116. Ch em ical Ph ilosophy. [Chap. II . 



Dr. Priestley uniformly continued to object 

 that the fundamental principles of the new theory 

 are erroneous, and that, of course, much of its 

 language is altogether improper. He contended, 

 with unabating confidence, that the metals are 

 compound bodies^ that xoaier is a simple sub- 

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

 flammable and dephlogisticated airs ^ that phlogis- 

 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 ie\N 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 

 exliibited 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 opposed, it is, perhaps, rather 

 more probable that the phlogistic theory will be 

 ultimately pronounced the weaker. At all events, 

 however, he is a])undantly entitled to the honour 

 of having made the best of his cause. 



\i\ Germany, and the neighbouring countries on 



* See his late work. The Doctrine of Phloglstoji Eslablinhcd, &c.^ 



