Chemical Philosophy. f 1 



with a degree of skill, firmness and force, and has 

 displayed an extent of resources, and a dignified 

 zeal in the warfare, which must do him immortal 

 honour among all to whom science is dear. 



Dr. Pries FLEY has uniformly continued to ob- 

 ject that the fundamental principles of the new 

 theory are erroneous, and that, of course, m^|ph of 

 its language is altogether improper. He contends, 

 with unabating confidence, that the metals are 

 compound bodies; that tvater is a simple sub- 

 stance ; that fixed air is formed by the union of in- 

 flammable and dephlogisticated airs; thatphlogis- 

 ticated air, or azote, is not a simple but a com- 

 pound substance; that the antiphlogistic doctrine 

 rests upon a foundation narrow and precarious, 

 and professes to derive its support from experi- 

 ments few in number, ambiguous in their nature, 

 and explicable, on either hypothesis, with nearly 

 equal ease; and, on the whole, that discarding 

 phlogiston is so far from diminishing the difficulties 

 of the chemical inquirer, that it multiplies and ex- 

 tends them/ In defending each of these positions, 

 this illustrious veteran in science has undoubtedly 

 exhibited astonishing industry, as well as great 

 erudition and acuteness. How far the result of the 

 controversy will justify his perseverance, it is diffi- 

 cult, and would certainly be presumptuous in one 

 comparatively little acquainted with the subject, 

 to predict. But when so great a majority of the 

 philosophical world agree in supporting the doc- 

 trines which he opposes, it is, perhaps, rather 

 more probable that the phlogistic theory will be 

 ultimately pronounced the weaker. At all events, 

 however, he is abundantly entitled to the honour 

 ot having made the best of his cause. 



In Germany, and the neighbouring countries on 



r Sec his late work, Tbe Doctrine of Phlogiston establithedy &c. 



