Continuing on the the second page, we find that
In all ages and countries where learning has prevailed, the mathematical sciences have been looked upon as the most considerable branch of it. The very name "Mathematician" implies no less, by which they were called either for their excellency or because of all the sciences they were first taught, or because they were judged to comprehend "all things mathematical".
I'm no scholar of Greek, so I'm taking a bit of a liberty with what I think Arbuthnot was trying to say here. I do know that the original Greek word from which the term "mathematics" is derived has senses of meaning "what is learned." So it's not really surprising that he goes on to write
And amongst those that are commonly reckoned to be the seven Liberal Arts, four are mathematical, to wit, Arithmetic, Music, Astronomy, and Geometry.
He is referring here to the Quadrivium, which was the second course of study in the medieval university. The first was the Trivium, and consisted of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Of course, contemporary people don't really think of music as a mathematical study, even though things like rhythm, pitch, tempo, and duration can all be quantified, and despite the explicitly mathematical origins of the art in the Western tradition starting with Pythagoras.
Not only that, logic actually is a branch of mathematics now, but wasn't in the 17th century. It started to be formalized as a mathematical study in a serious way by thinkers such as Boole, Pierce, and Russell.
In the next part, the author starts to describe why he thinks people don't learn math as much as they should.
But notwithstanding their excellency and reputation, they have not been taught nor studied so universally as some of the rest, which I take to have proceeded from the following causes:
The reasons he gives all sound very modern: people don't like to think so hard, they don't realize how useful math is, they think that only geniuses can learn it, it is not encouraged, and there aren't enough good teachers.
