ludes, I believe to be that
which I have quoted from the Journal de Physique (Part I. page 139) to
which I here beg leave to refer the reader. After what I have already
said, this subject will appear to be of little concern to me; but, it
must be considered, that my object, in these answers, is not so much to
justify the theory which I have given, as it is to remove that prejudice
which, to those who are not master of chemical and mineral subjects,
will naturally arise from the opinion or authority of a scientific man,
and a chemist; therefore, I think it my business to show how much he
has misconceived the matter which he treats of, and how much he
misunderstands the subject of my theory.

Mr Dolomieu alleges that the volcanic fire operates in the melting of
bodies, not by the intensity of its heat, which is the means employed by
us in our operations, but in the long continuance of its action. But in
that proposition, this philosopher is merely giving us his opinion; and,
this opinion our author mistakes, I suppose, for the fact on which that
opinion had been (perhaps reasonably) founded. The reader will see, in
the place quoted, or in the _avant-propos_ to his _Memoire sur les Iles
Ponces_, the fact to be this; That the Chevalier Dolomieu finds those
bodies which we either cannot melt in our fires, or which we cannot melt
without changing them by calcination and vitrification, he finds, I say,
these substances had actually been melted with his lavas; he also finds
those substances, which are necessarily dissipated in our fires, to have
been retained in those melted mineral substances. Had our author quoted
the text, instead of giving us his own interpretation, he could not have
offered a stronger confirmation of my theory; which certainly is not
concerned with the particular intensity of volcanic fire, and far less
with what may be the opinion of any naturalist with regard to that
intensity, but only with the efficacy of that volcanic heat for the
melting of mineral substances. Now this efficacy of volcanic fire, so
far as we are to found upon the authority given on this occasion, is
clearly confirmed by the observations of a most intelligent mineralist,
and one who is actually a patron of the opposite theory to that which I
have given. This being the state of the case, Must I not conclude, that
our author has misunderstood the subject, and that he has been led to
give a mutilated opinion of Mr Dolomieu, in order to re