Here and elsewhere I have always demonstrated my opinion by reasons and authorities, and often by experience itself. If anyone wishes to show me an error and instruct me more accurately in any matter, I am ready to receive that correction and thank him for it.

Moreover, I do not seek to despise or reject philosophical writings, whether those of the pagans themselves or of their imitators and successors; I know myself far too insignificant for that. I wish only to remind readers to weigh them carefully against Holy Scripture, lest they encounter and embrace folly in place of wisdom.

I grant that faith is to be learned from God’s Word. Yet I ask in return: is the article concerning creation not also an article, indeed the first principal article, of the holy Christian faith? From what source could one better understand and learn that article, God’s creatures, what nature is and how it was created, than Holy Scripture, in which these things were described by the Creator himself, namely God the Holy Spirit, and through his inspiration?

If anyone would rather believe the pagan philosophers and their followers than this author, grope in darkness rather than walk in clear light, and drink muddy water rather than from the true, living, clear spring, I leave that to him.

Yet I would remind him to observe what Lipsius writes: without religion—and consequently without Holy Scripture as its rule, since elsewhere he likewise says he knows no salvation other than that found in Scripture—philosophy is nothing but foolery, nonsense and madness.

Again, as he says with Tertullian: “Who has known truth without God? Who has known God without Christ? Nobody.” To this I add: who has known Christ without God’s Word and Holy Scripture?

Nobody. Therefore, since neither Christ nor God nor truth can be known without God’s Word and Holy Scripture, it follows again that philosophy without God’s Word and Holy Scripture is nothing but foolery, nonsense and madness. Yet I by no means approve the abuse whereby someone cites Holy Scripture quite incongruously to support his philosophical opinion. So much for this also.

To return now to my purpose and apply what has been taught: first, we must observe that everything was created through God’s Word. Consequently, as was also demonstrated above in the first part, everything subsists in God’s Word and through it is administered, directed, governed, preserved, nourished and multiplied. Saint Paul again says: “Everything was created by him and for him, and everything subsists in him.” Luther’s gloss on the words “You cause them to die” in Psalm 90 says: “People continually die, yet others come again through God’s Word.” Likewise, the late Arnd writes: “The nourishing power in bread is God’s Word.”

Since, then, the waters were created through God’s universal and substantial Word—the substantial Logos, and immediately, as stated—and possess the powers of all nature, the conclusion is again confirmed that a universal medicine may likewise be prepared from rainwater.

Moreover, as was likewise proved in the first part, the waters were not changed in themselves by their division. It therefore follows particularly that the power which acts primarily in one herb to strengthen the head, brain and heart, in another to cleanse the chest and lungs, in another to open an obstructed liver and spleen, in another to strengthen the stomach, and in yet another to promote perspiration and urine—with due respect—also acts in rainwater, especially in our subject and the universal medicine prepared from it. Through divine help and grace, all diseases may thereby be cured and healed. For rainwater, no less than our repeatedly mentioned subject, may undergo equal balancing and be brought to the highest balance of qualities.

By contrast, the particular natures were created through the uttered Logos, as has often been shown and explained. Each therefore possesses only its own created particular power. It follows indisputably that none of them can accomplish this, whether all together or one alone. The axiom remains true and firm: as the cause is, so is the effect. So too does Ristius’s saying: “Every beginning must bear witness to its end, and every end to its beginning.”

Such particulars therefore cannot undergo equal balancing or be brought to the highest balance of qualities. Each retains its particular power, or another substance weakens that power, if it does not remove it altogether. Then none has its proper effect. One must accordingly recognize that compound preparations in apothecaries’ shops often cause more harm than benefit.

All this applies with still greater force because, second, God’s Word is unchangeable as well as eternal. Nature is consequently unchangeable too. Every nature maintains its order in God’s Word so precisely and inviolably that it is easier to marvel at than adequately conceive or describe it. Even if we had no other example, day and night, sun, moon and stars, with their regular courses and alternations, would show it abundantly.

Therefore, to come directly to my purpose, since I now also intend to discuss the tincture for transmuting metals, I affirm with all philosophers as certain and true that no nature can be transformed or improved by art except in and with its own nature and original seed. Nuysement rightly writes in particular: “Nothing can be fixed unless it is homogeneous and of one nature alone.”