From our author’s admirable abstract of the history of physic, it is easy to see he had studied and thoroughly digested the writings of the preceding physicians, and been attentive to the practice, as well as to the arguments of the several sects. We have no reason to doubt he made the best use of them; for we see that he confined himself to no one party, but selected from each what he judged to be most salutary. Though he has quoted many authors, sometimes with a view to recommend their practice in particular cases, at other times to shew the impropriety of it; yet through the whole, Hippocrates and Asclepiades seem to have been highest in his esteem; but he does not give up his judgment implicitly to these for he often leaves both, and advances very good reasons for differing from them. He ingenuously owns[L], that he has borrowed the prognostics from Hippocrates, “because,” says he, “though the moderns have made alterations in the method of curing, nevertheless they allow, that he has left the best prognostics.” With regard to the critical days, he entirely condemns his doctrine, and follows Asclepiades in rejecting the notion as idle and chimerical[M]. But from both these authors he dissents in his rules about bleeding. [L] Præfat. lib. ii. [M] Lib. iii. c. 4. It would be superfluous for me to prefix to this translation a general view of Celsus’s practice in the various diseases; for besides that this is already done by the learned Le Clerc[N], our author’s method is so clear and concise, that the reader will acquire, with ease, the most perfect idea from the book itself. [N] Histoire de la medicine, P. ii. liv. iv. sect. ii. chap. 4, &c.