34 Mr. Herapath's Reply to X. [Jan* 



further than within those limits at which experiments have been 

 tried. How do we know that beyond those hmits the law of 

 expansion may not be modified, or some totally different law 

 prevail? " If these arguments be admitted, we must also reject 

 Newton's law of attraction, because we are not certain that it 

 holds good beyond Ouranus ; and we are confident it does not 

 between very small bodies at very small distances. We must 

 likewise reject the universality of attraction on the earth, because 

 we are not certain " it holds good at all points." We must, 

 moreover, for the same reason, reject the general laws of optics, 

 electricity, magnetism, &c. and, m fine, all generahzation what- 

 ever. We must descend again from general laws to insulated 

 facts. tWe must destroy this beautiful system, which the 

 reiterated efforts of the human mind have shown to exist, and 

 have wrested from the chaos, and cleansed from the rubbish of 

 antiquity. We must descend once more to confusion, to igno- 

 rance, to uncertainty. We must cease to admire this noble 

 order of things, because, in all links of the chain, we are not cer- 

 tain of its truth. Finally, we must no longer confide in the 

 probable continuance of phaenomena whose uniformity and con- 

 stancy we every day witness, because X. will not allow us to 

 depend on the laws by which they are governed ; and we must 

 resolve into doubt and disbelief our knowledge of things whose 

 symmetry, order, and sublimity, manifest the omniscience, and 

 demonstrate the omnipotence, of the Deity. 



I have the honour to be, dear Sir, 



Your most obedient servant, 



J. Herapath. 



P. S. I beg leave to suggest to those who may please to 

 support or oppose my theory, that the most effectual way of 

 doing it is by direct experiment. There are several things I 

 have pointed out which yet remain to be proved. The experi- 

 mental confirmation or refutation of these things would be 

 infinitely more effectual in seconding their views, and do much 

 more good to science than all the arguments and reasoning they 

 can employ. An excellent opportunity of verifying or refuting 

 what I have said of capacity in p. 460, last vol. presents itself 

 to those who have a good calorimeter. By Cor. 1, Prop. 18, if 

 a given body at 212° Fahr. melt W quantity of ice ; at 420*5° it 

 will melt 2 W ; and at 657-9°, three times W. If the theory of 

 uniform capacities be correct, it should be 2 W at 392°, and 3 W 

 at 572°. Should the capacities be increasing, 2 W and 3 W 

 would come out with temperatures still lower than 392° and 

 572° ; so that here is a fine opportunity to refute or confirm. I 

 n6ed hardly observe, that to be exact a quantity of the body 

 should be used sufficient to liquefy considerable portions of the 

 ice. 



