He then illustrates this operation of nature by those of art, in building walls which certainly become hard, and which, as our author seems to think, become solid. But this is only an imperfect or erroneous representation of this subject; for, mortar does not become hard upon the principle of petrification adopted by our author. Mortar, made of clay, instead of lime, will not acquire a stony hardness, nor ever, by means of water, will it be more indurated than by simply drying; neither will the most subtile powder of chalk, with water and sand, form any solid body, or a proper mortar. The induration of mortar arises from the solution of a stony substance, and the subsequent concretion of that dissolved matter, operations purely chemical. Now, if this philosopher, in his Theory of Petrifaction, means only to explain a chemical operation upon mechanical principles, why have recourse, for an example in this subject, to mineral bodies, the origin of which is questioned? Why does he not rather explain, upon this principle, the known concretion of some body, from a fluid state, or, conversely, the known solution of some concreted body? If again he means to explain petrifaction in the usual way, by a chemical operation, in that case, the application of his polished surfaces, so as to cohere, cannot take place until the dissolved body be separated from the fluid, by means of which it is transported from place to place in the mineral regions. But it is in this preliminary step that lies all the difficulty; for, could we see how every different substance might be dissolved, and every dissolved substance separated from its solvent at our pleasure, we should find no difficulty in admitting the cohesion of hard bodies, whether by means of this doctrine of polished surfaces, or by the principle of general attraction, a principle which surely comprehends this particular, termed a cohesive power.