146 ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING 



religiously retain the ancient forms of speech; for as 

 we hope that the method, and clear explanation, we en 

 deavor at, will free us from any misconstruction that might 

 arise from an ill choice of words ; so in everything else, it 

 is our desire, as much as possible, without prejudice to 

 truth and the sciences, not to deviate from ancient opin 

 ions and forms of speech. And here I cannot but wonder 

 that Aristotle should proceed in such a spirit of contradic 

 tion, as he did to all antiquity; not only coining new terms 

 of science at pleasure, but endeavoring to abolish all the 

 knowledge of the ancients; so that he never mentions any 

 ancient author but to reprove him, nor opinion but to con 

 fute it; which is the ready way to procure fame and fol 

 lowers. For certainly it happens in philosophical, as it 

 does in divine truth: &quot;I came in the name of my Father, 

 and ye received me not; but if one came in his own name, 

 ye would receive him.&quot; Which divine aphorism, as ap 

 plied to Antichrist, the great deceiver, plainly shows us 

 that a man s coming in his own name, without regard to 

 antiquity or paternity, is no good sign of truth, though 

 joined with the fortune and success of being received. But 

 for so excellent and sublime a genius as Aristotle, one 

 would think he caught this ambition from his scholar, and 

 affected to subdue all opinions, as Alexander did all na 

 tions; and thus erect himself a monarchy in his own con 

 templation. Though for this, perhaps, he may not escape 

 the lash of some severe pen, no more than his pupil; and 

 be called a successful ravager of learning, as the other was 

 of countries. 2 Some are doubtless disposed to treat him with 

 the same courtesy as his scholar, in saying, 



1 St. John v. 43. 



2 We should rather say that Alexander caught the fire of ambition from his 

 master, as Aristotle put forth his pretensions to mental empire long before his 

 pupil overran Egypt. In addition, it may be observed that Aristotle was an 

 Athenian, and that the strong antipathies which his countrymen bore to the 

 king of Persia were increased by the ties of blood and friendship which bound 

 him to Hermius, king of Atarne, whom the eastern despot had abused. It is 

 most likely, therefore, that Aristotle never misled 3,n opportunity of exciting 



