LIB. I. 25. 



III. 



Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt , 

 quia ignoratio causa) destituit effectum. Natura eriiin 

 noi) nisi parendo vincitur 6 : et quod in con tern platione 

 instar causce est. id in operatione instar regular est. 



IV. 



Ad opera nil aliud potest liomo, quam ut corpora 

 naturalia admoveat et amoveat : reliqua natura intus 

 transigit &quot;. 



V. 8 



Solent se imniiscere naturae; (quoad opera) mechani- 



5 &quot; In idem coincidunt&quot; as far 

 as man s intentional production is 

 concerned. For this union of man s 

 knowledge and power, cf. II. 3. 

 &quot; Ex formarum inventione sequitur 

 contemplatio vera, et oj;eratio li- 

 bera.&quot; And we ha^e an example 

 of it in the Definition of Heat in 

 the &quot;First Vintage,&quot; II. 20. 



6 Cf. I. 129. &quot;The powers which 

 act in the processes of Nature and 

 in those of Art are precisely the 

 same, and are only directed in the 

 latter case by the intention of man 

 towards particular objects.&quot; Play- 

 fair, Diss. iii. in the Preliminary 

 Vol. Encycl. Brit. p. 459. 



Cf. de Augm. Sc. 11. 2. &quot;This 

 certain truth should be thoroughly 

 settled in the minds of men, that 

 artificials differ not from natural in 

 form and essence, but in the effi 

 cient only : for man hath no power 

 over Nature save only in her mo 

 tion ; i. e. to mingle or put together 

 natural bodies, and to separate or 

 put them asunder : wherefore where 

 there is apposition and separation 

 of bodies natural, conjoining (as 

 they term it) active with passive, 

 man may do all things : this not 

 done, he can do nothing.&quot; And 



Playfair (ubi supr.) &quot; In Art, man 

 does nothing more than bring things 

 nearer to one another, or carry them 

 farther off; the rest is performed 

 by Nature, and on most occasions 

 by means of which we are quite ig 

 norant.&quot; 



8 As to the Mechanician, the 

 Mathematician and the Physician, 

 Bacon s remarks were being falsi 

 fied at the very time he wrote. 

 Mechanics had produced fly-clocks, 

 telescopes, and other useful con 

 trivances. Mathematics boasted of 

 Kepler and Galileo; and the disco 

 veries of Harvey and Gilbert were 

 opening out a new world for Medical 

 research. But Bacon could scarcely 

 have discerned all this, and his jea 

 lousy of his contemporaries (cf. I. 

 54) would scarcely have allowed 

 him to acknowledge their worth. 

 Besides this he was utterly ignorant 

 of Mathematics (see Hallarn Lit. 

 Eur. vol. II. iii. 3. 78). Alchemy 

 was certainly thoroughly empirical 

 and faulty; for &quot; at this time Che 

 mistry seemed to have an elective 

 attraction for everything that was 

 absurd and unfounded.&quot; (Playfair.) 

 And Magic, which still exerted great 

 influence, was as bad. Sir T. Browne 



