THE present State of the De­signs and Studies of Mankind is so very different from what it was 150 Years ago, that it is no Wonder if Men's Notions concerning them vary as much as the Things them­selves. This great Difference arises from the Desire which every Man has, who believes that he can do greater Things than his Neighbours, of letting them see how much he does excel them: This will oblige him to omit no Opportunity that offers it self to do it, and afterwards to [Page 2] express his Satisfaction that he has done it. This is not only visible in particular Persons, but in the several Ages of Man­kind, which are only Communities of particular Persons, living at the same time, as often as their Humours, or their Interests, lead them to pursue the same Methods. This Emulation equally shews it self, whatsoever the Subject be, about which it is employed; whether it be a­bout Matters of Trade, or War, or Learn­ing, it is all one: One Nation will strive to out-do another, and so will one Age too, when several Nations agree in the pur­suit of the same Design; only the Jealou­sie is not so great in the Contest for Learn­ing, as it is in that for Riches and Power; because these are Things which every se­veral People strive to ingross all to them­selves, so that it is impossible for border­ing Nations to suffer with any Patience that their Neighbours should grow as great as they in either of them, to their own prejudice; though they will all a­gree in raising the Credit of the Age they live in upon that Account, that being the only Thing wherein their Interests do perfectly unite.

If this Way of Reasoning will bold, it may be asked how it comes to pass, that the Learned Men of the last Age did not [Page 3] pretend that they out-did the Ancients, as well as some do now? They would, without question, could they have had any Colour for it: It was the Work of one Age to remove the Rubbish, and to clear the Way for future Inventors. Men seldom strive for Mastery, where the Su­periority is not in some sort disputable; then it is that they begin to strive; accor­dingly, as soon as there was a fair Pre­tence for such a Dispute, there were not wanting those who soon made the most of it, both by exalting their own Perfor­mances, and disparaging every Thing that had been done of that kind by their Predecessors: 'Till the new Philosophy had gotten Ground in the World, this was done very sparingly; which is but within the Compass of 40 or 50 Years. There were but few before, who would be thought to have exceeded the Ancients, unless it were some few Physicians, who set up Chymical Methods of Practice, and Theories of Diseases, founded upon Chymical Notions, in opposition to the Galenical: But these Men, for want of conversing much out of their own La­boratories, were unable to maintain their Cause to the general Conviction of Man­kind: The Credit of the Cures which they wrought, not supporting them e­nough [Page 4] against the Reasonings of their Adversaries.

Soon after the Restauration of King Charles II. upon the Institution of the Royal Society, the Comparative Excellen­cy of the Old and New Philosophy was eagerly debated in England. But the Disputes then managed between Stubbe and Glanvile, were rather Personal, rela­ting to the Royal Society, than General, re­lating to Knowledge in its utmost extent. In France this Controversie has been taken up more at large: The French were not satisfied to argue the Point in Philosophy and Mathematicks, but even in Poetry and Oratory too; where the Ancients had the general Prejudice of the Learned on their Side. Monsieur de Fontenelle, the ce­lebrated Author of a Book concerning the Plurality of Worlds, begun the Dispute about six Years ago, in a little Discourse annexed to his Pastorals. He is some­thing shy in declaring his Mind; at least, in arraigning the Ancients, whose Repu­tations were already established; though it is plain he would be understood to give the Moderns the Preference in Poetry and Oratory, as well as in Philosophy and Ma­thematicks. His Book being received with great Applause, it was opposed in Eng­land by Sir William Temple, who, in the [Page 5] Second Part of his Miscellanea, has print­ed an Essay upon this very Subject. Had Monsieur de Fontenelle's Discourse passed unquestioned, it would have been very strange, since there never was a new Notion started in the World, but some were found, who did as eagerly contra­dict it.

The Opinion which Sir William Temple appears for, is received by so great a Number of Learned Men, that those who oppose it ought to bring much more than a positive Affirmation; otherwise, they cannot expect that the World should give Judgment in their Favour. The Question now to be asked, has formerly been enquired into by few, besides those who have chiefly valued Oratory, Poesie, and all that which the French call the Bel­les Lettres; that is to say, all those Arts of Eloquence, wherein the Ancients are ge­nerally agreed to have been very excellent. So that Monsieur de Fontenelle took the wrong Course to have his Paradox be be­lieved; for he asserts all, and proves lit­tle; he makes no Induction of Particu­lars, and rarely enters into the Merits of the Cause: He declares that he thinks Love of Ease to be the reigning Principle amongst Mankind; for which Reason perhaps he was loath to put himself to [Page 6] the trouble of being too minute. It was no wonder therefore if those to whom his P [...]oposition appeared entirely new, con­demned him of Sufficiency, the worst Com­position out of the Pride and Ignorance of Mankind.

However, since his Reasonings are, generally speaking, very just, especially where he discourses of the Comparative Force of the Genius's of Men in the seve­ral Ages of the World, I resolved to make some Enquiry into the Particulars of those Things which are asserted by some to be Modern Discoveries, and vindicated to the Ancients by others.

The General Proposition which Sir William Temple endeavours to prove in this Essay, is this, ‘That if we reflect upon the Advantages which the an­cient Greeks and Romans had, to im­prove themselves in Arts and Sciences, above what the Moderns can pretend to; and upon that natural Force of Ge­nius, so discernable in the earliest Wri­ters, whose Books are still extant, which has not been equalled in any Persons that have set up for Promoters of Know­ledge in these latter Ages, and com­pare the Actual Performances of them both together, we ought in Justice to conclude, that the Learning of the pre­sent [Page 7] Age, is only a faint, imperfect Copy from the Knowledge of former Times, such as could be taken from those scattered Fragments which were saved out of the general Shipwreck.’

The Question that arises from this Pro­position will be fully understood, if we enquire, (1.) Into those Things which the Ancients may have been supposed to bring to Perfection, (in case they did so) not because they excelled those that came after them in Understanding, but because they got the Start by being born first. (2.) Whether there are any Arts or Scien­ces which were more perfectly practised by the Ancients, though all imaginable Care hath been since used to equal them. (3.) Whether there may not be others wherein they are exceeded by the Mo­derns, though we may reasonably suppose that both Sides did as well as they could.

When such Enquiries have once been made, it will be no hard matter to draw such Inferences afterwards, as will enable us to do Justice to both Sides.

It must be owned, that these Enqui­ries do not immediately resolve the Que­stion which Sir William Temple put, for he confounds two very different Things together; namely, Who were the Greatest Men, the Ancients, or the Moderns? and, [Page 8] Who have carried their Enquiries furthest? The first is a very proper Question for a Declamation, though not so proper for a Discourse, wherein Men are supposed to reason severely, because, for want of Mediums whereon to found an Argu­ment, it cannot easily be decided: For, though there be no surer Way of judging of the Comparative Force of the Genius's of several Men, than by examining the respective Beauty or Subtilty of their Per­formances; yet the good Fortune of ap­pearing first, added to the Misfortune of wanting a Guide, gives the first Comers so great an Advantage, that though, for instance, the Fairy Queen, or Paradise Lost, may be thought by some to be bet­ter Poems than the Ilias; yet the same Persons will not say but that Homer was a greater Genius than either Spencer or Mil­ton. And besides, when Men judge of the Greatness of an Inventor's Genius barely by the Subtilty and Curiosity of his In­ventions, they may be very liable to Mis­takes in their Judgments, unless they knew, and were able to judge of the Easiness or Difficulty of those Methods, or Ratiocinations, by which these Men arrived at, and perfected these their Inventions; which, with due Allow­ances, is equally applicable to any Per­formances [Page 9] in Matters of Learning of a­ny sort.

It will however be some Satisfaction to those who are concerned for the Glory of the Age in which they live, if, in the first place, it can be proved, That as there are some parts of real and useful Knowledge, wherein not only great Strictness of Rea­soning, but Force and Extent of Thought is required thoroughly to comprehend what is already invented, much more to make any considerable Improvements, so that there can be no Dispute of the Strength of such Men's Understandings, who are able to make such Improvements; so in those very Things, such, and so great Dis­coveries have been made, as will oblige impartial Judges to acknowledge, that there is no probability that the World de­cays in Vigour and Strength, if (accor­ding to Sir William Temple's Hypothesis) we take our Estimate from the Measure of those Men's Parts, who have made these Advancements in these later Years; especially, if it should be found that the Ancients took a great deal of pains upon these very Subjects, and had able Masters to instruct them at their first setting out: And Secondly, If it should be proved, that there are other curious and useful Parts of Knowledge, wherein the An­cients [Page 10] had equal Opportunities of advan­cing and pursuing their Enquiries, with as much Facility as the Moderns, which were either slightly passed over, or whol­ly neglected, if we set the Labours of some few Men aside: And Lastly, If it should be proved, that by some great and happy Inventions, wholly unknown to former Ages, new and spacious Fields of Knowledge have been discovered, and, pursuant to those Discoveries, have been viewed, and searched into, with all the Care and Exactness which such noble Theories required. If these Three Things should be done, both Questions would be at once resolved, and Sir William Temple would see that the Moderns have done something more than Copy from their Teachers, and that there is no absolute necessity of making all those melancholy Reflections upon Pag. 5. 55, 56. the Sufficiency and Ig­norance of the present Age, which he, mo­ved with a just Resentment and Indigna­tion, has thought fit to bestow upon them.

How far these Things can, or cannot be proved, shall be my Business in these following Papers to enquire. But First, Of those Things wherein, if the Ancients have so far excelled as to bring them to Perfection, it may be thought that they did it because they were born before us.

I Have often thought that there could not be a pleasanter Entertainment to an inquisitive Man, than to run over the first Thoughts which he had in his In­fancy, whilst he was gathering his Colle­ction of Idea's, and labouring to express those Sounds, by which he perceived that his Mother and Nurse made themselves be understood. We should then see the true Gradations by which Knowledge is acquired: We should judge, perhaps, what is in it self hard, and what easie, and also what it is that makes them so; and there­by make a better Estimate of the Force of Men's Understandings, than can now be made. But this it is in vain to lament for, since it can never be had. Yet it may in general be observed, that the first Thoughts of Infants are of Things im­mediately necessary for Life. That be­ing in some measure satisfied, they spend their Childhood in Pleasure, if left to their own Liberty, till they are grown up. Then they begin to reflect upon the Things [Page 12] that relate to Prudence and Discretion, and that more or less, according as their Circumstances oblige them to carry them­selves more or less warily towards those with whom they converse. This is, and ever was, general to all Mankind; where­as they would not take so much pains to cultivate the Arts of Luxury and Magni­ficence, if they were not spurred on by Pride, and a Desire of not being behind other Men. So that it is reasonable to suppose, that, all those Things which re­late to Moral Knowledge, taken in its largest Extent, were understood by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, in as great Perfection as the Things them­selves were capable of. The Arts of Go­verning of Kingdoms and Families; of Managing the Affections and Fears of the unconstant Multitude; of Ruling their Passions, and Discoursing concerning their several Ways of Working; of Making prudent Laws, and Laying down wise Methods by which they might be the more easily and effectually obeyed; of Conversing each with other; of Giving and Paying all that Respect which is due to Men's several Qualities: In short, all that is commonly meant by knowing the World, and understanding Mankind; all Things necessary to make Men wise [Page 13] in Counsel, dexterous in Business, and agreeable in Conversation, seem to have been in former Ages thoroughly under­stood, and successfully practised.

There seems, indeed, to be some Rea­son to fear, that in the Arts of Knavery and Deceit, the present Age may have re­fined upon the foregoing; but that is so little for its Honour, that common De­cency does almost as much oblige me to throw a Veil over this Reproach, as com­mon Interest does all Mankind to put an effectual Stop to its Increase. But since we are enquiring into Excellencies, not Blemishes and Imperfections, there seems to be great Reason to affirm, that After-Ages had no need to invent Rules, which already were laid down to their Hands; but that their Business was chiefly to re­examine them, and to see which were pro­per for their Circumstances, considering what Alterations Time sensibly introdu­ces into the Customs of every Age; and then to make a wise Choice of what they borrowed, that so their Judgment might not be questioned by those who should have the Curiosity to compare the Wis­dom of several Ages together.

If we descend into Particulars, these Ob­servations will, I believe, be found to be ve­ry true: The minutest Differences between [Page 14] Vertue and Vice of all sorts, are judici­ously stated by Aristotle, in his Ethicks to Nicomachus. Xenophon's Cyrus shews that he had a right Notion of all those Things which will make a Prince truly great and wise. The Characters of all those Vices which are immediately taken notice of in Civil Life, are admirably drawn by Theo­phrastus. Nothing can give a clearer Idea of one that has lived under Tyrants, than the Writings of Tacitus; in whose Histo­ries, almost every Thing is told in such a Way, as we see that Ill Usage and Disappointments lead Men to censure and report the Actions of former Governors. Great Skill in all the Arts and Secrets of Persuasion appear every where in Demo­sthenes and Tully's Orations, in Quincti­lian's Institutions, and the Orations in Thucydides, Sallust and Livy. The Du­ties of Mankind in Civil Life, are excel­lently set forth in Tully's Offices. Not one Passion of the Soul of Man has been un­touched, and that with Life too, by some or other of the Ancient Poets. It would require a Volume to state these Things in their full Light; and it has been done very often by those who have given Cha­racters and Censures of Ancient Authors. So that one may justly conclude, that there is no one Part of Moral Knowledge, [Page 15] strictly so called, which was not known by the Ancients, equally well as by the Moderns.

But it would be a wrong Inference to conclude from thence, that the Ancients were greater Genius's than the Men of the present Age. For, by Sir William Temple's Confession, Essay 3. upon Hero­ick Vertue, Sect. 2, 3., the Chineses and Peruans were governed by excellent Laws: and Confucius and Mango Capac may well be reckoned amongst the Law-givers and Philosophers of those which are common­ly called learned Nations; though nei­ther of them, especially the Latter, can justly be suspected of learning what they knew by Communication from other Na­tions. From whence Sir William Temple rightly concludes, that Common Sence is of the Growth of every Country; and that all People who unite into Societies, and form Governments, will in time make prudent Laws of all kinds; since it is not Strength of Imagination, nor Subtilty of Reasoning, but Constancy in making Observations upon the several Ways of Working of Humane Nature, that first stored the World with Moral Truths, and put Mankind upon forming such Rules of Practice as best suited with these Observations. There is no Won­der therefore, that in a long Series of [Page 16] Ages, which preceded Socrates and Plato, these Matters were carried to a great Per­fection; for as the Necessity of any Thing is greater, so it will be more and more generally studied: And as the Subject of our Enquiries is nearer to us, or easier to be comprehended in it self; so it will be more throughly examined, and what is to be known will be more perfectly un­derstood. Both these concurr here: Ne­cessity of conversing with each other put Men upon making numerous Observa­tions upon the Tempers of Mankind: And their own Nature being the Thing enquired after, all Men could make their Experiments at home; which, in Con­sort with those made with and by other People, enabled them to make certain Conclusions of Eternal Truth, since Man­kind varies little, if any thing, any far­ther than as Customs alter it, from one Age to another. Since therefore this Ne­cessity always lasts, and that all the Ob­servations requisite to compleat this noble Science, as it takes in the Art of Govern­ing Kingdoms, Families, and Men's pri­vate Persons, cannot be made by one or two Generations, there is a plain Reason why some Nations, which wanted Op­portunities of diffused Conversation, were more barbarous than the rest; and also, [Page 17] why others, who for many Ages met with no Foreign Enemies that could over­turn their Constitutions, should be capa­ble of improving this part of Knowledge as far as unassisted Reason was able to car­ry it.

For, after all, how weak the Know­ledge of the ancient Heathens was, even here, will appear by comparing the Wri­tings of the old Philosophers, with those Moral Rules which Solomon left us in the Old Testament, and which our Blessed Sa­viour and his Apostles laid down in the New. Rules so well suited to the Reason of Man, so well adapted to civilize the World, and to introduce that true Hap­piness which the old Philosophers so vain­ly strove to find, that the more they are considered, the more they will be valued: and accordingly, they have extorted even from those who did not believe the Chri­stian Religion, just Applauses, which were certainly unbiassed, because, not being led by the Rewards which it proposes, nor deterred by the Punishments which it threatens, they could have no Motive to commend them but their own native Excellency. So that one may justly won­der why Sir W. T. should give us an Ac­count of Mahomet's Life, and that so mi­nutely, as not to omit the Sergian Monk, [Page 18] his Master Essay 3. pag. 248. He means Sergius, a Monk; turning the Name of a Man into the Denomination of an Order. Sergius is said to have been a Nestorian., in his Essay of Heroick Vertue; where he mentions Law-givers, as well as Generals, and yet take no notice of Moses and Jesus Christ.

It is evident therefore, that though in some Sence the Moderns may be said to have learned their Politicks and Ethicks from the Ancients, yet there is no con­vincing Argument that can be brought from those Sciences, singly considered, that the Ancients had a greater Force of Genius than the wise and prudent Men of these later Generations. If, indeed, in all other Sciences, Mankind has for 1500 Years been at a full Stop, the Per­fection of the Ancient Politicks and E­thicks may be justly urged, amongst other Arguments, for the comparative Strength of their Parts; otherwise not.

But there are other Parts of Learning, that may seem capable of farther Im­provement; of which, the Advocates for the Ancients do not only pretend that they were the Inventors, but that their Performances have never since been equal­led, much less out-done; though within these last 200 Years all imaginable Pains have been taken to do it; and great Re­wards have been given to those who have, [Page 19] licèt non passibus aequis, laboured to come near the Copies which were already set them. From whence these Men think it probable that all Modern Learning is but Imitation, and that faint and flat, like the Paintings of those who draw after Copies at a Third or Fourth Hand from the Life. Now, as this can only be known by an Induction of Particulars, so of these Particulars there are two sorts: One, of those wherein the greatest part of those Learned Men who have compa­red Ancient and Modern Performances, either give up the Cause to the Ancients quite, or think, at least, that the Mo­derns have not gone beyond them. The other of those, where the Advocates for the Moderns think the Case so clear on their Side, that they wonder how any Man can dispute it with them. Poesie, Oratory, Architecture, Painting, and Statuary, are of the First Sort: Natural History, Physiology, and Mathematicks, with all their Dependencies, are of the Second.

IT is acknowledged by most Men, that he who has studied any Subject, is a better Judge of that Subject than ano­ther Man who did never purposely bend his Thoughts that way, provided they be both Men of equal Parts. Yet we see there are many Things, whereof Men will, at first sight, pass their Judgment, and obstinately adhere to it, though they not only know nothing of those Matters, but will confess that it requires Parts, and Skill, and Exercise, to be excellent in them. This is remarkably visible in the Censures which are passed upon Pieces of Oratory and Poesie every Day by those who have very little, or none, of that sort of Learning themselves; and to whom all that is said of Skill in those Things, and of a true Relish of what is really fine, is Jargon and Cant. And in the mean time, these Men do in other Things shew great Accuracy and Judg­ment, even in Subjects which require quick Apprehension, nice Observation, [Page 21] and frequent Meditation. If one should ask why such Men so frequently mistake and differ in those other Matters, the Answer, I think is this: (1.) The Foun­dations of Eloquence of all sorts lying in Common Sence, of which every Man is in some degree a Master, most ingenious Men have, without any Study, a little Insight into these Things. This little Insight betrays them immediately to de­clare their Opinions, because they are a­fraid, if they should not, their Reputa­tion would be in danger. On the con­trary, where the Subject is such, that every Man finds he can frame no Idea of it in his own Mind, without a great number of Premises, which cannot be at­tained by common Conversation, all wise Men hold their Hands, suspect their own Abilities, and are afraid that they cannot fathom the Depth of his Knowledge with whom they converse; especially if he has a Name for Skill in those Matters. And therefore, talk with such Men of a Law-Case, or a Problem in Geometry, if they never studied those Things, they will frankly tell you so, and decline to give their Opinion. Whereas if you speak to them of a Poem, a Play, or a Moral Dis­course upon a Subject capable of Rheto­rical Ornaments, they will immediately [Page 22] pass their Censure, right or wrong; and Twenty Men, perhaps, shall give Twen­ty different Opinions; whilst, in the o­ther Cases, scarce Two of the Twenty shall disagree, if they are conscious to themselves that they have Skill enough to judge without another's help. (2.) In most of these Things our Passions are some Way or other concerned; at least, being accustomed to have them moved, we expect it, and think our selves disap­pointed when our Expectation is deceiv­ed. Now, when a Man is to judge in Matters of this kind, he generally before­hand is pre-possessed with such Passions as he would willingly have raised, or confirmed; and so speaks as his Expecta­tion is answered. But when our Passions do not move in these Matters, as they seldom do upon Subjects a great way off, then our Censures are more unanimous. For, as the Poet says,

So that there is no great Wonder why Men should receive the Writings of the Ancients with so great Respect: For the Distance of Time takes off Envy; and the [Page 23] being accustomed from our Childhood to hear them commended, creates a Re­verence. Yet though due Allowances ought to be made for these Pre-possessions, one has Reason to believe, that this Re­verence for the Ancient Orators and Po­ets is more than Prejudice. (By Orators, I understand all those Writers in Prose who took pains to beautifie and adorn their Stile.) Their Works give us a ve­ry solid Pleasure when we read them. The best in their kind among the Mo­derns have been those who have read the Ancients with greatest Care, and endea­voured to imitate them with the greatest Accuracy. The Masters of Writing in all these several Ways, to this Day, ap­peal to the Ancients, as their Guides; and still fetch Rules from them, for the Art of Writing. Homer, and Aristotle, and Virgil, and Horace, and Ovid, and Terence, are now studied as Teachers, not barely out of Curiosity, by Modern Poets. So likewise are Demosthenes, Aristotle, Tully, Quinctilian, and Longinus, by those who would write finely in Prose. So that there is Reason to think that in these Arts the Ancients may have out-done the Moderns; though neither have they been neglected in these later Ages, in which we have seen extraordinary Productions, [Page 24] which the Ancients themselves, had they been alive, would not have been asha­med of.

If this be so, as I verily believe it is, sure now (it will be objected) It is evi­dent that the Ancients had a greater Force of Genius than the Moderns can pretend to. Will it be urged, that here also they had an Advantage by being born first? Have these Arts a fixed Foundation in Nature; or were they not attained to by Study? If by Nature, why have we heard of no Orators among the Inhabi­tants of the Bay of Soldania, or eminent Poets in Peru? If by Study, why not now, as well as formerly, since Printing has made Learning cheap and easie? Does it seem harder to speak and write like Cicero or Virgil, than to find out the motions of the Heavens, and to calculate the Distances of the Stars? What can be the Reason of this Disparity?

The Reasons are several, and scarce one of them of such a Nature as can now be helped, and yet not conclusive against the Comparative Strength of Understand­ing, evidently discernible in the Produ­ctions of the Learned Men of the pre­sent, and immediately foregoing Ages; to which I would be understood strictly to confine my Notion of the Word Modern. [Page 25] These Reasons I shall examine at large, because, if they are valid, they quite take away the Force of Sir William Tem­ple's Hypothesis; and by removing the blind Admiration now paid to the An­cient Orators and Poets, set it upon such a Foot as will render the Reading of their Books more useful, because less supersti­tious. They are of several Sorts; some relating to Oratory, some to Poesie, and some in common to both.

I shall first speak of those which relate more particularly to Poetry, because it was much the ancientest Way of Writing in Greece; where their Orators owned, that they learned a great deal of what they knew, even in their own, as well as in other Parts of Learning, from their Poets. And here one may observe, that no Poetry can be Charming that has not a Language to support it. The Greek Tongue has a vast variety of long Words, wherein long and short Syllables are a­greeably intermixed together, with great Numbers of Vowels and Diphthongs in the Middle-Syllables, and those very sel­dom clogged by the joyning of harsh­sounding Consonants in the same Sylla­ble: All which Things give it a vast Ad­vantage above any other Language that has ever yet been cultivated by Learned [Page 26] Men. By this Means all manner of Tu­nable Numbers may be formed in it with Ease; as still appears in the remaining Dramatick and Lyrick Composures of the Greek Poets. This seems to have been at first a lucky Accident, since it is as visible in Homer, who lived before the Gramma­rians had determined the Analogy of that Language by Rules; which Rules were, in a very great measure, taken from his Poems, as the Standard; as in those Poets that came after him. And that this pe­culiar Smoothness of the Greek Language was at first Accidental, farther appears, because the Phoenician or Hebrew Tongue, from whence it was formed, as most Learned Men agree, is a rough, unpo­lished Tongue; abounding with short Words, and harsh Consonants: So that if one allows for some very small Agree­ment in the Numbers of Nouns, and Variations of Tenses in Verbs, the two Languages are wholly of a different Make. That a derived Language should be sweet­er than its Mother-Tongue, will seem strange to none that compares the Mo­dern Tuscan with the Ancient Latin; where, though their Affinity is visible at first Sight, in every Sentence, yet one sees that that derived Language actually has a Sweetness and Tunableness in its [Page 27] Composition, that could not be derived from its Parent; since nothing can im­part that to another, which it has not it self: And it shows likewise, that a Bar­barous People, as the Italians were when mingled with the Goths and Lom­bards, may, without knowing or mind­ing Grammatical Analogy, form a Lan­guage so very musical, that no Art can mend it. For, in Boccace's Time, who lived above 300 Years ago, in the earliest Dawnings of Polite Learning in these Western Parts of the World, Italian was a formed Language, endued with that peculiar Smoothness which other Euro­pean Languages wanted; and it has since suffered no fundamental Alterations; not any, at least, for the better, since in the Dictionary of the Academy della Crusca, Boccace's Writings are often appealed to in doubtful Cases, which concern the Nice­ties of the Tongue.

Now, when this Native Smoothness of the Greek Tongue was once discovered to common Ears, by the sweetness of their Verses, which depended upon a Regular Composition of Long and Short Sylla­bles, all Men paid great Respect to their Poets, who gave them so delightful an Entertainment. The wiser Sort took this Opportunity of Civilizing the rest, by [Page 28] putting all their Theological and Philoso­phical Instructions into Verse; which being learnt with Pleasure, and remem­bred with Ease, helped to heighten and preserve the Veneration already, upon other Scores, paid to their Poets. This increased the Number of Rivals, and eve­ry one striving to out-do his Neighbour; some by varying their Numbers, others by chusing Subjects likely to please, here and there some, one or two atleast of a sort, proved excellent: And then, those who were the most extraordinary in their several Ways, were esteemed as Standards by succeeding Ages; and Rules were fra­med by their Works, to examine other Poems of the same sort. Thus Aristotle framed Rules of Epick Poesie from Ho­mer: Thus Aristophanes, Menander, Sa­phocles and Euripides were looked upon as Masters in Dramatick Poesie; and their Practice was sufficient Authority. Thus Mimnermus, Philet as and Callimachus were the Patterns to following Imitators for Elegy and Epigram. Now, Poetry being a limited Art, and these Men, after the often-repeated Trials of others, had pro­ved successless; finding the true Secret of pleasing their Country-men, partly by their Wit and Sence, and partly by the inimitable Sweetness of their Numbers, [Page 29] there is no Wonder that their Successors, who were to write to a pre-possessed Au­dience, though otherwise Men of equal, perhaps greater Parts, failed of that Ap­plause of which the great Masters were already in possession; for Copying nau­seates more in Poetry, than any thing: So that Buchanan and Sannazarius, tho' admirable Poets, are not read with that Pleasure which Men find in Lucretius and Virgil, by any but their Country-men, because they wrote in a dead Language, and so were frequently obliged to use the same Turns of Thought, and always the same Words and Phrases, in the same Sense in which they were used before by the Original Authors; which forces their Readers too often to look back upon their Masters; and so abates of that Pleasure which Men take in Milton, Cowley, But­ler, or Dryden, who wrote in their Mo­ther-Tongue, and so were able to give that unconstrained Range and Turn to their Thoughts and Expressions that are truly necessary to make a compleat Poem.

It may therefore be very reasonably be­lieved, that the natural Softness, Expres­siveness and Fulness of the Greek Lan­guage gave great Encouragement to the Greek Poets to labour hard, when they [Page 30] had such manageable Matter to work upon, and when such Rewards constant­ly attended their Labours. This like­wise was a great Help to their Orators, as well as their Poets; who soon found the Beauties of a numerous Composition, and left nothing undone, that could bring it to its utmost Perfection. But this was not so important a Consideration, as a­lone to have encouraged the Greeks to cul­tivate their Eloquence, if the Constitu­tion of their Governments had not made it necessary; and that Necessity had not obliged a very great Number of inge­nious Men to take Pains about it.

Most part of Greece, properly so called, and of Asia the Less, the Coasts of Thrace, Sicily, the Islands in the Mediterranean, and a great part of Italy, were long di­vided into great Numbers of Kingdoms and Commonwealths; and many of these small Kingdoms, taking Example by their neighbouring Cities that had thrown off their imperious Masters, turned, in time, to Commonwealths, as well as they. These, as all little Governments that are contiguous, being well nigh an even Match for each other, continued for many Ages in that Condition. Many of the chief­est were Democracies; as, the Republicks of Athens, Syracuse, Thebes and Corinth; [Page 31] where it was necessary to complement the People upon all Occasions: So that busie, factious Men had Opportunities enough to shew their Skill in Politicks. Men of all Tempers, and all Designs, that would accuse or defend, that would advise or consult, were obliged to address them­selves in set Harangues to the People. Interest therefore, and Vanity, Motives sometimes equally powerful, made the Study of Rhetorick necessary; and whilst every Man followed the several Bias of his own Genius, some few found out the true Secret of Pleasing, in all the several Ways of Speaking well, which are so ad­mirably, and so largely discoursed of by the ancient Rhetoricians. Demosthenes be­ing esteemed beyond all his Predecessors, for the Correctness of his Stile, the Justness of his Figures, the Easiness of his Narra­tions, and the Force of his Thoughts; his Orations were looked upon as Stan­dards of Eloquence by his Country-men: Which Notion of theirs effectually damp­ed future Endeavours of other Men, since here, as well as in Poetry and Painting, all Copiers will ever continue on this side of their Originals. And besides, the great End of Oratory being to persuade, where­in Regard must be had to the Audience, as well as to the Subject, if there be but [Page 32] one Way of doing best at the same time in both, as there can be but one in all li­mited Arts or Sciences, they that either first find it out, or come the nearest to it, will unquestionably, and of Right, keep the first Station in Men's Esteem, though perhaps they dare not, for fear of disgust­ing the Age they live in, follow those Methods which they admire so much, and so justly, in those great Masters that went before them.

That these Accidents, and not a parti­cular Force of Genius, raised the Grecian Poesie and Oratory, will further appear, if we reflect upon the History of the Rise and Increase of both those Arts amongst the Romans: Their Learning, as well as their Language, came originally from Greece; they saw what was done to their Hands, and Greek was a living Lan­guage; and so, by the help of Masters, they could judge of all its Beauties. Yet, with all their Care, and Skill, and Pains, they could not, of a long time, bring their Poetry to any Smoothness; they found that their Language was not so du­ctile, they owned it, and complained of it. It had a Majestick Gravity, derived from the People themselves who spoke it; which made it proper for Philosophical and Epical Poems; for which Reason, [Page 33] Lucretius and Virgil were able to do so great Things in their several Ways, their Language enabling them to give the most becoming Beauties to all their Thoughts. But there not being that Variety of Feet in the Latin, which Language, for the most part, abounds in Dactyles, Spondees and Trochees; nor that Sprightliness of Temper, and in-bred Gaiety in the Ro­mans, which the Greeks are to this Day famous for, even to a Proverb, in many Parts of Poetry they yielded, though not without Reluctancy, to a People whom they themselves had conquered. Which shews, that Natural Imperfections can­not be overcome: And when these Im­perfections are accidental, as the Lan­guage is which every Man speaks at first, though he has equal Parts, and perhaps greater Industry, yet he shall be thrown behind another Man who does not labour under those Inconveniences; and the Di­stance between them will be greater, or less, according to the Greatness or Quali­ty of these Inconveniences.

If we bring this Thing down to Mo­dern Languages, we shall find them la­bouring under much greater: For, the Quantities of Syllables being, in a man­ner, lost in all Modern Languages, we can have no Notion of that Variety of [Page 34] Feet which was anciently used by the Greeks and Romans, in Modern Poems. The Guide of Verses is not now Length of Syllable, but only Number of Feet, and Accent: Most of the French Accents are in the last Syllable; Ours, and the Italian, in the fore-going. This fits French for some sorts of Poems, which Italian and English are not so proper for. Again, All Syllables, except the Accent­ed one in each Word, being now com­mon in Modern Languages, we Nor­thern People often make a Syllable short that has two or three Consonants in it, because we abound in Consonants: This makes English more unfit for some Poems, than French and Italian; which having fewer Consonants, have consequently a greater Smoothness and Flowingness of Feet, and Rapidity of Pronunciation.

I have brought these Instances out of Modern Languages, whereof Sir William Temple is so great a Master, to prove my first Assertion; namely, That though a very great deal is to be given to the Ge­nius and Judgment of the Poet, which are both absolutely necessary to make a good Poem, what Tongue soever the Poet writes in; yet the Language it self has so great an Influence, that if Homer and Virgil had been Polanders, or High-Dutch-Men, [Page 35] they would never, in all probability, have thought it worth their while to attempt the Writing of Heroick Poems; Virgil especially, Cum res Romanas in­choasset, offensus materiâ & nominum asperitate, ad Bucolica transiit. Dona­tus in Vitâ Virgilii, who began to write an Histo­rical Poem of some great A­ctions of his Country-men; but was so gravelled with the Roughness of the Roman Names, that he laid it aside.

Now, as the Roman Poetry arrived to that Perfection which it had, because it was supported by a Language which, though in some Things inferiour to the Greek, had noble and charming Beauties, not now to be found in Modern Langua­ges; so the Roman Oratory was owing to their Government: Which makes the Parallel much more perfect: And all those Reasons alledged already for the Growth of the Attick Eloquence, are equally ap­plicable to the History of the Roman; so that there is no Necessity of Repeating them. To which we may add, That when the Romans once lost their Liberty, their Eloquence soon fell: And Tacitus (or Quinctilian) needed not have gone so far about to search for Reasons of the Decay of the Roman Eloquence. Tully left his Country and Profession, after his Defence of S. Roscius Amerinus; resolv­ing [Page 36] to give over Pleading, if Sylla's Death had not restored that Freedom which on­ly gave Life to his Oratory: And when the Civil Wars between Pompey and Caesar came on, he retired, because his Profession was superseded by a rougher Rhetorick, which commands an Atten­tive Audience in all Countries where it pleads.

When Orators are no longer Consti­tuent Parts of a Government, or, at least, when Eloquence is not an almost certain Step to arrive at the chiefest Honours in a State, the Necessity of the Art of Speak­ing is, in a great measure, taken off; and as the Authority of Orators lessens. which it will insensibly do as Tyranny and Ab­solute Power prevail, their Art will dwin­dle into Declamation, and an Affectation of Sentences, and Forms of Wit. The Old Men, who out-live their former Splendor, will, perhaps, set their own Scholars and Auditors right, and give them a true Relish of what is Great and Noble; but that will hardly continue above one or two Generations. Which may be super-added as another Reason why there were no more Demosthenes's or Tullies, after the Macedonian and Roman Emperors had taken away the Liberty of their respective Commonwealths. It is [Page 37] Liberty alone which inspires Men with Lofty Thoughts, and elevates their Souls to a higher Pitch than Rules of Art can direct. Books of Rhetorick make Men Copious and Methodical; but they alone can never infuse that true Enthusiastick Rage which Liberty breaths into their Souls who enjoy it: And which, guided by a Sedate Judgment, will carry Men further than the greatest Industry, and the quickest Parts can go without it.

When private Members of a Common­wealth can have Foreign Princes for their Clients, and plead their Causes before their Fellow-Citizens; when Men have their Understandings enlarged, by a long Use of publick Business, for many Years before they speak in publick; and when they know that their Auditory are Men, not only of equal Parts, and Experience in Business; but also many of them Men of equal, if not greater Skill in Rhetorick than themselves: Which was the Case of the old Romans. These Men, inflamed with the mighty Honour of being Pa­trons to Crowned Heads, having Liberty to speak any Thing that may advantage their Cause, and being obliged to take so great Pains to get up to, or to keep above so many Rivals, must needs be much more excellent Orators, than other Ages, [Page 38] destitute of such concurrent Circumstan­ces, though every thing else be equal, can possibly produce.

Besides all this, the Humour of the Age which we live in is exceedingly al­tered: Men apprehend or suspect a Trick in every Thing that is said to move the Passions of the Auditory in Courts of Ju­dicature, or in the Parliament-House: They think themselves affronted when such Methods are used in Speaking, as if the Orator could suppose within himself, that they were to be catched by, such Baits. And therefore, when Men have spoken to the Point, in as few Words as the Matter will bear, it is expected they should hold their Tongues. Even in the Pulpit, the Pomp of Rhetorick is not al­ways commended; and very few meet with Applause, who do not confine them­selves to speak with the Severity of a Phi­losopher, as well as with the Splendour of an Orator; two Things, not always consistent. What a Difference in the Way of Thinking must this needs create in the World? Anciently, Orators made their Employment the Work of their whole Lives; and as such, they followed it: All their Studies, even in other Things, were, by a sort of Alchemy, turned into Eloquence. The Labour which they [Page 39] thought requisite, is evident to any Man that reads Quinctilian's Institutions, and the Rhetorical Tracts of Cicero. This exceedingly takes off the Wonder: Elo­quence may lie in common for Ancients and Moderns, yet those only shall be most excellent that cultivate it most, who live in an Age that is accustomed to, and will bear nothing but Mascu­line, unaffected Sence; which likewise must be cloathed with the most splendid Ornaments of Rhetorick.

Sir William Temple will certainly agree with me in this Conclusion, that former Ages made greater Orators, and nobler Poets, than these later Ages have done; though perhaps he may disagree with me about the Way by which I came to my Conclusion; since hence it will follow, that the present Age, with the same Ad­vantages, under the same Circumstances, might produce a Demosthenes, a Cicero, a Horace, or a Virgil; which, for any thing hitherto said to the contrary, seems to be very probable.

But, though the Art of Speaking, as­sisted by all these Advantages, seems to have been at a greater heighth amongst the Greeks and Romans, than it is at pre­sent, yet it will not follow from thence, that every Thing which is capable of [Page 40] Rhetorical Ornaments should, for that sole Reason, be more perfect anciently than now; especially if these be only Secon­dary Beauties, without which, that Dis­course wherein they are found may be justly valuable, and that in a very high Degree. So that, though, for the pur­pose, one should allow the Ancient Hi­storians to be better Orators than the Mo­dern, yet these last may, for all that, be much better, at least, equally good Hi­storians; those among them especially, who have taken fitting Care to please the Ears, as well as instruct the Understand­ings of their Readers. Of all the An­cient Historians before Polybius, none seems to have had a right Notion of wri­ting History, except Thucydides: And therefore Polybius, whose first Aim was, to instruct his Reader by leading him in­to every Place, whither the Thread of his Narrative carried him, makes frequent Excuses for those Digressions, which were but just necessary to beget a tho­rough Understanding of the Matter of Fact of which he was then giving an Ac­count. These Excuses show that he took a new Method; and they answer an Ob­jection, which might otherwise have been raised from the small Numbers of extant Histories that were written before his [Page 41] Time; as if we could make no Judgment of those that are lost, from those that are preserved. For, the Generality of those who wrote before him, made Rhetorick their chief Aim; and therefore all Nice­ties of Time, and Place, and Person, that might hurt the Flowingness of their Stile, were omitted; instead whereof, the Great Men of their Drama's were introduced, making long Speeches; and such a Gloss was put upon every Thing that was told, as made it appear extraordinary; and Things that were wonderful and prodi­gious were mentioned with a particular Emphasis.

This Censure will not appear unjust to any Man who has read Ancient Histo­rians with ordinary Care; Polybius espe­cially: Who, first of all the Ancient Hi­storians, fixes the Time of every great Action that he mentions: Who assigns such Reasons for all Events, as seem, even at this distance, neither too great, nor too little: Who, in Military Matters, takes Care, not only to shew his own Skill, but to make his Reader a Judge, as well as himself: Who, in Civil Af­fairs, makes his Judgment of the Con­duct of every People from the several Constitutions of their respective Govern­ments, or from the Characters and Cir­cumstances [Page 42] of the Actors themselves: And last of all, Who scrupulously avoids saying any Thing that might appear incredible to Posterity; but represents Things in such a manner, as a wise Man may believe they were transacted: And yet he has neglected all that Artful Elo­quence which was before so much in fashion.

If these therefore be the chiefest Per­fections of a just History, and if they can only be the Effects of a great Genius, and great Study, or both; at least, not of the last, without the first, we are next to enquire whether any of the Moderns have been able to attain to them: And then, if several may be found, which in none of these Excellencies seem to yield to the noblest of all the Ancient Histo­ries, it will not be difficult to give an An­swer to Sir William Temple's Question; Whether Pag. 57 D'Avila's and Strada's Histo­ries be beyond those of Herodotus and Livy? I shall name but two; The Memoirs of Philip Comines, and F. Paul's History of the Council of Trent.

Philip Comines ought here to be men­tioned for many Reasons: For, besides that he particularly excels in those very Vertues which are so remarkable in Poly­bius, to whom Lipsius makes no Scruple [Page 43] to compare him, he had nothing to help him but Strength of Genius, assisted by Observation and Experience: He owns himself, that he had no Learning; and it is evident to any Man that reads his Writings. He flourished in a barbarous Age, and died just as Learning had cros­sed the Alpes, to get into France: So that he could not, by Conversation with Scho­lars, have those Defects which Learning cures, supplied. This is what cannot be said of the Thucydides's, Polybius's, Sal­lusts, Livies, and Tacitus's of Antiquity. Yet, with all these Disadvantages, to which this great one ought also to be ad­ded, That by the Monkish Books then in vogue, he might sooner be led out of the Way, than if he had none at all to per­use, his Stile is Masculine and significant; though diffuse, yet not tedious; even his Repetitions, which are not over-fre­quent, are diverting: His Digressions are wise, proper, and instructing: One sees a profound Knowledge of Mankind in every Observation that he makes; and that without Ill Nature, Pride, or Pas­sion. Not to mention that peculiar Air of Impartiality, which runs through the whole Work; so that it is not easie to withdraw our Assent from every Thing which he says. To all which I need not [Page 44] add, that his History never tires, though immediately read after Livy or Tacitus.

In F. Paul's History one may also find the Excellencies before observed in Poly­bius; and it has been nicely examined by dextrous and skilful Adversaries, who have taken the Pains to weigh every Pe­riod, and rectifie every Date. So that, besides the Satisfaction which any other admirable History would have afforded us, we have the Pleasure of thinking that we may safely rely upon his Accounts of Things, without being mis-guided in any one leading Particular of great moment, since Adversaries, who had no Inclina­tion to spare him, could not invalidate the Authority of a Book which they had so great a Desire to lessen. I had gone no further than D'Avila and Strada, if there were as much Reason to believe their Narratives, as there is to commend their Skill in writing. D'Avila must be acknowledged to be a most Entertaining Historian; one that wants neither Art, Genius, nor Eloquence, to render his History acceptable. Strada imitates the old Romans so happily, that those who can relish their Eloquence, will be always pleased with his.

Upon the whole Matter, one may positively say, That where any Thing [Page 45] wherein Oratory can only claim a Share, has been equally cultivated by the Mo­derns, as by the Ancients; they have equalled them at least, if not out-done them, setting aside any particular Graces, which might as well be owing to the Languages in which they wrote, as to the Writers themselves.

WHatever becomes of the Reasons given in the last Chapter, for the Excellency of Ancient Eloquence and Poetry, the Position it self is so generally held, that I do not fear any Opposition here at home. It is almost an Heresie in Wit, among our Poets, to set up any Modern Name against Homer or Virgil, Horace or Terence. So that though here and there one should in Discourse preferr the present Age, yet scarce any Man who sets a Value upon his own Reputation, will [Page 46] venture to assert it in Print. Whether this is to be attributed to their Judgment, or Modesty, or both, I will not deter­mine; though I am apt to believe, to both, because in our Neighbour-Nation, which is remarkable for a good deal of what Sir William Temple calls Sufficiency, some have spoken much more openly.

For the Members of the Academy in France, who since the Cardinal de Riche­lieu's Time, have taken so much Pains to make their Language capable of all those Beauties which they find in Ancient Au­thors, will not allow me to go so far as I have done. Monsieur Perrault, their Ad­vocate, in Oratory sets the Bishop of Meaux against Pericles, (or rather, Thu­cydides,) the Bishop of Nismes against Iso­crates, F. Bourdaloüe against Lysias, Mon­sieur Voiture against Pliny, and Monsieur Balzac against Cicero. In Poetry like­wise he sets Monsieur Boileau against Ho­race, Monsieur Corneille and Monsieur Mo­liere against the Ancient Dramatick Poets. In short, though he owns that some a­mongst the Ancients had very exalted Ge­nius's, so that it may, perhaps, be very hard to find any Thing that comes near the Force of some of the Ancient Pieces, in either Kind, amongst our Modern Wri­ters, yet he affirms, that Poetry and Ora­tory [Page 47] are now at a greater heighth than ever they were, because there have been many Rules found out since Virgil's and Horace's Time; and the old Rules like­wise have been more carefully scanned than ever they were before. This Hypothesis ought a little to be enquired into; and therefore I shall offer some few Considera­tions about his Notion. Sir William Tem­ple, I am sure, will not think this a Digres­sion, because the Author of the Plurality of Worlds, Pag. 5. by censuring of the Old Poetry, and giving Preference to the New, raised his Indignation; which no Quality among Men was so apt to raise in him as Sufficien­cy, the worst Composition out of the Pride and Ignorance of Mankind.

1. Monsieur Perrault takes it for grant­ed, that Cicero was a better Orator than Demosthenes; because, living after him, the World had gone on for above Two Hundred Years, constantly improving, and adding new Observations, necessary to compleat his Art: And so by Conse­quence, that the Gentlemen of the Acade­my must out-do Tully, for the same Rea­sons. This Proposition, which is the Foun­dation of a great part of his Book, is not very easie to be proved; because Man­kind loves Variety in those Things where­in it may be had so much, that the best [Page 48] Things, constantly re-iterated, will cer­tainly disgust. Sometimes the Age will not bear Subjects, upon which an Orator may display his full Force; he may often be obliged to little, mean Exercises. A Thousand Accidents, not discoverable at a distance, may force Men to stretch their Inventions to spoil that Eloquence which, left to it self, would do admirable Things. And that there is such a Thing as a De­cay of Eloquence in After-Ages, which have the Performances of those that went before constantly to recurr to, and which may be supposed to pretend to Skill and Fineness, is evident from the Writings of Seneca and the Younger Pliny, compared with Tully's.

2. The Ancients cannot justly be ac­cused of not using an exact and artificial Method in their Orations, if one exa­mines Tully's Pleadings, or reads over Quinctilian's Institutions. And if Pane­gyricks and Funeral-Orations do not seem so regular, it is not because Method was little understood, but because in those Discourses it was not so necessary. Where Men were to reason severely, Method was strictly observed: And the Vertues discoursed upon in Tully's Offices are as ju­diciously and clearly digested under their proper Heads, as the Subject-Matter of [Page 49] most Discourses written by any Modern Author, upon any Subject whatsoever. And it does not seem possible to contrive any Poem, whose Parts can have a truer, or more artful Connexion, than Virgil's Aeneis: And though it is now objected by Monsieur Perrault, as a Fault, that he did not carry on his Poem to the Mar­riage of Aeneas and Lavinia, yet we may reasonably think, that he had very good Reasons for doing so; because, in Augu­stus's Court, where Matters of that sort were very well understood, it was recei­ved with as great Veneration as it has been since; and never needed the Re­commendation of Antiquity, to add to its Authority.

Nay, we can give very probable Rea­sons, at this distance, for it. It is a Fault in Heroick Poetry, to fetch Things from their first Originals: And to carry the Thread of the Narrative down to the last Event, is altogether as dull. As Ho­mer begins not with the Rape of Helen, so he does not go so far as the Destruction of Troy. Men should rise from Table with some Appetite remaining: And a Poem should leave some View of some­thing to follow, and not quite shut the Scenes; especially if the remaining Part of the Story be not capable of much Or­nament, [Page 50] nor affords a Variety. The Pas­sion of Love, with those that always fol­low upon its being disappointed, had been shown already in the Story of Dido. But Monsieur Perrault seems to have had his Head possessed with the Idea of French Romances; which, to be sure, must ne­ver fail to end in a general Wedding.

For I observe, Secondly, That among other Arguments produced by him, to prove that the Ancients did not perfect their Oratory and Poesie, he urges this; That the Mind of Man, being an inex­haustible Fund of new Thoughts and Projects, every Age added Observati­ons of its own to the former Store; so that they still increased in Politeness, and by Consequence, their Eloquence of all sorts, in Verse or Prose, must needs be more exact. And as a Proof of this Assertion, he instances in Matters of Love: where­in the Writings of the best bred Gentle­men of all Antiquity, for want of Mo­dern Gallantry, of which they had no Notion, were rude and unpolished, if compared with the Poems and Roman­ces of the present Age. Here Monsieur Perrault's Skill in Architecture seems to have deceived him: For there is a wide Difference between an Art that, having no Antecedent Foundation in Nature, [Page 51] owes its first Original to some particular Invention, and all its future Improve­ments to Superstructures raised by other Men upon that first Ground-work; and between Passions of the Mind, that are Congenial with our Natures; where Conversation will polish them, even without previous Intentions of doing so; and where the Experiences of a few Ages, if assisted by Books that may preserve particular Cases, will carry them to as great an Heighth as the Things themselves are capable of. And therefore, he that now examines the Writings of the An­cient Moral Philosophers, Aristotle for instance, or the Stoicks, will find, that they made as nice Distinctions in all Mat­ters relating to Vertue and Vice; and that they understood Humane Nature, with all its Passions and Appetites, as ac­curately as any Philosophers have done since. Besides, It may be justly que­stioned, whether what Monsieur Perrault calls Politeness, be not very often rather an Aberration from, and Straining of Na­ture, than an Improvement of the Man­ners of the Age: If so, it may reasonably be supposed, that those that medled not with the Niceties of Ceremony and Breeding, before unpractised, rather con­temned them as improper or unnatural, [Page 52] than omitted them because of the Rough­ness of the Manners of the Ages in which they lived. Ovid and Tibullus knew what Love was, in its tenderest Motions; they describe its Anxieties and Disappoint­ments in a Manner that raises too too ma­ny Passions, even in unconcerned Hearts; they omit no probable Arts of Courtship and Address; and keeping the Mark they aim at still in view, they rather chuse to shew their Passion, than their Wit: And therefore they are not so formal as the Heroes in Pharamond or Cassandra; who, by pretending to Exactness in all their Methods, commit greater Improbabili­ties than Amadis de Gaule himself. In short, Durse The Author of Astraea., and Calprenede The Author of Cleopa­tra., and the rest of them, by over-straining the String, have broke it: And one can as soon believe that Varillas and Maimbourg wrote the Histories of great Actions just as they were done, as that Men ever made Love in such a Way as these Love-and-Honour Men describe. That Simpli­city therefore of the Ancients, which Monsieur Perrault undervalues, is so far from being a Mark of Rudeness, and Want of Complaisance, that their Fault lay in being too Natural, in making too lively Descriptions of Things, where Men want no Foreign Assistance to help [Page 53] them to form their Idea's; and where Ignorance, could it be had, is more va­luable than any, much more than a Cri­tical Knowledge.

3. Since,

the Felicity of a manageable Language, when improved by Men of nice Ears, and true Judgments, is greater, and goes further to make Men Orators and Poets, than Monsieur Perrault seems willing to allow; though there is a plain Reason for his Unwillingness: The French Lan­guage wants Strength to temper and sup­port its Smoothness for the nobler Parts of Poesie, and perhaps of Oratory too, though the French Nation wants no Accomplish­ments necessary to make a Poet, or an Orator. Therefore their late Criticks are always setting Rules, and telling Men what must be done, and what omitted, if they would be Poets. What they find they cannot do themselves, shall be so clogged where they may have the Ma­nagement, that others shall be afraid to attempt it. They are too fond of their Language, to acknowledge where the [Page 54] Fault lies; and therefore the chief Thing they tell us is, that Sence, Connexion and Method are the principal Things to be minded. Accordingly, they have trans­lated most of the Ancient Poets, even the Lyricks, into French Prose; and from those Translations they pass their Judg­ments, and call upon others to do so too. So that when (to use Sir J. Denham's Comparison) by pouring the Spirits of the Ancient Poetry from one Bottle into another, they have lost the most Volatile Parts, and the rest becomes flat and insi­pid; these Criticks exclaim against the Ancients, as if they did not sufficiently understand Poetical Chymistry. This is so great a Truth, that even in Oratory it holds, though in a less Degree. Thucy­dides therefore has hard Measure to be compared with the Bishop of Meaux, when his Oration is turned into another Language, whilst Monsieur de Meaux's stands unaltered; for, though Sence is Sence in every Tongue, yet all Langua­ges have a peculiar Way of expressing the same Things; which is lost in Trans­lations, and much more in Monsieur D' Ablancourt's, who professed to mind two very different Things at once; to trans­late his Author, and to write elegant Books in his own Language; which last [Page 55] he has certainly done; and he knew that more Persons could find fault with his Stile, if it had been faulty, than find out Mistakes in his Rendring of the Greek of Thucydides. Besides, the Beauty of the Author's Composition is, in all Transla­tions, entirely lost, though the Ancients were superstitiously exact about it; and in their elegant Prose, as much almost as in their Verse. So that a Man can have but half an Idea of the ancient Eloquence, and that not always faithful, who judges of it without such a Skill in Greek and Latin as can enable him to read Histories, Orations and Poems in those Languages, with Ease and Pleasure. But it is time to return to my Subject.

GRammar is one of the Sciences which Sir William Temple says, that Pag. 44. no Man ever disputed with the Ancients.

As this Assertion is expressed, it is a little ambiguous: It may be understood of the Skill of the Moderns in the Gram­matical [Page 56] Analogy of Latin and Greek, or of their Skill in the Grammar of their Mother-Tongues. Besides, Grammar may either be considered Mechanically, or Phi­losophically. Those consider it Mechani­cally, who only examine the Idiotisms and Proprieties of every particular Lan­guage, and lay down Rules to teach them to others. Those consider it as Philoso­phers, who run over the several Steps, by which every Language has altered its Idiom; who enquire into the several Perfections and Imperfections of those Tongues with which they are acquain­ted, and (if they are living Languages) propose Methods how to remedy them, or, at least, remove those Obscurities which are thereby occasioned in such Dis­courses where Truth is only regarded, and not Eloquence.

Now, this Mechanical Grammar of Greek and Latin has been very carefully studied by Modern Criticks. Sanctius, Scioppius, and Gerhard Vossius, besides a great Number of others, who have occa­sionally shown their Skill in their Illustra­tions of Ancient Authors, have given evi­dent Proofs how well they understood the Latin Tongue: So have Caninius, Cle­nard, and abundance more, in Greek: Wherein they have gone upon sure [Page 57] Grounds, since, besides a great Number of Books in both Languages, upon other Subjects, abundance of Grammatical Treatises, such as Scholia upon difficult Authors, Glossaries, Onomasticons, Etymo­logicons, Rudiments of Grammar, &c. have been preserved, and published by skilful Men (most of them at least) with great Care and Accuracy. So that there is Reason to believe, that some Modern Criticks may have understood the Gram­matical Construction of Latin as well as Varro, or Caesar; and of Greek as well as Aristarchus, or Herodian. But this can­not be pretended to be a new Invention; for the Grammar of dead Languages can be only learned by Books: And since their Analogy can neither be increased, nor diminished, it must be left as we find it.

So that when Sir William Temple says, That no Man ever disputed Grammar with the Ancients; if he means, that we can­not make a new Grammar of a dead Lan­guage, whose Analogy has been determi­ned almost Two Thousand Years, it is what can admit of no Dispute. But if he means, that Modern Languages have not been Grammatically examined; at least, not with that Care that some An­cient Tongues have been; that is a Pro­position [Page 58] which may, perhaps, be very justly questioned. For, in the first place, it ought to be considered, that every Tongue has its own peculiar Form, as well as its proper Words; not communi­cable to, nor to be regulated by the Ana­logy of another Language: Wherefore he is the best Grammarian, who is the perfectest Master of the Analogy of the Language which he is about; and gives the truest Rules, by which another Man may learn it. Next, To apply this to our own Tongue, it may be certainly af­firmed, that the Grammar of English is so far our own, that Skill in the Learned Languages is not necessary to compre­hend it. Ben. Johnson was the first Man, that I know of, that did any Thing con­siderable in it; but Lilly's Grammar was his Pattern: and for want of Reflecting upon the Grounds of a Language which he understood as well as any Man of his Age, he drew it by Violence to a dead Language that was of a quite different Make; and so left his Work imperfect. After him, came Dr. Wallis; who exa­mined the English Tongue like a Gram­marian and a Philosopher at once, and showed great Skill in that Business: And of his English Grammar one may venture to say, That it may be set against any [Page 59] Thing that is extant of the Ancients, of that kind: For, as Sir William Temple says upon another Occasion, there is a Strain of Philosophy, and curious Thought, in his previous Essay of the Formation of the Sounds of Letters; and of Subtilty in the Grammar, in the reducing of our Lan­guage under Genuine Rules of Art, that one would not expect in a Book of that kind.

In France, since the Institution of the French Academy, the Grammar of their own Language has been studied with great Care. Isocrates himself could not be more nice in the Numbers of his Pe­riods, than these Academicians have been in setling the Phraseology, in fixing the Standard of Words, and in making their Sentences, as well as they could, nume­rous and flowing. Their Dictionary, of which a good Part is already printed; Vaugelas's and Bouhours's Remarks upon the French Tongue, Richelet's and Fure­tiere's Dictionaries, with abundance of other Books of that kind, which, though not all written by Members of the Acade­my, yet are all Imitations of the Patterns which they first set, are Evidences of this their Care. This Sir William Temple somewhere owns: And though he there supposes, that these Filers and Polishers [Page 60] may have taken away a great part of the Strength of the Tongue, which, in the main, is true enough, yet that is no Obje­ction against their Critical Skill in Gram­mar; upon which Account only their Labours are here taken notice of. So much for the Mechanical Part of Gram­mar.

Philosophical Grammar was never, that we know of, much minded by the An­cients. So that any great Performances of this sort are to be looked upon as Mo­dern Increases to the Commonwealth of Learning. The most considerable Book of that kind, that I know of, is Bishop Wilkins's Essay towards a Real Character, and Philosophical Language: A Work, which those who have studied, think they can never commend enough. To this one ought to add, what may be found relating to the same Subject, in the Third Book of Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Un­derstanding.

HItherto the Moderns seem to have had very little Reason to boast of their Acquisitions, and Improvements; Let us see now what they may have here­after. In those Arts, sure, if in any, they may challenge the Preference, which depending upon great Numbers of Expe­riments and Observations, which do not every Day occurr, cannot be supposed to be brought to Perfection in a few Ages. Among such, doubtless, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting may, and ought here to be reckoned; both because they were extreamly valued by the Ancients, and do still keep up their just Price. They are likewise very properly taken notice of in this Place, because they have always been the Entertainments of Inge­nious and Learned Men, whose Circum­stances would give them Opportunity to lay out Money upon them, or to please themselves with other Men's Labours. In these Things, if we may take Men's Judgments in their own Professions, the [Page 62] Ancients have far out-done the Moderns. The Italians, whose Performances have been the most considerable in this kind, and who, as Genuine Successors of the Old Romans, are not apt to undervalue what they do themselves, have, for the most part, given the uncontested Pre-eminence to the Ancient Greek Architects, Painters and Sculptors. Whose Authority we ought the rather to acquiesce in, because Michael-Angelo and Bernini, two won­derful Masters, and not a little jealous of their Honour, did always ingenuously de­clare, that their best Pieces were exceed­ed by some of the ancient Statues still to be seen at Rome.

Here therefore I at first intended to have left off; and I thought my self ob­liged to resign what I believed could not be maintained, when Monsieur Perrault's Parallel of the Ancients and Moderns came to my Hands. His Skill in Architecture and Mechanicks was sufficiently manifest­ed long ago, in his admirable Translation of, and Commentaries upon Vitruvius: And his long Conversation with the finest Pieces of Antiquity, and of these Later Ages, fitted him for judging of these Matters better than other Men. So that, though there might be great Reason not to agree to his Hypothesis of the State of [Page 63] Ancient and Modern Eloquence and Poesie; yet in Things of this Nature, where the Mediums of Judging are quite different, and where Geometrical Rules of Proportion, which in their own Nature are unalter­able, go very far to determine the Que­stion, his Judgment seemed to be of great weight. I shall therefore chuse rather to give a short View of what he says upon these Subjects, than to pass any Censure upon them of my own.

Of Architecture he says, ‘That though the Moderns have received the Know­ledge Pag. 88. of the Five Orders from the An­cients, yet if they employ it to better Purposes, if their Buildings be more useful, and more beautiful, then they must be allowed to be the better Archi­tects: For it is in Architecture, as it is in Oratory; as he that lays down Rules, when and how to use Metaphors, Hy­perbole's, Prosopopoeia's, or any other Figures of Rhetorick, may very often not be so good an Orator as he that uses them judiciously in his Discourses: So he that teaches what a Pillar, an Ar­chitrave or a Cornice is, and that in­structs another in the Rules of Propor­tion, so as to adjust all the Parts of each of the several Orders aright, may not be so good an Architect as he that [Page 64] builds a magnificent Temple, or a no­ble Palace, that shall answer all those Ends for which such Structures are de­signed. That the chief Reason why the Doric, the Ionic, or the Corinthian Models have pleased so much, is, part­ly because the Eye has been long accu­stomed to them, and partly because they have been made use of by Men who understood and followed those o­ther Rules which will eternally please, upon the Score of real Usefulness; whereas the Five Orders owe their Au­thority to Custom, rather than to Na­ture. That these Universal Rules are; Pag. 95. To make those Buildings which will bear it, lofty and wide: In Stone-work, to use the largest, the smoothest, and the evenest Stones: To make the Joints almost imperceptible: To place the per­pendicular Parts of the Work exactly Perpendicular, and the Horizontal Parts exactly Horizontal: To support the weak Parts of the Work by the strong: to cut Square Figures perfectly Square, and Round Figures perfectly Round: To hew the whole exactly true; and to fix all the Corners of the Work even­ly, as they ought to be. That these Rules, well observed, will always please even those who never understood one [Page 65] single Term of Art: Whereas the other accidental Beauties, such as he suppo­ses Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian Work to be, please, only because they are found together with these, though their be­ing the most conspicuous Parts of a Building made them be first observed: From whence Men began to fansie In­herent Beauties in that, which owes the greatest part of its Charms to the good Company in which it is taken notice of, and so in time delighted, when it was seen alone. That otherwise it Pag. 97, 99 would be impossible that there should be so great a Variety in the Assigning of the Proportions of the several Or­ders; no two eminent Architects ever keeping to the same Measure, though they have neither spoiled nor lessened the Beauty of their Works. That if we go to Particulars, we shall not find (for the purpose) in the Pantheon at Rome, which is the most regular, and the most magnificent ancient Building now extant, two Pillars of a like thick­ness. That Ban­deaux de la voute du Temple. Pag. 111. Pag. 113. the Girders of the arched Roof do not lie full upon the great Columns or Pilasters; but some quite over the Cavities of the Win­dows which are underneath; others half over the Windows, and half upon [Page 66] the Columns or Pilasters. That the Mo­dillons Pag. 114. of the Cornice are not exactly over the Middle of the Chapiters of the Pillars. That in the Fronts of the Piaz­za's, the Number of the Modillons in Sides of equal length is not alike: With several Instances of Negligence, which would now be thought unpardonable. That, generally speaking, in other Build­ings, their Floors were twice as thick as their Walls; which loaded them exceed­ingly, to no purpose. That their Way of Pag. 115. Laying Stones in Lozenges was incon­venient as well as troublesome, since every Stone so placed was a Wedge to force those asunder on which it leaned. Pag. 117. That they did not understand the nicest Thing in Architecture, which is, the Art of Cutting Stones in such a man­ner, as that several Pieces might be jointed one into another; for want of which, they made their Vaults of Brick plaster'd over; and their Architraves of Wood, or of one single Stone; which obliged them to set their Pillars closer to one another than otherwise had been necessary: Whereas, by this Art of Cut­ting Stone, Arches have been made al­most flat; Stair-Cases of a vast heighth have been raised, where the Spectator is at a loss to tell what supports them; [Page 67] whilst the Stones are jointed into each other in such a manner, that they mu­tually bear up themselves, without any Rest but the Wall, into which the in­nermost Stones are fastned. That they Pag. 118. had not Engines to raise their Stones to any considerable heighth; but if the Work was low, they carried them up­on their Shoulders; if high, they rai­sed sloping Mounts of Earth level with their Work, by which they rolled up their Stones to what heighth they plea­sed: For, as for the Engines for Raising of Stones in Vitruvius, those who un­derstand Mechanicks are agreed, that they can never be very serviceable. That it is not the Largeness of a Build­ing, but the well executing of a Noble Design, which commends an Archi­tect; otherwise the Egyptian Pyramids, as they are the greatest, would also be the finest Structures in the World. And last of all, That the French King's Pa­lace Pag. 119▪ 120. at Versailles, and the Frontispiece of the Louvre, discover more true Skill in Architecture of all sorts, than any thing which the Ancients ever performed, if we may judge of what is lost, by what remains.’

What Monsieur Perrault says of the Ancients Way of Raising their Stone, [Page 68] may be confirmed by the Accounts which Garsilasso de la Vega, and others, give of the vast Buildings of massy Stone which the Spaniards found in Peru, upon their first Arrival. It is most certain that the Peruans knew not the Use of Iron; and by consequence, could make no Engines very serviceable for such a purpose. They ground their Stones one against another, to smooth them; and afterwards they raised them with Leavers: And thus, with Multitude of Hands they reared such Structures as appeared wonderful, even to Men acquainted with Modern Architecture.

Of Sculpture he says; ‘That we are to Pag. 121. distinguish between entire Statues, and Basso Relievo's; and in entire Statues, between naked and cloathed Pieces. The naked Images of the Ancients, as Hercules, Apollo, Diana, the Gladiators, the Wrestlers, Bacchus, Laocoon, and some few more, are truly admirable: They shew something extreamly noble, Pag. 125. which one wants Words for, that is not to be found in Modern Work: Though he cannot tell whether Age does not contribute to the Beauty. That if some of the most excellent of the Modern Pieces should be preserved 1500 or 2000 Years, or ting'd with some Chymical [Page 69] Water, that could in a short time make them appear Antique, it is probable they would be viewed with the same Ve­neration which is now payed to Ancient Statues. That the naked Sculpture of Pag. 129. single Figures is a very noble Art indeed, but the simplest of any that has ever charmed Mankind; not being burthen'd with a Multiplicity of Rules, nor need­ing the Knowledge of any other Art to compleat it; since a Man that has a Ge­nius, and Application, wants only a beau­tiful Model in a proper Posture, which he is faithfully to copy: And therefore, That in the Cloathed Statues of the An­cients, Pag. 121. the Drapery wants much of that Art which is discernable in some Mo­dern Pieces; they could never make the Clothes sit loose to the Bodies, nor ma­nage the Folds so as to appear easie and flowing, like well-made Garments up­on living Bodies. That the Basso Relie­vo's Pag. 129. of the Ancients plainly show, that the Statuaries in those Days did not un­derstand all the Precepts that are neces­sary to compleat their Art; because they never observed the Rules of Perspective, they did not lessen their Figures gra­dually, to make them suitable to the Place where they stood, but set them almost all upon the same Line; so that [Page 70] those behind were as large, and as di­stinguishable, as those before; as if they had been purposely mounted upon Steps, to be seen over one another's Heads. That this is visible in the Columna Tra­jana Pag. 130. at this Day, though that is the no­blest ancient Performance in Basso Relievo still remaining; wherein, together with some very beautiful Airs of some of the Pag. 132. Heads, and some very happy Postures, one may discern that there is scarce any Art in the Composition of the whole, no lessening of the Relievo in any part, with great Ignorance in Perspective in the whole. That the ancient Works in Pag. 133. Basso Relievo did not truly deserve that Name, being properly entire Statues, either sawed down perpendicularly, from Head to Foot, with the fore-part fastned, or glued to a flat Ground, or sunk half way in: Whereas the true Pag. 134. Art consists in raising the Figures so from their Ground, which is of the same Piece, that with two or three Inches of Relievo, they may appear like distinct Images rising out of the Ground, some more, some less, according to the seve­ral Distances in which they ought to be placed.’

Of Painting, he says; ‘That three Things Pag. 143. are necessary to make a perfect Picture; [Page 71] To represent the Figures truly; To express the Passions naturally; and, To put the whole judiciously together. For the First, It is necessary that all the Out-Lines be justly drawn, and that every Part be properly coloured. For the Second, It is necessary that the Painter should hit the different Airs and Characters of the Face, with all the Postures of the Fi­gures, so as to express what they do, and what they think. The whole is ju­diciously put together, when every several Figure is set in the Place in which we see it, for a particular Purpose; and the Colouring gradually weakned, so as to suit that part of the Plain in which every Figure appears. All which is as appli­cable to the several Parts of a Picture that has but one Figure, as to the seve­ral Figures in a Picture that has more. That if we judge of Ancient and Mo­dern Pag. 135. Paintings by this Rule, we may di­vide them into three Classes: The First takes in the Age of Zeuxis, Apelles, Ti­manthes, and the rest that are so much admired in Antiquity. The Second takes in the Age of Raphael, Titian, Paul Veronese, and those other great Masters that flourished in Italy in the last Age. The Third contains the Pain­ters of our own Age; such as Poussin, [Page 72] Le Brun, and the like. That if we may judge of the Worth of the Painters of the First Classe by the Commenda­tions which have been given them, we have Reason to say, either that their Admirers did not understand Painting well, or that themselves were not so va­luable, or both. That whereas Zeuxis Pag. 136. is said to have painted a Bunch of Grapes so naturally, that the Birds pecked at them; Cooks have, of late Years, reach­ed at Partridges and Capons, painted in Kitchins; which has made By-standers smile, without raising the Painter's Re­putation to any great heighth. That Pag. 139. the Contention between Protogenes and Apelles shewed the Infancy of their Art: Apelles was wonderfully applauded for drawing a very fine Stroke upon a Ta­ble: Protogenes drew a Second over that, in a different Colour; which Apelles split into two, by a Third. Yet this Pag. 141. was not so much as what Giotto did, who lived in the Beginning of the Resto­ration of Painting in Italy; who drew, without Compasses, with a single Stroke of a Pencil, upon a Board, an O, so exquisitely round, that it is still pro­verbial among the Italians, when they would describe a Man that is egregious­ly stupid, to say, That he is as round as [Page 73] the O of Giotto. That when Poussin's Hand shook so much, that he could scarce manage his Pencil, he painted some Pieces of inestimable Value; and yet very indifferent Painters would have divided every Line that he drew, into nine or ten Parts. That the Chineses, Pag. 142. who cannot yet express Life and Passion in their Pieces, will draw the Hairs of the Face and Beard so fine, that one may part them with the Eye from one another, and tell them. Though the Pag. 150. Ancients went much beyond all this; for the Remains of the ancient Painting discover great Skill in Designing, great Judgment in Ordering of the Postures, much Nobleness and Majesty in the Airs of the Heads; but little Art, at the same time, in the Mixing of their Co­lours, and none at all in the Perspective, or the Placing of the Figures. That their Colouring is all equally strong; nothing comes forward, nothing falls back in their Pictures; the Figures are almost. all upon a Line: So that their Paintings appear like Pieces in Bas­so Relievo, coloured; all dry and un­moveable, without Union, without Con­nexion, and that living Softness which distinguishes Pictures from Statues in Marble or Copper. Wherefore, since the [Page 74] Paintings of these Ancient Masters were justly designed, and the Passions of eve­ry several Figure naturally expressed, which are the Things that the Genera­lity of Judges most admire, who can­not discern those Beauties that result from a judicious Composition of the whole, so well as they can the distinct Beauties of the several Parts, there is no Wonder that Zeuxis and Apelles, and the other Ancient Masters, were so fa­mous, and so well rewarded. For, of the three Things at first assigned, as ne­cessary to a perfect Painter, true Draw­ing, with proper Colouring, affect the Senses; natural Expressing of the Mo­tions of the Soul move the Passions; whereas a Judicious Composition of the Pag. 146. whole, which is discernable in an Art­ful Distribution of Lights and Shades, in the gradual Lessening of Figures, ac­cording to their respective Places, in ma­king every Figure answer to that parti­cular Purpose which it is intended to re­present, affects the Understanding only; and so, instead of Charming, will ra­ther disgust an unskilful Spectator. Such a Man, and under this Head al­most Pag. 147. all Mankind may be comprehend­ed, will contentedly forgive the grossest Faults in Perspective, if the Figures are [Page 75] but very prominent, and the View not darkned by too much Shade; which, in their Opinion, spoils all Faces, espe­cially of Friends, whose Images chiefly such Men are desirous to see.’

When he compares the Paintings of Raphael and Le Brun together, he ob­serves, ‘That Raphael seems to have had Pag. 159. the greater Genius of the two; that there is something so Noble in his Postures, and the Airs of his Heads; something so just in his Designs, so perfect in the Mixture of his Colours, that his St. Mi­chael will always be thought the first Picture in the World, unless his H. Family should dispute Precedency with it. In snort, he says, That if we consi­der Pag. 160. the Persons of Raphael and Le Brun, Raphael perhaps may be the greater Man: But if we consider the Art, as a Collection of Rules, all necessary to be observed to make it perfect, it appears much more compleat in Monsieur Le Brun's Pieces: For Raphael understood so little of the gradual Lessening of Light, and Weakning of Colours, which is caused by the Interposition of the Air, that the hindmost Figures in his Pieces appear almost as plain as the foremost; and the Leaves of distant Trees, almost as visible as of those near at hand; and [Page 76] the Windows of a Building four Leagues off may all be counted as easily as of one that is within twenty Paces. Nay, he cannot tell whether some part of that Beauty, now so peculiar to Raphael's Pieces, may not, in a great Measure, be owing to Time, which adds a real Beauty to good Paintings. For, in Works of this kind, as in New-killed Meat, or New-gathered Fruit, there is a Rawness and Sharpness, which Time alone concocts and sweetens, by morti­fying that which has too much Life, by weakning that which is too strong, and by mixing the Extremities of every Co­lour entirely into one another. So that Pag. 161. no Man can tell what will be the Beauty of Le Brun's Family of Darius, Alexan­der's Triumph, the Defeat of Porus, and some other Pieces of equal Force, when Time shall have done her Work, and shall have added those Graces which are now so remarkable in the St. Michael, and the H. Family. One may already observe, that Monsieur Le Brun's Pieces begin to soften; and that Time has, in part, added those Graces which it alone can give, by sweetning what was left on purpose, by the judicious Painter, to a­muse its Activity, and to keep it from the Substance of the Work'.’ Thus far Monsieur Perrault.

[Page 77] Whether his Reasonings are just, I dare not determine: Thus much may very probably be inferred, That in these Things also the World does not decay so fast as Sir William Temple believes; and that Poussin, Le Brun and Bernini have made it evident by their Performances in Painting and Statuary, Pag. 52. That we have had Masters in both these Arts, who have deserved a Rank with those that flourished in the last Age, after they were again resto­red to these Parts of the World.

IF the bold Claims of confident and numerous Pretenders might, because of their Confidence and Numbers, be much relied on, it were an easie Thing to determine the present Question, without any further Trouble. The Generality of the Learned have given the Ancients the [Page 78] Preference in those Arts and Sciences which have hitherto been considered: But for the Precedency in those Parts of Learning which still remain to be enqui­red into, the Moderns have put in their Claim, with great Briskness. Among this Sort, I reckon Mathematical and Phy­sical Sciences, considered in their largest Extent. These are Things which have no Dependence upon the Opinions of Men for their Truth; they will admit of fixed and undisputed Mediums of Com­parison and Judgment: So that, though it may be always debated, who have been the best Orators, or who the best Poets; yet it cannot always be a Matter of Con­troversie, who have been the greatest Geometers, Arithmeticians, Astronomers, Musicians, Anatomists, Chymists, Bota­nists, or the like; because a fair Compa­rison between the Inventions, Observa­tions, Experiments and Collections of the contending Parties must certainly put an End to the Dispute, and give a more full Satisfaction to all Sides.

The Thing contended for on both Sides is, the Knowledge of Nature; what the Appearances are which it exhibits, and how they are exhibited; thereby to show how they may be enlarged, and diversi­fied, and Impediments of any sort remo­ved. [Page 79] In order to this, it will be necessary, (1.) To find out all the several Affections and Properties of Quantity, abstractedly considered; with the Proportions of its Parts and Kinds, either severally consi­dered, or compared with, or compound­ed with one another; either as they may be in Motion, or at Rest. This is properly the Mathematician's Business. (2.) To collect great Numbers of Obser­vations, and to make a vast Variety of Experiments upon all sorts of Natural Bodies. And because this cannot be done without proper Tools, (3.) To contrive such Instruments, by which the Consti­tuent Parts of the Universe, and of all its Parts, even the most minute, or the most remote, may lie more open to our View; and their Motions, or other Affections, be better calculated and examined, than could otherwise have been done by our unassisted Senses. (4.) To range all the several Species of Natural Things under proper Heads; to assign fit Characteri­sticks, or Marks, whereby they may be readily found out, and distinguished from one another. (5.) To adapt all the Ca­tholick Affections of Matter and Motion to all the known Appearances of Things, so as to be able to tell how Nature works; and, in some particular Cases, to com­mand [Page 80] her. This will take in Astronomy, Mechanicks, Opticks, Musick, with the o­ther Physico-Mathematical and Physico-Me­chanical Parts of Knowledge; as also, A­natomy, Chymistry, with the whole Ex­tent of Natural History. It will help us to make a just Comparison between the Ancient and Modern Physicks; that so we may certainly determine who Philoso­phized best, Aristotle and Democritus, or Mr. Boyle and Mr. Newton.

In these Things therefore the Compa­rison is to be made, wherein one can go no higher than the Age of Hypocrates, Aristotle and Theophrastus, because the Writings of the Philosophers before them are all lost. It may therefore be plausibly objected, that this is no fair Way of Pro­ceeding, because the Egyptians and Chal­daeans were famous for very many Parts of real Learning long before; from whom Pythagoras, Thales, Plato, and all the other Graecian Philosophers, borrowed what they knew. This Sir William Temple insists at large upon; so that it will be necessary to examine the Claims of these Nations to Universal Learning: In doing of which, I shall follow Sir William Temple's Me­thod; and first give a short Abstract of his Hypothesis, and then enquire how far it may be relied on.

[Page 81] Sir William Temple tells us, That the chiefest Argument that is produced in be­half of the Moderns, is; ‘Pag. 5. That they have the Advantage of the Ancients Discoveries to help their own: So that, like Dwarfs upon Giants Shoul­ders, they must needs see farther than the Giants themselves.’ To weaken this, we are told, ‘Pag. 6—10. That those whom we call Ancients, are Moderns, if com­pared to those who are ancienter than they: And that there were vast Lakes of Learning in Egypt, Chaldea, India and China; where it stagnated for many Ages, till the Greeks brought Buckets, and drew it out.’

The Question which is first to be asked here, is, Where are the Books and Monu­ments wherein these Treasures were deposi­ted for so many Ages? And because they are not to be found, Sir William Temple makes a Doubt, Pag. 8. Whether Books ad­vance any other Science, beyond the parti­cular Records of Actions, or Registers of Time. He may resolve it soon, if he en­quires how far a Man can go in Astrono­mical Calculations, for which the Chal­deans are said to be so famous, without the Use of Letters. The Peruan An­tiquities, which he there alledges, for Twelve or Thirteen Generations, from [Page 82] Mango Capac, to Atahualpa, were not of above Five Hundred Years standing. The Mexican Accounts were not much older; and yet these, though very rude, needed Helps to be brought down to us. The Perisan Conveyances of Knowledge, according to Garçilasso de la Vega, were not purely Traditionary, but were Frin­ges of Cotton, of several Colours, tied and woven with a vast Variety of Knots, which had all determinate Meanings; and so supplied the Use of Letters, in a tolerable Degree: And the Mexican An­tiquities were preserved, after a sort, by Pictures; of which we have a Speci­men in Purchas's Pilgrim. So that when Sir William Temple urges the Traditions of these People, to prove that Knowledge may be conveyed to Posterity without Letters, he proves only what is not dis­puted, namely, That Knowledge can be imperfectly conveyed to Posterity with­out Letters; not that Tradition can pre­serve Learning as well as Books, or some­thing equivalent.

But since Sir William Temple lays no great Weight upon this Evasion, I ought not to insist any longer upon it. He says Pag. 6 therefore, ‘That it is a Question, whether the Invention of Printing has multiplied Books, or only the Copies of [Page 83] them; since, if we believe that there were 600000 Books in the Ptolemaean Library, we shall hardly pretend to equal it by any of ours, nor perhaps by all put together; that is, we shall be scarce able to produce so many Originals that have lived any Time, and thereby given Testimony of their having been thought worth preserving,’ All this, as it is urged by Sir William Temple, is liable to great Exception. For, (1.) If we should allow that there is no Hyper­bole in the Number of Books in the Pto­lemaean Library, yet we are not to take our Estimate by our Way of Reckoning. Every Oration of Demosthenes and Isocra­tes, every Play of Aeschylus or Aristopha­nes, every Discourse of Plato or Aristotle, was anciently called a Volume. This will lessen the Number to us, who take whole Collections of every Author's Works in one Lump; and call them ac­cordingly in our Catalogues, if printed together, but by one Title. (2.) Sir Wil­liam Temple seems to take it for granted, that all these Books were Originals; that is to say, Books worth preserving; which is more than any Man can now prove. I suppose he himself believes that there were Ancients of all Sorts and Sizes, as well as there are Moderns now. And [Page 84] he that raises a Library, takes in Books of all Values; since bad Books have their Uses to Learned Men, as well as good ones. So that, for any Thing we know to the contrary, there might have been in this Alexandrian Library a great Num­ber of Ibid. Scribblers, that, like Mushrooms or Flies, are born and die in small Circles of Time. (3.) The World can make a better Judgment of the Value of what is lost, at least, as it relates to the present Enquiry, than one at first View might perhaps imagine. The lost Books of the Antiqui­ty of several Nations, of their Civil Hi­story, of the Limits of their several Em­pires and Commonwealths, of their Laws and Manners, or of any Thing imme­diately relating to any of these, are not here to be considered, because it cannot be pretended that the Moderns could know any of these Things, but as they were taught. So neither is what may have related to Ethicks, Politicks, Poesie and Oratory here to be urged, since in those Matters, the Worth of Ancient Knowledge has already been asserted. So that one is only to enquire what and how great the Loss is of all those Books upon Natural or Mathematical Argu­ments, which were preserved in the Ale­xandrian, Asiatick and Roman Libraries, [Page 85] or mentioned in the Writings of the An­cient Philosophers and Historians. By which Deduction, the former Number will be yet again considerably lessened.

Now, a very true Judgment of Anci­ent Skill in Natural History may be form­ed out of Pliny, whose Extracts of Books, still extant, are so particular for the pre­sent Purpose, that there is Reason to believe they were not made carelesly of those that are lost. Galen seems to have read what­ever he could meet with relating to Me­dicine, in all its Parts: And the Opinions of Abundance of Authors, whose Names are no where else preserved, may be dis­covered out of his Books; of the famous ones especially; whom at every Turn he either contradicts, or produces to fortifie his own Assertions. Ptolemee gives an Account of the old Astronomy in his Al­magest. Very many Particulars of the Inventions and Methods of Ancient Geo­meters are to be found in the Mathemati­cal Collections of Pappus. The Opinions of the different Sects of Philosophers are well enough preserved in the entire Trea­tises of the several Philosophers who were of their Sects; or in the Discourses of others, who occasionally or expresly con­fute what they say. So that I am apt to think, that the Philosophical and Mathe­matical [Page 86] Learning of the Ancients is bet­ter conveyed to us than the Civil; the Books which treated of those Subjects suit­ing better the Genius's of several Men, and of several Nations too: For which Reason the Arabs translated the most con­siderable Greek Books of this kind; as, Euclid, Apollonius, Aristotle, Epictetus, Cebes, and Abundance more, that had written of Philosophy or Mathematicks, into their own Language; whilst they let Books of Antiquity and Civil History lie unregarded.

Sir William Temple's next Enquiry is, From whence both the Ancients and Mo­derns have received their Knowledge? His Method does not seem to be very na­tural, nor his Question very proper, since, if Discoveries are once made, it is not so material to know who taught the several Inventors, as what these Inventors first taught others. But setting that aside, the Summ of what he says, in short, is this:

This is a short Account of the History of Learning, as Sir William Temple has deduced it from its most ancient Begin­nings. The Exceptions which may be [Page 89] made against it are many, and yet more against the Conclusions which he draws from it: For, though it be certain that the Egyptians had the Grounds and Ele­ments of most parts of real Learning among them earlier than the Greeks, yet that is no Argument why the Grecians should not go beyond their Teachers, or why the Moderns might not out-do them both.

Before I examine Sir William Temple's Scheme, Step by Step, I shall offer, as the Geometers do, some few Things as Postulata, which are so very plain, that they will be assented to as soon as they are proposed. (1.) That all Men who make a Mystery of Matters of Learning, and industriously oblige their Scholars to conceal their Dictates, give the World great Reason to suspect, that their Knowledge is all Juggling and Trick. (2.) That he that has only a Moral Per­suasion of the Truth of any Proposition, which is capable of Natural Evidence, cannot so properly be esteemed the In­ventor, or the Discoverer rather, of that Proposition, as another Man, who, tho' he lived many Ages after, brings such E­vidences of its Certainty, as are sufficient to convince all competent Judges; espe­cially when his Reasonings are founded [Page 90] upon Observations and Experiments drawn from, and made upon the Things themselves. (3.) That no Pretences to greater Measures of Knowledge, ground­ed upon Account of Long Successions of Learned Men in any Country, ought to gain Belief, when set against the Learn­ing of other Nations, who make no such Pretences, unless Inventions and Disco­veries answerable to those Advantages, be produced by their Advocates. (4.) That we cannot judge of Characters of Things and Persons at a great Distance, when given at Second-hand, unless we knew exactly how capable those Persons, from whom such Characters were first taken, were to pass a right Judgment upon such subjects; and also the particular Motives that biassed them to pass such Censures. If Archimedes should, upon his own Knowledge, speak with Admiration of the Egyptian Geometry, his Judgment would be very considerable: But if he should speak respectfully of it, only be­cause Pythagoras did so before him, it might, perhaps, signifie but very little. (5.) That excessive Commendations of any Art or Science whatsoever, as also of the Learning of any particular Men or Nations, only prove that the Persons who give such Characters never heard of any [Page 91] Thing or Person that was more excellent in that Way; and therefore that Admi­ration may be as well supposed to proceed from their own Ignorance, as from the real Excellency of the Persons or Things; unless their respective Abilities are other­wise known.

IN my Enquiries into the Progress of Learning during its obscurer Ages, or those, at least, which are so to us at this Distance, I shall begin with the Accounts which are given of the Learning of Pytha­goras, rather than those of the more Ancient Grecian Sages; because his School made a much greater Figure in the World, than any of those which preceded Plato and Aristotle. In making a Judgment upon the Greatness of his Performances, from the Greatness of his Reputation, one ought to consider how near to his Time those lived, whose express Relations of his Life are the oldest we have.

[Page 92] Diogenes Laërtius is the ancientest Au­thor extant, that has purposely written the Life of Pythagoras: According to Me­nagius's Calculations, he lived in M. An­toninus's Time: And all that we learn from Diogenes is only, that we know ve­ry little certainly about Pythagoras. He cites, indeed, great Numbers of Books; but those so very disagreeing in their Re­lations, that a Man is confounded with their Variety. Besides, the Grecians magnified every Thing that they com­mended, so much, that it is hard to guess how far they may be believed when they write of Men and Actions at any Di­stance from their own Time. Graecia Mendax was almost proverbial amongst the Romans. But by what appears from the Accounts of the Life of Pythagoras, he is rather to be ranked among the Law­givers, with Lycurgus and Solon, and his own two Disciples, Zaleucus and Charon­das, than amongst those who really car­ried Learning to any considerable heighth. Therefore, as some other Legislators had, or pretended to have, Super-natural Assi­stances, that they might create a Regard for their Laws in the People to whom they gave them; so Pythagoras found out several Equivalents, which did him as much Service. He is said, indeed, to [Page 93] have lived many Years in Egypt, and to have conversed much with the Philofo­phers of the East; but if he invented the XLVIIth. Proposition in the First Book of Euclid, which is unanimously ascribed to him by all Antiquity, one can hardly have a profound Esteem for the Mathe­matical Skill of his Masters. It is, in­deed, a very noble Proposition, the Foun­dation of Trigonometry, of universal and various Use in those curious Speculations of Incommensurable Numbers; which his Disciples from him, and from them the Platonists, so exceedingly admired. But this shews the Infancy of Geometry in his Days, in that very Country which claims the Glory of Inventing it to her self. It is probable, indeed, that the E­gyptians might find it out; but then we ought also to take notice, that it is the only very considerable Instance of the real Learning of Pythagoras that is preserved. Which is the more observable, because the Pythagoreans paid the greatest Respect to their Master, of any Sect whatsoever; and so we may be sure that we should have heard much more of his Learning, if much more could have been said: And though the Books of Hermippus and Ari­stoxenus Two ve­ry consider­able Wri­ters of Py­thagoras's Life. are lost, yet Laërtius, who had read them, and Porphyry and Jambli­chus, [Page 94] Men of great Reading, and diffuse Knowledge, who, after Diogenes, wrote the Life of the same Pythagoras, would not have omitted any material Thing of that kind, if they had any where met with it.

Amongst his other Journies, Sir Wil­liam Temple mentions Pythagoras's Jour­ny to Delphos Pag. 15.. Here, by the by, I must beg leave to put Sir William Temple in mind of a small Mistake that he com­mits in the Word Delphos, both here, and pag. 13. when he speaks of Thales. In both Places he says that Pythagoras and Thales travelled to Delphos: He might as well have said, that they travel­led to Aegyptum, and Phoeniciam, and Cretam. It should be printed therefore, in his next Edition, to Phoenicia, and Del­phi: For the English use the Nominative Cases of old Names, when they express them in their Mother Tongue. But set­ting that aside, what this makes to his purpose, is not easie to guess. Apollo's Priestesses are not famous for discovering Secrets in Natural or Mathematical Mat­ters; and as for Moral Truths, they might as well be known without going thither to fetch them. Van Daleu, in his Discourses of the Heathen Oracles, has endeavoured to prove, that they were [Page 95] only Artifices of the Priests, who gave such Answers to Enquirers as they de­sired, when they had either Power or Wealth to back their Requests. If Van Daleu's Hypothesis be admitted, it will strengthen my Notion of Pythagoras ve­ry much; since when he did not care to live any longer in Samos, because of Po­lycrates's Tyranny, and was desirous to establish to himself a lasting Reputation for Wisdom and Learning amongst the ignorant Inhabitants of Magna Graecia, where he setled upon his Retirement, he was willing to have them think that Apollo was of his Side. That made him establish the Doctrine of Transmigration of Souls, which he brought with him out of India, that so those Italians might think that he had a certain Reminiscence of Things past, since his first Stage of Life, and the Beginning of the World; and upon that Account admire him the more: For Laërtius Vita Pythag. §. 4. says, that he pre­tended to remember every Thing that he had done formerly, whilst he was in those other Bodies; and that he received this as an especial Favour from Mercu­ry, who gave him his Choice of what­soever he desired, except Immortality. Ibid. §. 10. Hence also he obliged his Scholars to go through a Trial of Five Years, to [Page 96] learn Obedience by Silence: And that af­terwards it was granted to some few, as a particular Favour, to be admitted into his Presence. These Things tended very much to impress a Veneration of his Per­son upon his Scholars, but signified no­thing to the Advancement of Learning; yea, rather hindred it. Those that live in the End of the World, Pag. 53. when eve­ry Thing, according to Sir William Tem­ple, is in its Declension, know no Way so effectual to promote Learning, as much Conversation and Enquiry; and, which is more, they have no Idea how it can be done without them. The Learned Men of the present Age pretend to no Ac­quaintance with Mercury or Apollo, and can do as little in Natural Knowledge by such a Sham-Revelation, as they can by Reminiscence. If a Man should, for Five Years together, read Lectures, to one that was not allowed to make Pauses, or ask Questions; another Man, in the or­dinary Road, by Books and Professors, would learn more, at least, to much bet­ter purpose, in Six Months, than he could in all that Time.

Pythagoras was, without question, a wise Man, well skilled in the Arts of Civil Prudence; by which he appeased great Disturbances in those Italian Com­monwealths: [Page 97] He had much more Know­ledge, than any Man of that Age in Italy, and knew how to make the most of it. He took great Delight in Arithmetical Speculations, which, as Galileo Sy­stem. Cos­mic., not improbably, guesses, he involved in My­steries, that so ignorant People might not despise him for busying himself in such abstruse Matters, which they could not comprehend; and if they could have comprehended, did not know to what Use to put them. He took a sure Way to have all his Studies valued, by obliging his Scholars to resign up their Under­standings to his Authority and Dictates. The great Simplicity of his Manners, with the Wisdom of his Axioms and Sym­bols charmed an ignorant Age, which found real Advantages by following his peaceful Measures; much above those that were formerly procured by Rapin and Violence. This seems to be a true Account of Pythagoras, in the History of whose Reputation, there is nothing ex­traordinary, since Civilizers of Nations have always been as much magnify'd as the Inventors of the most useful Arts: But one can no more conclude from thence, That Pythagoras knew as much as Aristotle or Democritus, than that Friar Bacon was as great a Mathematician as [Page 98] Dr. Barrow, or Mr. Newton, because he knew enough to be thought a Conjurer in the Age in which he lived, and no de­spicable Person in any other.

But it may not be amiss to give a Tast of some of the Pythagorean Notions; such, I mean, as they first started in Europe, and chiefly valued themselves upon. Of this Sort, were their Arithmetical Specula­tions. By them they pretended to explain the Causes of Natural Things. The fol­lowing Account of their Explication of Generation is taken out of Censorinus and Aristides.

If these fine Notions are compar'd with Dr. Harvey's upon the same Subject, no doubt but we shall all be Converts to Sir William Temple's Opinion, and make a vast Difference between the poor Obser­vations of these later Ages, and the sub­lime Flights of the Ancients.

Now tho' abstracted Mathematical Theories, which cannot be relished by one that has not a tolerable Skill in Ma­thematicks before, might, perhaps, pru­dently be concealed from the Vulgar, by the Pythagorean School; and in their Stead, such grave Jargon as this imposed upon them; yet even that shews how lit­tle Knowledge of Nature they could pre­tend to. Men that aim at Glory, will omit no probable Methods to gain it, that lie in their Way; and solid Discove­ries [Page 100] of a real Insight into Nature, would not only have been eternally true, but have charmed Mankind at another Rate, than such dry sapless Notions as seem at first View to have something of Subtilty; but upon a Second Reflection, appear vain and ridiculous.

From Pythagoras I shall go on to the Ancient Sages, pag. 28., who were so learned in natural Philosophy, that they foretold not only Eclipses in the Heavens, but Earth­quakes at Land, and Storms at Sea, great Droughts, and great Plagues, much Plenty or much Scarcity of certain Sorts of Fruits or Grain, not to mention the magical Pow­ers attributed to several of them, to allay Storms, to raise Gales, to appease Commo­tions of People, to make Plagues cease.

One of the ancientest of these was Thales. He was so deeply skilled in Astro­nomy, that by the Sun's Annual Course he found out the Equinoxes and Solstices. He is said also first to have foretold Eclip­ses; some Geometrical Properties of Scalene Triangles are ascribed to him, and chal­lenged by Euphorbus: Nice we are sure they were not, because the Theorem of Pythagoras was not then found out.

When Sir William Temple extolled the Skill of these Ancient Sages, in foretelling Change of Weather, he seems to have [Page 101] forgot that he was in England, and fan­sied that these Old Philosophers were there too. The Climates of Asia Minor, and Greece, are not so various as ours; and at some stated Times of the Year, of which the recurrent Winds give them constant Warning, they are often trou­bled with Earthquakes, and always with violent Tempests: So that by the Con­jectures that we are here able to make of the Weather at some particular Seasons, though we labour under so great Disad­vantages, we may easily, guess how much certainer Predictions may be made by curious Men in serener and more re­gular Climates; which will take off from that Admiration, that otherwise would be paid to those profound Philosophers, even though we should allow that all those Stories which are told of their Skill are exactly true.

Besides, there is Reason to believe that we have the Result of all the Observa­tions of these Weather-wise Sages in Ara­tus's Diosemia and Virgil's Georgic's; such as those upon the Snuffs of Candles, the croaking of Frogs, and many others quite as notable as the English Farmer's Living Weather-Glass, his Red Cow that prick'd up her Tail, an Infallible Presage of a coming Shower.

[Page 102] Sir William Temple's Method leads me now to consider, what Estimate ought to be made of the Learning of those Na­tions, from which he derives all the Knowledge of these Ancient Greeks: I shall only therefore give a short Speci­men of those Discoveries, with which these Ancient Sages enriched the Ages in which they lived, as I have already done of the Pythagoreans, and then proceed.

Diogenes Laërtius informs us of Empe­docles's Vitâ Empedo­clis, §. 60. Skill in Magick, by the In­stance of his stopping those pestilential Vapours that annoy'd his Town of Agri­gentum. He took some Asses, and flea'd them, and hung their Hides over those Rocks that lay open to the Etesian Winds, which hindred their Passage, and so freed the Town. He tells another Story of Democritus Vit. Democriti, §. 42., That he was so nice in his Observations, that he could tell whe­ther a Young Woman were a Virgin, by her Looks, and could find it out, though she had been corrupted but the Day be­fore; and he knew by looking upon it, that some Goats Milk that was brought him, was of a Black Goat that had had but one Kid.

These are Instances very seriously re­corded by grave Authors of the Magical Wisdom of the Ancients; that is, as [Page 103] Sir William Temple defines it, of that Pag. 46. excelling Knowledge of Nature, and the various Powers and Qualities in its se­veral Productions, and the Application of certain Agents to certain Patients, which by Force of some peculiar Qualities, produce Effects very different from what fall under vulgar Observation and Comprehension.

FRom these Ancient Sages Sir William Temple goes to the Nations, from which they received their Knowledge, which are, Egypt, Chaldea, Arabia, India and China; only he seems to invert the Order, by pretending that China and In­dia were the Original Fountains from which Learning still ran Westward; I shall speak of them in the Order in which I have named them, because the Claims of the Egyptians and Chaldeans having a greater Foundation in Ancient History, deserve a more particular Examination.

It must be owned, That the Learning which was in the World before the Gre­cian [Page 104] Times was almost wholly confined to the Egyptians, excepting what was a­mongst the Israelites: And whosoever does but consider how difficult it is to lay the first Foundations of any Science, be they never so small, will allow them great Commendation; which if the Advocates for them had been contented with, there had been an End of the Controversie. Instead of that, all that has since been added to their Foundations, has been e­qually challenged as originally due to them, or at least once known by them, by In Her­mete Ae­gyptio. Olaus Borrichius, and several others long before Sir William Temple, wrote up­on this Argument.

Before I enter upon this Question. I shall desire that one Thing may be taken Notice of; which is, That the Egyptians anciently pretended to so great Exactness, that every Failure is more justly impu­table to them, than to other Nations; not only their History was so carefully look'd after, that there was a College of Priests set up on purpose, whose chief Business it was successively to preserve the remar­kable Matters of Fact that occurred in their own Ages, and transmit them un­disputed to Posterity, but also, there was answerable Care taken to propagate and preserve all other Parts of useful [Page 105] Learning: All their Inventions in Physick, in Mathematicks, in Agriculture, in Chy­mistry, are said to have been inscribed on Pillars, which were preserved in their Temples; whereby not only the Memo­ry of the things themselves was less liable to be lost; but Men were further encou­raged to use their utmost Diligence in finding out things that might be of publick Advantage, when they were certain of getting Immortality by these Inventions. This generous Custom was the more to be applauded, because every Man was confined to one particular Part of Lear­ning, as his chief Business; that so no­thing might escape them. One was Phy­sician for the Eyes, another for the Heart, a Third for the Head in general, a Fourth for Chirurgical Applications, a Fifth for Womens Diseases, and so forth. Anatomy, we are told, was so very much cultivated by the Kings of Egypt, that they particu­larly ordered the Bodies of dead Men to be opened, that so Physick might be equally perfect in all its parts. Where such Care has been used, proportionable Progresses may be expected, and the World has a Right to make a Judgment not only according to what is now to be found, but according to what might have been found, if these Accounts had been really true.

[Page 106] In the first Place therefore, we may observe, That the Civil History of Egypt is as lamely and as fabulously recorded as of any Nation in the Universe: And yet, the Egyptians took more than ordi­nary Care to pay all possible Honours to the Dead, especially their Kings; by pre­serving their Bodies with Bitumen and resinous Drugs, and by building sumptu­ous Monuments to lay them in: This certainly was done to perpetuate their Memories, as well as to pay them Re­spect: It was at least as Ancient as Jo­seph's Time; how much older we know not. The Jews, who for another and a more sacred Reason, took care of their Dead, took equal Care to preserve their Genealogies, and to draw an Uniform Thread of their History from Abraham down to the Destruction of the Second Temple. Herein they acted consistently, and their History is a standing Instance of this their Care; whereas the Egyptian History is so very inconsistent a Business, that it is impossible to make a coherent Story out of it: Not for Want of Mate­rials, but because their Materials neither agree with themselves, nor with the History of any other Nation in the World.

[Page 107] A more certain Proof of the Deficiency of the Egyptian History cannot be produced, than that the Time of the building of the Pyramids was lost when Herodotus; was in Egypt; as also the Aera of the only great Conquerour of that Nation, Sesostris. The first of these is not slightly to be passed over. Such vast Fabricks could not be raised without Numbers of Hands, and a great Expence of Time and Money, or something equivalent. The Traditions of their Erection are indeed minutely enough set down in Herodotus; but then they are set down as Traditions; and which is more, they are solely to be found in him, though he is not the only ancient Writer that mentions the Pyramids; he only names Cheops and Mycerinus, who are dif­ferently named by other Historians; and the Time when they lived, is as little agreed upon, as the Names by which they are called. The History of a Na­tion can sure be worth very little, that could not preserve the Memory of the Names at least, if not the Time, of those Princes, who were at so much Pains to be remembred, in a Place where their Monu­ments were so very visible, that no Person could ever sail up and down the Nile, to or from their capital City Memphis, with­out taking Notice of them; and every [Page 108] Man upon his first seeing of them would naturally ask, what they were, by whom, and for what Intent erected. To which we may add, that these very Buildings are more exactly described in Mr Greaves's Pyramidographia, than in any ancient Au­thor now extant.

The Difficulty of determining the Age when Sesostris lived, is another Instance of the Carelesness of the Egyptian Histo­rians. Either he was the same with She­shak, who invaded Judaea in Rehoboam's Time, as Sir John Marsham In Ca­none Chro­nico. asserts after Josephus, or not: If he was, his Time is known indeed, but then the Au­thority of Manetho, and of those Pillars from which Manetho pretended to tran­scribe the Tables of the several Dynasties of the Egyptian Kings, is at an End; besides, it contradicts all the Greek Wri­ters that mention Sesostris, who place him in their fabulous Age, and generally affirm, that he lived before the Expedi­tion of the Argonauts, which preceded the War of Troy. If he was not that Sheshak, then the Time when the only famous Conqueror of the Egyptian Nation lived is uncertain, and all that they know of him is, that once upon a time there was a mighty King in Egypt, who conquered Ethiopia, Arabia, Assyria and up to Col­chis, [Page 109] with Asia the Less, and the Islands of the Aegean Sea, where having left Marks of his Power, he returned home again to reap the Fruits of his Labours: A Tra­dition which might have been preserved without setting up a College at Heliopolis for that Purpose.

The very learned Mr. Dodwell in his Discourse concerning the Phoenician Hi­story of Sanchoniathon, advances a No­tion which may help to give a very pro­bable Account of those vast Antiquities of the Egyptians pretended to by Manetho. He thinks that after the History of Moses was translated into Greek, and so made common to the learned Men of the neigh­bouring Nations, that they endeavoured to rival them by pretended Antiquities of their own, that so they might not seem to come behind a People, who till then had been so obscure. This, though par­ticularly applied by Mr. Dodwell to San­choniathon's History, seems equally forci­ble in the present Controversie: For Ma­netho dedicated his History to Ptolemee Philadelphus, at whose Command it was written, and wrote it about the Time that the LXXII Interpreters translated the Pentateuch. The great Intercourse which the Egyptians and Israelites formerly had each with other, made up a considerable. [Page 110] part of that Book, and occasioned its be­ing the more taken Notice of; so that this History being injurious to the vain pretences of that People, might very pro­bably provoke some that were jealous for the Honour of their Nation, and Mane­tho amongst the rest, to set up an Anti-History to that of Moses; and to dedi­cate it to the same Prince who employed the Jews to translate the Pentateuch, and who ordered Manetho himself to bring him in an Account of the Egyptian An­tiquities, that so any Prejudices which Ptolemee, who was of another Nation himself, might entertain against their Country, might be effectually removed.

This Notion is the more probable in our Case, because it equally holds, whe­ther we follow Sir John Marsham's Ac­counts, who has made the Egyptian An­tiquities intelligible; or whether they are left in the same Confusion that they were in before. That most Learned Gentle­man has reduced the wild Heap of Egy­ptian Dynasties into as narrow a Compass as the History of Moses, according to the Hebrew Account, by the help of a Table of the Theban Kings, which he found un­der Eratosthenes's Name, in the Chrono­graphy of Syncellus. For, by that Table he 1. Distinguished the Fabulous and [Page 111] Mystical Part of the Egyptian History, from that which seems to look like Mat­ter of Fact. 2. He reduced the Dyna­sties into Collateral Families, reigning at the same time, in several Parts of the Country; which, as some learned Men saw before, was the only Way to make those Antiquities consistent with them­selves, which till then were confused and incoherent. But it seems evident by the Remains that we have of Manetho in Eu­sebius, and by the Accounts which we have of the Egyptian History in Josephus's Books against Appion, and in the Ancient Christian Writers, that the Egyptians in Ptolemee's Time did not intend to confine themselves within the Limits set by Moses, but resolved to go many Thousand Years beyond them. If therefore Eratosthenes's Table be genuine, not only Manetho's Authority sinks, but the Pillars from whence he transcribed his Tables of the Kings of their several Dynasties are Im­postures, since they pretend to give suc­cessive Tables of vast Numbers of Kings reigning in several Families, for many Ages; which ought to be contracted in­to a Period of Time, not much exceeding Two Thousand Years. If the Table of Eratosthenes be not the true Rule by which the Egyptian Antiquities are to be [Page 112] squared, then the former Prejudices will return in full force; and one cannot va­lue Tables, and Pillars, and Priests, that could not fix the Time of the Erection of the Pyramids, and the Age of Sesostris, so certainly, as that when Herodotus was in the Country, they might have been able to inform him a little better than they did.

This long Enquiry into the Egyptian History will not, I hope, be thought al­together a Digression from my Subject, because it weakens the Egyptians Credit in a very sensible Part: For, if their Ci­vil History is proved to be egregiously fa­bulous, or inconsistent, there will be no great Reason to value their mighty Boasts in any thing else; at least, not to believe them upon their own Words, without other Evidence.

In Mathematicks, the Egyptians are, of all Hands, allowed to have laid the first Foundations: The Question therefore is, how far they went. Before this can be answered satisfactorily, one ought to en­quire whether Pythagoras and Thales, who went so far to get Knowledge, would not have learnt all that the Egy­ptians could teach them: Or whether the Egyptians would willingly impart all they knew. The former, I suppose, no Body [Page 113] questions: For the latter, we are to di­stinguish between Things that are con­cealed out of Interest, and between other things, which, for the same Interest, are usu­ally made publick. The Secret's of the Egy­ptian Theology were not proper to be dis­covered, because by those Mysteries they kept the People in awe: The Philoso­pher's Stone likewise, if they had been Masters of it, might, for Gain, have been concealed: And Medicinal Arcana are of Advantage oftentimes to the Possessors, chiefly because they are Arcana. But Abstracted Mathematical Theories, which bring Glory to the Inventors when they are communicated to those that can relish them, and which bring no Profit when they are locked up, are never concealed from such as shew a Desire to learn them; provided that by such a Discovery the first Inventors are not deprived of the Glory of their Inventions; which is increased by publishing, if they have before-hand taken Care to secure their Right. So that we may reasonably conclude, that when Pythagoras is commended for no famous Invention in Geometry, except the 47th. Proposition of the First Book of Euclid, that he brought nothing of more Moment, in that Way, with him, out of Egypt; and therefore, either the further [Page 114] Discoveries that were made in Geometry, were made by the Egyptians afterwards; or, which is more probable, they were Grecian Superstructures upon those Foun­dations. Besides, though a Man travel­led into Egypt, yet it does not follow from thence that he learnt all his Knowledge there. So that though Archimedes and Euclid were in Egypt, yet they might, for all that, have been Inventors them­selves of those noble Theorems which are in their Writings. In Archimedes's Time Greeks lived in Alexandria; and the Learning of Egypt could no more at that time be attributed to the old Egyptians, than the Learning of Archbishop Usher, Sir James Ware, and Mr. Dodwell, can be attributed to a Succession of those learn­ed Irish-men who were so considerable in the Saxon Times.

This last Consideration is of very great Moment; for few of the Greeks, after Plato, went into Egypt purely for Know­ledge: and though Plato brought several of his Notions out of Egypt, which he interwove into his Philosophy, yet the Philosophers of the Alexandrian School, who, for the most part, were Platonists, shew by their Way of Writing, and by their frequent Citations out of Plato's Books, that they chose to take those [Page 115] Things from the Grecians, which one would think might have been had nearer home, if they had been of the Original Growth of the Country. The most con­siderable Propositions in Euclid's Elements were attributed to the Greeks; and we have nothing confessedly Egyptian, to op­pose to the Writings of Archimedes, Apol­lonius Pergaeus, or Diophantus: Whereas, had there been any Thing considerable, it would most certainly have been produ­ced, or, at least, hinted at, by some of those very learned Egyptians, or rather later Greeks born in Egypt; whose Wri­tings that treat of the Extent of the Egy­ptian Knowledge, are still extant.

Having now examined the History and Geometry of the Egyptians, it will be much easier to go through their Pretences, or rather the Pretences of their Advocates, to Superiority in other Parts of Learning. The Egyptians seem to have verified the Proverb, That he that has but one Eye, is a Prince among those that have none. This was Glory enough; for it is always very honourable to be the First, where the Strife is concerning Things which are worth contending for.

THE Egyptian Natural Philosophy and Physick shall be joined toge­ther, because there is so great an Affinity between them, that true Notions in ei­ther Science assist the other. Their Phy­sick, indeed, was very famous in Homer's Time: And wonderful Things are told of Hermes, the pretended Father of the Chymical Art. But one ought to distin­guish between particular Medicines, how noble soever, and general Theories found­ed upon a due Examination of the Na­ture of those Bodies from whence such Medicines are drawn, and of the Consti­tution and Fabrick of the Bodies of the Patients to whom they are to be applied, and of the incidental Circumstances of Time and Place; which are necessary to be taken in by a wise Physician. The Stories of the West-Indian Medicines are many of them very astonishing; and those Salvages knew perfectly how to use them, and yet they were never esteemed able [Page 117] Physicians. This Instance is applicable to the present Question: Galen often men­tions Egyptian Remedies in his Treatises of Medicines, which are numerous and large, yet he seldom mentions any of their Hypotheses, from which only a Man can judge whether the Egyptians were well-grounded Physicians, or Empi­ricks. This is the more remarkable, be­cause Galen had lived long at Alexandria, and commends the Industry of the Ale­xandrians in cultivating Anatomy, which is so necessary a Part of a Physician's Bu­siness.

In general therefore we may find, that all the Egyptian Notions of Physical Mat­ters were built upon Astrological and Ma­gical Grounds: Either the Influence of a particular Planet, or of some tutelar Dae­mon were still considered. These Foun­dations are precarious and impious, and they put a Stop to any Increase of real Knowledge, which might be made upon other Principles. He that minds the Position of the Stars, or invokes the Aid of a Daemon will rarely be sollicitous to examine nicely into the Nature of his Re­medies, or the Constitution of his Patients, without which none of the ancient rational Physicians believed that any Man could arrive at a perfect Knowledge of their [Page 118] Art. So that if Hippocrates learn'd his Skill in Egypt, as it is pretended, the E­gyptian Physicians afterwards took a very stupid Method to run upon imaginary Scents, so far as even to lose the Memory that they had ever pursued more rational Methods. Those that would be further satisfied of the Truth of this Matter of Fact, may find it abundantly proved in Conringius's Discourse of the old Egyptian Medicine De Her­meticâ Ae­gyptiorum vetere & Paracelsi­corum novâ Medicinâ..

But we are told, that there was a par­ticular sort of Physick, used only amongst the Egyptian Priests, which was kept se­cret, not only from the Greeks that came into their Country for Knowledge, but from the Generality of the Natives them­selves; wherein, by the Help of the Grand Elixir, they could do almost any thing but restore Life to the Dead. This Elixir, which was a Medicine made with the Philosophers Stone, was a Chymical Preparation: And if we may believe Olaus Borrichius De Ortu & Progressu Chemiae; as also Herme­tis Aegyptiorum & Che­micorum sapientia ab Herm. Con [...]ingii Animad­versionibus vindicata., the Great and Learned Ad­vocate of the Chymical and Adept Philosophers, was the Invention of Hermes, who was contemporary with Isis and Osiris, whose Age none ever yet determined. If these Claims are true, there is no Question but [Page 119] the Egyptians understood Nature, at least that of Metals, in a very high Degree. This is an Application of Agents to Pa­tients Pag. 46., which, if made good, will go farther than any Assertion commonly brought to prove the extent of Egyptian Knowledge: And therefore, I presume, I shall not be thought tedious if I enlarge more particularly upon this Question, than I have done upon the rest; especially since there has not been, that I know of, any direct Answer ever Printed to Bor­richius's Book upon this Argument, which he wrote against the forementioned Dis­course of Conringius.

One may justly wonder that there should have been so noble an Art as that of turning baser Metals into Gold and Sil­ver so long in the World, and yet that there should be so very little, if any thing, said of it in the Writings of the Ancients. To remove this Prejudice therefore, all the fabulous Stories of the Greeks have, by Men of fertile Inventions, been given out to be disguised Chymical Arcana. Jason's Golden Fleece, which he brought from Colchis was only a Receipt to make the Philosopher's Stone, and Medea resto­red her Father-in-Law, Aeson, to his Youth again by the Grand Elixir. Borrichius is very confident that the Egyptian Kings [Page 120] built the Pyramids with the Treasures that their Furnaces afforded them, since if there were so many Thousand Talents ex­pended in Leeks and Onions, as Herodotus tells us there were, which must needs have been an inconsiderable Sum in Com­parison of the whole Expence of the Work, one cannot imagine how they could have raised Money enough to de­fray the Charge of the Work any other Way. And since Borrichius, Jacobus Tollius has set out a Book called Fortuita, wherein he makes most of the Old My­thology to be Chymical Secrets.

But though Borrichius may believe that he can find some obscure Hints of this Great Work in the Heathen Mytholo­gists, and in some scattered Verses of the Ancient Poets, which according to him they themselves did not fully understand when they wrote them; yet this is cer­tain, That the ancientest Chymical Wri­ters now extant, cannot be proved to have been so old as the Age of Augustus. Con­ringius believes that Zosimus Panopolita is the oldest Chymical Author that we have, whom he sets lower than Constantine the Great. That perhaps may be a Mistake; for Borrichius, who had read them both in MS. in the French King's Library, brings very plausible Arguments to prove [Page 121] that Olympiodorus, who wrote Commen­taries upon some of the Chymical Dis­courses of Zosimus, was 150 Years older than Constantine, because he mentions the Alexandrian Library in the Temple of Serapis, as actually in being, which in Ammianus Marcellinus's Time, who was contemporary with Julian the Apostate, was only talked of, as a thing destroyed long before. I don't mean that which was burnt in Julius Caesar's Time, but one af­terwards erected out of the scattered Re­mains that were saved from that great Conflagration, which is mentioned by Tertullian, under the Name of Ptolemee's Library at Alexandria. If this Zosimus is the same whom Galen mentions, for a Remedy for sore Eyes, in his 4th. Book of Topical Medicines, then both he and Olympiodorus might have been considera­bly older; and yet have lived since our Blessed Saviour's Time. However, be their Age what it will, they wrote to them­selves, and their Art was as little known afterwards as it was before; Julius Fir­micus is the First Author that has mentio­ned Alchemy, either by Name, or by an undisputed Circumlocution; and he dedi­cated his Book of Astrology to Constantine the Great. Manilius indeed (who is sup­posed to have lived in Augustus's Time) [Page 122] in the 4th. Book of his Astronomicon, where he gives an Account of those that are born under Capricorn, has these Words,

which last Verse seems to be a Descrip­tion of Alchemy: But besides that, the Verse is suspected to be spurious; even the Age of Manilius himself is not with­out Controversie; some making him con­temporary with the Younger Theodosius, and consequently later than Firmicus him­self. We may expect to have this Que­stion determined, when my most Learned Friend Mr. Bentley shall oblige the World with his Censures and Emendations of that Elegant Poet.

But if these Grecian Chymists have the utmost Antiquity allowed them that Bor­richius desires, it will signifie little to de­duce their Art from Hermes, since Men might pretend that their Art was derived from him in Zosimus's Days, and yet come many Thousand Years short of it, if we follow the Accounts of Manetho. Where­fore, though this is but a negative Argu­ment, yet it seems to be unanswerable, because if there had been such an Art, [Page 123] some of the Greeks and Romans, who were successively Masters of Egypt, would have mentioned it at least, before Zosi­mus's Time. Such a Notice whether with Approbation, or Contempt, had been sufficient to ascertain the Reality of such a Tradition. Tacitus Annal. Lib. XVI. tells us that Nero sent into Africa to find some Gold, that was pretended to be hid under Ground: This would have been an excellent Opportu­nity for him to have examined into this Tradition, or to have punished those, who either falsly pretended to an Art which they had not, or would not discover the true Secret; which in his Opinion would have been equally criminal; and had Nero done it, Pliny would have told us of it, who was very inquisitive to collect all the Stories he could find of every thing that he treats about, whereof Gold Nat. Hist. Lib. XXXIII. cap. 1, 2, 3, 4. is one that is not slightly passed over; and besides, he never omits a Story because it appears strange, and incredible, if we may judge of what he has left out, by what he has put in, but often ranges the wonderful Qualities of natural Bodies under distinct Heads, that they might be the more observed.

To evade the Force of this Argument, Borrichius Herm. Aegypt. says that the Egyptians were afraid of their Conquerours, and so [Page 124] industriously concealed their Art. But there is a wide Difference between con­cealing the Rules and Precepts of an Art, and concealing the Memory that ever there was such an Art. If it was ever known before the Persian Conquest, as by his Account of the Erection of the Pyramids, which were built many Ages before Cambyses's Time, it is plain he believes it was, though we should allow it to have been in few Hands, it is not credible that this Art of making Gold should never have been pretended to be­fore Dioclesian's Time, who is reported by Suidas to have burnt great Numbers of Chymical Book, which gave an Ac­count of the Process. Whereas after­wards, ever now and then, Footsteps of cheating Alchemists are to be met with in the Greek Historians. It was not pos­sible to pretend to greater Secrecy in the Manner of their Operations, than is now to be found in all the Writings of Mo­dern Adept Philosophers (as they call themselves.) And yet these Men, who will not reveal their Process, would think themselves affronted, if any Man should question the real Existence of their Art.

But the Hypothesis of those who find Chymical Secrets in Homer, Virgil, and the rest of the ancient Poets, is liable to [Page 125] several Exceptions taken Notice of neither by Conringius nor Borrichius.

1. They say that when Jason heard that the King of Colchis had a Book writ upon a Ram's-skin, wherein was the Process of the Philosopher's Stone, he went with the Argonauts to fetch it. Here it may be objected, 1. That it is not likely that Sesostris, who conquered Colchis, would ever suffer the Egyptian Priests to reveal such a Secret to that conquered People. Dioclesian according to them burnt all the Chymical Books that he could find in Egypt, that the Egyptians might not re­bel, when they were deprived of that Fund, which supported their Wars. And Borrichius supposes that the Egyptian Priests used this Art chiefly to supply the Expences of their Kings. 2. How came Jason and the Argonauts not to grow richer by this Fleece? It cannot be preten­ded that it was concealed from them, be­cause it was like the Books of the Modern Adepti, written in so obscure a Stile, that it was unintelligible for want of a Ma­ster; since Medea was with Jason, who had the Secret, what or how great soe­ver it was. 3. Since the Grecians were not tied to Secrecy, how came their Tra­ditions to be so obscure, that those Pas­sages in Apollonius Rhodius's Argonauticks [Page 126] which are supposed to be meant of the Grand Elixir, were never applied to a Chymical Sense, till the Writings of Sy­nesius, Zosimus, and the other old Grecian Chymists appeared? Especially since, 4. Apollonius Rhodius himself was an Alexan­drian Greek, born in Egypt, and so could easily acquaint himself with the Tradi­tions of that Country, which he, origi­nally of another Nation, was under no Obligation to conceal.

2. The Chymists, at least Borrichius for them, own Democritus's Books to be genuine, upon the Credit of Zosimus who quotes them: If they are, this pretended Secrecy falls to the Ground: For Demo­critus affirms, That he learnt his Art from Ostanes a Mede, who was sent by the Kings of Persia into Egypt, as Go­vernour of the Egyptian Priests. Then the Secret was divulged to some of the Conquerours of their Country. If so, why no more Tradition of it? If not the Process it self, yet at least the Memory that once there was such a Process? Which would have been enough for this Purpose. The same Question may be asked of Democritus, to whom Ostanes revealed it. This will weaken Zosimus's Credit as an Antiquary, upon whose As­sertion most of this pretended Antiquity [Page 127] is founded. Since at the same Time that he objects the Secrecy of the ancient Egyptian Priests, as a Reason why the Memory of this Art was so little known, he owns himself obliged to a Greek, who had it from the Egyptians at Second Hand.

But how will these Pretenders to re­mote Antiquity, who tell us, that Moses, by his Skill in Chymistry, ground the Golden Calf to Powder, reconcile a Pas­sage in Theophrastus to their Pretensions? He, speaking of Quicksilver Lib. de Lapidi­bus., says that the Art of extracting it from Cinnabar was not known till 90 Years before his Time, when it was first found out by Callias an Athenian. Can we think that the Egyptians could hinder these inqui­sitive Grecians, who staid so long in their Country, from knowing that there was such a Metal as Mercury? Or could these Egyptians make Gold without it? If they could, they might reasonably suppose that the Israelites could make Brick without Straw, since they could make Gold and Silver without that, which Modern Adepti affirm to be the Seed of all Metals. Theo­phrastus's Words are too general, to ad­mit of an Objection, as if he believed that Callias's Invention ought to be li­mited to his own Country. This, join'd [Page 128] to the great Silence of the Ancients, e­specially Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, who dwell so long upon the Egyptian Arts and Learning, concerning most of the wonderful Phaenomena of that extra­vagant Metal, plainly shews that there were no Traditions of such mighty things to be done by it, as the Alchemist's Books are full of. Borrichius therefore recurrs to his old Subterfuge, Egyptian Secrecy, and finds some doubtful at least, if not fabulous, Stories of Daedalus, and Icarus, and the Poetical Age, which he opposes to the positive Testimony of Theophra­stus. Perhaps this may be thought to be begging the Question, since some who have written of the Philosophers Stone, have taught that their Mercury has no Af­finity with common Mercury: Which has led many Persons to try several extrava­gant Processes to find it out. But Eire­naeus Philalethes, who is look'd upon as one of the clearest Writers that has ever written upon this Subject; says express­ly that Enar­ratio Metho­dica trium Gebri Me­dicinarum, p. 18. Natural Mercury Philosophi­cally prepared is the Philosophical Menstru­um, and the dissolvent Mercury.

After so long an Enquiry into the An­tiquity of this Art of transmuting Metals, it will be asked perhaps, what may be thought of the Art it self. I must needs [Page 129] say, I cannot tell what Judgment to make of it: The Pretences to Inspiration, and that Enthusiastick Cant, which run through the Writings of almost all the Alchemists, seem so like Imposture, that one would be tempted to think that it was only a Design carried on from Age to Age, to delude Mankind: and it is not easy to imagine why God should hear the Prayers of those that desire to be rich. If, as they pretend, it was Zeal for the good of Mankind that made them take such Pains to find out such noble Medi­cines as should free Men from the most obstinate Diseases to which our Natures are subject, why do they not commu­nicate them, and leave the Process in Writing plainly to Posterity, if they are afraid of Danger for themselves: Con­cern for the Welfare of Mankind and af­fected Secrecy, seem here inconsistent things: Men of such mortified Tem­pers, and publick Spirits ought not to be concerned, though Gold or Silver were made as common as Lead, or Tin, pro­vided that the Elixir which should re­move all Diseases were once known.

Though these are reasonable Prejudi­ces against the Belief of the Truth of this Operation, yet one can hardly tell how to contradict a Tradition so general, [Page 130] and so very well attested Vide Borrichium de Ortu & Progressu Che­miae, & Morhofii Episto­lam de transmutatione Metallorum ad Joelem Langelottum.. So many Men, methinks, could not have cheated the World successfully so long, if some had not been sincere: And, to use a Proverb in their own Way, so much Smoak could scarce have lasted so long without some Fire. Till the semi­nal Principles from which Metals are compounded, are perfectly known, the Possibility of the Operation cannot be dis­proved: Which Principles, as all other real Essences of things, are concealed from us. But as a wise Man cannot, perhaps, without Rashness disbelieve what is so confidently asserted, so he ought not to spend much Time and Cost, about trying whether it will succeed, till some of the Adepti shall be so kind as to give him the Receipt.

By what has been said it is evident, what Opinion one ought to have of the Chymical Skill of the ancient Egyptians: Though it is most probable that the Art owes its Original to them, from whom it receives its Name: But this Original is much too late to do Sir William Temple's Hypothesis any Service.

But it is high Time to leave the Egyp­tian Physick, and therefore, I shall only add One or Two Instances of their Skill [Page 131] in Anatomy, and so pass on. Gellius Noct. Attic. Lib. X. cap. 10. and Macrobius Satur­nal. l. 7. cap. 13. observe; the one from Appion, who wrote of the Egyptians; the other from the Egyptian Priests themselves, that there is a particular Nerve that goes from the Heart to the little Finger of the Left-Hand, for which Reason they al­ways wore Rings upon that Finger; and the Priests dipped that Finger in their per­fumed Ointments; this being ridiculed by Conringius, Borrichius Herm. Aegypt. Praefat. assures us that he always found something to coun­tenance this Observation upon cutting of his Nails to the quick: Pliny in the 37^th. Chapter of the 11th. Book of his Natural History, and Censorinus in the 17^th. Chapter of his little Book De Die Natali, give this following Reason from Dioscorides the Astrologer, why a Man cannot live above a Hundred Years, be­cause the Alexandrian Embalmers obser­ved a constant Increase and Diminution of Weight of the Hearts of those sound Persons whom they opened, whereby they judged of their Age. They found that the Hearts of Infants of a Year old weigh­ed two Drachms, and this Weight en­creased Annually by two Drachms every Year till Men came to the Age of Fifty Years: At which Time they as gradually decreased till they came to an Hundred, [Page 132] when, for want of a Heart, they must ne­cessarily die.

To these two Instances of the Critical­ness of Egyptian Anatomy I shall add one of their Curiosities in Natural Enquiries; and that is, their Knowledge of the Cause of the Annual Overflowing of the Nile. This, which was the constant Wonder of the Old World, was a Phaenomenon seldom over-looked by the Greek Philosophers: Seven of whose Opinions are reckoned up by Plutarch, in the First Chapter of the Fourth Book of his Opinions of the Philosophers. If Curiosity generally at­tends a Desire of Knowledge, and grows along with it, then the Egyptian Priests were inexcusably negligent, that they did not know that the swelling of the Nile proceeded from the Rains that fell in Ethiopia, which raising the River at cer­tain Seasons, made that overflowing of the Flats of Egypt. One would think that in Sesostris's Time the Egyptian Priests had Access enough into Ethiopia; and whoever had once been in that Coun­try could have resolved that Problem, without any Philosophy. It was known indeed in Plato's Time, for then the Priests told it to Eudoxus; but Thales, De­mocritus, and Herodotus, who had all en­quired of the Egyptians, give such un­couth [Page 133] Reasons, as shew that they only spoke by guess. Thales thinks that the Etesian Winds blew at that Time of the Year against the Mouths of the River, so that the fresh Water finding no Vent, was beaten back upon the Land. De­mocritus supposes that the Northern Snows being melted by the Summer Heats, are drawn up in Vapours into the Air, which Vapours circulating towards the South, are by the Coldness of the Etesian Winds condensed into Rain, by which the Nile is raised. Herodotus thinks that an equal Quantity of Water comes from the Fountains in Summer and Win­ter, only in Summer there are greater Quantities of Water drawn up by the Sun, and in Winter less, and so by Consequence all that Time it overflowed. Democritus's Opinion of the Phaenomenon seems not amiss, though his Hypothesis of the Cause of it is wrong in all Probability: Yet it is plain, That Plutarch did not believe it to be the same with that which the Egyp­tian Priests gave to Eudoxus, which is the only true one, because he sets them both down apart. The Cause of this wonderful Phaenomenon could not be pre­tended to be a Secret; no Honour could be got by concealing a thing, the pre­tended Ignorance whereof was rather a [Page 134] Disgrace. Those Egyptian Priests, whose Business it was to gather Knowledge, must have had an extraordinary Love for a sedentary Life, or have been averse to inform themselves from others, more than the rest of Mankind, who would not be at the Pains either to learn what Seso­stris's Soldiers could have told them, or to go about Two Hundred Miles South­ward to search for that, which they must certainly have often reasoned about, if they were such Philosophers as they pretended to be.

Nay, by the Curiosity of the Greeks we are sure they did reason about it; they thought it as much a Wonder as we can do now: Rather more, because they knew of no other Rivers, that overflow at periodical Seasons like it, as some are now known to do in the East-Indies.

Upon the whole Matter, after a par­ticular Search into the whole Extent of Egyptian Learning, there seems to be no Reason to give the Egyptians the Pre­eminence in point of Knowledge above all Mankind. However, considering the great Labour which is requisite to form the First Notions of any part of Lear­ning, they deserve great Applause for what they discovered, and ought to have proportionable Grains of Allowance for [Page 135] what they left unfinished: So that when the Holy Scriptures Acts VII. 22. assure us that Moses was skilled in all the Learning of the Egyptians, they give him the greatest Character for humane Knowledge that could then be given to any Man. The Egyptian Performances in Architecture were very wonderful, and the Chara­cter which Hadrian the Emperour gives them, that they found Employments for all Sorts of Persons, the Blind, the Lame, the Gouty, as well as the strong and healthy, shews that it was natural to the Egyptians to be always busied about something useful. The Art of Brewing Mault-drinks was very anciently ascri­bed Hero­dotus Co­lumella, Lib. X. to the Egyptians as the first In­ventors, for which these Northern Na­tions are not a little beholding to them. Their Laws have, by those who have taken the greatest Pains Con­ringius in Medicinâ Herme­ticâ. to destroy the Reputation of their Learning in other things, been acknowledged to be very wise, and worth going so far as Pytha­goras, Solon and Lycurgus did to fetch them. So that if Sir William Temple had extolled their Learning with any other Design than that of disparaging the Knowledge of the present Age, there would have been no Reason to oppose his Assertions.

THE Chaldeans and the Arabs are the People that lie next in Sir Wil­liam Temple's Road. We may pronounce with some Certainty, 1. That the Chal­dean Astronomy could not be very va­luable, since, as we know from Vitru­vius, and others, they had not discover­ed that the Moon is an Opake Body. Whether their Astronomical Observations were older than their Monarchy, is un­certain: If they were not, then in Ale­xander the Great's Time they could not challenge an Antiquity of above Five or Six Hundred Years. I mention Alexan­der, because he is said to have sent vast Numbers of Observations from Babylon, to his Master Aristotle. The Assyrian Monarchy, of which the Chaldean might not improperly be called a Branch, pre­tends, indeed, to great Antiquity: Great Things are told of Ninus and Semiramis, who is more than once mentioned by Sir William Temple, in these Essays, for her Victories, and her Skill in Garden­ing; [Page 137] but these Accounts are, very pro­bably, fabulous, for the following Rea­sons.

Till the Time of Tiglath-Pileser and Pul, we hear no News of any Assyrian Monarchs in the Jewish History. In Am­raphel's Time, who was overthrown by Abraham and his Family, in the Vale of Siddim, the Kings of Chaldea seem to have been no other than those of Canaan, Cap­tains of Hords, or Heads of Clans: And Amraphel was Tributary to Chedorlaomer King of Elam, whose Kingdom lay to the East of Babylon, beyond the River Tigris. Chushan Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia, who was overthrown some Ages after by Othoniel, the Israelitish Judge, does not seem to have been a mighty Prince: It may be said, indeed, that he was Gene­ral to some Assyrian Monarch; but that is begging the Question, since there is no­thing which can favour such an Assertion in the Book of Judges.

But when the Assyrians and Babylonians come once to be mentioned in the Jewish History, they occurr in almost every Page of the Old Testament. There are fre­quent Accounts of Pul, Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmanezer, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, Belshaz­zar; and who not? But these Kings lived [Page 138] within a narrow Compass of Time; the oldest of them but a few Ages before Cy­rus. This would not suit with that pro­digious Antiquity which they challenged to themselves. The Truth is, Herodotus, who knew nothing of it, being silent, Ctesias draws up a new Scheme of Histo­ry, much more pompous; and from him, or rather, perhaps, from Berosus, who was Contemporary with Manetho, and seems to have carried on the same Design for Chaldea, which Manetho undertook for Egypt, Diodorus Siculus, Pompeius Trogus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and all the Ancients that take notice of the Assyrian History, have afterwards copied.

Ctesias knew he should be straitned to find Employment for so many Kings for Thirteen Hundred Years; and so he says, they did little memorable after Semira­mis's Time. Sir William Temple employs them in Gardening. As if it were pro­bable that a great Empire could lie still for above a Thousand Years; or that no Popular Generals should wrest the Reins out of the Hands of such drowzy Masters in all that Time. No History but this can give an Instance of a Family that lasted for above a Thousand Years, with­out any Interruption: And of all its Kings, not one is said to reign less than Nineteen, [Page 139] but some Fifty five Years. The healthiest Race that ever was heard of; of whom, in Thirteen Hundred Years, not one died an untimely Death. If any Thing can be showed like this in any other History, Sacred or Profane, it will be easie to be­lieve whatsoever is asserted upon this Subject.

If therefore the Chaldean Learning was no older than their Monarchy, it was of no great Standing, if compared with the Egyptian. The Account of Nebuchad­nezzar's Dream, in the 2d. Chapter of Daniel, shews the Chaldean Magick to have been downright Knavery; since Ne­buchadnezzar might reasonably expect that those should tell him what his Dream was, who pretended to interpret it when it was told them; both equally requiring a super-natural Assistance: Yet there lay their chiefest Strength; or, at least, they said so: Their other Learning is all lost. However, one can hardly believe that it was ever very great, that considers how little there remains of real Value, that was learnt from the Chaldeans. The History of Learning is not so lamely conveyed to us, but so much would, in all probability, have escaped the general Ship wrack, as that, by what was saved, we might have been able to guess at what was lost.

[Page 140] If the Learning of these Ancient Chal­deans came as near that of the Arabs as their Countries did, one may give a very good Judgment of its Extent. Sir Wil­liam Temple observes, that Countries lit­tle exposed to Invasions, preserve Know­ledge better than others that are perpe­tually harrassed by a Foreign Enemy; and by Consequence, whatsoever Learn­ing the Arabs had, they kept; unless we should suppose that they lost it through Carelesness. We never read of any Con­quests that pierced into the Heart of Ara­bia the Happy, Mahomet's Country, be­fore the Beginning of the Saracen Empire. It is very strange therefore, if, in its Pas­sage through this noble Country, inha­bited by a sprightly, ingenious People, Learning, like Quick-Silver, should run through, and leave so few of its Influen­ces behind it. It is certain that the Arabs were not a learned People when they over-spread Asia: So that when after­wards they translated the Grecian Learn­ing into their own Language, they had very little of their own, which was not taken from those Fountains. Their A­stronomy and Astrology was taken from Ptolemee, their Philosophy from Aristotle, their Medicks from Galen; and so on. Aristotle and Euclid were first translated [Page 141] into Latin, from Arabick Copies; and those Barbarous Translations were the only Elements upon which the Western School-men and Mathematicians built. If they learnt any thing considerable else­where, it might be Chymistry and Alche­my from the Egyptians; unless we should say that they translated Synesius, or Zosi­mus, or some other Grecian Chymists.

Hence it follows, that the Arabs bor­rowed the greatest part, at least, of their Knowledge from the Greeks, though they had much greater Advantages of Com­municating with the more Eastern Parts of the World, than either Greeks or Ro­mans ever had. They could have ac­quainted us with all that was rare and valuable amongst those Ancient Sages. The Saracen Empire was under one Head in Almanzor's Time; and was almost as far extended Eastward as ever afterwards. His Subjects had a free Passage, from the Tagus to the Ganges; and being united by the common Bond of the same Reli­gion, the Brachmans, some of whom did, in all probability, embrace the Mahomet an Faith, would not be shy of revealing what they knew, to their Arabian Masters. By this Means, the Learning of the Egy­ptians, Chaldeans, Indians, Greeks and A­rabs, ran in one common Channel. For [Page 142] several Ages, Learning was so much in Fashion amongst them, and they took such Care to bring it all into their own Language, that some of the learnedest Jews, Maimonides in particular, wrote in Arabick, as much as in their own Tongue. So that we might reasonably have ex­pected to have found greater Treasures in the Writings of these learned Mahome­tans, than ever were discovered before: And yet those that have been conversant with their Books say, that there is little to be found amongst them, which any Body might not have understood as well as they, if he had carefully studied the Writings of their Grecian Masters. There have been so many Thousands of Arabick and Persick MSS. brought over into Eu­rope, that our learned Men can make as good, nay, perhaps, a better Judgment of the Extent of their Learning, than can be made, at this distance, of the Greek. There are vast Quantities of their Astro­nomical Observations in the Bodleian Li­brary, and yet Mr. Greaves and Dr. Ed­ward Bernard, two very able Judges, have given the World no Account of any Thing out of them, which those Arabian Astronomers did not, or might not have learnt from Ptolemee's Almagest, if we set aside their Observations which their Gre­cian [Page 143] Masters taught them to make; which, to give them their due, Dr. Ber­nard commends, as much more valuable than is commonly believed, in a Letter to Dr. Huntingdon, printed in the Philo­sophical Transactions, containing their Observations of the Latitudes of Twenty of the most eminent of the Fixed Stars. We owe, indeed, to them alone the Way of Counting by Ten Cyphers, ascending beyond Ten in a Decuple Proportiou; which is of unspeakable Use in Astrono­mical and Algebraical Calculations, and, indeed, in all Parts of Arithmetick. The Use of Chymistry in Physick, together with some of the most considerable Chy­mical Preparations, which have led the Way to most of the late Discoveries that have been made in that Art, and in Na­tural Philosophy by its Means, have been unanimously ascribed to the Arabs by those Physicians that have studied their Books Vide Morhofii Epist. ad Langelot­tum.. Though, in Strictness, the whole Arabian Learning, with all their Inventions, what, and how great soever they were, may be reckoned as Modern, according to Sir William Temple's Compu­tation. But I am willing to give it up, and content my self with what has been done by the learned Men of these two last Ages, since the Greeks brought their [Page 144] Learning along with them into Italy, upon the Taking of Constantinople by the Turks. At least, this is evident, that the old Arabian Learning could never be any one of those Fountains from whence the Grecian might have been drawn; and so can never be urged as such by those who give an Account of the History of Learning.

BY this Time, I am afraid, I shall be thought as tedious as an Irish Tale-teller, fit for nothing but to lull my Reader asleep: But there is but one Stage more left; and though it is a great Way off, yet it may be easily reached upon Pa­per, and then will be as easily dispatched. For China, we are told, is a charming Country, and therefore most proper to be thought upon at the End of a tedious Discourse.

Sir William Temple knows very well, That the whole Chinese History depends upon the sole Authority of Martinius, [Page 145] and those Missionaries who published Confucius lately at Paris. Martinius Hist. Sinic. Prae­fat. tells his Reader that he was obliged to learn Sixty Thousand independent Cha­racters before he could read the Chinese Authors with Ease. This is, without all doubt, an excellent Method to propa­gate Learning, when Eight, or Ten of the best Years of a Man's Life must be spent in learning to read. The most considerable Specimen of Chinese Learn­ing that we have, is in the Writings of Confucius; which if F. Couplet and his Companions had Printed under their own Names, Sir William Temple would have been one of the first pag. 178. that would have called those Rules and Instructions discour­sed of with great Compass of Knowledge, Excellence of Sense, Reach of Wit, illu­strated with Elegance of Stile, and Apt­ness of Similitudes and Examples, an in­coherent Rhapsody of moral Sayings, which good Sense and tolerable Experi­ence might have furnished any Man with.

If the Chineses think every part of Knowledge, but their own Confucian E­thicks, ignoble and mechanical, why are the European Missionaries so much re­spected for their Skill in Medicine and Mechanicks? So much Knowledge in Ma­thematicks [Page 146] as will but just serve an Alma­nack-maker, will do their Business. F. Ver­brist says in a Letter Printed some Years since in the Philosophical Transactions, That the Honours which were paid him in the Emperour's Court, were in a great Measure owing to his teaching the Em­perour to find the Time of the Night by the fixed Stars and an Astrolable: This shews that the Chineses were very mean­ly skilled in these things; and it is pro­bable, that those who are ignorant of such ordinary Matters, seldom carry their Speculations to a much greater Height.

Martinius and Trigautius, who lived long in China, were able fully to inform the World of the Extent of the Chinese Knowledge; and the Pains which Mar­tinius has taken to write the History, and to state the Geography of that migh­ty Empire, is a sufficient Indication of his great Willingness to advance its Re­putation in Europe. The Chineses are allowed to be a sagacious and industri­ous People, and their Skill in many me­chanical Arts shew them to be so; so that if they had ever applied themselves to Lear­ning in good earnest, and that for near so long a Time, as their History pretends to, there is no Question but we should have heard much more of their Progress. [Page 147] And therefore whatsoever can be said of Chinese Knowledge can never be of any Weight, as long as small Skill in Physick and Mathematicks shall be enough to pro­tect the European Missionaries in a Court where they themselves are esteemed the greatest Scholars, and honoured accor­dingly.

But the Chinese Physick is wonder­fully commended by Dr. Vossius and Sir William Temple pag. 179, 180.: The Physicians ex­cel in the Knowledge of the Pulse, and of all simple Medicines, and go little further: Neither need they; for in the first, they are so skillful, that they pretend not only to tell by it, how many Hours or Days a sick Man may last; but how many Years a Man in perfect seeming Health may live, in Case of no Accident or Violence; and by Simples they pretend to relieve all Dis­eases that Nature will allow to be cured. What this boasted Skill is, may be seen in the little Tracts of the Chinese Physick published by Andrew Cleyer Speci­men Medi­cinae Sini­cae. Fran­cof. 1682. Quarto.; but because few will in all Probability have Patience to go through with them, since they are not very pleasant to read, I shall give a short Specimen of them, by which one may judge of the rest.

The most Ancient Chinese Discourse of Physick, Intituled, Nuy Kim Ibid. Pag. 85, 86, 87., gives [Page 48] this Account of the Production of our Bodies, and of the Relation of the seve­ral parts, with the Five Elements.

The Missionary who sent this Account to Cleyer a Physician at Batavia, was a­fraid Risum forte plus movebit Europaeo, quam plau­sum. ibid. pag. 87. that it would be thought ridi­culous by Europeans; which Fear of his seems to have been well grounded. Ano­ther who lived long in China, wrote also an Account of the Chinese Notions, of the Nature and Difference of Pulses, which Haud­quaquam suscipiam principia ista princi­piis nostra­tibus pro­banda. ibid. pag. 2. he professes that he would not undertake to prove by European Principles. One may judge of their Worth by the fol­lowing Specimen ibid. pag. 3, 4..

‘The Chineses divide the Body into Three Regions: The First is from the Head to the Diaphragm: The Second from thence to the Navel, containing Stomach, Spleen, Liver and Gall, and the Third to the Feet, containing [Page 152] the Bladder, Ureters, Reins and Guts. To these Three Regions, they assign Three sorts of Pulses in each Hand. The uppermost Pulse is governed by the radical Heat, and is therefore in its own Nature overflowing and great. The lowermost is governed by the radical Moisture, which lies deeper than the rest, and is like a Root to the rest of the Branches: the middlemost lies be­tween them both, partakes equally of radical Heat and Moisture, and answers to the middle Region of the Body, as the uppermost and lowermost do to the other Two. By these Three Sorts of Pulses, they pretend to examine all Sorts of acute Diseases, and these also are ex­amined Three several Ways: Diseases in the Left-Side are shewn by the Pul­ses of the Left-Hand, and Diseases in the Right-Side by the Pulses of the Right.’

It would be tedious to dwell any lon­ger upon such Notions as these, which every Page in Cleyer's Book is full of: The Anatomical Figures annexed to the Tracts, which also were sent out of China, are so very whimsical, that a Man would al­most believe the whole to be a Banter, if these Theories were not agreeable to the occasional Hints that may be found in the Travels of the Missionaries. This how­ever [Page 153] does no Prejudice to their Simple Medicines, which may, perhaps, be ve­ry admirable, and which a long Expe­rience may have taught the Chineses to apply with great Success; and it is p [...]ssi­ble that they may sometimes give not un­happy Guesses in ordinary Cases, by feel­ing their Patients Pulses: Still this is lit­tle to Physick, as an Art; and however the Chineses may be allowed to be excel­lent Empiricks, as many of the West In­dian Salvages are, yet it cannot be believ­ed that they can be tolerable Philosophers; which, in an Enquiry into the Learning of any Nation, is the first Question that is to be considered.

But it is time now to leave those Coun­tries, in some of which there seems never to have been any solid Learning original­ly, and in the rest but the Beginnings of it, to come to Greece, as it stood in the Age of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and those other Great Men, who about the Time of Alexander the Great, and af­terwards, did such great Things in al­most all Parts of real Learning. If upon Enquiry it shall be found that a Compa­rison may be made between these An­cients and the Moderns, upon any Heads wherein Learning is principally concern­ed, which will not be to the Disadvan­tage [Page 154] of the latter, then there needs not any Thing to be said further. Whether it can or no, is now to be enquired.

SInce all that has been said in the Se­cond and Third Chapters, concern­ing the Ethicks, Politicks, Eloquence and Poesie of the Ancient Grecians, belongs to them in their most flourishing Ages, a great Part of the Subject Matter of this Enquiry has already been dispatched. The remaining Parts of their Knowledge may be reduced to these Four Heads: Logick, Metaphysicks, Mathematicks and Physiology. Logick is the Art of Reason­ing; but by it Men commonly under­stand the Art of Disputing, and making Syllogisms; of answering an Adversary's Objections dexterously, and making such others as cannot easily be evaded: In short, of making a plausible Defence, or starting probable Objections, for or against any Thing. As this is taught in the Schools, it is certainly owing to the An­cients: [Page 155] Aristotle's Organum is the great Text by which Modern Logicians have framed their Systems; and nothing, per­haps can be devised more subtile in that captious Art Vide A. Gellii Noct. At­tic. lib. 1. cap. 2., than the Sophisms of the Ancient Stoicks. But as Logick is tru­ly the Art of Reasoning justly, so as not only to be able to explain our own No­tions, and prove our own Assertions, clearly and distinctly; but to carry our Speculations further than other Men have carried theirs, upon the same Arguments; it has not only been much cultivated by Modern Philosophers, but as far pursued as ever it was by the Ancients: For here­by have the late Enquiries been made in­to Physical, Metaphysical and Mathematical Matters, the Extent whereof is hereafter to be examined. Hereby the Ancient Ma­thematicians made their Discoveries, and when they had done they concealed their Art; for, though we have many noble Propositions of theirs, yet we have few Hints how they found them out; since the Knowledge of the fore-going Books in Euclid's Elements is necessary to explain the Subsequent, but is of little or no Use to help us to find out any Propositions in the subsequent Books, (which are not immediate Corollaries from what went before) in case those Books had been lost. [Page 156] Whether the Moderns have been deficient in this noble Part of Logick, may be seen by those who will compare Des Cartes's Discourse of Method, Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Understanding, and Tschirnhaus's Medicina Mentis, with what we have of the Ancients concerning the Art of Think­ing: Where, though it may be pretended that their Thoughts and Discoveries are not entirely new in themselves, yet to us, at least, they are so, since they are not immediately owing to ancient Assistances, but to their own Strength of Thought, and Force of Genius. And since this Art is, indeed, the Foundation of all Know­ledge, I ought to take notice, that my Lord Bacon and Des Cartes were the two Great Men, who both found Fault with the Logick of the Schools, as insufficient of it self for the great Design of Logick, which is the Advancement of real Learning; and got Authority enough to persuade the World, in a very great Degree, that other Methods must be taken, besides making Syllogisms; and ranking the Sorts of Things under Predicaments and Predi­cables, by those who would go much farther than their Predecessors went be­fore them. The true Use of the com­mon Logick, being rather to explain what we know already, and to detect the Fal­lacies [Page 157] of our Adversaries, than to find that out, of which we before were igno­rant. So that the Moderns have enlarged its Bottom; and by adding that Desidera­tum which the Ancients either did not perfectly know, or, which is worse, did invidiously conceal, namely, the Method of discovering unknown Truths, as Mon­sieur Tschirnhaus calls it, have, if not made it perfect, yet put it into such a Po­sture, as that future Industry may very happily compleat it.

Metaphysicks is properly that Science which teaches us those Things that are out of the Sphere of Matter and Motion, and is conversant about God, and Spirits, and Incorporeal Substances. Of these Things Plato and his Disciples wrote a great deal: They plainly saw, that some­thing beyond Matter was requisite to create and preserve the August Frame of the World. If we abstract from Revela­tion, the Cartesians discourse more intelli­gibly concerning them, than any of the Ancients. So that though very many of their particular Notions, as also of F. Mallebranche's, M. Poyret's, and other Modern Metaphysicians, are justly liable to Exception, yet the main Foundations upon which they reason, are, for the most part, real; and so, by Consequence, the [Page 158] Superstructures are not entirely fantasti­cal: And therefore they afford a vast Number of Hints to those who love to apply their Thoughts that Way, which are useful to enlarge Men's Understand­ings, and to guide their Manners. This, which is strictly true of the Modern Me­taphysicks, is as much as can be said of the Ancient: And because a Comparison can­not be made without reading their several Writings, the surest Way to try the Truth of this Proposition will be to read Plato and his Commentators; and along with them, Des Cartes's Meditations, Velthuy­sius de Initiis primae Philosophiae, Malle­branche's Recherche de la Verité, Poyret's Cogitationes de Deo, and Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Understanding, already men­tioned. This may be done without un­dervaluing what the Ancients wrote upon these noble Subjects: And the Question is not, Whether they were great Men? But, Whether the Moderns have said any Thing upon these Matters, without Co­pying out of other Men's Writings? Which, unless we will do them Wrong, we are bound to say they have.

IN the Method which I set to my self in these Reflections, I chose to begin with an Enquiry into those Sciences, whose Extent is more liable to be con­tested; and so onwards, to those which may more easily be determined. Mon­sieur Perrault, who has not finished his Parallel, that I know of, took it for granted, that if the Prize were granted to the Moderns in Eloquence, in Poesie, in Architecture, in Painting, and in Statuary, the Cause would be given up in every Thing else; and he, as the declared Ad­vocate for the Moderns, might go on triumphantly with all the rest. Where­in, possibly, he was not, in the main, much mistaken. How he manages the re­maining Part of his Parallel, I know not. I intend to begin with Abstracted Mathe­maticks; both because all its Propositions are of Eternal Truth, and besides, are the Genuine Foundations upon which all real Physiology must be built.

[Page 160] The Method which I shall follow is this: (1.) I shall enquire into the State of Ancient and Modern Mathematicks, without any particular Application of the Properties of the several Lines and Num­bers, Surfaces and Solids, to Physical Things. (2) I shall enquire what new Instruments have been invented, or old ones improved, by which the Knowledge of Nature of any sort has been, or may be, further enlarged. (3.) I shall en­quire whether any Improvements have been actually made of Natural History, and of any Physico-Mathematical or Physi­cal Sciences, such as Astronomy, Musick, Opticks, Medicks, and the like. (4.) From all this, I shall endeavour to pass a Judg­ment upon the Ancient and Modern Ways of Philosophizing concerning Nature in general, and its principal Phaenomena, or Appearances.

I begin with Geometry and Arithmetick, because they are general Instruments whereby we come to the Knowledge of many of the abstrusest Things in Nature; since, as Plato said of old, God always Geometrizes in all his Works. That this Comparison might be the more exact, I desired my learned and worthy Friend, Mr. John Craige, to give me his Thoughts upon this Matter: His own learned Wri­tings [Page 161] upon the most difficult Parts of Geo­metry, for such are the Quadratures of Curve Lines, will be sufficient Vouchers for his Skill in these Things. I shall set down what he says, in his own Words.

Thus far Mr. Craig.

Those that have the Curiosity to see some of these Things proved at large, which Mr. Craig has contracted into one View, may be amply satisfied in Dr. Wal­lis's History of Algebra, joyned with Ger­hard Vossius's Discourses De Scientiis Ma­thematicis.

It must not here be forgotten, that Ab­stracted Mathematical Sciences were ex­ceedingly valued by the ancientest Philo­sophers: None that I know of expressing a Contempt of them but Epicurus, tho' [Page 169] all did not study them alike. Plato is said to have written over the Door of his Academy, Let no Man enter here, who does not understand Geometry. None of all the learned Ancients has been more extolled by other learned Ancients, than Archimedes. So that if in these Things the Moderns have made so great a Pro­gress, this affords a convincing Argu­ment, that it was not Want of Genius which obliged them to stop at, or to come behind the Ancients in any Thing else.

HAving now enquired into the State of Mathematicks, as they relate to Lines and Numbers in general, I am next to go to those Sciences which con­sider them as they are applied to Mate­rial Things. But these being of several Sorts, and of a vast Extent, taking in no less than the whole Material World, it [Page 170] ought to be observed, that they cannot be brought to any great Perfection, with­out Numbers of Tools, or Arts, which may be of the same Use as Tools, to make the Way plain to several Things, which otherwise, without their Help, would be inaccessible.

Of these Tools, or Instruments, some were anciently invented, and those In­ventions were diligently pursued: Others are wholly new. According to their U­ses, they may be ranged under these two General Heads: (1.) Those which are useful to all Parts of Learning, though perhaps not to all alike. (2.) Those which are particularly subservient to a Natu­ral Philosopher, and a Mathematician. Under the first Head one may place Print­ing, and Engraving. Under the Latter come Telescopes, Microscopes, the Ther­mometer, the Baroscope, the Air-Pump, Pendulum-Clocks, Chymistry, and Anato­my. All these, but the two last, were absolutely unknown to former Ages. Chymistry was known to the Greeks, and from them carried to the Arabs. Anato­my is, at least, as old as Democritus and Hippocrates; and among the exact Epyp­tians, something older.

The Use of Printing has been so vast, that every thing else wherein the Moderns [Page 171] have pretended to excel the Ancients, is almost entirely owing to it: And withal, its general Uses are so obvious, that it would be Time lost to enlarge upon them; but it must be taken Notice of, because Sir William Temple has questioned Pag. 6. whether Printing has multiplied Books, or only the Copies of them, from whence he concludes, that we are not to suppose that the Ancients had not equal Advan­tages by the Writings of those that were ancient to them, as we have by the Wri­tings of those that are ancient to us. But he may easily solve his own Doubt, if he does but reflect upon the Benefit to Learning which arises from the multiply­ing Copies of good Books: For though it should be allowed, that there were anci­ently as many Books as there are now, which is scarce credible, yet still the Mo­derns have hereby a vast Advantage, be­cause, (1.) Books are hereby much cheaper, and so come into more Hands. (2.) They are much more easily read; and so there is no Time lost in poring upon bad Hands, which wastes Time, wearies the Reader, and spoils Mens Eyes. (3.) They can be printed with Indexes, and other necessary Divisions, which, though they may be made in MSS. yet they will make them so voluminous and cumber­some, [Page 172] that not one in Forty who now mind Books, because they love Reading, would then apply themselves to it. (4.) The Notice of new and excel­lent Books is more easily dispersed. (5.) The Text is hereby better preserved entire, and is not so liable to be corrup­ted by the Ignorance or Malice of Tran­scribers; this is of great Moment in Ma­thematicks, where the Alteration of a Letter, or a Cypher, may make a De­monstration unintelligible. But to say more upon this Subject would be to abuse Mens Patience, since these things, if not self-evident, yet need no Proof.

Engraving upon Wood, or Copper, is of great Use in all those Parts of Knowledge where the Imagination must be assisted by sensible Images. For want of this noble Art, the Ancient Books of Natural History and Mechanical Arts, are almost every where obscure; in many Places unintelligible. Mathematical Diagrams, which need only a Ruler and a pair of Compasses, have been better preserved, and could with more Ease be drawn: But in Anatomy, in Mechanicks, in Geography, in all Parts of Natural History, Engra­ving is so necessary, and has been so very advantageous, that without it, many of those Arts and Sciences would to this [Page 173] Hour have received very little Increase. For when the Images, the Proportions, and the Distances of those things where­in a Writer intends to instruct his Reader, are fully and minutely engraven in Prints, it not only saves Abundance of Words, by which all Descriptions must of Ne­cessity be obscured, but it makes those Words which are used, full and clear; so that a skillful Reader is thereby enabled to pass an exact Judgment, and can un­derstand his Authors without a Master, which otherwise it would be impossible to do; so as to be able to discern all, even the minutest Mistakes and Oversights in their Writings, which puts an end to Disputes, and encreases Knowledge.

These are general Instruments, and more or less serviceable to all sorts of learned Men in their several Professions and Sciences: Those that follow are more particular: I shall begin with those that assist the Eye, either to discern Objects that are too far off, or too small.

The Imperfections of Distance are re­medied in a great Measure by Telescopes; whose chief Use, that comes under our Consideration, is to discern the Stars, and other celestial Bodies.

To find out the first Inventor of these sorts of Glasses, it will be necessary to [Page 174] learn who first found out the Properties of Convex and Concave Glasses in the Refraction of Light. Dr. Plot has col­lected a great deal concerning F. Bacon, in his Natural History of Oxfordshire; which seems to put it out of doubt that he knew that great Objects might appear little, and small Objects appear great; that distant Objects would seem near, and near Objects seem afar off, by diffe­rent Applications of Convex and Con­cave Glasses; upon the Credit of which Authorities, Mr. Molineux Diop­tric. Pag. 256, 257, 258. attributes the Invention of Spectacles to this lear­ned Friar, the Time to which their ear­liest Use may be traced, agreeing very well with the Time in which he lived; but how far F. Bacon went, we know not: So that we must go into Holland for the first Inventors of these excellent In­struments, and there they were first found out by one Zacharias Joannides Borel­ius de vero Inventore Telescopii, pag. 30., a Spectacle-maker Ibid. Pag. 35. of Middleburgh in Zeland; in 1590 Ibid. Pag. 30. he presented a Tel­lescope of Two Glasses to Prince Maurice, and another to Arch-Duke Albert, the former of whom apprehending that they might be of great Use in War, desired him to conceal his Secret. For this Rea­son, his Name was so little known, that neither Des Cartes Diop­tric. nor Gerhard Vos­sius [Page 175] De sci­entiis Ma­themat. p. 70. had ever heard any thing of him, when they attributed the Invention of Telescopes to Jacobus Metius of Alkmaer. However it taking Air, Galileo Galilei took the Hint, and made several Te­lescopes, by which making Observations upon heavenly Bodies, he got himself immortal Honour. Thereby Vide Galilaei Nuntium sidereum primò ni fallor, im­pressum, A. D. MDCVIII. he dis­covered Four Planets moving constantly round Jupiter, from thence usually called his Satellits, which afterwards were ob­served to have a constant, regular, and periodical Motion. This Motion is now so exactly known, that Mr. Flamstead, who is one of the most accurate Obser­vers that ever was, has been able to cal­culate Tables of the Eclipses of the se­veral Satellits, according to which, Astro­nomers in different quarters of the World, having Notice of the precise Time when to look for them, have found them to answer to his Predictions, and published their Observations accordingly. This is an effectual Answer to all that Rhapsody which Stubbe Plus Ultra re­duced to a Non-plus. Pag. 28, 36. has collected in his Brutal Answer to Mr. Glanvile's Plus Ultra, about the Uncertainty of all Ob­servations made by Telescopes; since it is impossible to calculate the Duration of any Motion justly by fallacious and uncertain Methods. By the Eclipses of [Page 176] Jupiter's Satellits, Longitudes would soon be exactly determined if Tubes of any Length could be managed at Sea. Vide Philosoph. Transact. n. 177. But Jupiter is not the only Planet about which things anciently unknown have been re­vealed by this noble Instrument. The Moon has been discovered to be an Earth endued with a libratory Motion, of an uneven Surface, which has something a­nalogous to Hills and Dales, Plains and Seas; and a [...]ew Geography (if one may use that Word without a Blunder) with accurate Maps has been published by the great Hevelius Sele­nograph., and improved by Ricciolus Alma­gest., by which Eclipses may be observed much more nicely than could be done formerly. The Sun has been found to have Spots at some times; the Planets to move round their Axes; Sa­turn to have a Luminous Ring round a­bout his Body, which in some Positions appears like two Handles, as they are commonly called, or large Prominencies on opposite Parts of his Limbs, carried along with him, beside Five Planets mo­ving periodically about him, as those o­thers do about Jupiter: The milky Way to be a Cluster of numberless Stars; the other parts of the Heaven to be filled with an incredible Number of fixed Stars, of which, if Hevelius's Globes are ever [Page 177] published, the World may hope to see a Catalogue. These are some of the re­markable Discoveries that have been made by Telescopes: And as new Things have been revealed, so old ones have been much more nicely observed, than former­ly it was possible to observe them.

But I need not enlarge upon particular Proofs of that, which every Astronomical Book, printed within these Fifty Years, is full of. If I should, it would be said, perhaps, that I had only copied from the French Author of the Plurality of Worlds, so often mentioned already.

As some Things are too far off, so others are too small to be seen without help. This last Defect is admirably sup­plied by Microscopes, invented by the same Zacharias Joannides Borel­lus, ubi su­pra, P. 35.; which, besides Miscellaneous and Occasional Ob­servations, have been applied to Anatomy, by Malpighius, Leeuwenhoeck, Grew, Ha­vers, and several others. The first very considerable Essay to shew what might be discovered in Nature, by the help of Mi­croscopes, was made by Dr. Hook, in his Micrography; wherein he made various Observations, upon very different Sorts of Bodies. One may easily imagine what Light they must needs give unto the ni­cer Mechanism of most Kinds of Bodies, [Page 178] when Monsieur Leeuwenhoeck has plainly proved, that he could, with his Glasses, discern Bodies several Millions of Times less than a Grain of Sand. This may be relied upon, because Dr. Hook, who exa­mined what Leeuwenhoeck says of the lit­tle Animals which he discerned in Water, of which he tells the most wonderful Things, does, in his Microscopium, at­test the Truth of Leeuwenhoeck's Observa­tions.

Besides these which are of more uni­versal Use, several other Instruments have been invented, which have been very serviceable to find out the Properties of Natural Bodies; and by which several Things of very great Moment, utterly unknown to the Ancients, have been de­tected. As,

1. The Thermometer, invented Borel­lus de motu Animalium Part. II. Prop. clxxv. by Sanctorius, an eminent Physician of Pa­dua. Its immediate Use is, to determine the several Degrees of Heat and Cold; of which our Senses can give us but un­certain Notices; because they do not so much inform us of the State of the Air in it self, as what its Operations are at that Time upon our Bodies. But Sanctorius used only open Vessels, which are of small Use, since Liquors may rise or fall in the Tubes, as well from the Increase or [Page 179] Diminution of the Weight of the Air, as of Heat and Cold. That Defect was re­medied by Mr. Boyle See his Thermo­metrical Thoughts, prefixed to his History of Cold., who sealed up the Liquors in the Tubes, Hermetically, that so nothing but only Heat and Cold might have any Operation upon them. The Uses to which they have been ap­plied, may be seen at large in Mr. Boyle's History of Cold, and the Experiments of the Academy del Cimento.

2. The Baroscope, or Torricellian Expe­riment; so called from its Inventor, E­vangelista Torricelli, a Florentine Mathe­matician; who, about the Year 1643. found that Quick-Silver would stand e­rect in a Tube, above 28 Inches from the Surface of other Quick-Silver into which the Tube was immersed, if it was before well purged of Air. This noble Experi­ment soon convinced the World, that the Air is an actually heavy Body, and gra­vitates upon every Thing here below. This Gravitation being found unequal at several Times, Mr. Boyle applied this In­strument to Mechanical Uses Philos. Transact. Num. 9, 10, 11-55., and shewed how it might teach us to know the Differences and Changes of Weather; when dry, and when wet; since, by a vast Number of Observations, he had learnt, that in dry Weather the Air drove up the Mercury, and in wet [Page 180] Weather let it fall again; though never lower than 28 Inches, and scarce ever higher than 32.

3. These Observations, with other Collateral Experiments, induced him to believe that the Air was, in Truth, a Springy Body, which expanded or con­tracted it self in a Reciprocal Proportion, to the Increase or Lessening of the Com­pression of the Ambient Bodies. For which he invented an Instrument to draw the Air out of Vessels that were fil­led with it, by Suction. The first Es­says of that kind seem to have been made some Years before his appeared, by Otto Guerick of Magdebourg; but as he applied them chiefly to the Gravita­tion of the Air, without taking any no­tice of its Spring; so they were very im­perfect, when compared to Mr. Boyle's. By this Air-Pump, as it is usually called, he discovered Abundance of Properties in the Air, before never suspected to be in it. What they are, either considered sin­gly, or in their Operations upon all sorts of Bodies, may be seen at large in his Physico-Mechanical Experiments concerning the Weight and Spring of the Air; and in several of his other Discourses upon the same Argument; some of which are printed by themselves, and others in the [Page 181] Philosophical Transactions Num. 62, 63, 122. Vide Catalogue of Mr. Boyle's Works, at the End of the First Part of the Medicinal Experi­ments, Printed 1692. in Twelves.. How far they may be relied upon appears from this; That though Hobbes and Linus have taken a great deal of Pains to destroy Mr. Boyle's Theory, yet they have had few or no Abettors: Whereas the Doctrine of the Weight and Spring of the Air, first made thorowly in­telligible by Mr. Boyle, has universally gained Assent from Philosophers of all Nations who have, for these last Thirty Years, busied themselves about Natural Enquiries.

4. The Invention of Pendulum-Clocks ought here to be remembred, since from them it appears, that the Diurnal Motion of the Earth is not so exactly Periodical, as that a true Equation of Time can thereby be obtained; but by this Instru­ment, the Measure of the Variation be­ing once adjusted, the true Time of the Earth's Diurnal Motion can, at all Sea­sons of the Year, be more exactly known. The Use of it in making of Astronomical Observations is also very obvious; for they could not anciently be so minute as they are at present, for want of such nice Sub-Divisions of an equable Motion as it affords. The Invention of this noble In­strument is attributed, by the Publisher of [Page 182] the Experiments of the Academy del Ci­mento, to Galileo Galilei, who found out so many excellent Theorems of the Na­ture and Proportions of the Motions of Projected and Vibrating Bodies. He says that Galileo first applied the Pendulum to Clock-work; and that his Son Vincenzio put it in practice in the Year 1649 Expe­riments of the Acade­my del Ci­mento, p. 12. Edit. Eng.. It was little taken notice of, however, in these Parts, till Monsieur Huygens revi­ved or invented it a-new; to whom, for that Reason, the Glory of finding out this useful Instrument is commonly attri­buted. Upon this Occasion I ought not to omit that great Improvement of Watches, by adding a Second Spring to balance the First; (as the Pendulum in a Clock does the Weights) which also is attributed to Monsieur Huygens, though he and Dr. Hook have both contended for the Honour of this useful Invention. It ap­pears by the Philosophical Transactions, and by Dr. Hook's Lectures, that he had a right Notion of this Matter, and that he had made several Essays to reduce it to Practice, some Years before any of Mon­sieur Huygens's Watches were produced; but that Monsieur Huygens first made Pendulum-Watches (so they are common­ly called) that proved thoroughly ser­viceable. These will not be disputed to [Page 183] be Modern Inventions, since the whole Business of Clocks and Watches was un­known to all, even the Ara­bian, Antiquity See Dr. Edw. Ber­nard's Letter to Dr. Hun­tingdon, about the La­titude of Twenty Fixed Stars, from Arabian Ob­servat. Phil. Trans.: Their Astronomers measured their Time by Hour-Glasses of Wa­ter, or Vibrating Strings of se­veral Lengths; which would, indeed, serve them, in most Cases, to measure Time nicely by, whilst they were observing; though they were of no Use upon other Occasions; and even then were liable to great Hazards.

CHymistry, or the Art of Dividing Bo­dies by Fire, comes next to be con­sidered. So great Things have thereby been discovered in Nature, that were un­known without it, that it may justly be esteemed as one of the chiefest Instru­ments whereby Real Knowledge has been advanced. It has been cultivated by three Sorts of Men, for very different Reasons; by Refiners, Alchemists, and Chy­mists, properly so called. The Refiner's [Page 184] Art, which is older than the Flood, is in Holy Scripture ascribed to Tubal-Cain, as its first Inventor Gen. 4. 22.. The early Use of Gold and Silver, as Instruments of Ex­change in Trade, in the Eastern Parts, shews, that Men very anciently knew how to separate Metals from their Dross, to a great Degree. And as frequent Pu­rifications are necessary for that Work, so we find that the Necessity of them was long ago commonly known, since David compared a Righteous Man to Silver Se­ven Times purified in the Fire Psal. 12. 6.. Yet that their Art was comparatively rude, is certain, because they did not know how to separate Gold from Silver; besides a very great many other Secrets relating to that Art, which could not be known be­fore the Way of Making Aquae Fortes: And their particular Qualities in corro­ding several sorts of Metals were disco­vered, and applied to these Purposes.

I have spoken already of Alchemy, or the Art of Making Gold; and so I shall pass on to the Chymist's Art, which con­sists in making such Analyses of Bodies by Fire, or other Agents, Chymically prepared, as may reduce them into more simple Substances, than those out of which they were before compounded. The Discoveries which have been hereby [Page 185] made are so very much later than those Ages which Sir William Temple contends for, that those who thought they had a great deal to say for the other Parts of Chymistry, do here give up the Contro­versie. Borrichius himself owns, that Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen knew so little of Chymistry, that they could not so much as make Rose-water. Now, though he says this with a Design to disparage their Skill in Physick, when compared with the Egyptian, yet therein he destroys his own Hypothesis; because, in several Places of his Vindication of the Hermetical and Chy­mical Philosophy and Medicine, against Conringius's Book De Medicina Hermetica, he takes Pains to prove, that the Know­ledge of these very Men was originally owing to the Egyptians. But the Thing speaks it self: The inward Use of Anti­monial, Vitriolick, and Mercurial Pre­parations in Physick, was very little known before the Time of Basilius Valen­tinus, and Paracelsus: What was an­cienter, was taken from the Arabs, who are Moderns against Sir William Temple. (i) They may be looked upon as the Borri­chius de Ortu & Prog. Chem. Morhofius ad Lange­lottum. first Inventors of Chymical Medicine: (i) They first extracted Vinous Spirits from Fermented Liquors: Not to men­tion [Page 186] Abundance of other Preparations, which Arnoldus de Villa Nova, Raymund Lully, his Scholar, and F. Bacon learned from them. I will not deny but some Chymical Experiments were very an­ciently known. Solomon Prov. 25. 20. hints at the Disagreement of Vinegar and Nitre; which, though not intelligible of com­mon Nitre, yet, as Mr. Boyle Boyle's Produci­bleness of Chymicall Principles, P. 30, 31. found by his own Experience, it is certainly true of Egyptian Nitre; which, as being a natural Alkali, will cause an Ebullition, when joined with any Acid Salt. The Property of Mercury to mix, or, as the Chymists speak, to Amalgamate with Gold, was known in Vitruvius's Time: Though by that one may perceive, that very few of its other Properties were then known; since Pliny, who mentions that Quality of Mercury, that it will Amalga­mate with Gold, speaks of it as a singu­lar Thing, in these Words, Omnia ei innatant praeter aurum; id unum ad se trahit. N. H. lib. xxxiii. cap. 6. Every Thing swims up­on Quick-Silver but Gold; that only it draws to it self. Whereas now every Body knows that Mercury will Amalgamate with all Metals but Copper and Iron. And if the Ancients Skill in Minerals may be judged of by Pliny's Accounts, [Page 187] they Nec pondere aus facilitate materiae praelatum est caeteris metallis, cum cedat per utrumque plumbo. N. H. lib. xxxiii. cap. 3. believed that Lead was heavier, and more ductile than Gold.

Some Passages likewise are produced by Borrichius, to prove that the Ancients understood something of Calcinations, and the Use of Lixiviate Salts: But these Things are very few, very imperfect, and occasional. Chymistry was not esteemed as a distinct Art; or the Analy­ses thereby produced, worthy a Philoso­pher's Notice; though the Industry of later Ages have found them to be so re­gular and remarkable, that many Persons have thought that the Constituent Prin­ciples of Mixed Bodies are no other Way so certainly to be found out. Hence have the Hypotheses of the Paracelsians taken their Beginning; who held, that Salt, Sulphur and Mercury were the active Principles of Composition of all Mixed Bodies. Hence several others have been led to believe, that the Primary Consti­tuents of very many Bodies were Acid and Alkalizate Salts. Which Hypothe­ses, though liable to many Exceptions, as Mr. Boyle Scepti­cal Chy­mist, and Product. of Chymi­cal Prin­ciples. has fully proved, are founded upon such a Variety of surpri­zing Experiments, that those who first [Page 188] started them were not so unadvised, as one that is wholly unacquainted with the Laboratories of the Chymists might, at first View, suspect. For it is certain, that five distinct and tolerably uniform Substances may be drawn from most Ve­getable and Animal Substances, by Fire; namely, Phlegm, Fixed Salt, Oil, Earth, and Spirit, or Volatile Salt dissolved in Phlegm. So that here is a new Field of Knowledge, of which the Ancients had no sort of Notion.

The great and successful Change here­by made See Mr Boyle's Usefulness of Expe­rimental Philoso­phy. in the Pharmaceutical Part of Physick, shews that these Philosophers by Fire have spent their Time to very good purpose. Those Physicians who reason upon Galenical Principles acknow­ledge, that in very many Cases, the Tin­ctures, Extracts, Spirits, Volatile Salts, and Rosins of Vegetables and Animals, are much more efficacious Remedies than the Galenical Preparations of those self-same Medicines. Nay, though they are not easily reconciled to Mineral Preparations, because the Ancients not knowing how to separate them from their grosser Fae­ces, durst very seldom apply them to any but Chirurgical Uses; yet they them­selves are forced to own, that some Dis­eases are of so malignant a Nature, that [Page 189] they cannot be dispelled by milder Me­thods. The Use of Mercury in Venereal Distempers, is so great, and so certain, that if there be such a Thing as a Specifi­cal Remedy in Nature, it may justly de­serve that Title. The Unskilfulness of those who have prepared and administred Antimonial Medicines, has made them infamous with many Persons, though many admirable Cures have been, and are wrought by them, skilfully correct­ed, every Day. And it is well known, that the inward Use of Steel has been so successful, that in many Diseases, where the nicest Remedies seem requisite, whe­ther the Constitution of the Patients, or the Nature of the Distempers, be con­sidered, it is, without Fear, made use of; tho' its Medicinal Virtues, in these Cases, have been found out by Chymical Methods.

Upon the whole Matter, it is certain, that here is a new and gainful Acquisition made: The old Galenical Materia Medica is almost as well known, in all probabi­lity, as ever it was; since there are so great Numbers of Receipts preserved in the Writings of the old Physicians. The Industry of Modern Naturalists has, in most, at least, in all material Cases, clearly discovered what those Individual [Page 190] Remedies are, which are there described. So that whatsoever Enlargement is made, is a clear Addition; especially, since these Minerals and Metals were then as free and common as they are now. Besides, vast Numbers of Galenical Medicines, Chymically prepared, are less nauseous, and equally powerful; which is so great an Advantage to Physick, that it ought not to be over-looked.

ANatomy is one of the most necessary Arts to open to us Natural Know­ledge of any that was ever thought of. Its Usefulness to Physicians was very early seen; and the Greeks took great Pains to bring it to Perfection. Some of the first Dissectors Corn. Celsus in Praefatio­ne. tried their Skill upon living Bodies of Men, as well as Brutes. This was so inhumane and bar­barous a Custom, that it was soon left off: And it created such an Abhorrence in Mens Minds of the Art it self, that in Galen's Time even dead Bodies were seldom opened; and he was often ob­liged [Page 191] Anat. Admini­strat. pas­sim. to use Apes instead of Men, which sometimes led him into great Mis­takes.

It may be said, perhaps, that because there is not an ancient System of Anato­my extant, therefore the Extent of their Knowledge in this particular cannot be known. But the numerous Anatomical Treatises of Galen do abundantly supply that Defect. In his elaborate Work of the Uses of the Parts of Humane Bodies, he gives so full an Idea of ancient Ana­tomy, that if no other ancient Book of Anatomy were extant, it alone would be sufficient for this purpose. He is very large in all his Writings of this Kind, in taking Notice of the Opinions of the Anatomists that were ancienter than him­self, especially when they were mista­ken, and had spent much Time and Pains in opening Bodies of Brutes, of which he somewhere promises to write a compa­rative Anatomy. So that his Books not only acquaint us with his own Opinions, but also with the Reasonings and Disco­veries of Hippocrates, Aristotle, Herophi­lus and Erasistratus, whose Names were justly venerable for their Skill in these things. Besides, he never contradicts any Body without appealing to Experi­ence, wherein though he was now and [Page 192] then mistaken, yet he does not write like a Pedant, affirming a thing to be true or false upon the Credit of Hippo­crates, or Herophilus, but builds his Ar­gument upon Nature as far as he knew her. He had an excellent Understanding, and a very piercing Genius, so that the false uses which he very frequently assigns to several Parts, do certainly shew that he did not understand the true Texture of those Parts, because where his Ana­tomy did not fail him, his Ratiocinations are, generally speaking, exact. Where­fore in this particular his Mistakes instruct us as effectually in the Ancients Igno­rance, as his true Notions do in their Knowledge. This will appear at large hereafter, where it will be of mighty use to prove, That the Ancients cannot be supposed to have known many of the most eminent Modern Discoveries, since if they had known them, they would not have assigned such Uses to those Parts, as are not reconcilable to those Discoveries. If Galen had known that the Pancreas had been a Heap of small Glands, which all emit into one common Canal, a parti­cular Juice carried afterwards through that Canal into the Guts; which there meeting with the Bile goes forwards, and assists it in the making of the Chyle, he [Page 193] would never have said De usu Partium, lib. V. cap. 2. that Nature made it for a Pillow to support the Veins; which go out of the Liver in that Place, where they divide into several Branches, lest if they had been without a Rest, they should have been hurt by the violent E­ruption of the Blood; and this too with­out the assigning any other Use for it.

By Anatomy there is seldom any thing understood but the Art of laying open the several Parts of the Body with a Knife, that so the Relation which they severally bear each to other may be clearly discer­ned. This is generally understood of the containing Parts, Skin, Flesh, Bones, Mem­branes, Veins, Arteries, Muscles, Ten­dons, Ligaments, Cartilages, Glands, Bowels, wherein only the Ancients bu­sied themselves: As for the Examination of the Nature and particular Texture of the contained Parts, Blood, Chyle, Urine, Bile, Serum, Fat, Juices of the Pancreas, Spleen and Nerves, Lympha, Spittle, Marrow of the Bones, Mucilages of the Joints, and the like; they made very few Experiments, and those too for want of Chymistry very imperfect. The Dis­coveries therefore which have been made in that nobler part, which are numerous and considerable, are in a manner whol­ly owing to later Ages. In the other, a [Page 194] great deal was anciently done, though a great deal more was left for Posterity to do.

I shall begin with the Body in general. It is certain that all the great Divisions of the Bones, Muscles, Veins and Arteries; most of the visible Cartilages, Tendons and Ligaments, were very exactly known in Galen's Time; the Positions of the Muscles, their several Originations, the Insertions of their Tendons, and invest­ing Membranes, were, for the most part, traced with great Nicety and Truth; the more conspicuous pairs of Nerves which arise either from the Brain or Spinal Mar­row, were very well known and carefully followed; most of the great Branches of the Veins and Arteries; almost all the Bones and Cartilages, with very many Muscles, have still old Greek Names im­posed upon them by the Old Anatomists, or Latin Names translated from the Greek ones: So that, not only the easie things and such as are discernable at first Sight, were throughly known; but even seve­ral particulars, especially in the Anatomy of Nerves, were discovered, which are not obvious without great Care, and a good deal of practical Skill in diffect­ing. So much in general; from which it is evident, that as far as Anatomy is pe­culiarly useful to a Chirurgeon, to inform [Page 195] him how the Bones, Muscles, Blood-Vessels, Cartilages, Tendons, Ligaments and Membranes lie in the Limbs and more conspicuous Parts of the Body, so far the Ancients went: And here, there is very little that the Moderns have any Right to pretend to as their own Disco­veries; though any Man, that under­stands these things, must own, That these are the first things which offer themselves to an Anatomist's View.

Here I shall beg Leave to descend to Particulars, because I have not seen any Comparison made between Ancient and Modern Anatomy, wherein I could ac­quiesce; whilst some, as Mr. Glanvile Essay of Modern Improve­ments of useful Knowledge., and some others who seem to have copied from him, have allowed the Ancients less than was their Due; others, as Vander Linden and Almeloveen Inven­ta Nov. An­tiqua., have attri­buted more to them than came to their Share; especially since (though perhaps it may be a little tedious, yet) it cannot be called a Digression.

Hippocrates De Glandulis pag. 418. §. 7. Edit. Vander Lin­den. took the Brain to be a Gland. His Opinion was nearer to the Truth than any of his Successors; but he seems to have thought it to be a similar Substance, which it evidently is not. And therefore, when several Parts of it were discovered not to be glandulous, [Page 196] his Opinion was rejected. Plato took it to be Marrow, such as nourishes the Bones; but its Weight and Texture soon destroy­ed his Notion, since it sinks in Water wherein Marrow swims; and is hardned by Fire, by which the other is melted. Galen De usu Partium, lib. VIII. cap. 6. saw a little farther, and he asserts it to be of a nervous Substance, only something softer than the Nerves in the Body. Still they believed that the Brain was an uniform Substance, and as long as they did so, they were not like to go very far. The first Anatomist who discovered the true Texture of the Brain was Archangelus Piccolhomineus Mal­pighius Epist. de Cerebro ad Fracas­satum, p. 2. an Italian, who lived in the last Age. He found that the Brain properly so called, and Cerebellum, consist of Two distinct Sub­stances, an outer Ash-coloured Substance, through which the Blood-Vessels which lie under the Pia Mater in innumerable Folds and Windings, are disseminated; and an inner every where united to it, of a nervous Nature, that joins this Bark (as it is usually called) to the Medulla Oblongata, which is the Original of all the Pairs of Nerves that issue from the Brain, and of the Spinal Marrow, and lies un­der the Brain and Cerebellum. After him Dr. Willis Anat. Cerebri. was so very exact, that he traced this medullar Substance through all [Page 197] its Insertions into the Cortical, and the Medulla Oblongata, and examined the Ri­ses of all the Nerves, and went along with them into every Part of the Body with wonderful Curiosity. Hereby not only the Brain was demonstrably proved to be the Fountain of Sense and Motion, but also by the Courses of the Nerves, the Manner how every Part of the Body conspires with any others to procure any one particular Motion, was clearly shewn; and thereby it was made plain even to Sense, that where-ever many parts joined at once to cause the same Motion, that Motion is caused by Nerves that go into every one of those Parts, which are all struck together. And though Vieussens and du Verney have in many things corrected Dr. Willis's Anatomy of the Nerves; yet they have strengthened his general Hypothesis, even at the Time when they discovered his Mistakes, which is the same thing to our present purpose. Galen, indeed De V. P. l. 8. c. 4., had a right Notion of this matter, but he traced only the larger Pairs of Nerves, such as could not escape a good Anatomist.

But the manner of the forming of the Animal Spirit in the Brain was wholly unknown. In Order to the Discovery whereof, Malpighius De Cerebri Cortice. by his Micro­scopes found that the Cortical Part of [Page 198] the Brain consists of an innumerable Com­pany of very small Glandules, which are all supplied with Blood by Capillary Ar­teries; and that the Animal Spirit, which is separated from the Mass of the Blood in these Glandules, is carried from them into the Medulla Oblongata through little Pipes, whereof one belongs to every Gland, whose other End is inserted into the Medulla Oblongata, and that these Numberless Pipes, which in the Brain of some Fishes look like the Teeth of a small Ivory Comb De Cerebro, pag. 4., are properly that which all Anatomists after Piccolhomineus have called the Corpus callosum, or the Medul­lar Part of the Brain. This Discovery destroys the Ancient Notions of the Uses of the Ventricles of the Brain, and makes it very probable that those Cavities are only Sinks to carry off excrementitious Humours, and not Store-Houses of the Animal Spirit: It shews likewise how little they knew of the Brain who belie­ved that it was an uniform Substance. Some of the Ancients disputed Galen de V. P. l. 8. c. 2. whe­ther the Brain were not made to cool the Heart. Now though these are ridiculed by Galen, so that their Opinions are not imputable to those who never held them; yet they shew that these famous Men had examined these things very superfi­cially: [Page 199] For no Man makes himself ridi­culous if he can help it; and now, that Mankind are satisfied by ocular Demon­stration that the Brain is the Original of the Nerves, and the Principle of Sense and Motion, he would be thought out of his Wits that should doubt of this Pri­mary use of the Brain, though formerly when things had not been so experimen­tally proved, Men might talk in the dark, and assign such Reasons as they could think of, without the Suspicion of being ignorant or impertinent.

The Eye is so very remarkable a Mem­ber, and has so many Parts peculiar to its self, that the Ancients took great No­tice of it. They found its Humours, the watry, crystalline, and glassy, and all its Tunicles, and gave a good Description of them; but the Optick Nerve, the aque­ous Ducts which supply the watry Hu­mour, and the Vessels which carry Tears were not enough examined. The first was done by Dr. Briggs Theo­ry of Visi­on. Grew's Transact. numb. 6, and Philos. Transact. numb. 147., who has found that in the Tunica Retiformis, which is contiguous to the glassy Humour, the Filaments of the Optick Nerve there ex­panded, lie in a most exact and regular Order, all parallel one to another, which when they are united afterwards in the Nerve are not shuffled confusedly toge­ther, [Page 200] but still preserve the same Order till they come to the Brain. The crystal­line Humour had already been discovered to be of a Double-Convex Figure, made of Two unequal Segments of Spheres, and not perfectly spherical as the Anci­ents thought. So that this further Dis­covery made by Dr. Briggs, shews evi­dently why all the Parts of the Image are so distinctly carried to the Brain, since every Ray strikes upon a several Filament of the Optick Nerve, and all those strings so struck are moved equably at the same Time. For want of knowing the Na­ture and Laws of Refraction, which have been exactly stated by Modern Mathe­maticians, the Ancients discoursed very lamely of Vision. This made Galen think that the crystalline Humour De usu Partium, lib. VIII. cap. 6. was the Seat of Vision, whose only Use is to refract the Rays, as the known Experi­ment of a dark Room, with one only Hole to let in Light, through which a most exact Land-skip of every thing without, will be represented in its pro­per Colours, Heights and Distances, up­on a Paper placed in the Focus of the Convex Glass in the Hole, which Expe­riment is to be found in almost every Book of Opticks, does plainly prove. Since the same thing will appear, if the cry­stalline [Page 201] Humour taken out of an Ox's or a Man's Eye, be placed in the Hole instead of the Glass. The Way how the watry Humour of the Eye, when by Accident lost, may be and is constantly supplied, was first found out and described by Mon­sieur Nuck De Ductibus novis A­quosis, who discovered a parti­cular Canal of Water arising from the internal Carotidal Artery, which creep­ing along the Sclerotic Coat of the Eye, perforates the Cornea near the Pupil, and then branching its self curiously a­bout the Iris, enters and supplies the wa­try Humour. As to the Vessels which moisten the Eye, that it may move free­ly in its Orbit, the Ancients knew in ge­neral that there were Two Glands in the Corners of the Eyes Galen de V. P. lib. X. c. 11.; but the Lympheducts, through which the Moi­sture is conveyed from those Glands were not fully traced till Steno. Obser­vat. Anato­micae de Oris Ocu­lorum & Narium Vasis. and Briggs Oph­thalmo­graphia. described them; so that there is just the same Difference between our Knowledge and the Ancients in this par­ticular, as there is between his Know­ledge who is sure there is some Road or other from this Place to that, and his who knows the whole Course, and all the Tur­nings of the Road, and can describe it on a Map.

[Page 202] The Instruments by which Sounds are conveyed from the Drum to the Auditory Nerves in the inner Cavities of the Ear, were very little, if at all, known to the Ancients. In the First Cavity there are Four small Bones, the Hammer, the An­vil, the Stirrup, and a small flattish Bone just in the Articulation of the Anvil and the Stirrup. It is now certainly known, that when the Drum is struck upon by the external Air, these little Bones, which are as big in an Infant as in adult Persons, move each other; the Drum moves the Hammer, That the Anvil, That the Stir­rup, which opens the oval Entrance into the Second Cavity: None of these Bones were ever mentioned by the Ancients, who only talked of Windings and Tur­nings within the Os Petrosum, that were covered by the large Membrane of the Drum. Jacobus Carpus, one of the first Restorers of Anatomy in the last Age, found out the Hammer and the Anvil, Realdus Columbus discovered the Stirrup, and Franciscus Sylvius the little flattish Bone, by him called Os Orbiculare; but mistook its Position: He thought it had been placed Sideways of the Head of the Stirrup, whereas Monsieur du Verney Traité del' Orga­nes de l' Ouye. Pa­ris, 1683. finds that it lies in the Head of the Stir­rup, between that and the Anvil. The [Page 203] other inner Cavities were not better un­derstood, the spiral Bones of the Cochlea, that are divided into Two distinct Cavi­ties, like Two pair of Winding-Stairs parallel to one another, which turn round the same Axis, with the Three semicir­cular Canals of the Labyrinthus, into which the inner Air enters, and strikes upon the small Twigs of the Auditory Nerves inserted into those small Bones, were things that they knew so little of that they had no Names for them; and indeed till Monsieur du Verney came, those Mazes were but negligently, at least unsuccess­fully, examined by Moderns as well as Ancients; it being impossible so much as to form an Idea of what any former Anatomists asserted of the wonderful Mechanism of those little Bones, before he wrote, if we set aside Monsieur Per­rault's Essays de Physi­que, Part II. Anatomy of those Parts, which came out a Year or two before; who is not near so exact as Monsieur du Ver­ney.

The other Parts of the Head and Neck, wherein the Old Anatomy was the most defective, were the Tongue as to its inter­nal Texture, and the Glands of the Mouth, Jaws and Throat. The Texture of the Tongue was but guessed at, which occa­sioned great Disputes concerning the Na­ture [Page 204] of its Substance, Vide Malpighi­um de Lin­guâ. some thinking it to be glandulous, some muscular, and some of a peculiar Nature, not to be matched in any other part of the Body. This therefore, Malpighius examined with his Glasses, and discovered, that it was cloathed with a double Memorane; that in the inner Membrane there are Abun­dance of small Papillae, which have ex­tremities of Nerves inserted into them, by which the Tongue discerns Tasts, and that under that Membrane it is of a mus­cular Nature consisting of numberless Heaps of Fibres which run all manner of Ways over one another like a Mat.

The general Uses of the Glands of the Mouth, Jaws and Neck were anciently known; it was visible that the Mouth was moistend by them, and the Mass of the Spittle supplied from them; and then, having named them from the Places near which they lie, as the Palate, the Jaws, the Tongue, the Ears, the Neck, they went no further; and there was little, if any thing, more done, till Dr. Wharton, and Nico­laus Steno examined these Glands. And upon an exact Enquiry Four several Sali­val Ducts have been discovered, which from several Glands discharge the Spittle into the Mouth. The First was descri­bed by Dr. Wharton Ade­nograph. cap. 21. near Forty Years [Page 205] ago: it comes from the conglomerate Glands that lie close to the inner side of the lower Jaw, and discharges it self near the middle of the Chin into the Mouth. The Second was found out by Steno Obser­vat. Anat­de Oris Vasis. who published his Observations in 1662; this comes from those Glands that lie near the Ears, in the inside of the Cheek, and the outside of the upper-Jaw: The Third was found out Nuck Sialograp. by Thomas Bartholin, who gave an Account of it in 1682, and about the same Time by one Rivinus a German: It arises from the Glands under the Tongue, and going in a distinct Ca­nal to the Mouth of Wharton's Duct, there, for the most Part, by a common Orifice, opens into the Mouth. The Fourth was discovered by Monsieur Nuck Ibid.; he found a Gland within the Orbit of the Eye, from which, not far from the Mouth of Steno's Duct, Spittle is supplied to the Mouth by a peculiar Canal. Besides these, the same Monsieur Nuck found some smaller Glands near the last, but lower down, which by Four distinct Pipes carry some Spittle into the Mouth; so careful has Nature been to provide so many Passages for that neces­sary and noble Juice, that if some should fail, others might supply their Want.

FRom the Head, we are to look into the Thorax, and there to consider the Heart, and the Lungs. The Lungs, as most of the other Viscera, were believed to be of a Parenchymous Substance, till Malpighius found by his Glasses Epist. de Pulmo­nibus. that they consist of innumerable small Blad­ders, that open into each other, as far as the outermost; which are covered by the outer Membrane, that incloses the whole Body of the Lungs: And that the small Branches of the Wind-Pipe are all inserted into these Bladders; about every one of which the Veins and Arteries are entwi­ned, in an unconceivable Number of Nets and Mazes; that so the inspired Air may press upon, or mix with, the Mass of Blood, in such small Parcels as the An­cients had no Notion of. The Wind-Pipe also it self is nourished by an Artery that creeps up the Back-side, and accom­panies it in all its Branchings: Which was first found out by Frederic Ruysch, a Dutch Professor of Anatomy at Leyden, about Thirty Years ago.

[Page 207] But the great Discovery that has been made of the Lungs, is, That the whole Mass of Blood is carried out of the Right Ventricle of the Heart, by the Arteria Pulmonaris, called anciently Vena Arte­riosa, through all the small Bladders of the Lungs, into the Vena Pulmonaris, (or Arteria Venosa;) and from thence, into the Left Ventricle of the Heart again. So that the Heart is a strong Pump, which throws the Blood, let in from the Veins, into the Lungs; and from the Lungs, afterwards, into the Arteries; and this by a constant rapid Motion, whereby the Blood is driven round in a very few Minutes. This Discovery, first made perfectly intelligible by Dr. Harvey, is of so very great Importance to shew the Communication of all the Humours of the Body, each with other, that as soon as Men were perfectly satisfied that it was not to be contested, which they were in a few Years, a great many put in for the Prize, unwilling that Dr. Har­vey should go away with all the Glory. Vander Linden, who published a most exact Edition of Hippocrates, in Holland, about Thirty Years ago, has taken a great deal of Pains to prove that Hippocrates knew the Circulation of the Blood, and that Dr. Harvey only revived it. The [Page 208] Substance of what has been said in this Matter, is this; that Hippocra­tes speaks [...]. De Morbis, lib. 1. §. 30. Edit. Vand. in one Place, of the Usual and Constant Motion of the Blood: That in another Place, he calls [...], De Corde, §. 5. the Veins and Arteries the Fountains of Humane Nature, the Rivers that water the whole Body, that convey Life; and which, if they be dried up, the Man dies: That in a Third Place, he says, [...]. De Venis, §. 17. That the Blood-Ves­sels, which are dispersed over the whole Body, give Spirit, Moisture and Motion, and all spring from one; which one (Blood-Vessel) has no Begin­ning, nor no End, that I can find; for, where there is a Circle, there is no Beginning. These are the clearest Passages that are produced, to prove, that Hippocrates knew the Circulation of the Blood; and it is plain from them, that he did believe it as an Hypothesis; that is, in plain English, that he did suppose the Blood to be carried round the Body by a constant accustomed Motion: But that he did not know what this constant accu­stomed Motion was; and that he had not [Page 209] found that Course which, in our Age, Dr. Harvey first clearly demonstrated, will appear evident from the following Considerations: (1.) He says nothing of the Circulation of the Blood in his Dis­course of the Heart, where he Anatomi­zes it as well as he could; and speaks of De Corde, §. 4. the Ventricles, and the Valves Ibid. §. 7, 8., which are the immediate Instruments by which the Work is done. (2.) He be­lieves that the Auricles of the Heart Ib. §. 6. are like Bellows, which receive the Air to cool the Heart. Now there are other Uses of them certainly known, since they assist the Heart in the Receiving of the Blood from the Vena Cava, and the Vena Pulmonaris. This cannot be unknown to any Man that knows how the Blood circulates; and accordingly, would have been mentioned by Hippocrates, had he known of it. (3.) Hippocra­tes speaks of Veins Arteriae quidem pu­rum sanguinem & spiri­tum à corde recipiunt; Venae autem & ipsae à corde sanguinem sumunt, per quas corpori distri­buitur; De Structura Hominis, §. 2., as re­ceiving Blood from the Heart, and going from it: Which al­so was the constant Way of Speaking of Galen, and all the Ancients. Now, no Man that can express himself properly, will ever say, That any Liquors are carried away from any Cistern, as from a Fountain or Source, through those Canals which, [Page 210] to his Knowledge, convey Liquors to that Cistern. (4.) Hippocrates says, the Blood is carried into the Lungs, from the Heart, for the Nourishment of the Lungs; without assigning any other Rea­son De Corde, §. 10.. These seem to be positive Ar­guments, that Hippocrates knew nothing of this Matter; and accordingly, all his Commentators, Ancient and Modern, before Dr. Harvey, never interpreted the former Passages of the Circulation of the Blood: Neither would Vander Linden, in all probability, if Dr. Harvey had not helped him to the Notion; which he was then resolved to find in Hippocrates, whom he supposed not the Father only, but the Finisher also of the whole Medi­cal Art. It is pretended to by none of the Ancients, or rather their Admirers for them, after Hippocrates. As for Galen, any Man that reads what he says of the Heart and Lungs, in the 6th. Book of his De Usu Partium, must own, that he does not discourse as if he were acquainted with Modern Discoveries; and therefore it is not so much as pretended that he knew this Recurrent Motion of the Blood. Which also further shews, that if Hippocrates did know it, he explained himself so obscurely, that Galen could not understand him; who, in all probability, understood Hippocrates's [Page 211] Text as well as any of his Commentators, who have written since the Greek Tongue; and much more, since the Ionic Dialect has ceased to be a living Language.

Since the Ancients have no Right to so noble a Discovery, it may be worth while to enquire, to whom of the Moderns the Glory of it is due; for this is also exceed­ingly contested. The first Step that was made towards it, was, the finding that the whole Mass of the Blood passes through the Lungs, by the Pulmonary Artery and Vein.

The first that I could ever find, who had a distinct Idea of this Matter, was Michael Servetus, a Spanish Physician, who was burnt for Arianism, at Geneva, near 140 Years ago. Well had it been for the Church of Christ, if he had wholly confined him­self to his own Profession! His Sagacity in this Particular, before so much in the dark, gives us great Reason to believe, that the World might then have had just Cause to have blessed his Memory. Vitalis Spiritus in sinistro cor­dis ventri­culo suam Originem habet, ju­vantibus maximè pulmonibus adipsius ge­nerationem. Est spiritus tenuis, ca­loris vi e­laboratus, flavo colo­re, igneâ potentiâ, ut sit quasi ex puriore sanguine lucidus, vapor: gene­ratur ex facta in pulmone mixtione inspirati aëris cum elaborato subtili san­guine, quem dexter ventriculus sinistro communicat. Fit autem communicatio haec non per parietem cordis medium ut vulgo creditur, sed magno artificio à dextro cordis ventriculo, longo per pulmones ductu, agitatur sanguis sub­tilis; à pulmonibus praeparatur; flavus ejicitur, & à venâ arteriosâ in ar­teriam venosam transfunditur; deinde in ipsâ arteriâ venosâ inspirato aëri miscetur & exspiratione à fuligine repurgatur; atque ita tandem à sinistro cordis ventriculo totum mixtum per diastolen attrahitur, apta supellex ut fiat spiritus vitalis. Servet. Christian. Restit. In a Book of his, intituled, Christianismi Restitutio, [Page 212] printed in the Year MDLIII. he clearly asserts, that the Blood passes through the Lungs, from the Left to the Right Ven­tricle of the Heart; and not through the Partition which divides the two Ventri­cles, as was at that Time commonly be­lieved. How he introduces it, or in which of the Six Discourses, into which Servetus divides his Book, it is to be found, I know not, having never seen the Book my self. Mr. Charles Bernard, a very learned and e­minent Chirurgeon of London, who did me the Favour to communicate this Passage to me, (set down at length in the Margin) which was transcribed out of Servetus, could inform me no further, only that he had it from a learned Friend of his, who had himself copied it from Servetus.

Realdus Columbus, of Cremona, was the next that said any thing of it, in his Anatomy, printed at Venice, 1559. in Fo­lio; and at Paris, in 1572. in Octavo; and afterwards elsewhere. There he as­serts the same Duae in­sunt cordi cavitates, h. e. ven­triculi duo; ex his alter à dextris est: à sini­stris alter; dexter sinistro multò est major; in dextro sanguis adest naturalis, ac vitalis in sinistro: illud autem observatu perpulchrum est, substantiam cordis dextrum ventriculum ambientem tenuem satis esse, sinistram vero crassam; & hoc tum aequilibrii causâ factum est, tum ne sanguis vitalis, qui tenuissimus est, extra resudaret. Inter hos ventriculos septum adest, per quod fere omnes existimant sanguini à dextro ad sinistrum aditum patefieri; id ut fiat facilius, in transi­tu ob vitalium spirituum generationem tenuem reddi: sed longâ errant viâ: nam sanguis per arteriosam venam ad pulmonem fertur, ibique attenuatur; deinde cum aëre unà per arteriam venalem ad sinistrum cordis ventriculum defertur; quod nemo hactenus aut animadvertit, aut scriptum reliquit. Reald. Columb. Anat. lib. vii. p. 325. Edit. Lut. Circulation through the [Page 213] Lungs, that Servetus had done before; but says, that no Man had ever taken notice of it before him, or had written any Thing about it: Which shews that he did not copy from Servetus; unless one should say, that he stole the Notion, without mentioning Servetus's Name; which is injurious, since in these Matters the same Thing may be, and very often is observed by several Persons, who ne­ver acquainted each other with their Dis­coveries. But Columbus is much more particular; Idcirco quando di­latatur, sanguinem à cavâ ve­nâ in dex­trum ven­triculum suscipit, nec non ab ar­teriâ veno­sâ sangui­nem para­tum ut di­ximus unà cum aëre in sinistrum: propterea membranae illae demittuntur & ingressui cedunt: nam cum cor co­arctatur, hae clauduntur; ne quod susciperetur per easdem vias retrocedat; eodémque tempore membranae tum magnae arteriae, tum venae arteriosae re­cluduntur, aditúmque praebent spirituoso sanguini exeunti, qui per univer­sum corpus funditur, sanguinique naturali ad pulmones delato. Res ita (que) semper habet, cum dilatatur, quas prius memoravimus, recluduntur, clau­duntur reliquae; itáque comperies sanguinem qui in dextrum ventriculum ingressus est, non posse in cavam venam retrocedere. Ibid. pag. 330. Vide quoque lib. xi. pag. 411. for he says, That the Veins lodge the whole Mass of the Blood in the Vena Cava, which carries it into the Heart, whence it cannot return the same Way that it went; from the Right Ventricle it is thrown into the Lungs by the Pulmonary Artery, where the Valves are so placed as to hinder its Return that Way into the Heart, and so it is thrown into the Left Ventricle, and by the Aorta again, when enliven'd by the Air, diffu­sed through the whole Body.

[Page 214] Some Years after appeared Andreas Cae­salpinus, who printed his Peripatetical Questions at Venice, in Quarto, in 1571. And afterwards with his Medical Que­stions, at the same Place, in 1593. He is rather more particular than Columbus, especially in examining how Arteries and Veins joyn at their Extremities; which he supposes to be by opening their Mouths into each other: And he uses the Word Circulation in his Peripatetical Questions, which had never been used in that Sence before. He also takes notice, that the Blood swells below the Ligature in veins, and urges that in Confirmation of his Opinion.

At last, Dr. William Harvey printed a Discourse on purpose, upon this Subject, at Francfort, in 1628. This Notion had only been occasionally and slightly treat­ed of by Columbus and Caesalpinus, who themselves, in all probability, did not know the Consequence of what they as­serted; and therefore it was never ap­plied to other Purposes, either to shew the Uses of the other Viscera, or to ex­plain the Natures of Diseases: Neither, for any Thing that appears at this Day, had they made any Numbers of Experi­ments, which were necessary to explain their Doctrine, and to clear it from Op­position. [Page 215] All this Dr. Harvey undertook to do; and with indefatigable Pains, tra­ced the visible Veins and Arteries through­out the Body, in their whole Journey from and to the Heart; so as to demon­strate, even to the most incredulous, not only that the Blood circulates through the Lungs and Heart, but the very Man­ner how, and the Time in which that great Work is performed. When he had once proved that the Motion of the Blood was so rapid as we now find it is, then he drew such Consequences from it, as shewed that he throughly understood his Argument, and would leave little, at least, as little as he could, to future In­dustry to discover in that particular Part of Anatomy. This gave him a just Ti­tle to the Honour of so noble a Discovery, since what his Predecessors had said be­fore him was not enough understood, to form just Notions from their Words. One may also observe how gradually this Discovery, as all abstruse Truths of Hu­mane Disquisition, was explained to the World. Hippocrates first talked of the Usual Motion of the Blood. Plato said, That the Heart was the Original of the Veins, and of the Blood, that was carried about every Member of the Body. Ari­stotle also somewhere speaks of a Recur­rent [Page 216] Motion of the Blood: Still all this was only Opinion and Belief: It was ra­tional, and became Men of their Genius's; but, not having as yet been made evident by Experiments, it might as easily be de­nied as affirmed. Servetus first saw that the Blood passes through the Lungs; Co­lumbus went further and shew'd the Uses of the Valves or Trap-doors of the Heart, which let the Blood in and out of their Respective Vessels, but not the self same Road: Thus the Way was just open when Dr. Harvey came, who built upon the First Foundations; to make his Work yet the easier, the Valves of the Veins which were discovered by F. Paul the Ve­netian, had not long before been explain­ed by Fabricius ab Aqua pendente, whence the Circulation was yet more clearly de­monstrated.

There was one thing still wanting to compleat this Theory, and that was the Knowledge how the Veins received that Blood which the Arteries discharged; first it was believed that the Mouths of each sort of Vessels joined into one ano­ther; that Opinion was soon laid aside, because it was found that the capillary Vessels were so extremely small, that it was impossible with the naked Eye to trace them. This put them upon ima­gining [Page 217] that the Blood ouzes out of the Arteries, and is absorbed by the Veins, whose small Orifices receive it, as it lies in the Fibres of the Muscles, or in the Parenchyma's of the Bowels: Which O­pinion has been generally received by most Anatomists since Dr. Harvey's Time. But Monsieur Leeuwenhoek has lately found in several sorts of Fishes Letter 65. 66., which were more manageable by his Glasses than other Animals, That Arteries and Veins are really continued Syphons variously wound about each other towards their Extremi­ties in numberless Mazes, over all the Body; and others have found Philos. Transact. numb. 177. what he says to be very true in a Water Newt. So that this Discovery has passed uncon­tested. And since it has been constantly found, that Nature follows like Methods in all sorts of Animals, where she uses the same sorts of Instruments, it will al­ways be believed, That the Blood circu­lates in Men after the same Manner as it does in Eels, Perches, Pikes, Carps, Bats, and some other Creatures, in which Mon­sieur Leeuwenhoek tried it. Though the Ways how it may be visible to the Eye in Men, have not, that I know of, been yet discovered. However this visible Circulation of the Blood in these Creatures effectually removes Sir William Temple's [Page 218] Scruple, who seems unwilling to believe the Circulation of the Blood, because he could not see it. His Words are these 44, 45.: Nay it is disputed whether Harvey's Cir­culation of the Blood be true or no, for though Reason may seem to favour it more than the contrary Opinion; yet Sense can ve­ry hardly allow it, and to satisfie Mankind both these must concurr. Sense therefore here allows it, and that this Sense might the sooner concurr, Monsieur Leeuwenhoek describes the Method how this Experi­ment may be tried in his 66th. Letter: The Inferences that may be made from this Noble Discovery are obvious, and so I shall not stay to mention them.

IF after this long Enquiry into the First Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood, it should be found that the Anato­my of the Heart was but slightly known to the Ancients, it will not, I suppose, be a Matter of any great Wonder. The First Opinion which we have of the Texture of the Heart, was that of Hippocrates De Corde, §. 4., [Page 219] that it is a very strong Muscle; this tho' true was rejected afterwards for want of knowing its true Use; its internal Divi­sions, its Valves, and larger visible Fibres were well known and distinctly descri­bed by the Ancients; only they were mistaken in thinking that there is a Communication between the Ventricles through the Septum, which is now gene­rally known to be an Errour. The Or­der of the Muscular Fibres of the Heart was not known before Dr. Lower, who discovered them to be Spiral like a Snale-Shell, as if several Skains of Threads of differing Lengths had been wound up in­to a Bottom of such a Shape, hollow, and divided within. By all these Discoveries Alphonsus Borellus De Motu Ani­malium, Part II. cap. 5. was enabled to give such a Solution of all the Appear­ances of the Motion of the Heart, and of the Blood in the Arteries, upon Mathe­matical and Mechanical Principles, as will give a more satisfactory Account of the wonderful Methods of Nature in dis­pensing Life and Nourishment to every Part of the Body, than all that had ever been written upon these Subjects before those things were found out.

Below the Midriff are several very no­ble Viscera: The Stomach, the Liver, the Pancreas or Sweet-Bread, the Spleen, the [Page 220] Reins, the Intestines, the Glands of the Mesentery, and the Instruments of Genera­tion of both Sexes; in the Anatomical Knowledge of all which Parts, the An­cients were exceedingly defective.

The Coats of the Stomach have been se­parated, and the several Fibres of the middle Coat examined by Dr. Willis Phar­maceut. Rational. with more Exactness than formerly; he also has been very nice in tracing the Blood-Vessels and Nerves that run a­mongst the Coats, has evidently shewn that its Inside is covered with a glandu­lous Coat, whose Glands separate that Mucilage; which both preserves the Fi­bres from being injured by the Aliments which the Stomach receives, and concurrs with the Spittle to further the Digestion there performed; and has given a very particular Account of all those several Rows of Fibres, which compose the mus­culous Coat: To which if we add Steno's Discovery of the Fibres of the musculous Coat of the Gullet, that they are spiral in a double Order, one ascending, the other descending, which run contrary Courses, and mutually cross each other in every Winding; with Dr. Cole's Philos. Trans. numb. 125. Discove­ry of the Nature of the Fibres of the Intestines, that they also move spirally, though not, perhaps, in a contrary Or­der, [Page 221] from the beginning of the Duodenum to the end of the streight Gut, the Ana­tomy of those parts seems to be almost compleat.

The great Use of the Stomach and the Guts, is to prepare the Chyle, and then to transmit it through the Glands of the Mesentery into the Blood; this the An­cients knew very well; the Manner how it was done they knew not. Galen De Usu Parti­um, lib. 4. cap. 2, 3, 4, 5. held that the Mesaraick Veins, as also those which go from the Stomach to the Liver, carry the Chyle thither, which by the Warmth of the Liver is put into a Heat, whereby the Faeculencies are sepa­rated from the more spirituous Parts, and by their Weight sink to the Bottom; the purer Parts go into the Vena Cava. The Dregs which are of two sorts, Choler and Melancholy, go into several Receptacles; the Choler is lodged in the Gall-Bladder and Porus Bilarius: Melancholy is car­ried off by the Spleen. The Original of all these Notions was Ignorance of the Anatomy of all these Parts, as also of the constant Motion of the Blood through the Lungs and Heart. Herophilus, who is commended as the ablest Anatomist of Antiquity, found out De U. P. lib. 4. c. 19. that there were veins dispersed quite through the Mesen­tery, as far as the small Guts reach, which [Page 222] carried the Chyle from the Intestines in­to several Glandulous Bodies, and there lodged them. These are the Milky Veins again discovered by Asellius about Fifty Years ago, and those Glands which He­rophilus spoke of, are probably that great Collection of Glands in the Mesentery that is commonly called the Pancreas A­sellii. After Herophilus none of the An­cients had the Luck to trace the Motions of the Chyle any further, and so these milky Veins were confounded with the Mesaraicks, and it was commonly belie­ved, That because all Mesaraicks carry the Blood from the Intestines into the Liver, therefore they carried Chyle also when there was any Chyle to carry; and hence probably it was that the Liver was be­lieved to be the common Work-House of the Blood. But when Asellius had traced the Chyle as far as the great Gland of the Mesentery, it was soon found not to lie there. And Pecquet, about Forty Years since, discovered the common Receptacle of the Chyle, whither it is all brought. Thence he also found that it is carried, by parti­cular Vessels through the Thorax, almost as high as the Left-Shoulder, and there thrown into the Left Subclavian Vein, and so directly carried to the Heart. It has also been discovered that in his Canal, [Page 223] usually called Ductus Thoracicus, there are numerous Valves, which hinder the Return of the Chyle to the common Receptacle, so that it can be moved for­wards, but not backwards.

Since this Passage of the Chyle has been discovered, it has been by some believed, that the Milk is conveyed into the Breasts, by little Vessels, from the Ductus Thora­cicus. The whole Oeconomy of that Af­fair has been particularly described very lately by Mr. Nuck; before whose Time it was but imperfectly known. He says therefore, that the Breasts are Heaps of Glands, supplied with Blood by innume­rable Ramifications of the Axillary and Thoracick Arteries; some of which pas­sing through the Breast-bone, unite with the Vessels of the opposite Side. These Arteries, which are unconceivably small, part with the Milk in those small Glands, into small Pipes, four or five of which meeting together, make one small Trunk; of these small Trunks, the large Pipes, which terminate in the Nipple, are made up; though before they arrive thither, they straiten into so small a Compass, that a stiff Hair will just pass through. The Nipple, which is a Fibrous Body, has seven or eight, or more Holes, through which every Pipe emits its Milk upon [Page 224] Suction; and, lest any one of them be­ing stopped, the Milk should stagnate, they all have cross Passages into each other, at the Bottom of the Nipple, where it joyns to the Breast.

The fore-mentioned Discovery of the Passage of the Chyle obliged Men to re­examine the Notions which, till then, had generally obtained, concerning the Nature and Uses of the Liver. Hitherto it had been generally believed, that the Blood was made there, and so dispersed into several Parts, for the Uses of the Body, by the Vena Cava. Erasistratus, in­deed, supposed Galen de U. P. lib. 4. cap. 13. that its principal Use was, to separate the Bile, and to lodge it in its proper Vessels: But, for want of further Light, his Notion could not then be sufficiently proved; and so it presently fell, and was never revived, till Asellius's and Pecquet's Discoveries put it out of doubt. Till Malpighius discovered its Texture by his Glasses, its Nature was very obscure. But he has found out, (1.) That the Substance of the Liver is framed of innumerable Lobules, which are very often of a Cubical Figure, and consist of several little Glands, like the Stones of Raisins; so that they look like Bunches of Grapes, and are each of them cloathed with a distinct Membrane. [Page 225] (2.) That the whole Bulk of the Liver consists of these Grape-stone-like Glands, and of divers sorts of Vessels. (3.) That the small Branches of the Cava, Porta, and Porus Bilarius, run through all, even the least of these Lobules, in an equal Number; and that the Branches of the Porta are as Arteries that convey the Blood to, and the Branches of the Cava are the Veins which carry the Blood from all these little Grape-stone-like Glands. From whence it is plain, that the Liver is a Glandulous Body, with its proper Ex­cretory Vessels, which carry away the Gall that lay before in the Mass of the Blood.

Near the Liver lies the Pancreas, which Galen believed De U. P. lib. 5. cap. 2. to be a Pillow to sup­port the Divisions of the Veins, as they go out of the Liver; and, for what ap­pears at present, the Ancients do not seem to have concerned themselves any further about it. Since, it has been found to be a Glandulous Body, wherein a distinct Juice is separated from the Blood; which, by a peculiar Canal, first discovered by Georgius Wirtsungus, a Paduan Physician, is carried into the Duodenum; where meeting with the Bile, and the Aliment just thrown out of the Stomach, assists and promotes the Business of Digestion.

[Page 226] The Spleen was as little understood as the Pancreas; and for the same Reasons: Its Anatomy was unknown, and its Bulk made it very remarkable; something therefore was to be said about it: And what no Body could positively dis-prove, might the easier be either received or con­tradicted. The most general Opinion was, that the grosser Excrements of the Chyle and Blood were carried off from the Liver, by the Ramus Splenicus, and lodged in the Spleen, as in a common Cistern: But since the Circulation of the Blood has been known, it has been found, that the Blood can go from the Spleen to the Liver, but that nothing can return back again into the Spleen. And as for its Texture, De Li­ene. Malpighius has discover­ed, that the Substance of the Spleen, de­ducting the numerous Blood-Vessels and Nerves, as also the Fibres which arise from its Second Membrane, and which support the other Parts, is made up of in­numerable little Cells, like Honey-Combs, in which there are vast Numbers of small Glandules, which resemble Bunches of Grapes; and that these hang upon the Fi­bres, and are fed by Twigs of Arteries and Nerves, and send forth the Blood there purged, into the Ramus Spleni­cus, which carries it into the Liver; [Page 227] to what purpose, not yet certainly disco­vered.

The Use of the Reins is so very con­spicuous, that, from Hippocrates's Time, downwards, no Man ever mistook it: But the Mechanism of those wonderful Strainers was wholly unknown, till the so often mentioned Malpighius De Re­nibus. found it out. He therefore, by his Glasses, dis­covered, that the Kidneys are not one uniform Substance, but consist of several small Globules, which are all like so ma­ny several Kidneys, bound about with one common Membrane; and that every Globule has small Twigs from the emul­gent Arteries, that carry Blood to it; Glands, in which the Urine is strained from it; Veins, by which the purified Blood is carried off to the Emulgent Veins, thence to go into the Cava; a Pipe, to convey the Urine into the great Basin in the middle of the Kidney; and a Nipple, towards which several of those small Pipes tend, and through which the U­rine ouzes out of them, into the Basin. This clear Use of the Structure of the Reins, has effectually confuted several Notions that Men had entertained, of some Secundary Uses of those Parts; since hereby it appears, that every Part of the Kidneys is immediately, and [Page 228] wholly subservient to that single Use, of Freeing the Blood from its superfluous Serum.

What has been done by Modern Ana­tomists, towards the Compleating of the Knowledge of the remaining Parts, I shall omit. That the Ancients likewise took Pains about them, is evident from the Writings of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen. The Discoveries which have since been made are so great, that they are, in a manner, undisputed: And the Books which treat of them are so well known, that it will not be suspected that I decline to enlarge upon them, out of a Dread of giving up more to the Ancients in this Particular, than I have done all along.

The Discoveries hitherto mentioned, have been of those Parts of Humours of the Body, whose Existence was well enough known to the Ancients. But, besides them, other Humours, with Ves­sels to separate, contain, and carry them to several Parts of the Body, have been taken notice of; of which, in strictness, the Ancients cannot be said to have any sort of Knowledge. These are, the Lympha, or Colourless Juice, which is carried to the Chyle and Blood, from se­parate Parts of the Body: And the Muci­lage [Page 229] of the Joints, which lubricates them, and the Muscles, in their Motions. The Discovery of the Lympha, which was made about Forty Years ago, is contend­ed for by several Persons. Thomas Bar­tholine, a Dane, and Olaus Rudbeck, a Suede, published their Observations about the same Time: And Dr. Jolliffe, an En­glish-Man, shewed the same to several of his Friends, but without publishing any Thing concerning them. The Discove­ries being undoubted, and all Three working upon the same Materials, there seems no Reason to deny any of them the Glory of their Inventions. The Thing which they found was, that there are in­numerable small, clear Vessels in many Parts of the Body, chiefly in the Lower Belly, which convey a Colourless Juice, either into the common Receptacle of the Chyle, or else into the Veins, there to mix with the Blood. The Valves which Frederic Ruysch found and demonstrated in them, about the same Time, manifest­ly shewed, that this is its Road; because they prove, that the Lympha can go for­wards from the Liver, Spleen, Lungs, Glands of the Loins and Neck, or any other Place, whence they arise, towards some Chyliferous Duct, or Vein; but cannot go back from those Chyliferous [Page 230] Ducts, or Veins, to the Place of their Origination. What this Origination is, was long uncertain, it not being easie to trace the several Canals up to their several Sources. Steno Obser­vat. Ana­tom. and Malpighius Epist. de Glan­dul. Con­globat. did, with infinite Labour, find, that Abun­dance of Lympheducts passed through those numerous Conglobate Glands that are dispersed in the Abdomen and Thorax; which made them think that the Arte­rious Blood was there purged of its Lym­pha, that was from thence carried off in­to its proper Place, by a Vessel of its own. But Mr. Nuck has since Ade­nograph. found, that the Lympheducts arise immediately from Arteries themselves; and that many of them are percolated through those Con­globate Glands, in their Way to the Re­ceptacle of the Chyle, or those Veins which receive them. By these, and in­numerable other Observations, the Uses of the Glands of the Body have been found out; all agreeing in this one Thing, namely, that they separate the several Juices that are discernable in the Body, from the Mass of the Blood wherein they lay before. From their Texture they have of late been divi­ded into Conglomerate, and Conglobate. The Conglomerate Glands consist of many smaller Glands, which lie near one another, [Page 231] covered with one common Membrane, with one or more common Canals, in­to which the separated Juice is poured by little Pipes, coming from every smal­ler Glandule; as in the Liver, the Kid­neys, the Pancreas, and Salival Glands of the Mouth. The Conglobate Glands are single, often without an Excretory Duct of their own, only perforated by the Lympheducts. Of all which Things, as essential to the Nature of Glands, the Ancient Anatomists had no sort of No­tion.

The Mucilage of the Joints and Muscles was found out by Dr. Havers Osteo­log.. He dis­covered in every Joint, particular Glands, out of which issues a Mucilaginous Sub­stance, whose Nature he examined by numerous Experiments; which, with the Marrow supplied by the Bones, always serves to oil the Wheels, that so our Joints and Muscles might answer those Ends of Motion, for which Nature de­signed them. This was a very useful Discovery, since it makes Abundance of Things that were very obscure in that Part of Anatomy, very plain, and facile to be understood: And, among other Things, it shews the Use of that excel­lent Oil which is contained in our Bones, and there separated by proper Strainers, [Page 232] from the Mass of the Blood; especially, since, by a nice Examination of the true inward Texture of all the Bones and Car­tilages of the Body, he shew'd how this Oil is communicated to the Mucilage, and so united as to perform their Office. And if one compares what Dr. Havers says of Bones and Cartilages, with what had been said concerning them before him, his Observations about their Frame may well be added to some of the noblest of all the former Discoveries.

These are some of the most remarkable Instances, how far the Knowledge of the Frame of our Bodies has been carried in our Age. Several Observations may be made concerning them, which will be of Use to the present Question. (1.) It is evident, that only the most visible Things were anciently known; such only as might be discovered without great Nice­ty. Muscles and Bones are easily separa­ble; their Length is soon traced, and their Origination easily known. The same may be truly said of large Blood-Vessels, and Nerves: But when they come to be exquisitely sub-divided, when their Smalness will not suffer the Eye, much less the Hand, to follow them, then the Ancients were constantly at a Loss: For which Reason, they under­stood [Page 233] none of the Viscera, to any tolera­ble Degree. (2.) One may perceive that every new Discovery strengthens what went before; otherwise the World would soon have heard of it, and the erroneous Theories of such Pretenders to new Things would have been exploded and forgotten, unless by here and there a curious Man, that pleases himself with reading Obsolete Books. Nullius in ver­ba is not only the Motto of the ROYAL SOCIETY, but a received Principle among all the Philosophers of the present Age: And therefore, when once any new Discoveries have been examined, and re­ceived, we have more Reason to ac­quiesce in them, than there was former­ly. This is evident in the Circulation of the Blood: Several Veins and Arteries have been found, at least, more exactly traced, since, than they were in Dr. Har­vey's Time. Not one of these Discove­ries has ever shown a single Instance of any Artery going to, or of any Vein com­ing from the Heart. Ligatures have been made of infinite Numbers of Vessels; and the Course of all the Animal Juices, in all manner of living Creatures, has there­by been made visible to the naked Eye; and yet not one of these has ever weak­ned Dr. Harvey's Doctrine. The Plea­sure [Page 234] of Destroying in Matters of this Kind, is not much less than the Pleasure of Building. And therefore, when we see that those Books which have been written against some of the eminentest of these Discoveries, though but a few Years ago, comparatively speaking, are so far dead, that it is already become a Piece of Learning even to know their Titles, we have sufficient Assurance that these Discoverers, whose Writings out­live Opposition, neither deceive them­selves, nor others. So that, whatsoever it might be formerly, yet in this Age ge­neral Consent in Physiological Matters, especially after a long Canvass of the Things consented to, is an almost infal­lible Sign of Truth. (3.) The more Ways are made use of to arrive at any one particular Part of Knowledge, the surer that Knowledge is, when it appears that these different Methods lend Help each to other. If Malpighius's, or Leeu­wenhoek's Glasses had made such Discove­ries as Men's Reason could not have a­greed to, if Objects had appeared confu­sed and disorderly in their Microscopes, if their Observations had contradicted what the naked Eye reveals, then their Verdict had been little worth. But when the Discoveries made by the Knife and [Page 235] the Microscope disagree only as Twi-light and Noon-day, then a Man is satisfied that the Knowledge which each affords to us, differs only in Degree, not in Sort. (4.) It can signifie nothing in the present Controversie, to pretend that Books are lost; or to say, that, for ought we know, Herophilus might anciently have made this Discovery, or Erasistratus that; their Reasonings demonstrate the Extent of their Knowledge as convincingly as if we had a Thousand old Systems of Ancient Anatomy extant. (5.) In judging of Modern Discoveries, one is nicely to di­stinguish between Hypothesis and Theory. The Anatomy of the Nerves holds good, whether the Nerves carry a Nutritious Juice to the several Parts of the Body, or no. The Pancreas sends a Juice into the Duodenum, which mixes there with the Bile, let the Nature of that Juice be what it will. Yet here a nice Judge may ob­serve, that every Discovery has mended the Hypotheses of the Modern Anato­mists; and so it will always do, till the Theories of every Part, and every Juice, be as entire as Experiments and Observa­tions can make them.

As these Discoveries have made the Frame of our own Bodies a much more intelligible Thing than it was before, [Page 236] though there is yet a great deal unknown; so the same Discoveries having been ap­plied to, and found in almost all sorts of known Animals, have made the Anatomy of Brutes, Birds, Fishes and Insects much more perfect than it could possibly be in former Ages. Most of the Rules which Galen lays down in his Anatomical Admi­nistrations, are, concerning the Dissection of Apes. If he had been now to write, besides those tedious Advices how to part the Muscles from the Membranes, and to observe their several Insertions and Origi­nations, the Jointings of the Bones, and the like, he would have taught the World how to make Ligatures of all sorts of Ves­sels, in their proper Places; what Li­quors had been most convenient to make Injections with, thereby to discern the Courses of Veins, Arteries, Chyle-Ves­sels, or Lympheducts; how to unravel the Testicles; how to use Microscopes to the best Advantage: He would have taught his Disciples when and where to look for such and such Vessels or Glands; where Chymical Trials were useful; and what the Processes were, by which he made his Experiments, or found out his Theories: Which Things fill up every Page in the Writings of later Dissectors. This he would have done, as well as [Page 237] what he did, had these Ways of making Anatomical Discoveries been then known and practised. The World might then have expected such Anatomies of Brutes, as Dr. Tyson has given of the Rattle-Snake; or Dr. Moulin, of the Elephant: Such Dissections of Fishes as Dr. Tyson's of the Porpesse; and Steno's, of the Shark: Such of Insects as Malpighius's of a Silk-Worm; Swammerdam's, of the Epheme­ron; Dr. Lister's, of a Snail; and the same Dr. Tyson's, of Long and Round Body-Worms. All which shew Skill and Industry, not conceivable by a Man that is not a little versed in these Mat­ters.

To this Anatomy of Bodies that have Sensitive Life, we ought to add the A­natomy of Vegetables, begun and brought to great Perfection in Italy and England at the same Time, by Malpighius and Dr. Grew. By their Glasses they have been able to give an Account of the diffe­rent Textures of all the Parts of Trees, Shrubs and Herbs; to trace the several Vessels which carry Air, Lympha, Milk, Rosin and Turpentine, in those Plants which afford them; to describe the whole Process of Vegetation, from Seed to Seed; and, in a Word, though they have left a great deal to be admired, because it was [Page 238] to them incomprehensible; yet they have discovered a great deal to be admired, because of its being known by their Means.

HAving now finished my Compari­son of Ancient and Modern Anato­my, with as much Exactness as my little Insight into these Things would give me Leave, I am sensible that most Men will think that I have been too tedious. But, besides that I had not any where found it carefully done to my Hands, (though it is probable that it has in Books which have escaped my Notice) I thought that it would be a very effectual Instance, how little the Ancients may have been presu­med to have perfected any one Part of Natural Knowledge, when their own Bodies, which they carried about with them, and which, of any Thing, they were the nearliest concerned to know, [Page 239] were, comparatively speaking, so very imperfectly traced. However, in the re­maining Parts of my Parallel, I shall be much shorter; which, I hope, may be some Amends for my too great Length in this.

From those Instruments, or Mechanical Arts, whether Ancient or Modern, by which Knowledge has been advanced, I am now to go to the Knowledge it self. Ac­cording to the Method already proposed, I am to begin with Natural History in its usual Acceptation, as it takes in the Knowledge of the several Kinds of Ele­mentary Bodies, Minerals, Insects, Plants, Beasts, Birds and Fishes. The Useful­ness, and the Pleasure of this Part of Learning is too well known to need any Proof. And besides, it is a Study, about which the greatest Men of all Ages have employed themselves. Of the very few lost Books that are mentioned in the Old Testament, one was an History of Plants, written by the wisest of Men, and he a King. So that there is Reason to be­lieve, that it was cultivated with Abun­dance of Care by all those who did not place the Perfection of Knowledge in the Art of Wrangling about Questions, which were either useless, or which could not easily be decided.

[Page 240] Before I enter into Particulars, it is ne­cessary to enquire what are the greatest Excellencies of a compleat History of any one sort of Natural Bodies. This may soon be determined. That History of any Body is certainly the best, which, by a full and clear Description, lays down all the Characteristical Marks of the Body then to be described; so as that its Speci­fical Idea may be perfectly formed, and it self certainly and easily distinguished from any other Body, though, at first View, it be never so like it; which enu­merates all its known Qualities; which shews whether there are any more besides those already observed; and, last of all, which enquires into the several Ways whereby that Body may be beneficial or hurtful to Man, or any other Body; by giving a particular Account of the several Phaenomena which appear upon its Ap­plication to, or Combination with other Bodies, of like, or unlike Natures. All this is plainly necessary, if a Man would write a full History of any single Species of Animals, Plants, Insects, or Minerals, whatsoever. Or, if he would draw up a General History of any one of these U­niversal Sorts, then he ought to examine wherein every Species of this Universal Sort agrees each with other; or wherein [Page 241] they are discriminated from any other Universal Sort of Things: Thus, by de­grees, descend to Particulars, and range every Species, not manifestly Anomalus, under its own Family, or Tribe; there­by to help the Memory of Learners, and assist the Contemplations of those who, with Satisfaction to themselves and others, would Philosophize upon this amazing Variety of Things.

By this Test the Comparison may be made. I shall begin with the simplest Bodies first; which, as they are the com­monest, so, one would think, should have been long ago examined with the strictest Care. By these I mean, Air, Water, Earth, Fire; commonly called Elements. The Three first are certainly distinct and real Bodies, endued with proper and peculiar Qualities; and so come under the present Question.

Of the History of Air the Ancients seemed to know little more than just what might be collected from the Obser­vation of its most obvious Qualities. Its Necessity for the immediate Subsistence of Life, and the unspeakable Force of Rapid Winds, or Air forcibly driven all one Way, made it be sufficiently observ­ed by all the World; whilst its Internal Texture, and very few of its remoter [Page 242] Qualities, were scarce so much as dreamt of by all the Philosophers of Antiquity. Its Weight only was known to Aristo­tle De Coelo, l. 4. c. 4., (or the Author of the Book de Coelo) who observed, that a full Blad­der out-weighed an empty one. Yet this was carried no further by any of the An­cients, that we know of; dis-believed by his own School, who seemed not to have attended to his Word; opposed and ridiculed when again revived, and de­monstrably proved, by the Philosophers of the present Age. All which are Evi­dences, that anciently it was little exa­mined into, since they wanted Proofs to evince that, which Ignorance only made disputable. But this has been spoken to already; I shall therefore only add, that, besides what Mr. Boyle has written con­cerning the Air, one may consult Otto Guerick's Magdebourg-Experiments, the Experiments of the Academy del Cimento, Sturmius's Collegium Curiosum, Mr. Hal­ley's Discourses concerning Gravity, and the Phaenomena of the Baroscope in the Philosophical Transactions Num. 179, & 181.. From all which one may find, not only how little of the Nature of the Air was anciently known; but also, that there is scarce any one Body, whose Theory is now so near being compleated, as is that of the Air.

[Page 243] The Natural History of Earth and Wa­ter come under that of Minerals: Fire, as it appears to our Senses, seems to be a Quality, rather than a Substance; and to consist in its own Nature, in a Rapid Agitation of Bodies, put into a quick Motion; and divided by this Motion, into very small Parts. After this had been once asserted by the Corpuscularian Philosophers, it was exceedingly strength­ned by many Experimental Writers, who have taken abundance of Pains to state the whole Doctrine of Qualities clearly, and intelligibly; that so Men might know the difference between the Exi­stence or Essential Nature of a Body, and its being represented to our Senses under such or such an Idea. This is the Natural Consequence of proceeding upon clear and intelligible Principles; and re­solving to admit nothing as conclusive, which cannot be manifestly conceived, and evidently distinguished from every Thing else. Here, if in any Thing, the old Philosophers were egregiously defe­ctive: What has been done since, will appear by consulting, among others, the Discourses which Mr. Boyle has written upon most of the considerable Qualities of Bodies, which come under our No­tice; such as his Histories of Fluidity and [Page 244] Firmness, of Colours, of Cold, his Origin of Forms and Qualities, Experiments a­bout the Mechanical Production of divers particular Qualities, and several others, which come under this Head; because they are not Notions framed only in a Closet, by the help of a lively Fancy; but Genuine Histories of the Phaenomena of Natural Bodies; which appeared in vast Numbers, after such Trials were made upon them, as were proper to dis­cover their several Natures.

And therefore, that it may not be thought that I mistake every plausible Notion of a witty Philosopher for a new Discovery of Nature, I must desire that my former Distinction between Hypothe­ses and Theories may be remembred. I do not here reckon the several Hypotheses of Des Cartes, Gassendi, or Hobbes, as Acquisitions to real Knowledge, since they may only be Chimaera's and amu­sing Notions, fit to entertain working Heads. I only alledge such Doctrines as are raised upon faithful Experiments, and nice Observations; and such Consequen­ces as are the immediate Results of, and manifest Corollaries drawn from, these Experiments and Observations: Which is what is commonly meant by Theories. But of this more hereafter.

[Page 245] That the Natural History of Minerals was anciently very imperfect, is evident from what has been said of Chymistry al­ready; to which, all the Advances that have ever been made in that Art, unless when Experiments have been tried upon Vegetable or Animal Substances, are pro­perly to be referred. I take Minerals here in the largest Sence; for all sorts of Earths, Sulphurs, Salts, Stones, Metals, and Mi­nerals properly so called. For Chymi­stry is not only circumstantially useful, but essentially necessary here; since a great many Minerals of very differing Natures would never have been known to have belonged to several Families, if they had not been examined in the Fur­naces of the Chymists. But I think this is so clear, that I should lose Time if I should say any Thing more about it; and therefore I shall rather mention some other Things, wherein Discoveries have been made in and by Mineral Bodies, without the help of Chymistry. The greatest of which is, of a Stone which the Ancients admired Their Opinions are collected by Gassendi, in his Animadversions up­on Laërtius's Life of E­picurus, p. 362, 363., without ever examining to what Uses it might be ap­plied; and that is, the Mag­net: The noblest Properties whereof Sir William Temple acknow­ledges [Page 246] to be anciently unknown Pag. 48.; which is more, indeed, than what some do This they have col­lected from a Passage in Plautus, Merc. Act. 5. Sc. 2. Huc Secundus Ventus nunc est, cape modo vorsoriam; where by vorsoria they under­stand the Compass, be­cause the Needle always points towards the North: Whereas vorsoria is no­thing but that Rope with which the Mariners turn­ed their Sails., who, at the same Time, make our Fore-fathers to have been extreamly stupid, that could suffer such a Disco­very to be ever lost. So that all that can be said of the Ad­vances which, by the Uses of the Load-stone, have been made in several Parts of Learn­ing, do not in the least affect Sir William Temple. However, I shall mention some of the greatest, because he charges the Moderns with not making all the Uses of so noble an Invention; which he supposes the An­cient Greeks and Romans would have made, had it fallen into their Hands: Which makes him assert, that the Disco­veries hereby made in remote Countries have been rather pursued to accumulate Wealth Pag. 49., than to increase Knowledge. Now, if both these can be done at once, there is no Harm done: And since there is no Dispute of the one, I think it will be an easie Matter to prove the other. I shall name but a few Particulars, most of them rather belonging to another Head.

Geography therefore was anciently a very imperfect Study, for want of this [Page 247] Knowledge of the Properties of the Load­stone. The Figure of the Earth could formerly only be guessed at; which Sir William Temple's admired Epicurus Vide Gassendi's Animad­versions upon Laër­tius's Epi­curus, pag. 672. did, for that Reason, deny to be round; wherein he seems to have been more rea­sonable, than in many other of his Asser­tions; because he thought it an Affront to the Understanding of Man, to be de­termined by bare Conjectures, in a Mat­ter which could no other Way be deci­ded. Whereas now, most Parts of the Ocean being made easily accessible, the Latitudes, and respective Bearings of e­very Place are commonly known: The Nature and Appearances of Winds and Tides are become familiar, and have been nicely examined by Intelligent Men in all Parts of the World: The Influence of the Moon, joyned with the Motion of the Earth, have been taken in upon al­most infallible Grounds, to found Theo­ries of the Sea's Motion upon. And there are great Numbers of other noble, pleasant and useful Propositions in Geo­graphy, Astronomy and Navigation, which ultimately owe their Original to the Dis­covery of that single Quality of this won­derful Stone, that it always points towards the North. If these Sciences have brought to us the Wealth of the Indies, if they [Page 248] have enlarged the Commerce and Inter­course of Mankind, it is so far from be­ing a Disparagement to the Industry of the Moderns, who have cultivated them to such useful Purposes, that it is the highest Character that could be given of those Men, that they pursued their In­ventions to such noble Ends. Knowledge not reduced to Practice, when that is possible, is so far imperfect, that it loses its principal Use. And it is not for ac­quiring Wealth, but for mis-employing it when he has acquired it, that a Man ought to be blamed.

Now, to compleat what I have to say of Geography all at once, I shall take no­tice, that as the Improvements by Navi­gation have made all the Sea-Coasts of the Universe accessible, so the Art of En­graving upon Copper-Plates has made it easie for Men to draw such Draughts of every particular Coast, as will imprint lasting and just Idea's of all the Parts of the known World. For want of this, the Ancient Descriptions even of those Countries which they knew, were rude, and imperfect: Their Maps were neither exact, nor beautiful: The Longitudes and Latitudes of Places, were very little, if at all, considered; the latter of which can now be exactly determined, and the [Page 249] former may be very nearly adjusted, since the Application of Telescopes to Astro­nomical Uses has enabled Men to make much nicer Observations of the Moon's Eclipses than could formerly be made; besides those of Jupiter's Satellites, to which the Ancients were entirely Stran­gers. This makes our Maps wonderful­ly exact; which are not only the Diver­tisements of the Curious, but of unspeak­able Use in Civil Life, at Sea especially; where, by the help of Sea-Charts, Sailers know where they are, what Rocks lie near them, what Sands they must avoid; and can as perfectly tell which Way they must steer to any Port of the Universe, as a Traveller can, upon Salisbury-Plain, or New-Market-Heath, which Way he must ride to a great Town, which he knows before-hand is not far from the Edge of the Plain, or of the Heath. Vel­serus has printed some ancient Maps Com­monly cal­led the Peu­tingerian Tables., that were made for the Direction of the Roman Quarter-Masters; and if a Man will compare them with Sanson's, or Bla­eu's, he will see the difference; which in future Ages will certainly be vastly great­er, if those Countries which are now bar­barous, or undiscovered, should ever come into the Hands of a Civilized or Learned People. But I have not yet done with the Load-stone.

[Page 250] Besides these occasional Uses of the Magnet, its Nature, abstractedly taken, has been nicely enquired into, thereby to discover both its own Qualities, and its Re­lation to other Bodies that are round about it. And here indeed one may justly won­der, that when Flavio Amal­phi To him this Disco­very is attributed by Sal­muth upon Pancirollus; others call him John Goia of Amalphi; but Gassen­di, Animad. Pag. 364. says, it was found out by a French-man, about the Year MCC. since it is mentioned by one Guyotus Provineus, a French Po­et of that Time, who calls the Compass Marineta; to which Gassendi also adds, That it was most probably a French Inven­tion, because the North-Point is by all Nations marked in their Compasses by a Flower-de-Luce, the Arms of France. had discovered that Iron touched with a Magnet, always points towards the North, that all the Philoso­phers of that Age did not im­mediately try all Manner of Experiments upon that strange Stone, which was found to be so exceedingly useful in Matters of common Life: The Portuguezes, who first made daring Voyages by the Help of the Compass into the Sou­thern and South-Eastern Seas, better knew the Value of that rich Discovery; but Philosophy was in those darker Ages divided between the School-men and the Chymists; the former presently salved the Business with their Substantial Forms, and what they could not comprehend came very pro­perly under the Notion of an Occult Qua­lity: The latter found nothing extraor­dinary in their Crucibles when they [Page 251] analyzed the Magnet; and so they seem soon to have given it over: Besides, in those Days few Men studied Chymistry with any other Design than that of finding out the Philosopher's Stone, to which the Load-stone could do them no fur­ther Service than that of supplying them with another hard Name to cant with Mag­nesia Ni­gra, used by Eyrenaeus Philale­thes, and ridiculed by Surly in Ben John­son's Al­chemist.. For these Reasons therefore, it lay in a good Measure neglected by Men of Letters, till our famous Country­man Dr. Gilbert of Colchester, by a vast Number of Experiments, found that the Earth was but a larger Magnet, and he in­deed, was the first Author of all these magnetical Speculations which have been made since that have had the good For­tune to be generally approved. This great Man, whom Galileo and Kepler express a great Veneration for in their Writings, deserves here to be mentioned upon ano­ther Account, because He, my Lord Ba­con, and Mr. Harriot, all English-men, are the Three Men to whom Monsieur Des Cartes was so very much obliged for the first Hints of the greatest things, which he has given us in his Philosophi­cal and Mathematical Discourses. For nothing does more convincingly put these things out of Doubt, than to trace them up to their first Originals, which can be [Page 252] done but in a very few. But it is time to proceed.

THE Natural History of Plants comes next; which, for Variety and Use, is one of the noblest and plea­santest Parts of Knowledge. Its Mecha­nical and Medicinal Advantages were early known. Fruits afforded the first Sustenance to Mankind; and the old Hea­thens esteemed those worthy of Conse­cration, who taught them to till their Grounds, gather their Seed, and grind their Corn; with Trees they built them­selves Houses, afterwards they found that the Bark of some Plants would serve for Cloaths, and others afforded Medicines against Wounds and Diseases. There is no doubt therefore, but this Part of Know­ledge was sufficiently cultivated for the Uses of humane Life; especially when the World becoming Populous, had com­municated their Notions together, and Conversation had introduced the Arts of [Page 253] Luxury and Plenty amongst Mankind. But whether the Natural History of Plants was so exactly known formerly as it is at present, is the Question.

The ancientest Writers of Plants now extant, are Theophrastus, Pliny and Dio­scorides; indeed the only ones who say any thing considerable to the present Purpose. Theophrastus describes nothing; gives abundance of Observations of seve­ral Plants, and the like; but what he says is too general for our Purpose. Pliny and Dioscorides who lived long after him do give Descriptions indeed of a great many Plants, but short, imperfect and without Method; they will tell you for Instance, that a Plant is hairy, has broad Leaves, that its Stalks are knotty, hollow or square; that its Branches creep upon the Ground, are erect, and so forth; in short, if there is any thing remarkable in the Colour or Shape of the Stalk, Root, Seed, Flower or Fruit, which strikes the Eye at first Sight, it may per­haps be taken Notice of, but then every thing is confused, and seldom above one or two Plants of a sort are mentioned; though perhaps later Botanists have obser­ved some Scores plainly reducible to the same general Head. Pliny ranges many of the Plants, which he describes in an [Page 254] Order N. H. l. 12. cap. 13. and l. 27. throughout. something Alphabetical, o­thers The 12th. Book is chiefly of Treeswhich bear odori­ferous Gums, and so on of all the rest. he digests according to their Virtues, others he N. H. l. 25. cap. 6, 7. & a­libi passim. puts together, be­cause they were discovered by great Per­sons, and called by their Discoverers Names; all which Methods, how much soever they may assist the Memory in re­membring hard Names, or in retaining the Materia Medica in one View in a Man's Head, signifie nothing to the Un­derstanding the Characteristical Differen­ces of the several Plants; by which alone, and not by accidental Agreements in Vir­tue, Smell, Colour, Tast, Place of Growth, Time of sprouting, or any mechanical Use to which they may be made service­able, Men may become exact Botanists: Without such a Method, to which the Ancients were altogether Strangers, the Knowledge of Plants is a confused thing depending wholly upon an uncommon Strength of Memory and Imagination, and even with the Help of the best Books scarce attainable without a Master.

Conradus Gesner, to whose Labours the World has been unspeakably behol­den in almost all Parts of Natural Histo­ry, was the first Man (that I know of) who hinted at the true Way to distinguish Plants, and reduce them to fixed and cer­tain Heads. In a Letter to Theodorus [Page 255] Zuingerus Epist. Medicinal. p. 113. a., he says, that Plants are to be ranged according to the Shape of their Flowers, Fruits and Seeds; having observed that Cultivation, or any acci­dental Difference of Soil, never alters the Shape of these more Essential Parts; but that every Plant has something there peculiar, by which it may be distin­guished, not only from others of a re­moter Genus, but also from those of the same Family.

About the same Time Andreas Caesalpi­nus, and Fabius Columna, the first espe­cially, reduced that into an Art, which Gesner had hinted at before; yet what they writ lay neglected, though Clusius, Caspar Bauhinus, Parkinson, Gerard and Johnson, and John Bauhinus had taken very laudable Pains in describing, not on­ly the more general Sorts taken notice of by the Ancients, but also in observing their several Sub-divisions with great Niceness and Skill. John Bauhinus also had described every particular Plant then known, in his General History of Plants, with great Accuracy; and compared whatsoever had been said before, and ad­justed old Names to those Plants which Modern Herbarists had gathered, with so much Care, that the Philologi­cal Part of Botany seems by him to [Page 256] have, in a manner, received its utmost Perfection.

The great Work already begun by Cae­salpinus and Columna, was still imper­fect; which, though, perhaps, not the most laborious, was yet the most necessa­ry to a Man that would consider those Things Philosophically, and comprehend the whole Vegetable Kingdom, as the Chymists call it, under one View. This was, to digest every Species of Plants un­der such and such Families and Tribes; that so, by the help of a general Method, taken only from the Plants themselves, and not from any accidental Respects, under which they may be considered, once thoroughly understood, a Learner might not be at a Loss upon the Sight of every new Plant that he meets with, but might discern its General Head at first View; and then, by running over the Tables thereunto belonging, might, at last, either come to the particular Species which he sought for, or, which would do as well, find that the Plant before him was hitherto undescribed, and that by it there would be a new accession made to the old Stock. Mr. Ray drew a rough Draught of this Matter, in the Tables of Plants inserted into Bishop Wilkins's Book, of a Real Character, and Philoso­phical [Page 257] Language; and was soon followed by Dr. Morison, in his Hortus Regius Ble­sensis; who, pursuant to his own Me­thod, begun a General History of Plants; which he not living to finish, Mr. Ray undertook the whole Work anew, and very happily compleated it.

This great Performance of his, which will be a standing Monument of Modern Industry and Exactness, deserves to be more particularly described. First, there­fore, He gives an Anatomical Account, from Malpighius and Grew, of Plants in general: And because the Ancients had said nothing upon that Subject, of which, for want of Microscopes, they could on­ly have a very obscure Notion, all that he says upon that Head is Modern. Af­terwards, when he comes to particular Plants, he draws up Tables, to which he reduces the whole Vegetable Kingdom, except a very few irregular Plants, which stand by themselves. These Tables are taken from the Shape of the Flowers, Seeds, Seed-vessels, Stalks and Leaves; from the Number or Order of these when determined, and Irregularity when un­determined; from the Want, or having of particular Juices, Lympha's, Milks, Oils, Rosins, or the like: In short, from Differences, or Agreements, wholly ari­sing [Page 258] from the Plants themselves. His Descriptions are exacter than John Bau­hine's; and his are much better than those of the Generality of Botanists that were before him; and there are scarce any of theirs, which are not preferable to those of Pliny, and Dioscorides. He avoids Confusion of Synonymas, which had made former Authors tedious; and by insert­ing what was already extant in the Mala­bar-Garden, Boym's Flora Sinensis, Marc­gravius's Natural History of Brasil, Her­nandez's Account of the Plants of Mexico, Cornutus's History of the Plants of Cana­da, and other Indian Accounts of Natu­ral Rareties, into his General History, has shewed, that the Moderns have been as careful to compleat the Natural Histo­ry of remoter Countries, as to understand the Productions of their own.

It may be wonder'd at, perhaps, why I should mention this, since the Ancients were not to be blamed for being ignorant of Things which they had no Opportuni­ties of knowing. But, besides that it proves the Extent of Modern Knowledge in Natural History, which may be consi­dered, without any Regard to the Op­portunities of acquiring it, it proves also, against Sir William Temple, that the Mo­derns have done what they could in every [Page 259] Point, to make the greatest Use they were able of every Addition to their for­mer Knowledge, which might accrue to them by the Discovery of the Usefulness of the Load-Stone in Navigation. His Words are these; Pag. 49. The vast Continents of China, the East and West-Indies, the long Extent and Coasts of Africa, have been hereby introduced into our Acquain­tance, and our Maps; and great Increases of Wealth and Luxury, but none of Know­ledge brought among us, further than the Extent and Situation of Country, the Cu­stoms and Manners of so many Original Na­tions.—I do not doubt but many great and more noble Uses would have been made of such Conquests, or Discoveries, if they had fallen to the Share of the Greeks and Romans, in those Ages, when Knowledge and Fame were in as great Request as end­less Gains and Wealth are among us now: And how much greater Discoveries might have been made by such Spirits as theirs, is hard to guess. Sir William Temple here owns, that the Political Uses which can be made by such Discoveries, are inconsi­derable; though, at the same Time, he confesses, that even those have not been neglected, since he acknowledges that Men have brought from those Barbarous Nations their Customs and Manners; [Page 260] which is the only Political Use that I know of that is to be learnt by Travel. What other Advantages might have been made, is hard to tell, unless such as may conduce to the Compleating of Natural History; the Benefits whereof are agreed upon of all Hands to be very great. The Subject now before me is Botanics, which has been so far from being neglected, that all imaginable Care has been taken to compleat it. Monsieur Van Rheed, the noble Collector of the Plants that are so magnificently printed in the Eleven Vo­lumes of the Hortus Malabaricus, has ad­ded more to the Number of those for­merly known, than are to be found in all the Writings of the Ancients. When Ment­zel. Index Plantar. Multiling. in Praefa­tione. Prince Maurice of Nassaw, who gave Sir William Temple the wonderful Ac­count of the Parrot which he mentions in his Memoirs, was in Brasil, he ordered Pictures and Descriptions to be taken of all the Beasts, Birds, Fishes and Plants that could be found in that Country: They are now in the Elector of Branden­burgh's Library, fit for the Press. Every Day new Additions are made to this Part of Natural History. Breynius's, Pluke­net's, and Herman's Collections, are Mo­dern to those of Clusius, Rauwolfius, and Prosper Alpinus; as theirs are to those of [Page 261] Pliny, and Dioscorides. One is also to consider, that this is a much more labo­rious Business, than the Knowledge of Fowls, Fishes, and Quadrupeds. The Confusion in which the Ancients left Bo­tanical Knowledge, shews how little they understood it. And, which is still more remarkable, it is not only in Indian or Chinese Rareties, that our Botanical Know­ledge excels theirs; but in the Productions of Countries, equally accessible to them, as to us. There are no new Species in Europe or Asia, which the Ancient Her­barists could not have discovered; no new Soils to produce them without Seed, in case such a Thing were ever natu­rally possible. Let but a Man compare Mr. Ray's Catalogue of English Plants, and those other numerous Catalogues of the Plants of other Countries, drawn up by other Modern Botanists, with the Writings of Pliny and Dioscorides; let him run over Ray's General History, or, if that be not at hand, Gerard's, Parkin­son's, or John Bouhine's Herbals, or Ga­spar Bauhine's Pinax; and deduct every Plant, not growing wild, within the Li­mits of the Roman Empire, and he will see enough to convince him, that not on­ly this Part of Knowledge is incompara­bly more exact and large than it was for­merly; [Page 262] but also, by comparing the Wri­tings of the first Restorers of the Know­ledge of Simples, Matthiolus, Dodonaeus, Fuchsius, Turner, and the rest, with the Writings of Ray and Morison, that it has been always growing, and will do so still, till the Subject is exhausted.

It is well known that Travelling in Ma­hometan Countries is very dangerous; that it is what no Man that makes Learn­ing his Aim in Journeying, would wil­lingly undertake, if he were not very ar­dently possessed with the Love of it. So that whatsoever Perils the Ancient Sages endured in their Journeys into Egypt for Knowledge, are equalled at least, if not out-done, by our Modern Sages; to use that Word, in Sir William Temple's Sence, for one that goes far and near to seek for Knowledge. Nay, I may safely add, that a few inquisitive and learned Travel­lers, such as Rauwolfius, Prosper Alpinus, Bellonius, Guillandinus, and Sir George Wheeler, have acquainted the learned Men of these Parts of the World with the Natural History of the Countries of the Levant, not only better than they could have known it by reading the Books of the Ancients; but, in many Particulars, better than the Ancients themselves, Na­tives of those very Countries, knew it, if [Page 263] the extant Books can enable us to give a competent Judgment in this Matter. And if Travelling far for Knowledge be sufficient to recommend the Ancients to our Imitation, I may observe, that Mr. Ed­mond Halley, who went to St. Helena, an Island situate in the 16th Degree of Southern Latitude, to take an Account of the Fixed Stars in the Southern Hemi­sphere, which are never visible to us who live in the Northern; and to Dantzick, to conferr about Astronomical Matters, with the great Hevelius, has taken much larger Journeys than any of the Ancients ever did in the sole Pursuit of knowledge. So much for the Natural History of Bo­dies not endued with Sensitive Life.

INsects seem to be the lowest and sim­plest Order of Animals; for which Reason I shall begin with them. That some are very beneficial to Man, afford­ing him Food and Rayment; as, the Bee, and the Silk-Worm: And others, again, [Page 264] very troublesome; as, Wasps, Hornets, Gnats, Moths, and abundance more; was formerly as well known as now. In their Observations about Bees, the An­cients were very curious. Pliny N. H. 1. 11. c. 9. mentions one Aristomachus, who spent Fifty Eight Years in observing them: And it is very evident from him, Aristo­tle, and Aelian, that, as far as they could make their Observations, the Ancients did not neglect to digest necessary Mate­rials for the Natural History of this won­derful and useful Insect. They were so particularly careful to collect what they could gather concerning it, that it is to be feared a very great Part of what they say is fabulous.

But if they were curious to collect Ma­terials for the History of this single Insect, they were, in the main, as negligent a­bout the rest. They had, indeed, Names for general Sorts of most of them; and they took notice of some, though but few, remarkable Sub-divisions. The Ex­tent of their Knowledge in this Particu­lar has been nicely shewn by Aldrovan­dus and Moufet. In their Writings one may see, that the Ancients knew nothing of many Sorts; and of those which they mention, they give very indifferent De­scriptions; contenting themselves with [Page 265] such Accounts as might, perhaps, refresh the Memories of those who knew them before, but which could signifie very lit­tle to those who had never seen them. But of their Generation or Anatomy they could know nothing considerable, since those Things are, in a great Measure, owing to Observations made by Micro­scopes; and having observed few Sub-di­visions, they could say little to the Ran­ging of those Insects which they knew already by distinct Characteristicks, un­der several Heads. For want of observ­ing the several Steps of Nature in all their Mutations, and taking notice of the Sa­gacity of many sorts of Insects, in provi­ding convenient Lodgings for themselves, and fit Harbours for their young ones, both for Shelter and Food, they often took those to be different, which were only the same Species at different Seasons; and those to be near of Kin, which on­ly Chance, not an Identity of Nature, brought together.

The Clearing of all these Things is owing to Modern Industry, since the Time that Sir William Temple has set as a Period of the Advancement of Modern Knowledge; even within these last For­ty Years. It lies, for the most part, in a very few Hands; and so is the more ea­sily [Page 266] traced. In Italy, Malpighius and Rhe­di took several Parts. Rhedi Expe­rimenta circa Gene­rationem Insectorum. exami­ned very many general Sorts, those In­sects especially which are believed to be produced from the Putrefaction of Flesh: Those he found to grow from Eggs laid by other grown Insects of the same Kinds. But he could not trace the Origination of those which are found upon Leaves, Branches, Flowers, and Roots of Trees. The Generation of those was nicely exa­mined by Malpighius, in his curious Dis­course of Galls, which is in the 2d. Part of his Anatomy of Plants; wherein he has sufficiently shewn, that those Excre­scencies and Swellings which appear in Summer upon the Leaves, tender Twigs, Fruits and Roots of many Trees, Shrubs and Herbs, from whence several sorts of Insects spring, are all caused by Eggs laid there by full grown Insects of their own Kinds; for which Nature has kindly pro­vided that secure Harbour, till they are able to come forth, and take Care of themselves. But Rhedi has gone further yet, and has made many Observations upon Insects that live, and are carried about on the Bodies of other Insects. His Observations have not been weakned by Monsieur Leeuwenhoek, whose Glasses, which are said to excel any ever yet used [Page 267] by other People, shewed him the same Animals that Monsieur Rhedi had disco­vered already; and innumerable sorts of others, never yet thought of.

Besides Monsieur Leeuwenhoek, there have been two very eminent Men in Hol­land for this Business; Goedartius and Swammerdam. Goedartius, who was no Philosopher, but one who, for his Diver­sion, took great Delight in painting all sorts of Insects, has given very exact Hi­stories of the several Changes of Cater­pillars into Butter-Flies, and Worms or Maggots into Flies; which had never be­fore been taken notice of, as specifically different. These Changes had long be­fore been observed in Caterpillars and Maggots by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Pliny: But they, who did, in a manner, all that has been done in this Matter by the Ancients, content themselves with general Things. They enter not into Minute Enquiries about the several Spe­cies of these Animals, which are very numerous: They do not state the Times of their several Changes. So that these Matters being left untouched, we have an admirable Specimen of the Modern Advancement of Knowledge, in Goedar­tius's Papers De In­sectis, Edit. Lister..

[Page 268] Still an Anatomical Solution of these Appearances was wholly unknown. What Me­tam. l. 15. Ovid says of the Metamorphoses of Insects, is suitable enough to the Design of his Poem: And there we may well al­low such a Natural Change of Caterpil­lars into Butter-Flies, as is not to be ac­counted for by the Regular Laws of Growth and Augmentation of Natural Bodies. But a Natural Historian has no need of the Fictions of a Poet. These Difficulties therefore were cleared by Swammerdam Hist. General. Insect., who, in his General History of Insects, proves, that all the Parts of the full-grown Insect, which first appears in a different Form from what it assumes afterwards, were actual­ly existent in the Foetus, which creeps about as a Caterpillar, or a Maggot, till the Wings, Horns and Feet, which are inclosed in fine Membranes, come to their full Growth; at which Time that Mem­brane, which at first was only visible, dries up, and breaks; out of which comes forth the Insect proper to that Kind; which then gendring with its like, lays such Eggs as in a seasonable Time are hatched; that so the Species, which is not generated by Chance, may always be preserved.

[Page 269] In England, Dr. Lister has done the most to compleat this Part of Natural Hi­story. His Book of Spiders gives an Ac­count of very many Species of those Ani­mals, formerly unobserved. His Latin and English Editions of Goedartius, have not only made that Author more intelli­gible, by ranging his confused Observa­tions under certain Heads conformable to Nature, which may serve also as Founda­tions to enlarge upon, as more Species shall hereafter be discovered; but also have given him an Opportunity of say­ing many new Things, pertinent to that Subject, all tending to increase our Knowledge of those small Productions of the Divine Mechanicks. And his Dis­course of Snails, lately printed, has shewn several very curious Things in that won­derful Tribe of Animals; which, though observed above Thirty Years ago, by Mr. Ray, yet had not been much believ­ed, because not sufficiently illustrated by some able Anatomist.

This is what our Age has seen; and it is not the less admirable, because it cannot be made immediately useful to humane Life: It is an excellent Argu­ment to prove, That it is not Gain alone which biasses the Pursuits of the Men of this Age after Knowledge; for here are [Page 270] numerous Instances of Learned Men, who finding other Parts of Natural Learning taken up by Men, who in all Probability would leave little for After-comers, have, rather than not contribute their Propor­tion towards the Advancement of Know­ledge, spent a World of Time, Pains and Cost, in examining the Excrescencies of all the Parts of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs, in observing the critical Times of the Changes of all sorts of Caterpillars and Maggots, in finding out by the Knife and Microscopes the minutest parts of the smallest Animals, in examining every Crevice, and poring in every Ditch, in tracing every Insect up to its Original Egg, and all this with as great Diligence, as if they had had an Alexander to have given them as many Talents, as he is said to have given to his Master Ari­stotle.

I shall put Fishes, Fowls and Quadru­peds together, because the Question as it relates to the Natural History of these Animals, may be brought into a small Compass. For as to the Anatomical part it is certain, That every Instance of the Defect of Ancient Anatomy already men­tioned, is a Proof how little the Texture of the inward Parts of all these Creatures could possibly be known, and consequent­ly [Page 271] that no Old Descriptions of these Ani­mals which should go beyond the parts immediately visible would have been con­siderable. There is hardly one eminent Modern Discovery in Anatomy, which was not first found in Brutes, and after­wards adjusted to humane Bodies. Ma­ny of them could never have been known without the Help of Live-dissections; and the rest required Abundance of Tri­als upon great Numbers of different sorts of Beasts, some appearing plainer in one sort of Animals, and some in another, before the Discoverers themselves could frame such a clear Idea of the things which they were then in Pursuit of, as that they could readily look for them in Humane Bodies; which could not be procured in so great Plenty, and of which they had not always the Convenience. All which things extremely tended to the perfecting of the Anatomy of all sorts of Brutes. About the other Part, which may comprehend an Account of their Way of Living, their Uses to humane Life, their Sagacity, and the like; the Ancients took much Pains, and went very far: And there are a great many admirable things in Aristotle's History of Animals concer­ning all these Matters. What Helps he had from Writers that lived before him [Page 272] we know not; if he had but little, it must be owned that his Book is one of the greatest Instances of Industry and Sa­gacity that perhaps has ever been given. But since, the Question is not so much, whether that is an excellent Book, as whe­ther it is perfect, it ought to be compa­red with Mr. Willoughby's Histories of Fi­shes and Birds, and Mr. Ray's Synopsis of Quadrupeds, as the perfectest Modern Books upon these Matters; and then it will be easie to make a Judgment. I shall not make it my self, because no Man can mistake, that compares them, though ne­ver so negligently, together. I name on­ly Aristotle, because he is, to us at least, an original Author: He had examined very many things himself, and though he took a great deal upon trust, yet that could not be avoided, since he had so little, that we know of, from more remote An­tiquity, and it was too vast a Work for any one single Man to go through with by himself. Aelian and Pliny seem only to have copied, and, with Submission be it spoken, their Writings are Rhapsodies of Stories and Relations partly true, and partly fabulous, which themselves had not Skill enough to separate one from the other, rather than Natural Histories; from which Accusation, even Aristotle [Page 273] himself cannot wholly be excused. To make this Comparison the easier, one may consult Gesner and Aldrovandus; or, if they are too voluminous, Wotton De Differentiis Animalium, who has put un­der one View, in several Heads, almost every thing that is to be found in any ancient Authors concerning these things. What he has collected of the Elephant, may be compared with Dr. Moulin's A­natomy of the same Creature: The An­cients Observation concerning Vipers may be read along with Rhedi's and Charas's. Their Anatomical Descriptions of many other Animals may be examined with those published by the Members of the French Academy and Mr. Ray in his Sy­nopsis: And then the Imperfections of the one, and the Excellencies of the other will be clearly seen, and the Distance be­tween each exactly stated; though per­haps this may seem too far about, since it is manifest at first Sight, That no an­cient Descriptions of any Creatures could be at present valuable, when their whole Anatomy was so imperfect. Some mistakes however might, methinks, have been pre­vented; the Egyptian Sages could sure have taught them that a Crocodile moves his under-Jaw and not his upper; they might soon have found that a Lion has [Page 274] Vertebres in his Neck, and with them by Consequence can move it upon Occasion; and has as large a Heart as other Crea­tures of his Size; that a Borellus de Mo­tu Animalium Part. II. Prop. 219. Fabulosa nar­ratio passim circumsertur de Hystrice, quae cutem tendendo, spinas illas prae­longas quibus dorsum éjus tegitur, longiùs ejaculatur. De hoc Animali enarrabo ea, quae propriis oculis vi­di. Hystrix non ejaculatur spinas suas praelongas, sed tantummodo eas arrectas retinendo tremulâ concus­sione agitat & vibrat. Hoc quidem efficitur à pelle musculosà, & à mus­culis semilunaribus, qui­bus interna cutis stipata est, qui radices spinarum erigunt & concutiunt. Vi­de quouque Raii Synop­sin Animal. Quadruped. Pag. 209. Porcupine shoots out none of his Quills upon those that set up­on him; and several other things, which would have prevented several Over-sights that are not much for the Ho­nour of Ancient Diligence. This would have saved Abundance of fabulous Relations that may be found in ancient Natura­lists. Their heaping up mon­strous Stories without giving distinguishing Marks many times to testifie which they believed, and which not, is an evident Sign, that they were not enough acquainted with these Creatures to make a tho­rough Judgment what might be relied upon, and what ought to be rejected. For accurate Skill in these things helps a Man to judge as certainly of those Relations which himself never saw, as Political Skill does to judge of Accounts of Matters that belong to civil Life, and a great deal better, by how much Nature goes in an evener Course than [Page 275] the Wills and Fancies of Men, which are the Foundations of most of the Things that are transacted in the World.

HAving now gone through with the several Parts of Natural History, I am to enquire into the State of Physico-Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Such as Astronomy, Opticks, Musick and Medicks. I put Astronomy first, because of the vast Extent, and real Nobleness of its Sub­ject; and also because it has suffered the least Eclipse of any part of Knowledge whatsoever in the barbarous Times: For when the Greeks neglected it, the Arabs, and from them the Spaniards took it up. That this Enquiry might be the more ex­actly made, and that you might be throughly convinced of the Truth in this Matter, to which chiefly our Obligation lies, Mr. Edmond Halley, whose La­bours towards the Advancement of this Science, have made him famous in so ma­ny distant Parts of the World, did me [Page 276] the Favour to communicate this follow­ing Paper.

[Page 281] Optical Instruments have been so ser­viceable in the Advancement of Astrono­my, that the Sciences which demonstrate their wonderful Properties ought next to be considered. Here also I must own my Obligation to Mr. Halley for this follow­ing Account of what the Ancients have done in them, and how much they have been out-done by Modern Mathemati­cians.

‘I suppose there are few so thorough­paced Fautors of Antiquity, as to brag much of their Skill, either in Opticks, or Dioptricks. Their Want of Opticks appears in their Want of Authors treat­ing thereon; and yet much better in their Want of Ordonnance, (as it is cal­led) in their Paintings, and Basse Re­lieve's, as has been already said in its proper Place. And as to Dioptricks, though some of the Ancients mention Refraction as a natural Effect of transpa­rent Media, yet Des Cartes was the first who, in this Age, has discovered the Laws of Refraction, and brought Dio­ptricks to a Science. And the Invention of Telescopes and Microscopes; which must be wholly allowed to this Centu­ry, has received no small Improvements from the Study and Charge of Sir Paul Neile, and some other Members of Gre­sham. [Page 282] And these are such Instruments of real Knowledge, that though we will allow the Ancients to have done all that great Genii, with due Application, could arrive at; yet, for want of them, their Philosophical Argumentation could not come up to the present Pitch; not being able to fathom the boundless Depths of the Heavens, nor to unravel the Minutiae of Nature, without the Assistance of the Glasses we are now possessed of.’

SIR William Temple having assured us Pag. 45., that it is agreed by the Learn­ed, that the Science of Musick, so admired by the Ancients, is wholly lost in the World: And that what we have now, is made up of certain Notes that fell into the Fancy of a poor Friar, in chanting his Mattins. It may seem improper to speak of Musick here, which ought rather to have been ranked amongst those Sciences, wherein the Moderns have, upon a strict Enqui­ry, been found to have been out-done by [Page 283] the Ancients. I have chosen, however, to speak of it in this Place, for these fol­lowing Reasons.

1. That whereas all Modern Mathe­maticians have paid a mighty Deference to the Ancients; and have not only used the Names of Archimedes, Apollonius and Diophantus, and the other Ancient Ma­thematicians, with great Respect; but have also acknowledged, that what fur­ther Advancements have since been made, are, in a manner, wholly owing to the first Rudiments, formerly taught: Mo­dern Musicians have rarely made use of the Writings of Aristoxenus, Ptolemee, and the rest of the Ancient Musicians; and, of those that have studied them, ve­ry few, unless their Editors, have con­fessed that they could understand them; and others have laid them so far aside, as useless for their Purpose; that it is very probable, that many excellent Composers have scarce ever heard of their Names.

II. Musick has still, and always will have very lasting Charms. Wherefore, since the Moderns have used their utmost Diligence to improve whatever was im­provable in the Writings of all sorts of Ancient Authors, upon other equally dif­ficult, and very often not so delightful Subjects, one can hardly imagine but [Page 284] that the World would, long ere now, have heard something more demonstrably proved of the Comparative Perfection of Ancient Musick, with large Harangues in the Commendation of the respective In­ventors, if their Memory had been preserved, than barely an Account of the fabulous Stories of Orpheus or Am­phion, which either have no Foundation at all; or, as Horace of old understood them Silvestres homines, sa­eer interprés (que) Deorum, Caedibus & victu foedo de­terruit Orpheus: Dictus ob hoc lenire Tigres rabidós (que) Leones. Dictus & Amphion, The­banae conditor arcis, Saxa movere sono Testudi­nis, & prece blandâ, Ducere quo vellet. Art. Poet., are allegorically to be interpreted of their redu­cing a Wild and Salvage Peo­ple to Order and Regulari­ty. But this is not urged a­gainst Sir William Temple, who is not convinced of the Ex­tent of Modern Industry, Sa­gacity, and Curiosity; though to other Admirers of Ancient Musick, who, upon Hear-say, believe it to be more perfect than the Modern, and yet are, for other Reasons, sufficiently convinced of the unwearied Diligence, and answerable Success of the Modern Learned, in retrieving and improving o­ther Parts of Ancient Knowledge, it will not appear inconsiderable.

III. Musick is a Physico-Mathematical Science, built upon fixed Rules, and stated Proportions; which, one would [Page 285] think, might have been as well improved upon the old Foundations, as upon new ones, since the Grounds of Musick have always been the same: And Guido's Scale, as Dr. Wallis assures us, is the same for Substance with the Diagramma Veterum.

IV. The Ancients had not, in the O­pinion of several who are Judges of the Matter, so many Gradations of Half-Notes and Quarter-Notes between the Whole Ones as are now used; which must of necessity introduce an unspeaka­ble Variety into Modern Musick, more than could formerly be had: Because it is in Notes, as it is in Numbers; the more there are of them, the more variously they may be combined together.

V. Excessive Commendations can sig­nifie nothing here, because every Man gives the highest Applauses to the per­fectest Thing he ever saw, or heard, of any Kind. And if he is not capable of inventing any Thing further in that Way himself, he can form no Idea of it, be­yond what himself was at that Time af­fected with.

VI. It is very probable that the An­cient Musick had all that which still most affects common Hearers. Most Men are moved with an excellent Voice, are plea­sed when Time is exactly kept, and love [Page 286] to hear an Instrument played true to a fine Voice, when the one does not so far drown the other, but that they can rea­dily understand what is sung, and can, without previous Skill, perceive that the one exactly answers the other through­out; and their Passions will be effectual­ly moved with sprightly or lamentable Compositions: In all which Things the Ancients, probably, were very perfect. To these Men, many of our Modern Compositions, where several Parts are sung or played at the same Time, would seem confused, intricate, and unpleasant: Though in such Compositions, the great­er this seeming Confusion, the more Plea­sure does the skilful Hearer take in unra­velling every several Part, and in observ­ing how artfully those seemingly disagree­ing Tones joyn, like true-cut Tallies, one within another, to make up that united Concord, which very often gives little Satisfaction to common Ears; and yet it is in such sort of Compositions, that the Excellency of Modern Musick chiefly con­sists. For, in making a Judgment of Musick, it is much the same Thing as it is of Pictures. A great Judge in Painting does not gaze upon an exquisite Piece so much to raise his Passions, as to inform his Judgment, as to approve, or to find [Page 287] fault. His Eye runs over every Part, to find out every Excellency; and his Plea­sure lies in the Reflex Act of his Mind, when he knows that he can judiciously tell where every Beauty lies, or where the Defects are discernable: Which an ordi­nary Spectator would never find out. The chiefest Things which this Man minds, is the Story; and if that is lively represented, if the Figures do not laugh when they should weep, or weep when they should appear pleased, he is satis­fied: And this, perhaps, equally well, if the Piece be drawn by Raphael, as by an ordinary Master, who is just able to make Things look like Life. So like­wise in Musick; He that hears a numerous Song, set to a very moving Tune, exqui­sitely sung to a sweet Instrument, will find his Passions raised, whilst his Un­derstanding, possibly, may have little or no Share in the Business. He scarce knows, perhaps, the Names of the Notes, and so can be affected only with an Har­mony, of which he can render no Ac­count. To this Man, what is intricate, appears confused; and therefore he can make no Judgment of the true Excellen­cy of those Things, which seem fiddling to him only, for want of Skill in Musick. Whereas on the contrary, the Skill or [Page 288] Ignorance of the Composer serve rather to entertain the Understanding, than to gratifie the Passions of a skilful Master; whose Passions are then the most tho­roughly raised, when his Understanding receives the greatest Satisfaction.

VII. It will be difficult to form a just Idea of the Pleasure which the Ancient Musick afforded, unless one reflects upon the confessedly unimitable Sweetness of the Ancient Poetry, the Greek especially; which, when sung by clear and sweet Voices, in such a manner, as that the Hearer never lost a Syllable, could scarce fail of producing those Emotions of Soul which the Poet intended to raise. And, indeed, the great End of Musick, which is to please the Audience, was anciently, perhaps, better answered than now; though a Modern Master would then have been dis-satisfied, because such Con­sorts as the Ancient Symphonies properly were, in which several Instruments, and perhaps Voices, played and sung the same Part together, cannot discover the Extent and Perfection of the Art, which here only is to be considered, so much as the Compositions of our Modern O­pera's.

From all this it may, perhaps, be not unreasonable to conclude, that though [Page 289] Pag. 45. those Charms of Musick, by which Men and Beasts, Fishes, Fowls and Serpents, were so frequently enchanted, and their ve­ry Natures changed, be really and irre­coverably lost; yet the Art of Musick, that is to say, of Singing, and Playing upon Harmonious Instruments, is, in it self, much a perfecter Thing, though, perhaps, not much pleasanter to an un­skilful Audience, than it ever was amongst the Ancient Greeks and Romans.

AFter these Mathematical Sciences, it is convenient to go to those which are more properly Physical, and in our Language alone peculiarly so called. What these want in Certainty, they have made up in Usefulness: For, if Life and Health be the greatest good Things which we can enjoy here, a Conjectural Knowledge, that may but sometimes give us Relief when those are in danger, is much more valuable than a certain knowledge of other Things, which can [Page 290] only employ the Understanding, or fur­nish us with such Conveniencies as may be spared; since we see that several Na­tions which never had them lived very happily, and did very great Things in the World.

Before I begin my Comparison be­tween Ancient and Modern Skill in Phy­sick, it may be necessary to state the Diffe­rence between an Empirick, and a Ratio­nal Physician; and to enquire how far a Rational Physician may reason right, as to what relates to the curing of his Pa­tient's Distemper, though his general Hy­potheses be wrong, and his Theories, in themselves considered, insufficient. An Empirick is properly he who, without considering the Constitution of his Pa­tient, the Symptoms of his Disease, or those Circumstances of his Case which arise from outward Accidents, admini­sters such Physick as has formerly done good to some Body else that was torment­ed with a Disease which was called by the same Name with this that his Patient now labours under. A Rational Physi­cian is he who critically enquires into the Constitution, and peculiar Accidents of Life, of the Person to whom he is to ad­minister; who weighs all the known Virtues of the Medicines which may be [Page 291] thought proper to the Case in hand; who balances all the Symptoms, and, from past Observations, finds which have been fatal, and which safe; which arise from outward Accidents, and which from the Disease it self: And who thence col­lects, which ought soonest to be remo­ved, which may be neglected, and which should be preserved or augmented; and thereupon prescribes accordingly.

Now it is evident, that such a Man's Prescriptions may be very valuable, be­cause founded upon repeated Observations of the Phaenomena of all Diseases. And he may form Secondary Theories, which, like Ptolemee's Eccentricks and Epicycles, shall be good Guides to Practice; not by giving a certain Insight into the first Cau­ses, and several Steps, by which the Dis­ease first began, and was afterwards car­ried on; but by enabling the Physician to make lucky Conjectures at proper Courses, and fit Medicines, whereby to relieve or cure his Patient. And this may be equally successful, whether he resolves every Thing into Hot or Cold, Moist or Dry; into Acids, or Alkali's; into Salt, Sulphur, or Mercury; or into any Thing else. He does not know, for Instance, that Spittle, Bile, and the Pancreatick Juice, are the main Instruments of Di­gestion; [Page 292] yet he sees that his Patient di­gests his Meat with great Difficulty: He is sure that, as long as that lasts, the sick Man cannot have a good Habit of Body; he finds that the Distemper arises some­times, though not always, from a visible Cause; and he has tried the Goodness of such and such Medicines, in seemingly parallel Cases. He may be able therefore to give very excellent Advice, though he cannot, perhaps, dive into the Nature of the Distemper so well as another Man; who having greater Anatomical Helps, and being accustomed to reason upon more certain Physiological Principles, has made a strict Enquiry into that very Case: And so by Consequence, though he cannot be said to know so much of the Essence of the Disease as that other Man, yet, perhaps, their Method of Practice, notwithstanding the great Disparity of each others Knowledge, shall be, in the main, the same.

Though all this seems very certain, yet, in the Argument before us, it is not an easie Thing to state the Question so equally, as to satisfie all contending Sides. He that looks into the Writings of the Generality of the Rational Physicians, as they called themselves, by way of Emi­nence; that is to say, of those who, [Page 293] about Fifty Years ago, set up Hippocrates and Galen, as the Parents and Perfecters of Medicinal Knowledge, will find, throughout all their Writings, great Con­tempt of every Thing that is not plainly deducible from those Texts. On the o­ther Hand, If he dips into the Books of the Chymical Philosophers, he will meet with equal Scorn of those Books and Me­thods, which they, in Derision, have cal­led Galenical. And yet it is evident, that practising Physicians of both Parties have often wrought very extraordinary Cures by their own Methods. So that there seems to have been equal Injustice of all Hands, in excluding all Methods of Cure not built upon their own Principles. Here therefore, without being positive in a Dis­pute, about which the Parties concerned are not themselves agreed, I shall only offer these few Things. (1.) That if the Greatness of any one particular Genius were all that was to be looked after, Hip­pocrates alone seems to have been the Man, whose Assertions in the Practical Part of Physick might be blindly received: For he, without the Help of any great Assi­stances that we know of, did that which, if it were still to do, would seem suffi­cient to employ the united Force of more than one Age. He was scrupulously [Page 294] exact in distinguishing Diseases, in ob­serving the proper Symptoms of each, and taking notice of their Times and Accidents, thereby to make a Judgment how far they might be esteemed danger­ous, and how far safe. Herein his parti­cular Excellency seems to have lain; and this, in the Order of Knowledge, is the first Thing that a Rational Physician ought to make himself Master of: Which is a sure Argument that Hippocrates through­ly understood what Things were necessa­ry for him to study with the greatest Care, in order to make his Writings always use­ful to Posterity. (2.) That though we should allow the Methods of Practice used by the Ancients, to have been as per­fect, nay, perfecter than those now in use, which some great Men have eagerly con­tended for; yet it does not follow, that they understood the whole Compass of their Profession so well as it is now un­derstood; because it is absolutely impossi­ble to form just Theories of all Diseases, so as to lay down the perfectest Methods of Cure possible, which shall be adapted to all Persons, in all Circumstances, till Anatomy and Physiology are perfectly known; and by Consequence, later Theories are always more esteemable, as they are raised upon newer Discoveries in [Page 295] Anatomy and Physiology: So that we may be sure no Ancient Theories can be so excellent as some of those which have been devised by Modern Philosophers. (3.) That if the Addition of every new Medicine be an useful Accession to the Body of Physick, then a new Method of preparing known Medicines; of making those Things profitable and noble Reme­dies, which before were dreaded as Poy­sons, or laid by as useless; and of trying such Experiments upon Bodies yet unexa­mined, as will soon and certainly discover some of their most principal Virtues must be of unspeakable Advantage, and make the Knowledge of those who possess such a Method justly more valuable than of those who want it. But this relates more particularly to Chymistry, of which e­nough has been said already. (4.) That if the Practice of proper Judges be a reasonable Prejudice for or against any Thing, then this Science has received vast Improvements of late Years: For now the Generality of Physicians ac­quiesce in Modern Theories, or, which in the present Dispute is all one, advance new ones upon Anatomical and Physical Principles, pursuant to those Discoveries which have been lately made. In their Practice they mix Galenical and Chymical [Page 296] Medicines together. They own that Ga­lenical Ways of preparing Drugs, ancient­ly made use of in the Practice of Physick, are, in many Cases, not so valuable as Chymical ones. In short, though they pay a due Respect to the Writings of the Ancients; and in those Things where they find by their own Experience, that the Ancient Observations hold, follow their Directions; yet their constant Lan­guage, and as constant Practice, when­soever one opposes Ancient Authorities to them, is, That the Ancients did very well for their Time; but that Experience, and further Light, has taught them better Things. This, I must needs own, has very great Weight with me, who am apt, caeteris paribus, to believe every Man in his own Way; Physicians especially, because their Science is entirely got by a long Series of repeated Experiments and Observations: So that it seems to be al­most impossible, but that, in all such Ca­ses, where Men have the Assistance of former Light, and where the Subject up­on which they employ their Pains want­ed a great deal of that Perfection, which those that study it have an Idea of, as still wanting, and can only be attained by a longer Experience, successive Ages must make great Additions to the former Stock. [Page 297] (5.) That though the noble Discoveries of these latter Ages might, possibly, be found in Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen, yet, since no Interpreters could ever find them there, till they had been discovered anew by Modern Physicians, who fol­lowed Nature only as their Guide, these late Discoverers have an equal Right to the Glory due to such Discoveries, as the Ancients could possibly have: They both copied after the same Original; they both decyphered the same Characters, that be­fore were unintelligible; not by reading Books, but by trying Experiments, and making Observations. And therefore Vander Linden, Almeloveen, and the rest of the Bigots for the Ancients, deal very unjustly, when they cry out, upon the Sight of any new Discovery, This Hip­pocrates knew, This Aristotle taught. Could these Men have made these Disco­veries by studying those Ancient Authors, without the Assistance of Dr. Harvey, Asel­lius, Pecquet, Malpighius, or the rest? This will hold, in case these Things had really been in the Ancients: That they are not, I hope I have proved already. To which I shall only add, that former Commenta­tors wanted neither Greek, nor Skill; and had such Things been in their Writings, they would infallibly have found them there.

[Page 298] It is easie now to tell what Acquisi­tions have been made since Galen's Days. When Hippocrates lived, Anatomy was a rude, imperfect Thing: It has since been growing; and the Theories of all Diseases have been proportionably more compleat. Chymistry has been introduced into Phy­sick; thereby the Materia Medica has been enlarged by some as noble Medicines as any the Ancients were acquainted with, the Nauseousness of many Medicines has been removed; and they have been made less clogging, and more efficacious, since they may be taken in lesser Quantities, and in more pleasant Vehicles; to as good, if not better purpose than before. Bota­nicks have been unspeakably enlarged; and thereby also the Dispensatories have been stocked with some excellent Reme­dies, that the old World was unacquaint­ed with. If these Particulars be rightly stated, as they seem to be, they will go very far to decide the Question. And so I shall leave it, without determining any Thing positively about it.

HAving gone through with the most considerable Branches of Natural and Mathematical Knowledge, I am now to enquire into the Comparative Excel­lency of Ancient and Modern Books of Philosophy, thereby to see in which of them Nature, and its Operations, are ex­plained best. Here I shall first enquire into the several Methods of Philosophi­zing; and afterwards, into the Intrin­sick Worth of the Doctrines themselves. Moderns here are taken in a very strict Sence. I shall mention none who have made any Pag. 44. Entries upon this noble Stage of Nature above LXXX. Years ago, since the Time of those first Flights of the Re­storers of Learning, that are so exceeding­ly applauded by Sir William Temple. For Natural Philosophy was the last Part of Knowledge which was cultivated with any particular Care, upon the Revival of Learning; though Natural History, which is a principal Ground-work, had been long before increasing, and a considerable [Page 300] Heap of Materials had been collected, in order to the Work.

As for Modern Methods of Philosophi­zing, as compared with the Ancient, I shall only observe these following Parti­culars. (1.) No Arguments are receiv­ed as cogent, no Principles are allowed as current, amongst the celebrated Philo­sophers of the present Age, but what are in themselves intelligible; that so a Man may frame an Idea of them, of one sort or other. Matter and Motion, with their several Qualities, are only considered in Modern Solutions of Physical Problems. Substantial Forms, Occult Qualities Pag. 46., Intentional Species, Idiosyncrasies, Sympa­thies and Antipathies of Things, are ex­ploded; not because they are Terms used by Ancient Philosophers, but because they are only empty Sounds, Words whereof no Man can form a certain and determi­nate Idea. (2.) Forming of Sects and Par­ties in Philosophy, that shall take their De­nominations from, and think themselves obliged to stand by the Opinions of any particular Philosophers, is, in a manner, wholly laid aside. Des Cartes is not more believed upon his own Word, than Ari­stotle: Matter of Fact is the only Thing ap­pealed to; and Systems are little further regarded, than as they are proper to in­struct [Page 301] young Beginners, who must have a general Notion of the whole Work, before they can sufficiently comprehend any particular Part of it; and who must be taught to reason by the Solutions of other Men, before they can be able to give Rational Solutions of their own: In which Case, a false Hypothesis, inge­niously contrived, may now and then do as much Service as a true one. (3.) Ma­thematicks are joyned along with Physio­logy, not only as Helps to Men's Under­standings, and Quickners of their Parts; but as absolutely necessary to the compre­hending of the Oeconomy of Nature, in all her Works. (4.) The new Philoso­phers, as they are commonly called, a­void making general Conclusions, till they have collected a great Number of Experiments or Observations upon the Thing in hand; and, as new Light comes in the old Hypotheses, fall with­out any Noise or Stir. So that the In­ferences that are made from any Enqui­ries into Natural Things, though per­haps set down in general Terms, yet are (as it were by Consent) received with this Tacit Reserve, As far as the Experi­ments or Observations already made, will warrant.

[Page 302] How much these Four Things will enlarge Natural Philosophy is easie to guess. I do not say that none of these things were anciently done; but only that they were not then so general. The Corpuscular Philosophy is in all Probability the oldest, and its Principles are those in­telligible ones I just now commended. But its Foundations being very large, and requiring much Time, Cost, and Patience to build any great Matters upon, it soon fell; before it seems to have been throughly un­derstood. For it seems evident, That E­picurus minded nothing but the raising of a Sect, which might talk as plausibly as those of Aristotle, or Plato, since he de­spised all Manner of Learning, even Mathematicks themselves, and gloried in this, that he spun all his Thoughts out of his own Brain; a good Argument of his Wit indeed, but a very ordinary one of that Skill in Nature, which Lucretius ex­tols in him every time that he takes Oc­casion to speak of him. The whole An­cient Philosophy looks like a thing of Ostentation and Pomp, otherwise I can­not understand why Plato should reprove Eudoxus and Archytas, for trying to make their Skill in Geometry useful in Mat­ters of civil Life, by inventing of Instru­ments of publick Advantage; or think [Page 303] that those sublime Truths were debased when the unlearned part of Mankind have been the better for them. And therefore, as Plutarch complains in his Life of Marcellus, Mechanical Arts were despised by Geometers till Archimedes's Time: Now though this be particularly spoken there by Plutarch of the making of Instruments of Defence and Offence in War, yet it is also applicable to all the Ancient Philosophy and Mathematicks in general. The old Philosophers seemed still to be afraid that the common People should despise their Arts if commonly understood; this made them keep for the most Part to those Studies which re­quired few Hands and Mechanical Tools to compleat them: Which to any Man that has a right Notion of the Extent of a natural Philosopher's Work, will appear absolutely necessary. Above all, the An­cients did not seem sufficiently to under­stand the Connection between Mathema­tical Proportions of Lines and Solids, in an abstracted Proposition, and in every Part of the Creation; at least in their reasonings about the Causes of Natural Things, they did not take any great pains to shew it. When Galen was to give an Account of Vision in his Books De U. P. lib. X. cap. 12, 13, 14. De Usu Partium, because he [Page 304] had Occasion to use some few Geome­trical Terms, as Cone, Axis, Triangle, and the like; he makes a long Excuse, and tells a tedious Story of a Daemon that appeared to him, and commanded him to write what he did; and all this least the Physicians of that Age should think that he conjured, and so take a Prejudice against all that he said. This shews that in Galen's Time at least, there was little Correspondence between Mathe­matical and Physical Sciences, and that Mankind did not believe that there was so intimate a Relation between them as it is now generally known there is. Ma­ny a Man that cannot demonstrate any one single Proposition in Euclid, takes it now for granted that Geometry is of in­finite Use to a Philosopher; and it is be­lieved now upon trust, because it is be­come an Axiom amongst the Learned in these Matters. And if it had been so re­ceived in Galen's Time, or by those more ancient Authors, whom Galen's Contem­poraries followed, or pretended at least to follow, as their Patterns; such as Hip­pocrates, whom all sides reverenced, Hero­philus, Erasistratus, Asclepiades, and seve­ral more, there would have been no need of any Excuses for what he was doing; since his Readers being accustomed to [Page 305] such sort of Reasonings, would either readily have understood them, or acqui­esced in them as legitimate Ways of Proof. If Three, or Four Mathematical Terms were so affrighting, how would those learned Discourses of Steno and Croone, concerning muscular Motion have moved them? How much would they have been amazed at such minute Calculations of the Motive-strength of all sorts of Mus­cles in the several general sorts of Ani­mals, as require very great Skill in Geo­metry, even to understand them, which are made by Borellus in his Discourses of the Motion of Animals? It is not enough in this Case, to quote a Saying or Two out of some great Man amongst the An­cients, or to tell us that Plato said long ago, That God geometrizes in all his Works; as long as no Man can produce any one Ancient Essay upon any one Part of Physiology, where Mathematical Ra­tiocinations were introduced to salve those Phaenomena of Natural Things, upon which it was possible to talk plausibly without their Help. At least it is certain, That they contented themselves with ge­neral Theories, without entring into mi­nute Disquisitions into the several varie­ties of Things, as is evident in the Two Cases already alledged, of Vision and Mus­cular Motion.

[Page 306] Now as this Method of Philosophizing laid down above, is right, so it is easie to prove that it has been carefully followed by Modern Philosophers. My Lord Bacon was the first great Man who took much pains to convince the World that they had hitherto been in a wrong Path, and that Nature her self, rather than her Secretaries, was to be addressed to by those who were desirous to know very much of her Mind. Monsieur Des Cartes, who came soon after, did not perfectly tread in his Steps, since he was for doing most of his Work in his Closet, concluding too soon, before he had made Experiments enough; but then to a vast Genius he joined exquisite Skill in Geometry, and working upon intelligi­ble Principles in an intelligible Manner; though he very often failed of one Part of his End, namely, a right Explication of the Phaenomena of Nature, yet by marrying Geometry and Physicks toge­ther, he put the World in Hopes of a Masculine Off-spring in process of Time, though the first Productions should prove abortive. This was the State of Natu­ral Philosophy, when those great Men who after King Charles II's Restoration joined in a Body, called by that Prince himself, the ROYAL SOCIETY, went on with the Design; they made it their Bu­siness [Page 307] to set their Members a work to col­lect a perfect History of Nature, in or­der to establish thereupon a Body of Phy­sicks; what has been done towards it by the Members of that illustrious Body will be evident by considering that Boyle, Barrow, Newton, Huygens, Malpighius, Leeuwenhoek, Willoughby, Willis, and Abun­dance more already named amongst the great Advancers of real Learning, have belonged to it: If it shall be thought too tedious a Work to examine all their Writings, Mr. Boyle's Works, any one good System of the Cartesian Philosophy, Monsieur Rohault's for Instance, or to comprehend all under one, a Book Inti­tuled, Philosophia Vetus & Nova ad Usum Scholae accommodata, may be consulted, and then it will be evident enough of which Side the Verdict ought to be gi­ven; in the last Book especially it is evi­dent how very little the Ancients did in all Parts of Natural Philosophy, and what a great Compass it at present takes, since it makes the Comparison I all along appeal to.

Thus, it seems to me to be very evi­dent, That the Ancients Knowledge in all Matters relating to Mathematicks and Physicks was incomparably inferiour to that of the Moderns. These are Subjects, [Page 308] many of them at least, which require great Intenseness of Thought, great Strength and Clearness of Imagination, even on­ly to understand them, how much more then to invent them? The Ancient Ora­tors, who spoke so great things in Praise of Eloquence, who make it so very hard a thing to be an Orator, had little or no Notion of the Difficulty of these Sciences; the Romans especially who despised what they did not understand, and who did not without some Indignation learn of a People whom themselves had conquered. But if they could have conceived what a Force of Genius is required to invent such Propositions as are to be found in the Writings of their own Mathematicians, and of the Modern Geometers and Phi­losophers, they would soon have acknow­ledged that there was need of as great at least, if not greater Strength of Parts and Application to do very considerable things in these Sciences as in their own admired Eloquence, which was never more art­fully employed than in commending it self: The Panegyricks which they made upon Geometry, were rather Marks of their Pedantry than of their Skill; Plato and Pythagoras admired them, and there­fore they did so too, out of a blind Reve­rence to those great Names. Otherwise [Page 309] amongst those numerous Commendations which are given to Archimedes, some would have been spent upon the many noble Theorems which he discovered, and not almost all upon the Engines where­with he baffled Marcellus at the Siege of Syracuse. The Proposition, That the Su­perficies of a Sphere is equal to the Area's of Four of its greatest Circles, which is one of the most wonderful Inventions that was ever found in Geometry, shews him to have been a much greater Man, than all that is said of him by the Roman, or Greek Historians. Had experimental Philosophy been anciently brought upon the Stage, had Geometry been solemnly and generally applied to the Mechanism of Nature, and not solely made use of to instruct Men in the Art of Reasoning, and even that too, not very generally nei­ther, the Moderns would not have had so great Reason to boast as now they have: For these are things which come under ocular Demonstration, which do not depend upon the Fancies of Men for their Approbation, as Oratory and Poetry very often do. So that one may not only in general say that the Ancients are out-done by the Moderns in these Matters, but also assign most of the par­ticulars, and determine the Proportion [Page 310] wherein and how far they have been ex­ceeded, and shew the several Steps where­by this sort of Learning has from Age to Age received Improvement; which ends Disputes and satisfies the Understanding at once.

HItherto in the main I please my self, that there cannot be much said a­gainst what I have asserted, though I have all along taken Care not to speak too positively, where I found that it was not an easie Thing to vindicate every Proposi­tion without entring into a Controversy, which would bear plausible things on both sides, and so might be run out into a Multitude of Words, which in Matters of this kind are very tiresome. But there are other Parts of Learning still behind, where the very offering to compare the Moderns to the Ancients may seem a Pa­radox; where the subject Matter is en­tirely ancient, and is chiefly, if not al­together contained in Books that were [Page 311] written before the Ancient Learning suf­fered much Decay.

Under this Head Philology and Divi­nity may very properly be ranked. I place Divinity last to avoid Repetition, because what I have to say concerning Modern Philology will strengthen many things that may be urged in the Behalf of Mo­dern Divinity as opposed to the Ancient.

In speaking of the Extent and Excel­lency of the Philological Learning of the Moderns within these last 200 Years, I would not be mis-understood. For the Question is not whether any Modern Cri­tick has understood Plato or Aristotle, Homer or Pindar, as well as they did them­selves, for that were ridiculous; but whe­ther Modern Industry may not have been able to discover a great many Mistakes in the Assertions of the Ancients about Matters not done in their own Times, but several Ages before they were born. For the Ancients did not live all in one Age, and though they appear all under one Denomination, and so as it were up­on a Level, like things seen at a vast Di­stance, to us who are very remote from the youngest of them; yet, upon a near­er View, they will be found very remote each from the other; and so as liable to Mistakes when they talk of Matters not [Page 312] transacted in their own Times, as we are when reason of Matters of Fact, which were acted in the Reign of William the Conquerour. Wherefore if one reflects up­on the Alteration which Printing has in­troduced into the State of Learning, when every Book once printed becomes out of Danger of being lost, or hurt by Copiers; and that Books may be compared, exa­mined, and canvassed with much more Ease than they could before, it will not seem ridiculous to say, That Joseph Sca­liger, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, Henricus Valesius, Selden, Usher, Bochart, and other Philologers of their Stamp, may have had a very comprehensive View of An­tiquity, such a one as Strangers to those Matters, can have no Idea of; nay a much greater than, taken altogether, any one of the Ancients themselves ever had, or indeed, could have. Demosthenes and Aristophanes knew the State of their own Times better than Casaubon or Salmasius: But it is a Question whether Boëthius or Sidonius Apollinaris knew the State of De­mosthenes's Time so well; yet these also are Ancients to us, and have left behind them Writings of a very estimable Value. Li­terary Commerce was anciently not so frequent as now it is, though the Roman Empire made it more easie than other­wise it could have been.

[Page 313] In Ecclesiastical Antiquity this can be more fully proved than it can in Civil; because Monuments of that Kind are more numerous, and have been better preserved. How widely were the Greek Writers many times mistaken, when they gave an Account of the Affairs of the La­tin Churches. And how very imperfect, many Times, were the Accounts which the Western Churches had of Things of the greatest Moment that had been deter­mined in the East? Though the Coun­cil of Nice was Oecumenical, yet the A­frican Churches knew so little of its Ca­nons above Fifty Years after it was held, that the Bishops of Rome imposed Ca­nons made in another Council, held se­veral Years after, in another Place, upon them, as Canons made in the Council of Nice: Yet they were all, at that Time, under one common Government, and these Things were acknowledged by all Sides to be of Eternal Concernment. The same Negligence, if not greater, is discernable in Matters which were stu­died, rather as Recreation and Diversion, than as necessary Business. How many of the Ancients busied themselves about Exa­mining into the Antiquities of several Na­tions, especially after the Old Testament was translated into Greek? Yet how few [Page 314] of them understood the Languages of those Countries of which they disputed? There were but two of the Ancient Fa­thers, that we know of, that pretended to Learning, who understood Hebrew ac­curately; Origen, and St Hierom: And how well St. Hierom understood it, is now certainly known; not like the Light­foot's, the Buxtorf's, the Drusius's, and the Cappell's of the present Age, one may be very well assured: The other Oriental Languages, even these Inquisitive Fathers knew very little, or nothing, of. To how good purpose they have been cultivated by the Moderns, the Writings of Selden, Bo­chart, Pocock, and several others, do abun­dantly declare. When Pocock and Golius went into the East, to bring away their Learning, they went to very good pur­pose indeed. The Bodleyan and Leyden-Libraries can witness what vast Heaps of Eastern MSS. have been brought by such Men as these, into Europe. One would think I were drawing up a Catalogue, not writing of a Letter, if I should enu­merate the Books which have been print­ed about the Oriental Learning, within these last Seventy Years: And how much they have enlightned all manner of Anti­quity, is easie to tell.

[Page 315] How clearly has the Old Chronology and Geography been stated by Modern Cri­ticks and Philologers; and the Mistakes and Carelesness of many Writers detect­ed, who were esteemed Authentick even in the Times wherein they lived? Sel­den and Bochart, to name no more at pre­sent, have plainly proved, that all the Ancient Greek Antiquaries were not near so well acquainted with the Originals of that Mythology, which then made up a good part of their Religion, as well as of their Learning, as it is known at present, since the Languages of those Countries, from whence most of those Rites and Stories took their Original, have been carefully examined, and critically stu­died. Is it not a very odd Thing, that of so many as have written of the Pyra­mids, there should not be one exact Ac­count of them, Ancient nor Modern, till Mr. Greaves described them? They were admired formerly, as much as now Barba­ra Pyrami­dum sileat miracula Memphis. Martial.; reckoned amongst the Seven Wonders of the World; and mentioned, from Hero­dotus's Time, downwards, by all that gave any Account of Egypt: Yet most Men copied after Herodotus; and many of the rest, who did not, spoke by guess. None of the extant Ancient Authors was so exact as Sir George Sandys, who want­ed [Page 316] nothing but Mathematical Skill, to have left nothing for Mr. Greaves, who came after him, to do. This is an emi­nent Instance, whereby we may give a certain Judgment of the Historical Exact­ness of the Ancients, compared to that of the Moderns. It may be improved to considerable Purposes; at least, it is of great use to justifie those Modern Writers, who have, with great Freedom, accused some of the Greatest of the Ancients, of Carelesness in their Accounts of Civil Occurrencies, as well as of Natural Ra­reties; and who have dared to believe their own Reason, against the positive Evidence of an old Historian, in Mat­ters wherein one would think that he had greater Opportunities of knowing the certain Truth, than any Man that has lived for several Ages.

But here I expect that it should be ob­jected, that this is not to be esteemed as a Part of Real Learning. To pore in old MSS. to compare various Readings; to turn over Glossaries, and old Scholia upon Ancient Historians, Orators and Poets; to be minutely critical in all the little Fa­shions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the Memory whereof was, in a manner, lost within Fifty or an Hundred Years af­ter they had been in use; may be good [Page 317] Arguments of a Man's Industry, and Willingness to drudge; but seem to signi­fie little to denominate him a great Ge­nius, or one who was able to do great Things of himself. The Objection is specious enough, and the Indiscretions of many Modern Commentators have given but too much Colour for it; which has, in our Nation especially, been riveted in Men's Minds, more, perhaps, than in any other learned Nation in Europe: Tho in Enquiries into the remotest Antiquities of the oldest Nations, perhaps no People have done near so much as some learned English-Men. But this Objection lies chiefly against the Men, not the Know­ledge, the Extent whereof it is only my Business to enquire into; and yet, even there too, it is without Ground; for, who­ever will be at the pains to reflect upon the vast Extent of the various Knowledge which such Men as those I named before had treasured together, which they were able to produce to such excellent Purposes in their Writings, must confess that their Genius's were little, if at all, inferiour to their Memories; those among them espe­cially, who have busied themselves in re­storing corrupted Places of Ancient Au­thors. There are Thousands of Corre­ctions and Censures upon Authors to be [Page 318] found in the Annotations of Modern Cri­ticks, which required more Fineness of Thought, and Happiness of Invention, than, perhaps, Twenty such Volumes as those were, upon which these very Criti­cisms were made. For, though, gene­rally speaking, good Copies are absolute­ly necessary; though the Critick himself must have a perfect Command of the Language and particular Stile of his Au­thor, must have a clear Idea of the Way and Humour of the Age in which he wrote; many of which Things require great Sagacity, as well as great Industry; yet there is a peculiar Quickness in Dis­cerning what is proper to the Passage then to be corrected, in distinguishing all the particular Circumstances necessary to be observed, and those, perhaps, very numerous; which raise a judicious Cri­tick very often as much above the Author upon whom he tries his Skill, as he that discerns another Man's Thoughts, is there­in greater than he that thinks. And the Objection that is commonly made against Editors of old Books, That every Man cries up his own Author, beyond all that have ever wrote upon that Subject, or in that Way, will rarely hold of truly great Criticks, when they pass their Judg­ments, and employ their Thoughts upon [Page 319] indifferent Books; since some have taken as much Pains, in their Critical Annota­tions Vide Petri Cu­naei Ani­madversio­nes in Non­ni Dionysia­ca., to expose Authors who have had the good Luck to be exceedingly com­mended by learned Men, as ever others did to praise them.

Soon after Learning was restored, when Copies of Books, by Printing, were pretty well multiplied, Criticism be­gan; which first was exercised in Setting out Correct Editions of Ancient Books; Men being forced to try to mend the Co­pies of Books, which they saw were so very negligently written. It soon be­came the Fashionable Learning; and af­ter Erasmus, Budaeus, Beatus Rhenanus and Turnebus had dispersed that sort of Knowledge through England, France, Germany, and the Low-Countries, which before had been kept altogether amongst the Italians, it was, for about One Hun­dred and Twenty Years, cultivated with very great Care: And if since it has been at a Stand, it has not been because the Parts of Men are sunk; but because the Subject is, in a manner, exhausted; or, at least, so far drained, that it requires more Labour, and a greater Force of Ge­nius, now to gather good Gleanings, than formerly to bring home a plentiful Harvest; and yet this Age has produced [Page 320] Men who, in the last, might have been reckoned with the Scaligers, and the Lip­sius's. It is not very long since Holste­nius, Bochart, and Gerhard Vossius died; but if they will not be allowed to have been of our Age, yet Isaac Vossius, Nicho­las Heinsius, Frederick Gronovius, Ezekiel Spanheym and Graevius may come in; the two last of them are still alive, and the others died but a few Years since. Eng­land, perhaps, cannot shew a proportion­able Stock of Criticks of this Stamp. In Henry VIII's Time there was an admi­rable Set of Philologers in the Nation; though there is great difference to be made between a good Critick, and a Man that writes Latin as easily and correctly as his Mother-Tongue. Sir Thomas More, Car­dinal Poole, Linacre, Collet, Cheek, As­cham, and several more, often to be met with in Erasmus's Epistles, wrote Latin with a Purity that no Italian needed then to have been ashamed of. Let the Sub­ject they wrote have been what it would, one may see by the Purity of their Stile, that they wrote in a Language which expressed their Thoughts without Con­straint. A great Familiarity with the politest Authors of Antiquity was what these Men valued themselves much upon; and it was then the Delight of the Nation, [Page 321] as much as their Disputes in Religion would give them Leave. Though this seemed to sink by degrees, yet that after­wards Critical Skill in Antiquity was va­lued and pursued by our learned Men, will not be questioned by those who con­sider that Sir Henry Savile, Mr. Cambden, Archbishop Usher, Mr. Selden, Sir John Marsham, Mr. Gataker (not to mention some now alive, whose Fame will one Day equal that of the Scaligers and the Grotius's of other Nations) were the Glo­ries of our Country, as well as of the Age they lived in.

In short, to conclude this Argument: Though Philological and Critical Learn­ing has been generally accused of Pedan­try, because it has sometimes been pur­sued by Men who seemed to value them­selves upon Abundance of Quotations of Greek and Latin, and a vain Ostentation of diffused Reading, without any Thing else in their Writings to recommend them; yet the Difficulty that there is, to do any Thing considerable in it, joyned with the great Advantages which thereby have ac­crued to the Commonwealth of Learning, have made this no mean Head whereon to commend the great Sagacity, as well as Industry of these later Ages.

TO Philology I before added Di­vinity, and, as I hope to prove, not without Reason. As they relate to our Question, they both agree in this, that the Subject of them both is truly Ancient; and that it is impossible to be­come very excellent in either of them, without a familiar Conversation with those Original Books, to which the great Masters of both these Sciences do con­stantly appeal. Our Blessed Saviour did not reveal his Law by Halves to his Apo­stles, nor is the New Testament an imper­fect Rule of Faith: The Old Testament likewise has constantly been at hand; and the Jews have, ever since their Re­turn from the Babylonish Captivity, been scrupulously sollicitous to preserve the Sir Wil­liam Tem­ple questi­ons, p. 38. whether we have any Thing more Ancient than the Augustan Age of the Old Hebrew and Chaldaean Languages, that is Genuine. It may be said, that he designed to except the Old Testament; which I be­lieve he did: However, there being no Restriction in his Words, he him­self must own that it is loosly expressed. Genuine Hebrew and Chaldee Text of the Old Testament, pure and uncorrupted, [Page 323] to succeeding Ages. Yet, though these, together with the Writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, be Instruments with­out which no Divine can work; and though it seems almost impossible that any Man should be able to perform all the Duties of his Profession, that are in­cumbent upon him as a Scholar, without a competent Exactness in all these Things; yet it is very possible that Modern Di­vines, who make use of these Instru­ments, may be better Work-men than those Ancient Fathers, who furnished them with the greatest part.

Now, that there may be no Disputes about Terms mis-understood, it will be necessary to explain what is here meant by a perfect Divine; that is to say, such an one as may be a Standard whereon to found a Comparison. A perfect Divine ought to understand the Text of the Old and New Testament so exactly, as to have a clear Notion of every Book in general, and of the Grammatical Meaning of eve­ry Text in particular; that so he may be able to reconcile all Difficulties, and an­swer all Objections that may arise: He ought to understand the State of the Church, as to its Doctrine and Discipline, in its several Ages: He ought to be tho­roughly versed in all the General Notions [Page 324] of Ethicks, taken in their utmost Extent, to enable him to resolve such Cases of Conscience as may occurr, with Judg­ment and Satisfaction; he ought to be a Master of all the Topicks of Perswa­sion which can ever lie in his Way, that so his Exhortations may please and con­vince those whom he designs to perswade at the same Time; last of all he ought to be able to answer all the Objections which may be, or have been raised against the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, by its open or secret Enemies. These seem to be the necessary Qualifications of a Perfect Divine; it may perhaps, be questioned whether any Man did ever fully come up to this Description; nei­ther is it necessary that any should, since the Question will be as perfectly answe­red by determining who have come the nearest to it, as by assigning any particu­lar Person that ever quite reach'd up to it. For these Differences do not lie in a Ma­thematical Point, and I do not desire that any disputable things should ever be brought under Debate. One Qualifica­tion indeed, and that the greatest of all, I have omitted; but that relates not to the present Controversie, since we are not now enquiring who were the holiest Men, but who have been the greatest Masters [Page 325] of their Professions, the ancient Fathers or the Modern Divines.

The first thing required, is an exact Knowledge of the Text of the Old Te­stament. Herein even the LXX Inter­preters themselves have often failed, as has been abundantly proved by Modern Criticks. The Copies they used were sometimes faulty, and since they did not mend those Faults, it is very probable they did not see them. It has been ob­served already, That scarce any of the Fathers understood Hebrew besides Origen and St. Hierom, who therefore were fol­lowed as Oracles by many of their Suc­cessors; even that alone will not suffice, because there are no other Books written in that Language: For which Reason Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan and Arabic, have been studied by Modern Criticks; not to mention the Writings of the Rab­bins and the Talmudists, to which the An­cients were utter Strangers. If we come to Particulars, who of the Ancients ever unravelled the Chronology of the Old Testament like Archbishop Usher, and Sir John Marsham? Though Eusebius's Chronicon is a standing Evidence how much he, and Julius Africanus before him, endeavoured to clear that Matter, which was of so great Use to confound the [Page 326] vain Pretences to Antiquity of those other Nations that were so very unwilling to yield to the Jews in this Particular. Who has ever given so rational and so intelligi­ble an Account of the Design and Intent of the several parts of the ceremonial Law as Dr. Spencer? Who has acquain­ted the World with the Geography of Genesis, or the Natural History of the Bible, like Monsieur Bochart? These are much harder things than the lengthning of a fine-spun Allegory, or than a few moral Reflections which constitute the greatest part of the Ancient Comments. But the New Testament, you will say, was written in a Time that was nearer at Hand; and so was certainly better un­derstood. Without doubt it was, by the First Fathers; for which Reason their Interpretations See Mr. Dod­well's Two First Dis­sertations upon S. I­renaeus. and their Reasonings, if we could have recovered many of them would have been of infinite Value: But when once the Synagogue and the Church broke off all their Correspondence, when once the immediate Reasons of the first Establishment of many Parts of the Chri­stian Discipline, and of great Numbers of Allusions to Jewish Customs and Tra­ditions which are to be found in the New Testament, could only be known by Study and Reading, all which the first [Page 327] Christians knew without Study, as we do the Manners and Fashions of our own Age and Country, then the ancient In­terpretations of the New Testament be­gan to fail, and though some of them, S. Chrysostom's and Theodoret's especially, are in themselves, setting Antiquity aside, truly valuable; yet, for want of such a diffused Knowledge of Eastern Antiqui­ties as was necessary, and which only could be had by a long Conversation with the Books that are written in those Lan­guages, these admirable Commentators seem in several Places not to have found out the true Original of many things in the New Testament which have been dis­covered since.

To the next Thing, which is Skill in Ec­clesiastical Antiquity, I have spoken alrea­dy. The Third and the Fourth, which relate to a Divine as a Casuist, or as a Preacher, may be considered of together, wherein we of the present Age may, without Va­nity, boast of having the best Books, and of them too the greatest Numbers, upon these Subjects, written in our own Lan­guage, and by our own Countrymen, of any People in the World. The Excel­lency of a Casuist is to give such Reso­lutions of Doubts and Questions propo­sed to him, as may both suit with the [Page 328] particular Circumstances of the Person who desires Satisfaction; and also may be perfectly agreeable to the Law of God. A Preacher then seems to perform his Of­fice best, when he can at once instruct and move his Auditors; can raise their Passions, and inform their Judgment: That so every Sermon upon a Doctrinal Head may contain the Solution of a Case of Conscience. For the first of these; It is certain that many of the ablest of the Ancient Fathers were very excellent Ca­suists; as, indeed, every Man who has a right Judgment, an honest Mind, and a thorough Acquaintance with the Design of our Blessed Saviour, revealed in the Gospel, must of necessity be. And if, at this distance, many of their Decisions seem over-severe, there is as great, at least, if not greater Reason to suspect, that the Complaints now-a-days raised against them, may arise from our Degene­racy, as from their unwarrantable Strict­ness. But for the Ancient Way of Preach­ing, there is much more to be said. The great Handle by which an Hearer is en­abled to carry along with him a Preach­er's Arguments, is, Method and Order. Herein the Ancient Homilists are very defective: Flights of Rhetorick, which are more or less judiciously applied, ac­cording [Page 329] to the Abilities of the several Preachers, make up the greatest part of their Discourses: And, after Origen, most Men busied themselves in giving the Peo­ple Allegorical Interpretations of Passages of Scriptures, which were infinite, ac­cording to the Fancies of those that used them. St. Chrysostom, indeed, reformed this Custom in the Greek Church: His Authority went very far; and his Inter­pretations were almost always Literal, and, suitably to his vast Genius, very ju­dicious. But he that considers Preaching as an Art capable of Rules and Improve­ment, will find a mighty Difference be­tween a just, methodical Discourse, built upon a proper Text of Scripture, where­in, after the Text is carefully explained, some one Duty or Doctrine of Religion, thence arising, is plainly proved by just and solid Arguments, from which such Topicks of Persuasion are drawn at last, as are the most likely to raise such an Af­fection, and engage those Passions in the Minds of all the Auditors as will please and move good Men, and silence, at least, if not persuade the Bad; and between a loose, paraphrastical Explication of a large Portion of Scripture, which ends at last in a general Ethical Harangue, which is the usual Method of most of [Page 330] St. Chrysostom's Homilies. Whereas by the former Method, strictly followed, very many of our English Sermons, espe­cially those of the Great Men of our own Church, since the Restauration, are Solutions of the most difficult Que­stions in Divinity, and just Discourses upon the several Duties of the Chri­stian Life; and this with so much Smoothness, so great Beauty of Lan­guage, and such a just Application of the greatest Ornaments of True and Masculine Eloquence, to Things at first View very often the most opposite, that the Hearer takes a Pleasure to think, that then he is most instructed, when he is best pleased. The Want of this Method in the Ancient Homi­lists, is the great Reason why they are so little read. It is not because they are hard to be understood; for an indifferent Skill in Greek and Latin is sufficient to go through with the greatest part of them: But Want of Method, great Multiplicity of Words, and frequent Repetitions, tire out most Readers: They know not how far they are got, but by the Number of the Leaves; and so having no Rest for their Minds to lean upon, when once they begin to be weary, they are [Page 331] soon disgusted. If therefore these In­conveniences are, in a great Measure, avoided by Modern Preachers, their Sermons are, in their Kind, more per­fect, though the Matter which both of them work upon be the same. And if these Things be the Effects of great Study, and of an exact Judgment, at least in those who contributed the most to so great an Alteration, then this also may come in as a proper E­vidence of the Increase of Modern Learning; and with much more Rea­son than those Things which only tend to divert a Man when he is unfit for serious Business. Who those are who have succeeded the Hookers, the Chil­lingworths, the Sandersons, and the Ham­monds of this last Age, to such excel­lent purpose for the present, and those that shall come after, I need not name; but shall rather conclude with that Saying in Velleius Paterculus, up­on a not much unlike Occasion; Vi­vorum ut admiratio magna, ita censura difficilis est.

The last Thing which I mentioned as necessary for a Divine, is, To be able to answer such Objections as have been, or may be raised against the Christian Faith. Of the Controversies which [Page 332] have arisen among Christians, and the Adversaries with whom they have been obliged to engage, there are in the pre­sent Account two Sorts; those which the Ancient Fathers were concerned with, and those that appeared since. Of the Latter it may, possibly, seem hard to pass a Judgment, since one cannot well say how Men would have managed Disputes which never came in their Way. The former may also be sub-divided into those which have been renewed in our own Time; and those of which we have only the Me­mory in Ancient Books. So that one is rather to consider how Controver­sies were handled in general, and so inferr how these Modern ones would have been managed, had there been an Occasion, which have only engaged the Wits and Passions of later Ages.

It is evident, that in their first Dis­pures with the Gentiles, the old Apo­logists did, with great Accuracy, ex­pose both the Follies of their Worship, and the Vanity of their Philosophy: They opened the Christian Religion with great Clearness; they showed the Grounds of their Belief, and proved its Reasonableness upon such Principles as were both solid in themselves, and sui­table [Page 333] to the Ways of Arguing, and the peculiar Notions of all their seve­ral Adversaries. Afterwards, when the Mysteries of the Christian Religion were so eagerly debated, in Ages wherein they feared no Foreign Force, they shewed as great Subtilty in their Arguments, and as great Dexterity in shifting off the Sophisms of their Op­ponents, as have ever been shewed in later Times. So that thus far the Mo­derns seem to have little Advantage: And, indeed, the Books that were written in Defence of the Christian Religion were very admirable: But in the Controversies that were managed amongst themselves, there seem to be, many Times, as visible Signs of too great a Subtilty, as of a judicious Un­derstanding of the Point in hand: They used little Method in ranging their Arguments, and rarely stated the Question in plain and short Terms; which made them often multiply Words to a tedious Length, that both tired the Readers, and darkned the Dispute. That all these Faults are too often found in the Polemical Discour­ses of the Moderns, is most certain: But Comparisons are always laid be­tween the ablest Men of both Sides. [Page 334] The Modern Defences of the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, may be compared with the old De­fences of the same Doctrines against the Arians, and other Ancient Here­ticks. If Hereticks may be compared with Hereticks, there is no Question but the Socinians are much abler Dis­putants than the Arians and Eunomi­ans of old: They have collected eve­ry Thing that could look like an Ar­gument; they have critically canvassed every Text of Scripture which ancient­ly was not so Grammatically under­stood as now it is, and have spared no Pains nor Art to wrest every Thing that, with any Shew of Reason, could be drawn to their Side: They have refined upon the Philosophical No­tions of God, and of his Attributes; and have taken great Care not to confound their Readers, or themselves, with Want of Method, or a Multipli­city of Words. Such able Adversaries have not failed of as able Opponents. And when Men of Skill manage any Dispute, whatsoever it be, they will teach one another the Art of Reason­ing, even though before-hand they should not well have understood it, when their Debates continue to any [Page 335] Length. Whence also it has followed, that though these Great Men, who have defended our Faith against such subtile Adversaries would have shewn their Skill equally upon any other Sub­ject which they should have under­took; yet upon these Questions, the Truth would otherwise have never been so perfectly known.

And here it ought to be observed, that the Art of making Controversies easie and intelligible, even though the Arguments should be all the same that had formerly been urged, shews much greater Skill, and a more thorough Understanding of those Matters, than had been discovered before: For, he that makes another understand a Thing in few Words, has a more clear and comprehensive Knowledge of that Thing, than another Man who uses a great many. Such a Man's Excur­sions, if he has a Mind at any Time to go out of the Way, or to enlarge, for the Ease of those who love to have Things expressed in an Homiliti­cal Manner, will never tire; because, having his Point still in view, he will take Care that his Readers or Audi­tors shall always know where he is. Hence it is, that there are many Ser­mons [Page 336] in our Language, upon the most abstruse Questions in the Christian Re­ligion, wherein English Readers who never read Fathers nor School-men; whose Heads have never been filled with Terms of Art, and Distinctions many Times without a Difference, may both in few, and clear Proposi­tions, know what they are to believe, and at the same Time know how to defend it. Hereby in all our Contro­versies with Papists, Socinians, and Dis­senters, many admirable Discourses have been written, wherein one sees the Que­stion rightly stated, presently brought to an Head, and accurately proved by such Arguments as its particular Na­ture may require. It cannot be deni­ed, but a good deal of this Methodi­cal Exactness was at first owing to the School-men; but they are Moderns here: And if their Writings have some Excellencies, which the elegant Com­posures of more learned Ages want, this also affords us a convincing Argu­ment, that Mankind will, in some­thing or other, be always improving; and that Men of working Heads, what Subject soever they handle, though they live in Times when they have none but barbarous Patterns to [Page 337] copy after, will do many things which politer People did not know, or else over-look'd.

Upon this Occasion, I cannot but take Notice that the Moderns have made clearer and shorter Institutions of all Manner of Arts and Sciences than any which the Ancients have left us. I have already instanced in the Method, whereto all the Parts of Na­tural History have been reduced. It is evident, That Method in all those things must be the Effect of a Com­prehensive Knowledge of the Bodies so ranged and of a nice Comparison of every several Body and Animal one with another, since otherwise their mutual Differences and Agreements can­not possibly be adjusted; the same has been done in Anatomy, in Chymistry, in all parts of Physicks and Mathe­maticks: How confused many Times, and always lax are Galen's Anatomi­cal Discourses in Comparison of Bartho­lin's, Diemerbroeck's and Gibson's? Mon­siéur Perrault has observed already Paral­lele des Anciens & des Mo­dernes, Di­alog. III. Pag. 251—257. that Aristotle expressed himself so ob­scurely in his Physical Discourses, that his Meaning is almost as variously re­presented as there have been Commen­tators [Page 338] who have written upon him; whereas no Man ever doubted of the precise meaning of the Writings of Des Cartes and Rohault, though all Men are not of their Opinion. In Mathema­ticks the thing is yet more visible; how long and tedious are Euclid's Demon­strations, either in Greek, or as they are commented upon by Clavius, in Comparison of Tacquet's or Barrow's? Tacquet has made Astronomy intelligible with a very little Help; which before was not to be attained without a Ma­ster, and a World of Patience; the same has Varenius done in the Mathe­matical Part of Geography, Tacquet in Practical Geometry, Opticks, and Catop­tricks. The Doctrine of the Conic Se­ctions in Apollonius Pergaeus is so intri­cate, the Demonstrations are so long and so perplexed, that they have always deterred all but First-Rate Geometers: This Pensioner De Witte, has made so easie in his Elements of Curve Lines Annex­ed to the last Edi­tions of Des Cartes's Geometry., that it is readily mastered by any Man who has read the First Six Books of Euclid. Such Abridgments save Abun­dance of Labour, and make Knowledge pleasant to those, who in the last Age were so exceedingly frightned with the [Page 339] Thoughts of the Difficulty of these Studies, that Sir Henry Savile made as formal a Business of his Prelections up­on the Definitions, Axioms, and VIII First Propositions of the First Book of Euclid, which may be thoroughly com­prehended by a Man of ordinary Parts in Two Hours Time, by the Help of Tacquet's Elements, as a Man would now of Lectures upon the hardest Propositions, in Mr. Newton's Mathema­tical Principles of Natural Philosophy. To these judicious Abridgements the won­derful Increase of this Part of Know­ledge, for these last LXX Years is in a great Measure to be attributed; and though Methodizers and Compilers of Systems have very often the hard Fate to be undervalued by those who have been Inventors themselves; yet, in Ma­thematical Sciences the Case is some­thing different; for things cannot be abbreviated here, without an almost in­tuitive Knowledge of the Subjects then to be abridged, and brought into one View. In Moral, or Historical Discour­ses, an Epitomizer immediately sees what is either in its self superfluous, or not to his particular Purpose; and so when he has cut it off, what remains is in [Page 340] some sort intire, and may be under­stood without the rest, so that there is no Harm done: But here that will by no means suffice, for the most verbose Mathematicians rarely ever said any thing for saying Sake, theirs being Sub­jects in which Figures of Rhetorick could have no sort of Place, but they made every Conclusion depend upon such a Chain of Premises already pro­ved, that if one Link were broke, the whole Chain fell in Pieces; and there­fore, he that would reduce those De­monstrations into a narrower Compass, must take the whole Proposition a new in Pieces, must turn it several Ways, must consider all the Relations which that Line, or that Solid has to other Lines or Solids, must carefully have considered how many several Ways it can be generated, before he can be able to demonstrate it by a shorter Method, and by other Arguments, than those by which it was proved before; in short, he must in a Manner be able to invent the Proposition of himself, be­fore he can put it into this new Dress; for which Reason, Tacquet, Barrow, and De Witte, have been reckoned a­mongst the Principal Geometers of the [Page 341] Age, as well as for their other Inven­tions in Geometry. Tschirnhaus's Me­dicina Mentis will give a clear Idea of many things relating to this Mat­ter:

And now, having gone through the several Parts of the Parallel which I proposed at first to make, I shall close all with Sir William Temple's Words a little altered. Pag. 30. ‘Though Thales, Py­thagoras, Democritus, Hippocrates, Pla­to, Aristotle and Epicurus, may be rec­koned amongst the First mighty Con­querours of Ignorance, in our World; and though they made great Progres­ses in the several Empires of Science, yet not so great in very many Parts, as their Successors have since been a­ble to reach. These have pretended to much more, than barely to learn what the others taught, or to remem­ber what they invented; and being able to compass that it self, have set up for Authors upon their own Stocks, and not contenting themselves only with commenting upon those Texts, have both copied after former Origi­nals already set them, and have added Originals of their own in many things of a much greater Value.’

HAving therefore, as I hope, suffi­ciently proved that there has not been such a Fall in Modern Learning, as Sir William Temple supposes; nay, even that comparatively speaking the Extent of Knowlege, is at this Time, vastly greater than it was in former Ages, it may seem, perhaps, a needless Thing to examine those Reasons which he alledges, of the Decrease of that which in the gross has suffered no De­cay. Something however, I shall say to them, because if they do not prove what Sir William Temple designs, yet they will prove at least, what a per­fect thing Learning might have been, if it had not met with such Impedi­ments.

The first Blow which he says Pag. 64, 65., that Learning received, was by the Disputes which arose about Religion in Europe, [Page 343] soon after the Revival of Learning in these parts of the World. There is no doubt, but the Thoughts of many very able Men were taken up with those Controversies; who, if they had turned them with the same Application to na­tural or civil Knowledge, would there­in have done very extraordinary things. Yet, considering all things, it may be justly questioned, whether Learning may not by these very Disputes, have re­ceived either immediately, or occasio­nally, a very great Improvement, or at least, suffered no very considerable Dimi­nution. For, (1.) it is certain, That whatsoever relates to Divinity as a Sci­ence, has hereby been better scanned, and more accurately understood and ex­plained than otherwise it would ever have been; and, I suppose, this will be readily owned to be one of the most excellent Parts of Knowledge. (2.) It is a Question, whether very many of the greatest Promoters of any Part of this Theological Knowledge, would, or could have done so great things, upon any other Subject. Opposition in ge­neral, whets Mens Parts extremely, and that inward Satisfaction which a good Man takes, in thinking that he is em­ployed [Page 344] upon Arguments of greatest Con­cern to the Souls of Men, inspires him with an Ardour that adds Wings to his native Alacrity; and makes him in all such Cases, even out-do himself. (3.) When different Parties are once formed, and great Numbers of Youths are constantly trained up to succeed the older Champions of their respective Sides; as they shall drop off, all of them will not apply their Minds to Studies, immediately relating to their own Professions, but here and there one, as his Genius shall lead him, will try to excel in different Ways for the Glory of his own Party; especially if he sees any of his Adversaries emi­nently famous before him, in those things. Thus Petavius set himself to contradict Joseph Scaliger's Books De E­mendatione Temporum, and Scioppius fell upon his other Critical Writings: Whilst Isaac Casaubon concerned himself only with publishing and Commenting upon Athenaeus, Polybius, and Theophrastus: He was complemented by all Sides, but when once he wrote against the Annals of Cardinal Baronius, he met with numerous Adversaries; and there was scarce a Critick of the Church of [Page 345] Rome that wrote for some Time after­wards, that did not peck at something or other in his other Writings. This Emulation eminently appeared in the Order of the Jesuits, the main Design of whose Institution seems to have been to engross all Learning, as well as all Politicks, to themselves; and therefore, we see so many extraordinary Men a­mongst them for all sorts of things, thereby to give the World Occasion to think, that there must certainly be something more than ordinary in the Constitution of a Body, which every Day produced such excellent Persons. So that if one considers how far this Emulation went, which even yet is not wholly extinct, it is hard to say, whe­ther Disputes in Religion have not ra­ther helped to encrease the Stock of Learning than otherwise; at least, one may venture to say that they have not diminished it.

It is most certain, that the different Political Interests in Europe, have done it a mighty Kindness. During the E­stablishment of the Roman Empire, one common Interest guided that vast Bo­dy, and these Western Kingdoms a­mongst the rest. Rome was the Cen­ter [Page 346] of their Learning of the West, as well as of their Hopes, and thither the Provinces of this Part of the World had always Resort: Whereas now eve­ry Kingdom standing upon its own Bottom, they are all mutually jealous of each others Glory, and in nothing more than in Matters of Learning in those Countries, where they have Op­portunities to pursue it. About an Hundred and Fifty, or Two Hundred Years since, it was esteemed a very honourable Thing to write a true Ci­ceronian Style: This the Italians pre­tended to keep to themselves, and they would scarce allow that any Man be­yond the Alpes, unless perhaps, Longo­lius and Cardinal Pole, wrote pure Ro­man Latin: This made other Nations strive to equal them, and one rarely meets with a Book written at that Time upon a Subject that would bear the Elegancies of Stile in bad Latin: When Critical Learning was in Fashion, every Nation had some few great Men at the same Time, or very near it, to set against those of another. Italy boa­sted of Robertus Titius, and Petrus Vi­ctorius; France had Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Casaubon, Cujacius, Pithaeus, Bris­sonius, [Page 347] and several more. Switzerland produced Gesner, for that and almost every thing else; Germany had Leopar­dus, Gruter, Putschius, and others; the Low Countries had Justus Lipsius; En­gland had Sir Henry Savile, every Country had some great Men to keep up its Glory in those things which then were in greatest request. In this last Age Mathematical and Physical Sciences seem to have been the Darling Studies of the Learned Men of Europe; there also the same Emulation has been e­qually visible. When Great Britain could shew such Men as my Lord Ba­con, my Lord Napier, the Inventor of Logarithms, Mr. Harriot, Mr. Ough­tred, and Mr. Horrox; Holland had Ste­vinus, who first found out Decimal Arithmetick, and Snellius; France could reckon up Des Cartes, Mersennus, Fer­mat, and Gassendi; Italy had Galileo, Torricellius, and Cavallerius; Germany, Kepler; and Denmark, not long before, Tycho Brahe. When afterwards the Philosophers of England grew nume­rous, and united their Strength, France also took the Hint, and its King set up a Royal Society, to Rival ours. The Duke of Tuscany had set up al­ready [Page 348] at Florence the Academy del Cimen­to, whose Members employed them­selves in pursuing the same Methods. In Germany, an Academy of the same Nature has been raised. Even Ireland has had its Philosophical Society. From all which, such Swarms of Great Men in every Part of Natural and Mathe­matical Knowledge have within these few Years appeared, that it may, per­haps, without Vanity, be believed, that if this Humour lasts much longer, and learned Men do not divert their Thoughts to Speculations of another Kind, the next Age will not find very much Work of this Kind to do: For this sort of Learning has spread where­ever Letters have had any Encourage­ment in Europe so successfully, that e­ven the Northern Kingdoms have had their Bartholin's, their Borrichius's, their Rudbeck's, their Wormius's, and their Hevelius's, who have put in for that Prize which the Inhabitants of warm­er Climates seemed already in posses­sion of. This has occasioned the Wri­ting of Abundance of Books, to vin­dicate the Glory of every great Inven­tion to some eminent Man of that Country that the Authors of those [Page 349] Books belonged to. Which Disputes, though many Times very pedantically managed, and with an Heat mis-be­coming Learned Men, yet has had this good Effect, that while some were zea­lous to secure the Glory of the Inven­tion of Things already discovered, to their own Countries; others were equal­ly sollicitous to add a more undisputed Honour to them, by new Inventions, which they were sure no Man could possibly challenge.

Another Reason of the Decay of Learning, according to Sir William Temple Pag. 67-71., is, the Want of Protection from Great Men, and an unsatiable Thirst after Gain, now grown the Humour of the Age. That Princes do not now delight to talk of Mat­ters of Learning in their publick Con­versations, as they did about an Hun­dred and Fifty Years ago, is very evi­dent. When Learning first came up, Men fansied that every Thing could be done by it, and they were charm­ed with the Eloquence of its Profes­sors, who did not fail to set forth all its Advantages in the most engaging Dress. It was so very modish, that the fair Sex seemed to believe that [Page 350] Greek and Latin added to their Charms; and Plato and Aristotle untranslated, were frequent Ornaments of their Clo­sets. One would think by the Effects, that it was a proper Way of Educa­ting of them, since there are no Ac­counts in History of so many very great Women in any one Age, as are to be found between the Years 15 and 1600. This Humour in both Sexes abated by Degrees; and the Great Men being either disgusted with the Labour that was requisite to become thorough­ly Learned, or with the frequent Re­petitions of the same Things, Business and Diversions took up their Thoughts, as they had done formerly. But yet, in the main, the Learned Men of this Age have not so very much Reason to think themselves ill used, as it is com­monly thought. What by Fellow­ships of Colleges, and Ecclesiastical Preferments, here in England; and by the same sort of Preferments, added to the Allowances in several Monastical Orders, in Popish Countries, there are very fair Settlements for Men of Stu­dious and Sedentary Lives; and innu­merable Instances can be given in these two last Ages, of the excellent Uses [Page 351] which very many Men have made of them: So that every such Preferment bestowed upon any learned Man, upon the Score of his Merit, by Princes, or Great Men, in whose Gift they were, is an Instance of their Beneficence to Men of Letters: And whether a Man is considered by a Pension out of a Prince's Exchequer, or by the Colla­tion of a Preferment in that Prince's Gift, it is to the Man who enjoys it the self-same Thing. Neither have Examples been wanting in the present Age, of Sovereign Princes who have made it as much their Business to en­courage Learned Men, as, perhaps, in any of the former, that are so much commended for that very Reason. Christina Queen of Sweden, who in o­ther Respects, was by no Means the Glory of her Sex, did, whilst she liv­ed at Stockholm, send for the learnedest Men of Europe to come to her, that she might converse with them about those Things wherein they were most excellent. Des Cartes, Salmasius, Bo­chart, Nich. Heinsius, Isaac Vossius, were of that Number: And her Profuseness, which knew no Bounds, was never more visible, than in her Marks of [Page 352] Respect to Men of Letters. After­wards, when she setled at Rome, her Palace was always an Academy of the Virtuosi of that City. The present French King, whilst Monsieur Colbert lived, took a singular Pride in sending Presents to the most celebrated Scho­lars of Europe; without regarding whe­ther they were his own Subjects, or of his own Religion, or no. This he did purely for his Glory, the Principle which Sir William Temple Pag. 68. so very much applauds. His own Protestant Subjects, before he involved them in one common Ruin, tasted of his Li­berality of that Kind upon Occasion: And whatsoever his other Actions are, and have been; yet his extraordinary Care to breed up his Son to Learn­ing, his erecting of Academies for Arts and Sciences at Paris, and his frequent Bounties to Men of Letters, justly re­quire that, upon this Account, he should be mentioned with Honour. Cardinal de Richelieu, Cardinal Maza­rini, Monsieur Fouquet, and Monsieur Colbert, though no Sovereign Princes, yet had Purses greater than many of them. Cardinal de Richelieu was him­self a Scholar; and all of them were [Page 353] eminently Favourers of Learned Men. I have mentioned my own Country last, that I might once more observe, that it was a Prince of our own, who founded the ROYAL SOCIETY, Pag. 57. whose Studies, Writings and Produ­ctions, though they have not out-shined or eclipsed the Lycaeum of Plato, the Aca­demy of Aristotle, the Stoa of Zeno, or the Garden of Epicurus, because they were neither written at the same Time, nor, for the most part, upon the same Subjects; yet will always help to keep alive the Memory of that Prince, who incorporated them into a Body, that so they might the easier do that by their Joint-Labours, which singly would have been, in a manner, impossible to be ef­fected.

The last of Sir William Temple's Reasons of the great Decay of Mo­dern Learning Pag. 71. is Pedantry; the urging of which is an evident Argu­ment, that his Discourse is levelled a­gainst Learning, not as it stands now, but as it was Fifty or Sixty Years a­go. For the new Philosophy has in­troduced so great a Correspondence between Men of Learning and Men of Business; which has also been en­creased [Page 354] by other Accidents amongst the Masters of other learned Professions, that that Pedantry which formerly was almost universal, is now in a great Measure dis-used; especially, amongst the young Men, who are taught in the Universities to laugh at that frequent Citation of Scraps of Latin, in com­mon Discourse, or upon Arguments that do not require it; and that nau­seous Ostentation of Reading, and Scho­larship in publick Companies, which formerly was so much in Fashion. Af­fecting to write politely in Modern Languages, especially the French and ours, has also helped very much to lessen it, because it has enabled Abundance of Men who want Academical Educa­tion to talk plausibly, and some exact­ly, upon very many learned Subjects. This also, has made Writers habitually careful to avoid those Impertinences which they know would be taken no­tice of and ridiculed; and it is proba­ble, that a careful perusal of the fine new French Books, which of late Years have been greedily sought after by the politer sort of Gentlemen and Scholars, may in this particular, have done A­bundance of good. By this means, and [Page 355] by the Help also of some other con­current Causes, those who were not learned themselves being able to main­tain Disputes with those that were, forced them to talk more warily, and brought them by little and little to be out of Countenance at that vain thrust­ing of their Learning into every thing, which before had been but too visible.