200 C.’s Reply to D. [Sepr. 
has written softness, but immediately before he tells us that 
elasticity is nothing but an active kind of softness; and he now, 
therefore, uses softness instead of elasticity merely to make the 
contrast the stronger.” By what means LD). knows that Mr. H. 
used softness instead of elasticity, he has not informed us ; but 
Mr. H. could not have wanted, nor was it possible for him to 
have obtained a stronger contrast than that which was ‘in di- 
rect contrariety ;” if, therefore, he thought “softness,” a stronger 
contrast than “ eiasticity,” he could not have thought elasticity 
to be “in direct contrariety.” 
In stating too that the term “softness” was used for the 
purpose of making the contrast stronger, he admits that Mr. H. 
advisedly used the one word instead of the other; consequently 
it is evident that D. with full knowledge on the subject, attributes 
a word to Mr. H. not only which he did not use, but which he 
intentionally avoided. 
Thus D.at the instant of censuring one person for a pretended 
misrepresentation, has, in order to give the charge an appear- 
ance of truth, intentionally misstated the actual words of another, 
making him say not only what he did not intend, but what he 
did not believe; and for this purpose has attributed to him an 
expression which he knew was on consideration rejected. 
{f D. thus misstates the expressions and meaning of Mr. H. 
I could hardly indulge an expectation of being differently treated. 
I was, therefore, little surprised subsequently to find that there 
is hardly a single quotation which D. pretended to make from 
my former paper, where he has not misstated either the words, 
or meaning, or both. 
The first proposition of any importance to which he refers is 
the following: ‘ In innumerable instances (if the words are taken 
in their usual sense), true conclusions may be brought out from 
false principles by correct reasoning. If, for instance, the errors 
on each side should exactly compensate each other, the. result 
will be correct, though the foundation be erroneous.” D. in 
quoting these sentences, omits some words, and transposes 
others, without marking the alterations, but as the tone and 
emphasis of the sentences are changed, rather than the sense, it 
is not of material consequence. ‘The meaning of these sentences 
it would seem hardly possible to mistake. It is most evident 
from the whole paragraph, that it is the false principles, and the 
foundation only, to which errors are ascribed, and the reasoning 
is supposed in all cases to be correct; and it is surely unneces-: 
sary to occupy your pages in proving that it is possible to reason 
correctly from erroneous data. D.however, in order to raise an 
apparent contradiction, has assumed that I meant to attribute 
errors to the reasoning, at the same time too that I concluded 
the reasoning to be correct. “So then,” he observes, ‘ correct. 
reasoning must contain errors; that is, I apprehend truth must 
be error. Of course, by parity of argument, false reasoning 
