rest. For, first of all, as eminent a cabalist as his disciples
would represent him, his account of the opus magnum is extremely
poor and deficient; he seems to have read but very superficially
either Sendivogus, Behmen, or Anthroposophia Theomagica {102b}. He
is also quite mistaken about the sphaera pyroplastica, a neglect not
to be atoned for, and (if the reader will admit so severe a censure)
vix crederem autorem hunc unquam audivisse ignis vocem. His
failings are not less prominent in several parts of the mechanics.
For having read his writings with the utmost application usual among
modern wits, I could never yet discover the least direction about
the structure of that useful instrument a save-all; for want of
which, if the moderns had not lent their assistance, we might yet
have wandered in the dark. But I have still behind a fault far more
notorious to tax this author with; I mean his gross ignorance in the
common laws of this realm, and in the doctrine as well as discipline
of the Church of England. A defect, indeed, for which both he and
all the ancients stand most justly censured by my worthy and
ingenious friend Mr. Wotton, Bachelor of Divinity, in his
incomparable treatise of ancient and modern learning; a book never
to be sufficiently valued, whether we consider the happy turns and
flowings of the author's wit, the great usefulness of his sublime
discoveries upon the subject of flies and spittle, or the laborious
eloquence of his style. And I cannot forbear doing that author the
justice of my public acknowledgments for the great helps and
liftings I had out of his incomparable piece while I was penning
this treatise.

But besides these omissions in Homer already mentioned, the curious
reader will also observe several defects in that author's writings
for which he is not altogether so accountable. For whereas every