_ Prof. Oimsted’s Reply to Dr. Hare, 86} 
eens that which I have myself espoused, and that I had ad- 
need no direct arguments in favor of the materiality of heat, al- 
the e i 
eay la 
that it is unanswerable, notwithstanding the unaccount 
lect with which it has beén treated by the professor.”’ 
e reasoning which the author ate unanswerable, is 
then brought forward, and is as follow 
« We see the same matter, at different times, rendered self- 
n 
can be no property without matter, in which it may be inherent. 
Nothing can have no property. The question then is, whether 
ite properties can "Belong to the same particles. Is it 
not evident that the same anne cannot, at the same time, be 
the particles would, in effect, possess the predominant propert 
slaine whether attraction or Sls Ision ie h opert ar eck 
equal in power, they would annihilate each other, and the mat- 
ier would be as if void of either property. There must, therefore, - 
be a matter in which the self-repellent power resides, as well as 
matter: in which attraction resides.” Reply, p. 52. 
[ have found a difficulty in fully understanding the import 
of this passage. Does Dr. Hare maintain that the attraction 
which bodies exert, resides in a kind of matter extrinsic to the 
bodies themselves > Is the affinity of muriatic acid for lime, 
in his opinion , derived from Sees secs of an eae 
form of a que 
was discarded, it 
that we know nothing of ‘ie caus 
I have met with no late writer who has taken it for anal 
that there is matter in which attraction resides, distinct from 
the bodies themselves, which exert this influence on eac 
er. But if Dr. Hare is not thus to be understood,—if he de 
~ ¥QL. XII.—NO. 2. 
