I would beg that mineralists, who use such language as this, would consider if it contains a distinct idea of the operation which they would thereby describe, or if it does not contain either a contradiction or an inconceivable proposition. It supposes a calcareous body to be metamorphosed, somehow by means of the mountain acid, into a siliceous body. But, finding many bodies of pyrites contained within that solid flint, it is said, that, when the calcareous body was flintified, there were left in it cavities which were afterwards filled with pyrites. Let us reflect a moment upon this doctrine. These cavities were first open to the outside of the flinty body; but now the pyrites with which they had been filled is insulated in the solid flint. Here three things are required; first, The calcareous body is to be flintified, at the same time leaving the body full of small cavities open to the outside; secondly, These cavities are to be filled with pyrites; lastly, These mineral bodies are to be so inclosed within the flint, as to leave no vestige of the former processes. This marly mountain itself, which had been formed of loose materials gathered together at the bottom of the sea, was first to be filled with pyrites, in various shapes, by means of the phlogistic and the acid of the mountain. Here is proposed to us an operation which is totally unknown, or of which we have no kind of idea. But, let us suppose pyrites formed in this mountain, (of whatever chemical substances), by means of water; Why should water again undo that pyrites, in order to form other concretions? And, Why should the flint be formed first with cavities, and then made solid, after pyrites had been introduced into those cavities of the agate, and, as our author expresses it, _parsemée pour toute la substance?_ Here are suppositions which are not only perfectly gratuitous, but are also inconsistent with any thing that we understand. This is not explaining nature; it is only feigning causes[39].