M. Macquer had the fortune to live at a time when chemistry began to be freed from the reveries of alchymists; but methodical arrangement was a merit still unknown to the elementary chemical books, especially in France, where a residue of Cartesianism added to the natural obscurity of the science, by surcharging it with pretended mechanical explanations. Macquer was the first French chemist who gave to an elementary treatise the same clearness, simplicity, and method, which is to be found in the other branches of science. This was no small merit, and undoubtedly contributed considerably to the rapid improvement of the science which so speedily followed. His elements of chemistry were translated into different languages, especially into English; and long constituted the textbook employed in the different European universities. Dr. Black recommended it for many years in the University of Edinburgh. Indeed, it was only superseded in consequence of the new views introduced into chemistry by Lavoisier, which, requiring a new language to render them intelligible, naturally superseded all the elementary chemical books which had preceded the introduction of that language. Macquer, during a number of years, delivered regular courses of chemical lectures, conjointly with Baumé. In these courses he preferred that arrangement which appeared to him to require the least preliminary knowledge of chemistry. He described the experiments, stated the facts with clearness and precision, and explained them in the way which appeared to him most plausible, according to the opinions generally received; but without placing much confidence in the accuracy of these explanations. He thought it necessary to theorize a little, to enable his pupils the better to connect the facts and to remember them; and to put an end to that painful state of uncertainty which always results from a collection of facts without any theoretical links to bind them together. When the discoveries of Lavoisier began to shake the foundation of the Stahlian theory, Macquer was old; and it appears from a letter of his, published by Delametherie in the Journal de Physique, that he was alarmed at the prophetic announcements of Lavoisier in the academy that the reign of Phlogiston was drawing towards an end. M. Condorcet assures us that his attachment to theory, by which he means phlogiston, was by no means strong;[184] but his own letter to Delametherie rather shows that this statement was not quite correct. How, indeed, could he fail to experience an attachment to opinions which it had been the business of his whole life to inculcate? [184] Hist. de l’Acad. R. des Sciences, 1784, p. 24.