ger masses." M. de la Peyrouse says, that those masses
were in all respects as if formed by art, only much larger, as the
powers of nature exceed those of our laboratories. What then is it that
is here meant to be disputed? We are comparing the operation of nature
and that of art, and these are to be judged of by the product which we
examine; but the quantity, in this case, or the size of the masses,
makes no part of the evidence, and therefore is here most improperly
mentioned by our author. With regard again to the nature of the fire by
which the fusion had been produced, he is much mistaken if he imagines
that the reduction of the reguline or metallic manganese depends upon
the intensity of the heat; it depends upon circumstances proper for the
separation of the oxygenating principle from the calx, in like manner as
the calcination of calcareous spar must depend upon circumstances proper
for allowing the separation of the carbonic acid or fixed air.

But do not let us lose sight of our proper subject, by examining things
foreign or not so immediately to the purpose. We are only inquiring if
those flattened spheres of native manganese had been formed by water, or
if it were by fusion; for, our author agrees that there is no other way.
Why then does he endeavour to evade giving a direct answer, and fly away
to consider the quantity of the product, as if that had any thing to do
with, the question, or as if that quantity were not sufficient, neither
of which is the case. In short, our author's whole observation, on this
occasion, looks as if he were willing to destroy, by insinuation, the
force of an argument which proves the theory of mineral fusion; and that
he wishes to render doubtful, by a species of sophistry, what in fair
reasoning he cannot deny.

Our author has written upon the subject of phlogiston; one would suppose
that he should be well acquainted with inflammable bodies at least; let
us see then what he has to observe upon that subject. He quotes from
my Theory, that spar, quartz, pyrites, crystallised upon or near each
other, and adhering to coal, or mixed with bitumen, etc. are found;
circumstances that cannot be explained in the hypothesis of solution
in the moist way.--He then answers;--"Not exactly, nor with certainty;
which is not wonderful: But they are still less explicable in the
hypothesis of dry solution, as must be apparent from what has been
already said. How coal, an infusible substance, coul