Chap. II.] Chemical Pliilosop/ij/, [ \ 7 



the contiuciif, the French doctrines and nomen- 

 clature made their way rather more slowly than in 

 Great Britain. Nearly two years after they had 

 met with a general reception amoni^ the British 

 chemists, they were introducec^ to those of Ger- 

 many, chiefly by van Mens and Girtanner. They 

 were received, on this introduction, in a favour- 

 able manner; and, after surmounting the first pre- 

 judices which a change so radical and extensive 

 is always apt to excite, soon became generally po- 

 /pular. Since that time tlie prevalence of the new 

 system has become almost universal. Indeed, there 

 is no example, since the revival of learning, of a 

 theory being more promptly and generally receiv- 

 ed, of defended with more ability and zeal, by the 

 great body of philosophers, in all parts of the 

 w^orld, than this. If we except Dr. Priestley, Mr. 

 Keir, and the Lunar Society of Birmingham, in 

 Great Britain; M. Sage, and a few others, in 

 France ; and Crell, Mayer, Gmelin, and Westrumb, 

 in Germany, we now hear of no distinguished ad- 

 vocates for the old opinions. 



Beside the signal revolution in chemical theory 

 A\'hich has been stated, every part of the century 

 under consideration, and es])ecially the latter half 

 of it, has abounded in experiments and discoveries 

 of great importance, particularly \\hen consi- 

 dered with reference to their systematic rcla- 



tioilS. 



Few questions in science have given rise to mor(^ 

 discussion than that which relates ta the nature of 

 Heat. Whether it be a distinct sul)stance, or a 

 mere quality of substance, lias long been the suh- 

 ject of disputation. 15y the ancient philosophers 



