1795: | 
formed, | that either the one or the 
other have made any improvement upor 
the ingenuity of their anceftors. If 
any individual res the znferior ani- 
mals—-as we prefunte to call them—nhas 
been tortured into a mechanical habit of 
performing fome wonderful feat, which 
does not naturally belong to its {pecies, 
we néver. find that it communicates its 
new accomplifhment, by inftruction, to | 
its offspring, for the future improvement 
ot the fpecies. “he famous learned pig 
did not train up a family of learned pigs. 
In order to prove the fuperiority of man 
to all other animals, nothing farther is, 
then, neceffary, than to eftablith the affir- 
‘mative of the prefent queftion, that man- 
Kind is advancing towards perfection. 
If the fubject be confidered theoreti- 
cally, we certainly find in the powers of 
human nature fufficient ground for ex- 
pecting fuch a continued progrefs. Every 
individual peffeffes faculties which enable 
him to examine the nature of the objects 
which furround him, to contemplate the 
events which fall under his obfervation, 
to compare one object and one event with 
another, and to draw general -conclufions 
from particular occurrences ;_ and thus to 
become, by degrees, pofieffed of that ufe- 
nul ouide metic conduct of life, expe- 
rieuce. ‘Ihe experience of different men 
not only carries each individual, more or 
lefs, towards perfection, during the courfe 
of his lite, but may be conceived to ferve 
as a common {tock of improvement, which 
it is the intereft of all to preferve and 
increafe; which, therefore, may be 
weafonably expeéted to. be trantmitted 
from age to age, not-only without lols, 
but with perpetual accumulation. 
If we examine faéts, we thall find this 
fpeculation confirmed by the general hif- 
tory of mankind. As far as we are able 
to trace the rife and progre{s of fociety 
through the mutilated pages of hiftory, 
we find that, at whatever point of civili- 
zation any of the inhabirants of the world 
are at prefent arrived, they have paffed, 
from the lowe ft tate ot barbarifm, through 
certain ftages of improvement. At frit, 
fiupid or ferocious, they were either con- 
tented with a precarious fupply of food 
from the fpontaneous productions of na- 
ture, or employed force to render the 
foreft, the plain, the rivers, and feas, 
tributary to their neceffities. The ur- 
gent demands of nature calling into ex- 
ertion mental cnergy, as well as bodily 
firength, they next employed their inge- 
nuity in inventing expedients, by means 
pt which they might be better fupplied 
¢ i 
: é 
. 
f Aydt 
The Enqu'rer. No. X.’ 
878 
with neceftaries and conveniences; and 
thus, by gradual advances, from preda- 
tory favages they have become harmlefs 
fhepherds, induftrious Hutbandmen, ‘ine 
genious mechanics, and poliibed citizens. 
But, leaving thefe general views, let 
us examine more minutely the marks of 
progreis towards pe:teétion which appear 
in the hiftory of knowledge. — 
If we compare the ancients and mo- 
derns, with refpeé to their acquaintance. 
with natural objects, we fhall find the 
latter far fuperior to the former, both in 
the variety and accuracy of their informa4 
tion. “The ancient philofophers pro- 
feffed, it is true, to ftudy nature; but it 
Was rather with a’ view to inveftigate 
general truths refpeéting its original for- 
ination, and the caufes of production and 
decay, than to become acquainted with the 
diftinét characters and properties of in- 
dividual bodies. ‘They were’ too deeply 
engaged in fublime fpeculations con- 
cerning general principles, to intereft 
themfelves in minute details refoeG— 
. . ° i 
ing particular objets. ‘They travelled, 
indeed, in fearch of knowledge ; but it 
was not fo much to learn the qualities 
and ufes of natural bodies, as to be in- 
ftructed in metaphyfical theories, and to 
exercife themfelves in the arts of difpu- 
tation. Plato thought his permanent 
ideal world the only field of contempla~ 
tion worthy the attention of a philofo- 
pher, and regarded vifible cbjeéts as too 
evanefcent to deferve a bettcr name than. 
(7 ovle, non-entities. And though Ari- 
ftotle, Theophraftus, and Pliny, with 
fome others, paid more attention to the 
material world, and have left many va~ 
luable proofs of their acquaintance with 
Nature, no one will think that their ac- 
counts of natural bodies can deferve to 
be compared. in variety of detail, or ac- 
curacy of defcription, with the Writings 
of modern naturalifts. : 
In analyzing the component parts of 
natural bodies, what is there among the 
ancients, which can deferve. the name of 
philofophical chernittry, compared with 
what has been done by modern nhilofo. 
phers ? If the ancient Egyptians difco- 
vered a confiderable degree of ‘chemical 
fkill, in the embalming of dead bodies ; 
if, in building their pyramids, they made 
ufe of a cement, with the exact nature 
of which we are aw prefent unacquaint- 
ed; if it be allowed, that the procefs of 
diftillation, and fome other chemical ope- 
rations, were not unknown, to the an- 
cients ; and that they were not ignorant 
of many of the properties of what they 
improperly 
























