With respect to acids, although the demonstration of their formation by fire and fixed air, is not so immediate as that of alkalis, yet it does not appear less certain. We have proved, that nitre and phosphorus draw their origin from vegetable and animal matters: that vitriol comes from pyrites, sulphur and other combustibles. It is likewise certain that acids, whether vitriolic, nitrous, or phosphoric, always contain a certain quantity of alkali; we must, therefore, refer their formation and savour to the same principle, and by reducing the varieties of both to one of each, bring back all salts to one common origin: those which contain most of the active principles of air and fire, will necessarily have the most power and taste. I understand by power the force with which salts appear animated to dissolve other substances. Dissolution supposes fluidity, and as it never operates between two dry or solid matters, it also supposes the principle of fluidity in the dissolvent, that is, fire; the power of the dissolvent will be, therefore, so much the greater, as on one part it contains more of this active principle; and, on the other hand, its aqueous and terrene parts will have more affinity with those of the same kind contained in the substances to dissolve; and, as the degrees of affinity vary, we must not be surprized at different salts varying in their action on different substances; their active principle is the same, their dissolving power the same; but they remain without exercise when the substance presented repels that of the dissolvent, or has no degree of affinity with it; but the contrary is the case when there is sufficient force of affinity to conquer that of the coherence; that is, when the active principles, contained in the dissolvent, under the form of air and fire, are found more powerfully attracted by the substance to be dissolved, than they are by the earth and water they contain. Newton is the first who has assigned affinities as the causes of chemical precipitation; Stahl adopted this idea and transmitted it to all the other chemists; and it appears to be at present universally received as a truth. But neither Newton nor Stahl saw that all these affinities, so different in appearance, are only particular effects of the general force of universal attraction: and, for want of this knowledge, their theory cannot be either luminous or complete, because they were obliged to suppose as many trivial laws of different affinities, as there were different phenomena; instead of which there is in fact only one law of affinity, a law which is precisely the same as that of universal attraction.