy parts or no; all which we will dispute in order. The first question is hard to be determined, and therefore we must be constrayned to take our rise a little higher, for that the nature of seede which is intangled in many folds of difficulties, must first be vnfol∣ded: notwithstanding, because wee shall haue fitter oportunity in the booke of the gene∣ration of man, to search more narrowly into the mysteries of this secret, wee will content our selues in this place briefly to run ouer those things which shal most concerne the mat∣ter we haue in hand.

It is agreed vpon betweene the Physitians and the Peripatecians, that seede is a Principle of generation. But the Philosophers doe acknowledge it onely to be a formall and effici∣ent Principle, the Physitians both a formall and a materiall; formall, by reason of his spi∣rits; materiall by reason of his body. The Physitians therefore doe determine, that the spermaticall parts are generated out of the crassament or thicke substance of the seede, the Peripateticks, onely out of the bloud. This latter opinion is not without his patrons and abettors, and beside, supporteth it selfe by these arguments. If the Spermaticall parts were made of the seede as of a materiall principle: then the actiue and the passiue, the act and the power; the mouer and that which is moued; the matter and the forme; the maker and the thing made should be the same; which true and solid Philosophy will not admit. A∣gaine, according to Aristotle in the second booke of his Physickes; the Artizane is neuer a part of his owne workmanship; the seede is the artizane. Galen calleth it Phidias, who was an excellent Statuarie, and made among other peeces Mineruas statue of Iuory 26. cu∣bits high &c. And in the 20. chapter of the first book de generatione Animalium; The seed is no part of the Infant that is made, sayth the Philosopher; no more then the Carpenter is a part of the woode which hee heweth: neyther is there any part of the art of the artificer in that which is effected; but onely by his labour through motion, there ariseth in the mat∣ter a forme and a shape. Moreouer, it is an axiome of Physicke, That wee are nourished by those things whereof we are formed, framed, and do consist; but all the parts of man are nou∣rished with blood, and therefore they are all generated of blood also.

Furthermore, if the principall parts, the Heart and the Liuer bee made of blood (for their substance is fleshy, and Hippocrates calleth them both fleshy Entrals) why is it not so with the other parts which al men admit and consent to be made and perfected after them? Adde heereto, that if the seede of the Male be both the efficient, and the matter of the In∣fant, there is no reason but the male may alone beget an infant in himselfe: shall the Na∣ture of the seede be idle and at rest, which all Philosophers with one consent doe agree, is alwayes actiue and operatiue? Finally, is it possible that so small a moment of seede, as or∣dinarily sufficeth for the generation of Man, should bee sufficient for the delineation of so many hundreds, nay thousands of Bones, Gristles, Ligaments, Arteries, Nerues, Veynes, Membranes, &c? Wherefore, the seede hath not the nature of a materiall, but onely of an

efficient cause of mans generation.

There are a••so two places in Galen, which seeme to fauour the opinion of the Peripate∣tikes. The first, is in the second Booke De Naturalibus Facultatibus, where hee sayth, The Seede is an ••ffectiue Principle of the Creature, for the materiall is the Menstruall Blood. The other in the third Chapter of the same Booke, where he speaketh verie plainly. There is great difference (saith he) betweene the workemanship of Phydias, and of Nature. For Phydi∣as of waxe can neuer make Iuory and Gold, but Nature keepeth not the olde forme of any matter, generating of bloud bloudlesse parts. As for example, Bones, Gristles, Nerues, Veines, Arteries, all bloudlesse, yet made of bloud.

But the trueth is, that Galen was of another minde, to wit, that all the Spermaticall parts were made of seede, as appeareth in his Bookes de Semine, where hee inueyeth pur∣posely against Aristotle concerning this matter, teaching that the seede is both the efficient and the materiall cause of their generation. The efficient, in respect of the Spirites; the matter in respect of the Crassament of it. And indeede, that admirable and vnimitable in∣genie or discourse of Hippocrates, did first bring this light into the worlde, as appeareth in his Bookes De Natura pueri de Principijs, and the fourth De Morbis. And Aristotle him∣selfe is constrained to confesse as much in the first Booke of his Physickes, and in his Bookes De gener: Animalium, where he sayth, that some parts are made onely of an Ali∣mentarie excrement, some of an Alimentarie and a Seminall together. Besides, not to stand vpon authorities, wee haue waight of Reason to prooue it. The seede of Man, is white, froathie, and thicke, and when it is cast into the Wombe, if Conception fol∣low, it is retained; for out of hand the mouth of the Wombe is so exquisitelie closed, that a needle cannot finde entrance without offence.

This all Women know full well; and the Musicall Huswife in Hippocrates, when shee knew that the seede she had receyued came not away, on the seauenth day with a La vaito I trow, or some such violent friske, shee auoyded her Conception▪ For, if the substance of seede be retained in the Wombe, it must of necessitie bee resolued into nothing, or something must be made of it; or else (as the Peripatetikes dreame) it must bee dissolued into winde and vapours. The first, no Philosopher will assent vnto; for, as nothing is made of nothing, so that which is something, cannot vanish into nothing. The last, Ga∣len disprooueth by this argument, Because when the seede is conceyued, the Wombe is contracted, and the seede narrowly embraced on euery side, so that there is no place lefte for any distending winde: adde heereto, that if the seede were dissolued into winde, the wombe beeing distended, would be afflicted with exquisite torments; for of one part of earth, are made ten of water, and of one of water, ten of aire.

It remaineth therefore, that of the Crassament of the seede, some parts must neces∣sarily be framed, and those are they which are called spermatical, Bones, Gristles, Nerues, Veynes, Arteries, Membranes, &c. And this is prooued by theyr whitenesse, and by the thicknesse, and the lentor or sliminesse of their substance.

Moreouer, that the Spermaticall parts are made of seede, wee may thus demonstrate. Bones, Cartilages or Gristles, Membranes and Ligaments, are bloudlesse and white, and therefore they cannot be made of blood immediately, as flesh; but of bloud chaunged, whitened, and incrassated, and then what differeth it from seede? Nature therefore should bee very ydle, if shee should euacuate and expell a matter fyt for the generation of those parts, and (as if shee had forgot her selfe) should endeauor to bring blood into that forme of which she had at the fyrst hand seed enough.

To these demonstrations of Galen (at which Argenterius like a Detractor scoffeth) we will adde other Reasons. VVhen the seede is iniected into the bosome of the wombe, the wombe is instantly contracted, and the plasticall or forming Facultie thereof, ray∣seth vppe the sleeping power of the seede; and then his spirites and natiue heate, com∣mence theyr action. Now this action thus instantly begunne, woorketh vppon some∣what: not vppon bloude, because yet there is no confluence of it to the part. For who will say, That in Coition there is a double secretion, one of seede, another of bloud at one and the same time? The Peripatetike himselfe will not yeelde to such a So∣lecisme in nature; but we know, that that which is auoyded in the acte of generation, is seede, and not blood.

It is therefore the Crassament of the seede vpon which the Spirits doe worke, in which they haue their aboade as in their proportionable subiect; this they turne and tosse

on euery side; the dissimilar parts of it they separate, framing of the thicker bones & gri∣stles, of the slimy Membranes and vessels; all which, being scored out as the rude and first draught of a picture, wherein are nothing but the maister lines; the seuenth day the blood floweth vnto it, to make the Parenchymata or flesh of the entrals, and to fill vp the vacant distances of the Fibres. If therefore in the very conception, no bloud doe flow from the Veynes of the wombe vnto the masse of seede conceiued, how can wee imagine, that the first delineation of the parts, is made of blood? Againe, the blood wherewith the infant is nourished, and of which the Parenchymata are made, must passe by veynes, veynes I say, not of the mother, for then it would encompasse the seede onely, not insinuate it selfe into the parts of it; but of the infant; and for this purpose is the vmbilicall veine formed, called therefore the Nurse or Foster veine, so that this Veine must of necessity bee made before the blood can come vnto the seede; and of blood it is not made, because there is yet no af∣fluence of it. If you shall say, that blood is powred into the capacity of the womb by the small veines of the wombe: I aske why is the Infant not immediately nourished by the same veines? What neede was there that any vmbilicall veine should be formed? Finally, another demonstration that the parts are made of seede may be on this manner. The seede of the male and female is of one nature, colour and manner of generation, they haue both the same vessels of preparation, concoction and eiaculation, onely they are distinguished in perfection, for that the seede of the male is hotter and better laboured. Now all men do acknowledge, that the seede of the Female is the materiall principle of the parts; why then do they deny it to the crassament or substance of the seede of the male? Wee there∣fore conclude and determine, that both seedes are not onely efficient but materiall Prin∣ciples of the spermaticall parts.

But that we may leaue no enemies at our backes to interrupt our victory as wee gaine the field before vs, let vs make answere to such arguments as are brought against the truth of this assertion. And first for Galen: where hee writeth, that the spermaticall partes are made of blood, he doth not vnderstand an immediate generation, that is, that the Bones are made immediately of red blood, as is the flesh; but of blood passed through diuers al∣terations and mutations of dealbation and incrassation. And what I pray you is this, but to say they are made of seede?

To the first argument I answere thus. There are two things to be considered in the seed, the Spirit and the Body. In respect of the Spirit, Aristotle in his first Booke de partibus A∣nimalium saith, the seede is the nature, the principle, and the efficient of the thing begotten; and Galen in his second Book de Semine, calleth it Formator faetus, the former of the Infant. In respect of the Crassament or body, it is called a material & passiue principle, so that the same part of the seed shal not be the Actiue & Passiue principle, the act and the power, the moouer and the mooued, the matter and the forme as the Peripatetiks would perswade vs it must be, if that opinion were true. And Auerrhoes giueth an instance how these respects may be separated, so that the same thing may become the moouer and the mooued in di∣uers considerations. For example: In a stone, the grauity or weight mooueth downward, and the stone is mooued; so in the seede, the spirit is the moouer, and that which is moued is the Crassament or substance.

In those things that are done by Art, wee confesse the Artizane is no part of his owne workemanship; but in naturall things there is not the like reason. And this Aristotle teach∣eth in the 5. Chapter of his Booke de Spiratione. There is a difference (saith hee) betwixt Art and Nature, for Art vseth heate onely as an Instrument; but Nature vseth it both as an Instrument, and as a matter. For the fire which is vsed by the Artist to his worke, is not a part of the worke it selfe; but the heate, which is in nature, is diffused thorough the sub∣stance of that she intendeth to accomplish. Some Learned men make a two-fold kinde of Instrument, Wherewith and Wherein. The Instrument Wherewith, remaineth not in the part that is formed: but that wherein remaineth, as being the subiect of the forming faculty, o∣therwise there should be a formall transition, or transition of the forme, out of one subiect into another. For the forming faculty should leaue his proper subiect, that is, the seede, & transport it selfe into the blood.

To the third; we do not deny that Bones and Spermatical parts are norished by blood, but that blood hath gotten and acquired vnto it selfe the nature of seede, in thickenesse, sli∣minesse, and whitenesse. Or say thus. The blood is the remote aliment of the spermaticall parts, and the seede or something like seede the immediate. To the fourth, the Parenchy∣mata

or flesh of the principall parts, are indeede generated of bloode; but their first foun∣dations had their originall from seede. The Warpe is seede, the Woose is blood. To the fift. The Male alone cannot generate in himself, although he haue both Principles in him, Efficient and Materiall, because he hath no fit place for conception, nourishment, and pre∣seruation of the Infant, yet therefore his seede cannot well be saide to be idle; for that is idle, which when it may or can, yet doth not work; but in the male it neither may nor can, because he hath not a field to sow his seed in; & the seed that lyeth in the garner, cannot be saide to be doted, because it groweth not; but if it bee put into the ground, then we know it is doted if it do not sprout.

The last reason Argenterius makes great account of, for he taketh it to bee beyond cre∣dance, that all the spermaticall parts should bee made of so small a quantity of seede; and therefore that he might be absurd alone, against all consent of antiquity he sayth, that no parts are made of seede. But truth is, that in this there is nothing admirable, but as all the workes of God are iustly to be admired. Shall we see a Spider weaue out of her womb a web a hundred times as long as her selfe, her selfe not at all lessened, and shall we thinke that Nature cannot draw as fine a thred, and after by addition of competent matter, en∣large the dimensions thereof? But let vs returne to Argenterius, and see how Clark-like he disputeth against Galen in this point. It is not possible (saith hee) that so many Bones, Gristles, Membranes, Vessels, &c. should be all formed of so little seede, and therefore none of them are made of seed. A light and vaine argument, drawne from the weaknesse of his owne vnderstanding. Doth he imagine thinke we, that the geniture conceyued & deli∣neated the seuenth day, is by that time grown into farther dimensions then the seed which issued from both the Parents was of? Out of doubt he was not diligent in viewing abort∣ments. For we dare confidently and religiously auouch, that the first moneth the Embryo although articulated, is no bigger then halfe the thumbe, yea we haue seene it at xi. weeks not aboue an inch and a halfe long, and of the thickenesse of a good quill, though all the parts (euen of generation) were manifestly to be seene and distinguished. If any man shal call the credit of our asseueration into question, let him heare Aristotle Probl. 36. sect. 1. & 7. de Historia Animalium, where he auoucheth, If a Male Infant of forty dayes growth, be put into any other thing, it will fall asunder: but if it be cast into cold water, it gathereth together, and abideth compassed as it were with a Membrane, which being broken, the Infant appeareth in the magnitude of a great Ant or Pismire, and the Members of his Body may be discerned. What will Argenterius say to this? Is not the seede of greater quantity then a great Pismire? Let him remember Aristotles Philosophy, That in principles there is great perfection, litle quantity but abundant vertue. A small Acorne into how vast an Oake will it grow? The nourishment onely is from the earth: the extent of the parts from the vertue of the seede. But if hee will not beleeue Aristotle; as scarsely authenticall in Anatomy, wee will cite him before the Tribunall of truth it selfe, that is, of Hippocrates, who in his Booke de Prin∣cipijs affirmeth the very same. The Geniture in seauen dayes hath whatsoeuer it ought to haue. For common and prostituted Strumpets, when they finde they haue conceiued, they vndo it with∣in their owne bodyes by wicked meanes, and so there falleth from them as it were a flesh. Which flesh if it be cast into cold water, and diligently obserued, you shal in it perceyue all the members, the place of the eyes, eares, hands, fingers, thighes, feete, toes, and the secret parts. If therefore in the first seuen daies the infant be so small, why seemeth this vnreasonable, that of the seede at once cast into the wombe, the first threds and foundations of the spermatical parts should be formed, which afterward by the continuall apposition and assimulation of Ali∣ment, receiue their increment and perfection?

We conclude therefore, that all the spermaticall partes are generated of the Crassa∣ment or body of the seede, as of a materiall Principle. And this Crassament, although it seeme at the first view homogeniall, that is, hauing al parts of it alike, yet notwithstanding containeth in it parts of vnlike natures; thinner, thicker, fatter, flimier, some fyt for con∣cretion or gathering together; others for tension and diffusion, all which are separated by the spirits and heate of the same seede, stirred vp by the Plasticall or formatiue power of the wombe: and so much concerning the fyrst question.

Whether the Spermaticall parts can reioyne againe after they be violated and seuered. QVEST. VIII.

COncerning the coalition or reioyning of Spermaticall partes there is great contention; I know that many, as well of the ancient as later writers haue, and do maintain; that they may all reioyn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, according to the first intention, as Chirurgians vse to speake, and this they establish by these arguments. Where the Efficient, Materiall, and Finall causes of co∣alition are, there is nothing to hinder a reiunction; but in young, growne and aged men, this threefold cause is present, therefore in all such there may be coalition: the Maior pro∣position of it selfe is cleere enough; the Minor is thus confirmed. The Efficient cause of coalition is the forming faculty, which vseth heate as her instrument; this faculty is seated naturally in euery part, but more manifestly in the solid parts then in the fleshy. The Mat∣ter of the spermaticall parts is seede, of which there is sufficient plenty, as for nutrition and accretion or growth, so also for a newe generation. Hippocrates also, Galen and Aristotle, doe agree, that the seede is an excrement, or rather surplusage of the last concoction; now the last and most absolute aliment is plentifull enough, neuer fayling vnlesse it be in the vt∣most limit of decrepit age, and therefore the excrement or surplusage of it is not wanting. Moreouer according to Hippocrates, veines, arteries, nerues, and all spermaticall parts haue the power of procreating seed. Neither is the Finall cause wanting, for a broken bone and a diuided veine, doe after a sort desire and striue to be reunited; because the solace and com∣fort of Nature consisteth in vnion, as her sorrow and desolation in solution. They haue al∣so another argument not inelegant; Hollow vlcers are filled vp with new flesh, intertexed and wouen with small and capillarie veines, arteries and sinewes; for that flesh is sensible, it liueth and is nourished, therefore of necessity by veines, arteries and sinewes.

Who is so mad that he dare exclude the teeth out of the number of spermaticall parts? but they grow againe after they be extracted. Hippocrates in his book de Carnibus, maketh a threefould generation of the teeth. The first from the seede in the wombe; the second from milke; the third from more solid aliments. Now if by the transmutation of the ali∣ment the spermaticall parts doe encrease, why shall they not be reunited, seeing that accre∣ation is one of the kinds of generation? Galen in the seauenth chapter of the fift booke of his Method, and in the fourteenth of his Method writeth, That he hath seene many sculdered & reunited arteries. He telleth a story of a young man who had an artery diuided in his arme, which afterward did perfectly reunite againe. Also in his 91. chapter of his booke de arte parda, and in the fift chapter of the sixt booke of his Method, hee affirmeth that the bones of Children may reunite. These are the reasons which they vrge, and wherewith they goade vs to subscribe, that spermaticall partes euen according to the first intention, may reunite themselues.

Those which haue giuen vp their names against this opinion, doe labour to prooue the contrary by authorities and by reasons. And first they oppose the sixtieth Aphorisme of the sixt section; If a bone, a gristle, a nerue, or the fore-skin bee cut, they neuer reunite againe. Galen in the 8. and 10. chapters of his first booke de semine, as also in the 87. chapter de ar∣te parua, writeth that the fleshy parts doe easily conglutinate, spermatical neuer. And in the 91. chapter Artis paruae, he esteemeth a fracture in a bone to bee incurable, because bones doe not reunite according to the first intention. These authorities are seconded by Reason; first, both the Efficient and Material causes of reunition are wanting. The Efficient is the formatiue facultie, which is onely in the seede, whose drowsie & lusking faculty is onely brought in∣to act by the heate of the wombe. True it is, that there remaineth in the solid parts, a fa∣culty conseruing the figure of the part; but to make any thing anew is proper onely to the seede, the Efficient therefore is wanting.

Neither is there any Matter at hand, as the seede; which being generated onely in the testicles, how can it be transferred to the head, the arme or any other part?

Out of these waues and stormes of opinions, that wee may redeeme and establish their minds that are yet incertainely tossed to and fro, and set them safe aland in a quiet harbor, wee will determine the whole question by three conclusions, and these conclusions shall haue three foundations. The first is taken out of the determinations of Galen, in the 90. and 91. chapters de arte parua, and is on this manner. There is a double reunition of dissol∣ued

parts; One after the first scope, another after the second scope or intention. The first inten∣tion is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, in Agglutination which we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, in Colligation which wee cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The first is sometimes accomplished without any medium, that is, ought comming betweene; as in flesh which being cut or diuided, is presently glued together; sometime with a medium of the same kinde, which we call medi∣um homogeneum. The second intention is accomplished with a medium of another kind, which wee call medium heterogeneum, as with a Callus, Cicatrice or scarre, and such like which are not of the same kinde with the part dissected or separated. Now that parts may reioyne according to the first intention and by a homogeny medium or meane, many things are required. First, the strength of the Efficient, to wit, of the formatiue faculty and of the natiue heate. Againe, a due disposition of the Matter, which must be plentiful, that it may suffice nutrition, accretion, and a new generation. Moreouer it must bee ministred not by little and little, but togetherward, that is, it must bee sodainely and at once altered, that nothing of a diuers kinde may interpose it selfe betweene the disioyned parts in the time of that alteration.

Another foundation is this; Of spermaticall parts some are soft, as veines; some harder, as arteries and nerues; some hardest of all, as bones. The third foundation, That in In∣fancy and Child-hood all the spermatical parts are exceeding soft, and the bones like curd∣led or gathered butter, and coagulated or sammed cheese; but in those that are growne to further yeares, they become dryer, and in old men very dry, because our life is nothing else but a drying of the spermaticall parts.

These foundations being thus layd, we conclude thus triplewise. First, that fleshy parts are easily regenerated, and doe reunite according to the first intention; but spermaticall parts very hardly. Secondly, in Children and moyst natures, all the spermaticall parts, e∣uen the bones may reunite by a homogenie meane; in those that are growne some parts may, but not all; veines often, arteries more rarely; bones neuer. In old men there is no hope of coalition in a nerue, membrane, arterie, veine or skinne, which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; none in a gristle broken, eaten a sunder, torne or dissected, which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; none in a bone broken which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thirdly, in all ages and sexes euen to the vtmost extent of old age, all the spermaticall parts will reunite according to the second intention, that is, by a medium or meane heterogenie, or of a diuers kinde, which in a bone is called Callus, in the rest a Cicatrice, or a scarre.

The truth of the first conclusion is thus confirmed; the mutation or change of bloud in∣to flesh, is easie and expedite, because it is accomplished by a light and almost single and simple alteration. For bloud is red, hot and moyst; so also is flesh, redde, hot and moyst; one thing only is required; that the bloud be incrassated; there is therfore a fit & apt dispo∣sition of the matter. The Efficient is likewise very strong, because fleshy parts are hotter then spermaticall: whereupon it commeth to passe that they sodainly reunite, sometimes without any meane at all; sometimes with a Meane, but alwayes of the same kind and ho∣mogenie; yea oftentimes the flesh groweth so importunately in woundes (which wee call hyposarchosis) that we are constrayned to inhibite and restrayne the increase with corraside Liniments and poulders. But on the other side, the spermaticall parts doe very hardly re∣unite according to the first intention, because of the weaknes of the Efficient, the ineptitude or vnfitnesse of the Matter, and the siccitie or drynesse of the parts. The Efficient is heate, which being weake, hath enough to doe to intend conseruation and nutrition, and there∣fore cannot perfectly restore the decayed and vanished substance of the solid parts. It is enough (sayth Galen in the 59. chapter Artis paruae) if it hinder them from being exiccated or dryed vp. How shall it then laudably indeuour a new generation, when it cannot preserue them in that state in which Nature produced or brought them foorth? Haply there will be a sufficiency of Matter, but it cannot flow together ward and at once, because the mu∣tation or change of bloud into a bone, cannot be accomplished but by long interpolation and many meane alterations: first into marrow, then into glew, and so into seede; of red it must become white, of moyste it must become drie, of liquid it must bee incrassated or thickned; in a worde, it must alter the temper and all the qualities. Wherefore, because the aliment doth not flow but by little and little to the nourishment of the bones and the sper¦maticall parts; it commeth to passe, that the excrement which resulteth or ariseth out of the nourishment, doth interpose it selfe betweene the disioyned parts before the bloud can passe thorough those diuers alterations, and so breedeth a Callus. There is also another

impediment from the neighbouring parts; as if they bee fleshy they preuent the c̄oalition by filling vp the vacuitie or empty space.

The last cause of the difficulty of coalition, is the siccity and hardnesse of the spermati∣call parts. For those things that are dry are very hardly vnited; and the Philosopher in all mixtions requireth some watery moysture, that by it as by a glew, all the rest may bee v∣nited.

The second conclusion is thus strengthned: Children because they are not far off from the principles of generation, haue the Efficient cause very strong and forcible: they haue aboundance of naturall heate, plenty of spermaticall Matter and that very apt, which is so∣dainly and easily changed, because of the softnes and supplenesse of the spermaticall parts. In growne men the veines because they are soft and beside at rest from growing and ex∣tension, are easily glued together; but the arteries very hardly, as well by reason of their continuall motion which hindereth reunition, as also because of the hardnesse of their coates, for they are (as sayth Herophilus) fiue-fould thicker then the veines. Some haue obserued that many parts, albeit they be soft doe neuerthelesse not reunite, because of the excellency and necessity of their action; for that the creature dyeth before they can be re∣united; so the flesh of the heart being disseuered is neuer reunited, because the man dieth instantly, by reason of the interception of a duty or function of absolute necessity for the preseruation of life.

The third conclusion is so euident of it selfe, that it needeth no probation at all; for at all times spermaticall parts doe reunite by a heterogenie meane. If the skin bee wounded there euermore groweth acicatrice or scarre vppon the separation. A broken bone is al∣wayes and at all times souldered with a knotty Callus; notwithstanding for further illustra∣tion two problemes or difficulties are to be cleered.

The first, why if a bone be caued or hollowed by an vlcer so as there is any losse of the bone, the flesh can neuer be generated ouer it? For Hippocrates in the 45. Aphorisme of the sixt section sayeth, All vlcers that are Annual must of necessity loose some part of the bone vnder them, and the scarres or Cicatrices become hollow. Why doth not the flesh insinuate it selfe into the hollow place of the perished bone? Or if there be a Callus generated, why is there not also flesh generated about it? I answere, that flesh cannot bee generated in the cauitie of the bone, because flesh is not made but of flesh, a nerue but of a nerue; now the lippes or extreame verges of the cauitie are bony: what therefore shall they endeuour to generate? Surely either nothing at all, or else a bone or a Callus. If in the place of that which is lost there be no body substituted, then is there no foundation layde whereupon flesh may arise. The bone it selfe in dry and hard bodies cannot be regenerated; therfore Nature not being able to doe that she would, doth that shee can, so shee maketh a Callus. But what is the reason why no flesh can grow vpon this Callus? Because flesh is a liuing and animated thing, and a Callus without life altogether: now that which is animated, and that which is inanimated, that which liueth and that which is dead, do differ in the greatest difference, that is in the kinde and very forme; wherefore the Callus which is without life, cannot be a foundation to build flesh vppon which hath life. That a Callus is without life, may be demonstrated, because it is produced of the excrement of the bone and the neigh∣bour parts. If it be obiected, that if it bee without life and not nourished, it could not en∣dure and grow all the time of a mans life, which that it doeth is more then manifest: the answere is at hand; It encreaseth not by nutrition, but by apposition of the matter, as the haires, and the nailes; againe, it endureth as long as the bones receiue any nourishment, from which there alwayes redoundeth an excrement, whereby it is preserued.

The second Probleme is; why if the Callus come from the excrement of the bone, is it not generated in a sound bone which also yeildeth an excrement? Because, when the bone is weakned by a wound, the excrements are more plentifully driuen vnto it from the neigh∣bour parts; euen as all the parts that border vpon a wounded part, doe thrust downe their superfluities vnto it. And thus I thinke I haue touched, I hope cleered, all difficulties which concerne the coalition of the spermaticall partes; it is therefore nowe high time to turne our discourse some other way.

But before we leaue the field, it shall not be amisse to disparkle all the forces of our ad∣uersaries, that we may be sayd to haue gayned an intire and accomplished victory. The first argument of the first opinion is true onely in Children; for in old men euery man will confesse there is both a weakenesse of the Efficient, and a want of the Matter. The se∣cond

is a captious Sophisme, made to intrap the ignorāt. For it is not necessary that wher∣soeuer there is sence, there also should be a nerue, for then the whole body should bee a nerue; it is sufficient, if a nerue be deriued vnto the part, by whose illustration and irradia∣tion, all the particles of that part haue sence; the same we may say of Veines and arteries. For Mathematicall or locall contaction is not required to euery action, but onely physi∣call and naturall.

For their third argument, I answere, that there is not the like reason of the teeth, and of other bones; for the teeth after they be drawne doe growe againe, by reason of theyr End, and by reason of their Matter. By reason of their End, because they are ordained to chew, mittigate, and prepare the meate for the stomacke: and therefore as they encrease euen till the end of our age for our necessity, because they are continually wasted by attri∣tion or rubbing one against another; so for the same necessity they are regenerated when they faile. Beside, if you regard the matter of their generation, there is aboundance of it contained in the cauities of both the iawes; add heereto, that the teeth are not incompas∣sed with any other part which should hinder their generation.

Fourthly, they vrge, that Accretion and Nutrition are kinds of generation; but bones do grow and are nourished, why therefore may they not be revnited? Wee answere, that this is the order and dispensation of Nature; that first the part be nourished; then, if there be any ouerplus, that the part encrease into all dimensions; and after this expence, if there yet remaine any surplusage of aliment, that then it may go to the restoring of the want or defect in the part; but seede is neuer generated in that quantity, that it should be sufficient for nourishment, accretion, and beside for a new generation.

In the wombe indeede the Spermaticall parts are easily generated, because both the matter is copious, and there is moreouer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a double Workeman, one in the seede, another in the vessels, or as some thinke, in the substance of the wombe; but af∣ter wee are borne, they are hardly generated, because one of the workemen is absent, which formerly was in the seede, or assistant vnto it. As for the authorities of Galen, they do not conclude either that all spermatical parts do admit coalition, or som alwayes; and therefore we willingly subscribe vnto them, without any praeiudice vnto our cause.

The argument of the other Opinion, which denieth the formatiue faculty to the sper∣maticall parts, yeelding it onely to the seede, is easily ouerthrowne; because the seede (ac∣cording to Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, and all Physitians) containeth in it the Idea or formes of all the parts, which it receiueth from the solid or spermaticall parts. True it is, that in the Bones there is, that I may so say, a power to bonify or make bones, in the veins to veinefy, so there be an apt disposition of the matter. But when wee say that Bones are nourished, encreased, and do revnite by seede, we do not vnderstand prolificall seede such as is apt for generation; that is onely in and about the Testicles, where it attaineth his forme and perfection, but we vnderstand something like vnto seede. Finally, the autho∣rities of Hippocrates and Galen, doe conclude onely, that the hinder parts cannot revnite, which thing we haue already demonstrated in the second Conclusion. And thus much of the second question.

QVEST. IX. Whether the Spermaticall parts be hotter then the Fleshie.

IT were either superstition or ostentation to quote all the places of Hippo∣crates, Aristotle, and Galen, wherein they auouch, that vnbloudy parts are colder then bloudy; but no man that euer I read of, did euer deny that fle∣shy parts are bloudy, and spermaticall either without bloud, or at least but lightly moistned therewith. Vpon these premises any man may gather the conclusion; or if they will not inferre it, it will arise of it selfe. Yet there are some among the late writers, who would faine perswade themselues, that the Sperma∣ticall parts are hotter then the sanguine or bloudy. Iobertus sometimes the learned Chan∣cellor of the Vniuersity of Mompelier in France, set forth a Paradoxe concerning this mat∣ter, wherein the disputeth many things with great wit and subtility; some probabilitie, but lesse substance of truth, concerning the in-bred heate of the spermaticall partes. I haue al∣wayes much esteemed the learning and edge of the mans wit, yet because he is the Chief∣taine of them who hath impeached the authority of the receiued opinion concerning this matter; I am constrayned to dissent from him, and will not thinke it presumption to exa∣mine his arguments one by one, that the truth may more euidently appeare.

Those things (sayth he) that arise of others do sauor of the principles from whence they arise; but the seede from which the spermatical parts do proceed, is hotter then bloud; and therfore the spermatical parts are hotter then the sanguine or bloudy. Now that the seed is hotter then the bloud, may thus bee demonstrated. Hippocrates calleth seede fiery & ayrie; bloud cold and waterish. Beside, bloud is contayned in a trough or channell, but the seed passeth through vessels which haue no sensible cauities, which are certaine signes of the te∣nuity and heat thereof. But this reason seemeth to be more washy and loose, then may an∣swere the strength and vigor of so great a Clarks wit. For there are two things to be con∣sidered in seed (as sayth Galen in many places) the crassament, corpulencie as I may say, or body of it, and the spirites wherewith it is aboundantly stored: in reference to the former the seed is sayd to be watery and earthy; in reference to the spirits, fierie. The spirits are the instruments of the soule, by which that noble architect formeth her mansion or habi∣tation out of the seede, working and forming it into parts conuenient. These are called for∣ming spirits, and in respect of these, the seed is sayd to be artifex, a workman, and carrieth the nature of an Efficient cause. The watrish and cold body of the seede, is the matter of the spermaticall parts. I conclude therefore that the whole seede considered with all his parts is hotter then the bloud, because it is fuller of spirits; but if the seede be robbed of his spirits, then is it colder then the bloud; and therefore being auoyded, the heate of it pre∣sently vanisheth, and by the coldnesse of the ayre it becommeth libuid and black: and such did Galen acknowledge the matter of the spermaticall parts to be.

This first argument Iobertus strengthneth with another, thus. The conformation or structure, and scite or position of the spermaticall parts doe manifestly proue their heate: for the bones occupy the in-most place, and are couered on euery side with flesh, as are also the nerues, least their ingenit or in-bredde heate should vanish or bee offended by the coldnes of the ambient ayre; but the flesh is placed about the vtmost parts. By which ar∣gument I cannot see what he wold conclude, for all these things do rather argue the cold∣nesse, then the heat of the spermaticall parts; for because cold was their greatest enemy, that their weake and languishing heate might not bee extinguished, Nature did on euery side cherish them with flesh, and inuest them with membranes for their defence. Moreo∣uer, the bones are not feated so farre within for the preseruation of their heat, but because they should serue as a stay and prop to vphold all the rest of the frame. But if he will con∣clude that the externall parts are colder then the internal, it will follow that the skin (which all men acknowledge to be temperate) is colder then either nerues or bones.

His third argument is yet more absurd. The spermaticall parts (sayth he) are easily of∣fended with the cold, therefore they are hot, for alteration is made by contraries, conser∣uation by things that are alike. But this is vtterly opposite to Galens Philosophy, who in his booke de arte parita, giueth this as a generall rule, whereby we may distinguish the tem∣pers of the parts that those which are easily offended with cold, are cold, and the hot with heate. So sayth Hippocrates, cold is the greatest enemy to the bones, nerues, teeth & mar∣row of the backe, because these parts are cold. Galen hath these expresse words in the 59. chapter of his booke de arte parua. In all parts this is a common marke of the temperature, if the member doe easily grow cold, it is a signe of frigidity or rarity; if hardly, of heat or of density; if drying things offend it, then is it dry and rashy, if moyst things then it is moyst.

Finally, Iobert addeth this last argument. For that many actions of the spermatical parts doe testifie that there is in them a vehement and high degree of heate; so the stomacke which is membranous, attenuateth and boyleth the meat though it be very hard; yea, the Estrich softneth yron in her maw. The bladder which is likewise membranous, baketh the stone harder then the kidneyes, which are fleshy parts. These obiections may at first sight seeme of some moment to those that are not sufficiently ground•• in our Art, but we will labour to shew their weakenes and insufficiency. First therefore that obiection concer∣ning the stomacke is full of errour: for those creatures in whome the innermost coate or membrane of the stomacke is more fleshy, doe boyle their meat more strongly: and those creatures which haue no teeth, as birds, haue a solid flesh, and very full of warmth annexed to their crops, and as for men, the inward coat of their stomacks is lined ouer with a fleshy crust, which Fallopius first of all men obserued. But go too, let vs yeild this vnto him, that the membranous stomacke doth more perfectly boile, the membranous bladder bakes the stone harder, yet it will not thereupon follow that the spermaticall parts are the hotter, but that the heat when it is retained in a more solid and fast matter, burneth more powerfully.

Who will say that a glowing yron is hotter then a flame of fire? No, it burneth more fierce∣ly, but yet the degree of his heate is more remisse. So fire in his owne spheare, and in aqua∣uitae doe not burne, because of the tenuity and thinnesse of the matter. For the stone, it is not generated so much by a sharpe and biting heate, as by long continuance in the part, & of the viscidity and sliminesse of the matter, as we see in old men. Hence therefore it ap∣peareth that the spermaticall parts are not hotter then the fleshy. Neither must wee admit the distinction of ingenit and influent heat; because if there bee a collation or comparison made, it must be between equals; and thus much of the third question.

QVEST. X. Whether the solid parts being once dryed, can be made moyst againe.

THere is also beside the former three, another by-question, concerning the moystning of solid parts after they bee dryed: for the opening whereof, wee must vnderstand that the name of a solid part is very ambiguous and equino∣call. The common people call that a solid part which is firme, hard, dense or thight, and well compacted or knit together. So Galen calleth the flesh of the heart solid flesh. Hippocrates in the 7. section of his 6. booke Epidemi••n, calleth all the contayning parts solid, and thus fleshy parts also shall be esteemed solid. Some there are who by solid, vnderstand all animated parts, which haue a proper circumscription, and are bounded within their owne limits. Philosophers call that solid which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tale, that is, wholly ful of it selfe: so the fire and the ayre in their owne spheares are sayd to be solid. So Cicero in the first booke of his Diuinations sayth, that when Alexander determined to weare a crowne of gold, he made doubt whether it should be of solid gold, or only laid ouer with gold on the outside: and according to this acceptation, all the similar particles (as we haue already shewed) are called solid, because all parts of them are equall and alike. But most properly the Physitians call those solid partes which are spermaticall, as Galen teacheth in the first chapter of the eleuenth booke of his Method, and in the 7. chap. of his first booke de naturalibus facultatibus, as also in the 16. chap. of his first booke de semine, in all which places he calleth fleshy parts bloudy, and spermaticall parts solid. These solid parts in the 59. chap. of his booke de arte parua, he calleth primas or the First; either because they are the foundations of the rest, and as it were the first threds & lines which support the whole fabrique of the body; whereas the flesh doth but as rubbish fill vppe the empty spaces be∣tweene them; or else because seede is the first principle of the body; or lastly, because the spermaticall parts are generated before the fleshy. Now the question is concerning these true and properly so called solid parts; whether if they bee resiccated and dried, they may be by Art or Nature moistned again; that is to say, whether the Aliment that is substituted be of the same kinde with that which is wasted. Galen was the man who gaue the occasion to this question in the 59. chap. Artis paruae. Solid parts (sayeth hee) of the body can by no meanes be made moyster, it is all we can do if we can keep them from drying. And in the 1. cha. of the 11. booke of his Method. The quantity of the solid parts remayneth alwayes the same. And in the 11. chap. of the tenth booke of his Method. The siccity or drynes of the solid parts can by no meanes be cured.

We imagine that this doubt may easily bee assoyled, if wee remember that in the solid parts there is a double substance; one exquisity solid & fibrous, altogither without bloud; another which filleth vp the distances of the fibres, which is called the proper and peculiar flesh of euery part. The first can by no possible meanes be humected or moystned, that is to say, neither such nor somuch can be restored how much and of what kind is spent or consu∣med. The later may easily be restored. But least you should think this distinction to bee a brat of my owne braine, you shall heare Galen making mention of the very same in his Me∣dicinal Art, and in his booke of Method. In the 59. chap. artis paruae. The solid parts (sayth he) which are truely solid and first parts, can by no possible meanes bee moystned; it is as much as we can do if we can hinder them from being ouer soon exiceated or dried vp, but the inter-middle spaces may possibly be filled with this or that moysture. In the 11. chap. of the 10. booke of his Method. In the solid parts there is a fibrous substance and there is a fleshy; so a veine which hath but a thin coate, hath many fibres intertexed or wouen with it, to which the proper substance of the veine groweth. This hath yet gotten no common name; but by way of instruction I see no reason but you may call it the fleshy substance. This distinction therefore is Galens owne, and there∣fore the fitter for vs to rest in. And so we haue gon through all the controuersies or diffi∣culties that concerne the nature of a part, which we esteeme to be the proper subiect of A∣natomy. It remaineth now that we addresse our selues to our buisinesse.

Notes

• Rom. 2.
• Hippocrates the oracle of Physicke. Galen his in∣terpreter. Words syno∣nymal.
• Hippocrates.
• Aristotle.
• Theodorus.
• Galen.
• Auicens defini∣tion of a part imperfect. Fen prima pri∣mi. Doct. 5. ca. 1
• Galen.
• An excuse of Auicen but which wil not hold water.
• Aponensis de∣finition of a part.
• Galens two de¦finitions.
• Both too large.
• Fernelius the french Galen.
• Argenterius his cauil at Fernelius.
• Fernelius de∣fended.
• Aristotle wold haue but one principal part and that the heart.
• The argu∣ments of the Peripateticks. The first.
• The dignity of the heart.
• The second.
• The third. The heart the original of the veines.
• The heart the original of the sinewes. Aristotle.
• The 4. argu∣ment. The heart the first store∣house of bloud.
• The heart the first sensator. The first rea∣son.
• The second.
• The third.
• The fourth.
• The fift.
• A consutati▪ of the Peripa∣teticks.
• Demonstra∣tiue argumēts to proue that the heart is neither the o¦riginal of the veines, nor of the sinewes.
• That the hart is not the be∣ginning of a∣nimal motion
• An elegant argument a∣gainst the Pe∣ripatetickes.
• Strange mo∣tions of the Heart.
• Aristotle.
• The sensati∣on of the Braine not passiue but o∣peratiue. Why the braine is cold that is, lesse hot. Answeres to the argu∣ments of the Peripatetiks.
• Why in the Little worlde there cannot be one onely principle. The first de∣monstration.
• The second.
• The third.
• The fourth.
• How Auicen interpreteth Aristotle.
• The opinion of some later writers and their diuers distinctions.
• Comparison.
• Scaligers opi∣nion.
• The late wri∣ters did not vnderstand Aristotle well.
• The opinion of the Arabi∣ans consuted.
• Sacrifices run from the altar without their heart.
• Galens elegāt demonstratiō.
• The conclu∣sion of the whole dispu∣tation.
• What a prin∣cipall part is. Galen.
• The first defi∣nition of prin¦cipality. Argenterius his vaine op∣position to Galen.
• Argenterius answered. A double ne∣cessity of the parts.
• How the o∣ther partes serue the principall, & in that regard are necessary
• Galens answer to the former cauill.
• A Storie of a Malefactor.
• Sexto de placi∣tis.
• How the Lunges serue the Heart.
• An obiection against Galen. Galen.
• The answere to the obiec∣tion.
• Another defi∣nition of a part.
• Auicens desi∣tion or a prin∣cipall part.
• A definition of the late writers.
• Galen prefer∣reth the Te∣sticles before the Heart.
• Glabriones. Galen.
• Wherein the Testicles do shew their power.
• Galens subtile argument an∣swered.
• Whether the Braine be to be preferd be∣fore the hart.
• The opinion of the Peripa∣tetiks & Stoiks
• Hippocrates.
• We determin that the brain is the prime principal part
• An Elegant demonstratiō how all the body is ser∣uiceable to the Braine.
• Obiection. Answere.
• Hippocrates.
• The former arguments of the Peripate∣ticks & Stoicks answered.
• The argu∣ment retor∣ted.
• Exposition of Hippocrates.
• A rule in the disposition of the parts.
• Galen.
• A conference of the dignity & necessity of the princi∣pal parts.
• The decision of the whole question. A three fold principle. Comparison.
• Galen.
• The mutual conspiration of the princi∣pal parts.
• Obiection. Galen.
• A hard place in Galen ex∣pounded.
• That there are no similar parts. Galen. Obiection. Answere. Why similar parts are so called.
• The soule of man is not simple.
• The number of the similar parts. Galen. A three-fold kinde of flesh.
• Galen.
• Galen.
• 14. Similar parts after Galen.
• Galen accused
• Argenterius answere for Galen in suffi∣cient.
• Galen.
• The common answere for Galen approo¦ued. Obiection.
• Galen. Montanus an∣swere to the Obiection.
• Obiection.
• Solution.
• A similar part may also be said to be Or∣ganicall.
• Fernelius.
• Aristotle.
• A twofolde consideration of an organi∣call part.
• Galens disi••iti¦on of an or∣gan. Another.
• What is a si∣milar action.
• The forme of a similar part is his temper. Galen.
• What is an organical ac∣tion.
• Whether the action do pro¦ceed from the similar parts Authorities of Galen to proue that they do.
• Aristotle.
• The explica∣tion of the question, wherin Galen is interpreted
• What we must resolue vpon accor∣ding to Galen.
• Three questi∣ons concer∣ning sperma∣tical parts.
• The first que∣stion.
• The Peripate∣ticks thinke that all the parts are ge∣nerated of bloud. The first rea∣son.
• The second. Aristotle. Phidias the Statuary.
• An axiome in Phisicke. The third.
• The fourth. Hippocrates.
• The fift.
• The sixt.
• The contrarie opinion of the Physitians. Authorities of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• Aristotle.
• Reasons. The first.
• Hip. Psaltria. lib. de nat. pueri
• The second.
• The third.
• The fourth.
• The fift.
• The determi∣nation.
• Answere to the aduerse arguments. Galen expoū∣ded.
• Answere to the first Ar∣gument.
• Auerrhoes.
• Answere to the second. Aristotle.
• Answer to the third.
• Answer to the fourth.
• To the fift.
• To the last. Argenterius.
• An example of the Spider
• Argenterius confuted.
• The small quantitie of the Infant af∣ter it is tor∣med.
• Aristotle.
• Axiome.
• Example.
• The conclusi∣on of the que¦stion.
• Proofes that the spermati¦call parts may reunite. The first ar∣gument.
• Hippocrates. Galen. Aristotle.
• The second argument.
• The third ar∣gument. Hippocrates.
• The fourth. The fifth. Galen.
• The contrary opinion Authorities for it.
• Hippocrates.
• Reasons.
• What is to be thought. Three con∣clusions, and 3. foundatiōs. The first foun∣dation. A double re∣unition.
• What are the first and se∣cond intenti∣ons in Coali∣tion.
• What things are required to the first in∣tention.
• The second foundation. The third.
• The triple conclusion.
• First. Second.
• Third.
• The confirma¦tion of the first conclusi∣on.
• A threefold cause why spermatical parts do not reunite. 1 The weak∣nes of the Ef∣ficient.
• 2 The indispo¦sition of the Matter.
• 3 The hard∣nes and sicci∣ty of the parts.
• The confir∣mation of the 2. conclusion.
• Herophilus.
• The confir∣mation of the 3. conclusion.
• The first pro∣bleme.
• The answere to it.
• Obiection. Solution.
• Obiection. Solution.
• The 2. pro∣bleme. Solution.
• Answere to the former obiections. To the first.
• To the secōd.
• To the third.
• To the fourth
• Answer to the authorities of Galen.
• Answere to the argumēts of the second opinion.
• To the autho∣rities of Hip∣pocrates & Ga∣len.
• Ioberts opini∣on of the heat of spermati∣call parts.
• His first argu∣ment.
• The answere to the former argument. Two things to be conside∣red in seede, the body and the spirits.
• Iobertus his 2. argument.
• Answere.
• Iobertus 3. ar∣gument.
• Answered. Galen.
• Hippocrates.
• Iobertus 4. ar∣gument.
• Answered,
• A good ob∣seruation of Fallopius.
• Comparison.
• Aquauitae.
• Manifold ac∣ceptions of a solid part. Galen. Hippocrates.
• Cicero de diui∣natione.
• Which are properly cal∣led solid parts Galen.
• Why they are called first parts.
• Whether the solid parts may be moy∣stned. Galen.
• A double sub∣stance of the solid parts out of Galen.
• Tantum et tale. Quantum & quale. Galen.