220 . C.’s Reply to D. [Sepr. 
fancying.” And he then adds, “ I shall set down my apprehen- 
sions in the form of suppositions.” He concludes the same 
letter: ‘‘ But by what has been said, you will easily discern 
whether in these conjectures there be any degree of probability, 
which is all I aim at. For my own part, I have so little fancy to 
things of this nature, that had not your encouragement moved 
me to it, I should never, I think, have thus far set pen to paper 
about them. What is amiss, therefore, I hope you will the more 
easily pardon.” 
The contrast which is thus afforded by the style of Newton to 
the manner in which Mr. Herapath and D. have written on the 
same subject, though exceedingly striking, will occasion no sur- 
prise to those who are accustomed to look for modesty and sim- 
plicity from minds in proportion as they are elevated and supe- 
rior; and to expect that by how much experimental and philo- 
sophical truth is habitually contemplated with a clear and lucid 
perception, by just so much will these ‘ conjectures,” these 
“ feigned hypotheses,” these “ fancies,” as Newton calls them, 
be esteemed doubtful and worthless. 
There are many other parts of D.’s papers which it will be 
perceived I have not thought worth notice. When, for instance, 
he over and over again mockingly repeats without any sensible 
‘application or meaning, phrases which I formerly used ; when 
too he asserts that I am “ unacquainted with one of the com- 
monest of Newton’s ideas,” speaks of my “ conclusions too 
absurd to be entertained by any other person,” “ ridiculous con- 
clusions,” ‘ temerity,” “ folly,” “ absurdity,” ‘ presumption,” 
“‘ quibbling ;” recommends me to avoid “ equivocation,” “ sub- 
terfuge,” ‘ paltry attempt to evade,” &c. with many other such 
imsinuations and expressions, I have thought such things not 
deserving an answer; they only degraded the writer, if they 
were not indeed to be expected as the natural style and manner 
of one capable of the wilful misstatements and misrepresentations 
which I have exposed. Very many other similar misstatements 
and misrepresentations I have passed over without observation, 
where they were not interwoven with the propositions offered as 
answers to what I had previously written ; | have shown enough 
to guard his readers against receiving as true, without examina- 
tion, any of his assertions, however positively made; and the 
occupation of exposing them is too unpleasant and disgusting 
not to be avoided as much as it can be done with propriety. 
With respect to the author of these papers, I certainly will 
not choose to attribute them to Mr. Herapath himself. I am 
aware that Mr. H. has been misled into a manner of attack upon 
what he calls the “ illiberal opposition ” from members of the 
Royal Society, and the “ absurdities and strange paralogies” of 
Mr. Tredgold, which will give some countenance to the suppo- 
sition that he might have been tempted to indulge in any longer 
paper, in the more liberal use of those terms not usual in philo- 
