To shew that Newton was thoroughly ignorant of the chemical properties of matter, I will quote again a paragraph, which I quoted in page 341, Vol. II. of "The Republican," in the answer to the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Home's pamphlet, entitled "Deism Refuted," &c. It is thus: "All things considered, it appears probable to me, that God in the beginning created matter in solid, hard, impenetrable particles; of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them, and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any of the sensible porous bodies compounded of them; even so hard as never to wear, or break in pieces: no other power being able to divide what God made in the first creation. While these corpuscles remain entire, they may compose bodies of one and the same nature and texture in all ages; but should they wear away or break in pieces, the nature of things depending on them would be changed: water and earth, composed of old worn particles, or fragments of particles, would not be of the same nature and texture now, with water and earth composed of entire particles at the beginning; and, therefore, that nature may be lasting, the changes of corporeal things are to be placed only in the various separations, and new associations of these permanent corpuscles." The Chemists of the present day must smile at this notion of Sir Isaac Newton, about what God did in the beginning: it is evident, that he knew but little about chemical analysis and composition; or, rather, that his ideas upon the subject were quite erroneous and hypothetical, when he might have obtained a demonstration quite conclusive, if he had studied Chemistry with other parts of his philosophy. Such, in my opinion, is the importance of the science of Chemistry in the pursuit of truth and in the investigation of Nature and her laws, that the first proper step towards philosophical studies must be an acquaintance with its elements and powers.