C 33; ) 
of that in his own praftke ; may be fopplied with va- 
riety enough, from many of thofe Authors who have 
made it their bufinefs to Publifti Obfci varions. And 
moft of thofe who have written of Nephritic Difeafts 
in general, have taken care to deliver the manner of 
treating them, tho' it be not the defign of their Writing 
to furnifli us with particular Cafes. 
Nor do we want loftances of Apollems in the Kid« 
nyes, occafioned originally from the Stone theref and 
manifeftingthemfelves by a Tumour, upon opening of 
whichjStones have been difcharged v/ith the Pus, or have 
beenfbon after removed, and this is the very Cafewhich 
Hippocrates fuppofes, and upon which he juftly advifes 
the Praftice. 
Some Obfervatiofls we have of Stones which have 
gradually wrought themfelves out of the Kidney, with- 
out any preceding abfcefi, an inftanceof which (to 
mention no more) we have mTulpiuSy /,4. Oif.zS, 
(whofe Authority when he writes from Autopfy, I take 
to be as unqueftionable as any Mans) of a Perfon who 
having long laboured with the Stone in the Kidnyes 
(which was hereditary to him) had at length one dif 
charged through his Loins, which occafioned a Fiftufa, 
through which his Urine continued to flow with the Pus 
for a long time ; for the healing of which, after many 
fruitlefs Attemts, all that they could effed, was only 
to clofe the external Orifice, which locking in the mat- 
ter, forced it into the Abdomen, which throwing him 
into a Fever killed him. And this, among other mif- 
chiefs, Tulpius makes ufe of,as no mean Argument againft 
thePraSice of Nephrotomy, But whatever fbme Men 
have inferred from Hippocrates^ 'tis my Opinion, that 
we have no manner of Evidence, that Nephrotomy was 
pradtifed in his time, or in many Ages after. For Cel' 
fu$ (who, by Heurntm his leave, is valuable for Ibme- 
D d d X thing 
