%5 
truth, that a philosophical chemist would most pro* 
bably make a very unprofitable business of farming ; 
and this certainly would be the case, if he were a 
mere philosophical chemist ; and unless he had 
served his apprenticeship to the practice of the 
art, as well as to the theory. But there is reason 
to believe, that he would be a more successful 
agriculturist than a person equally uninitiated in 
farming, but ignorant of chemistry altogether ; 
his science, as far as it went, would be useful to 
him. But chemistry is not the only kind of know- 
ledge required, it forms a small part of the phi- 
losophical basis of agriculture; but it is an im- 
portant part, and whenever applied in a proper 
manner must produce advantages. 
In proportion as science advances all the prin- 
ciples become less complicated, and consequently 
more useful. And it is then that their application 
is most advantageously made to the arts. The 
common labourer can never be enlightened by 
the general doctrines of philosophy, but he will 
not refuse to adopt any practice, of the utility of 
which he is fully convinced, because it has been 
founded upon these principles. The mariner can 
trust to the compass, though he may be wholly 
unacquainted with the discoveries of Gilbert on 
magnetism, or the refined principles of that sci- 
ence developed by the genius of iEpinus. The 
dyer will use his bleaching liquor, even though he 
is perhaps ignorant not only of the constitution, but 
even of the name of the substance on which its 
powers depend. The great purpose of chemical 
investigation in agriculture, ought undoubtedly 
