sal empire, though he was for shaking off
the yoke of authority in the philosophical world. He was for one
government and one religion throughout Europe, but in other respects
he desired to leave the minds of men quite free. Campanella was one
of the new lights of the age; and his hardy, though wild genius
much more resembled our Stubbe, who denounced his extravagancies,
than any of the Royal Society, to whom he was so artfully compared.

This tremendous attack appeared in Stubbe's "Campanella Revived, or an
Enquiry into the History of the Royal Society; whether the Virtuosi
there do not pursue the projects of Campanella, for reducing England
into Popery; relating the quarrel betwixt H. S. and the R. S., &c.
1670."[271]

Such was the dread which his reiterated attacks caused the Royal
Society, that they employed against him all the petty persecutions of
power and intrigue. "Thirty legions," says Stubbe, alluding to the
famous reply of the philosopher, who would not dispute with a crowned
head, "were to be called to aid you against a young country physician,
who had so long discontinued studies of this nature." However, he
announces that he has finished three more works against the Royal
Society, and has a fourth nearly ready, if it be necessary to prove
that the rhetorical history of the Society by Sprat must be bad,
because "no eloquence can be complete if the subject-matter be
foolish!" His adversaries not only threatened to write his life,[272]
but they represented him to the king as a libeller, who ought to be
whipped at a cart's tail; a circumstance which Stubbe records with the
indignation of a Roman spirit.[273] They stopped his work several
times, and by some stratagem they hindered him from correcting the
press; but nothing could impede the career of his fearless genius. He
treated with infinite ridicule their trivial or their marvellous
discoveries in his "Legends no Histories," and his "Censure on some
Passages of the History of the Royal Society." But while he ridiculed,
he could instruct them; often contributing new knowledge, which the
Royal Society had certainly been proud to have registered in their
history. In his determination of depreciating the novelties of his
day, he disputes even the honour of HARVEY to the discovery of the
circulation of the blood: he attributes it to ANDREAS CAESALPINUS, who
not only discovered it, but had given it the name of _Circulatio
Sanguinis_.[274]

Stubbe was not onl