[ 63 ] . 



"• folvent, and we muft change our opinion of its chymical 

 " charadler." 



Here the difEculties to the fuppofition of an aqueous folution 

 are placed in the firongeft light ; yet it mud be owned that 

 they partly arife from the author's own gratuitous fuppofition, 

 that ftrata exifted at the bottom of the fea pievioas to their 

 confolidation ; a circumPance which will not e aiiowi-d by 

 the patrons of the aqueous origin of fiony fubrcaaces, as we 

 have already feen. 



Secondly, That water, in certain circumOances, and with 

 the addition of certain fub^ances, may be admitted as 

 a univerfal folvent, fliould not be denied, merely on account 

 of our ignorance of thofe circumflances and auxiliary fub- 

 ftances. Before the dlfcovery of the fparry acid, it was not 

 known that water, by the aid of that acid, could diffolve 

 filiceous bodies, a power which, by this help, it is now known 

 to pofllfs J there may be various other menftrua in nature of 

 which we are as yet ignorant ; it is well known that certain 

 proportions of the fimple earths adl upon each other as menftrua 

 in the dry way, why not alfo in the moifl; way, if equally 

 divided? and what hinders us from fuppofing that they were 

 originally created in that ftate of divifion that would render 

 them capable of a<5ling on each other ? why fhould we fuppofe 

 tliis habitable earth to arife from the ruins of another anterior 

 to it, contrary to reafon and the tenor of the mofaic hiftory ? 

 "What do we gain by that fuppofition? Muft not the origin. 



of 



