204 C.’s Reply to D. (Serr. 
bered in examining the truth of this observation, that Mr. H.’s 
theory, upon which this argument is founded, and the truth of 
which for the purpose of deducing the consequences is assumed, 
considers the motion of the atoms and the heat of the body to 
be the same thing. And then notwithstanding it is expressly 
stated that part of the motion of the atoms of the body A, that 
is, part of the heat of the body A, is communicated to the atoms 
of the body B, without any compensation, he ventures to assert 
that I have not told him what becomes of the temperature of the 
body A, but that he supposes it increases. He then proceeds : 
“« Hence we have another source of heat we did not know of 
before. It is only to put two bodies in contact with unequal 
particles, and we shall have heat generated without the aid of 
friction or percussion ; and without chemical, galvanic, or elec- 
tric action. All this results by C.’s mathematics,” &Xc. 
Here D. first states that I have not told him what becomes of 
the temperature of A, which, to say the least, is a mere equivo- 
cation; as I have told him what becomes of: the heat of A, 
according to the theory which D. supports, and upon which the 
argument is founded; he then supposes that the temperature of 
A increases, without offering the slightest pretence for such a 
supposition, and immediately positively asserts that the absurd 
consequences to which that supposition would lead “ result by 
my mathematics.” I fear it is impossible to attribute with any 
reasonable probability such misrepresentations only to a want of 
capacity to understand the meaning of propositions so clear and 
intelligible; nor would a theory be worth the trouble of an exa- 
mination, which rested on the arguments of an intellect capable 
of such mistakes. Some of the misstatements indeed are 
founded upon mere invention; and, therefore, could not have 
arisen from misapprehension; and what then must be thought 
of a writer capable of such perversion of truth, or of a theory 
requiring such support. 
The arguments [ formerly used to show that the consequences 
fairly deducible from Mr. H.’s propositions in relation to the 
nature of heat and temperature, are inconsistent with facts, and, 
therefore, incorrect, were necessarily founded on the proposi- 
tions in the form and words of Mr. H. himself; what modifica- 
tions he might afterwards choose to make in them, it was of 
course impossible I should foresee. They were mere inventions, 
and the same rules of philosophical argument (if there be any 
such) which authorised the exercise of the imagination at first, 
will equally justify his inventing new qualities to answer objec- 
tions founded upon his former statements. But unless D. be 
Mr. Herapath himself, I do not see upon what grounds he can 
assume the same right. At all events he cannot justify making 
new contradictory propositions, yet such are assumed in D’s 
reply. For instance, having assumed for argument sake, Mr. 
H.’s statements ‘ that heat arises from an intestine motion of 
