[ 71 ] ■ 



mufl; we not diftinguifli thofe which efcape our reafon, from thofe 

 that formally contradiH it ? The former may in time be connected 

 with ovlX adtual knowledge, the latter never. In our prefent 

 view of nature all appearances point out a watery folution, 

 or diffufion and concretion in that fluid, though the means 

 of efFedling this folution are but imperfedly known ; but they 

 contradid the idea of an igneous folution, as we fliall at 

 prefent prove. 



To reduce the perfpedlive of the mineral kingdom within the 

 bounds of an academical differtation, we muft neceflarily confine 

 it to the general clafles under which minerals are commonly 

 arranged, and a few fpecies of each. And firfl, as to the cal- 

 careous clafs Stones of this clafs, when perfedlly pure, or nearly 

 fo, as fpars and granular marbles, are abfolutely infufible in 

 any degree of heat yet known, as Lavoifier, Geyer, and Ehrman 

 have fucceflively fliewn *. On the other hand, the perfe<fl 

 cryflallization of the former, and the internal conilitution of 

 the latter, confelTedly prove that they were once in a flate of 

 perfedl folution, and fince they could not be fo in the igneous, 

 they muft have been fo to the aqueous fluid ; if we fuppofe 

 their particles to have been originally in that ftate of divifion 

 which adlual folution requires, which ftate may as well be 

 fuppofed to have been their primordial ftate as any other, 

 there will be no difliculty in fuppofiug them diflblved or 



fufpended 



• Mem. Paris 1783. Schewed. Abhand. 1784. p. 127. Vers. Einer Schmelfkunft. 

 Von Ehrman. 



