C 834 3 
jnon fulphur, as Helmont furmifed, and Boerhaave, 
Hoffman, and Geoffroy, have evidently proved ; and 
I think every one now allows it, however virulent 
the arfenical fulphur of antimony, as they called it, 
was deemed by the antient chemifts. And this ful- 
phur, like the common fulphur, is compounded of 
a vitriolic acid, and a bituminous or inflammable 
fubflance: and whatever Bafil, Valentine, Charras, 
and others, talked of the vinegar of antimony, there 
is no other acid in it than what I have mentioned ; 
nor is there any kind of fait in antimony but the vi- 
triolic acid, notwithftanding the conceit of Maets, 
Duncan Bornett, &c. 
But however abundant the fulphureous principle 
is in antimony, the reguline greatly exceeds it, and 
in truth conftitutes the very body or eflence of anti- 
mony, and in which alone refides its draflic power, 
and emetic quality, as is fufiiciently flhewn by Mon- 
fleur Geoffroy, and of which, at prefent, I believe 
few chemifls doubt; for there is no one preparation 
of antimony emetic, in which the reguline principle 
doth not greatly abound : therefore no tin&ure of 
antimony, made with rectified fpirit of wine, is in 
the lead degree emetic. 
This reguline lubftance, or antimony properly fo 
called, is a metallic fubflance, J'ui gejjeris, almoft to- 
tally volatile when urged by a very flrong fire, and 
can bv no means, hitherto known, be brought to a 
malleable ftate. One will have it of a mercurial, 
another of an arfenical nature; but it feems in fever af 
rcfpedts to differ from either. No pure running mer- 
cury can by any known method be drawn from re- 
gulus of antimony, or its flowers, with fal ammo- 
niac, 
4 
