[82] 
However difficult it may be to account for Father 
Frifius’s expreffions, I ffiali hazard yet another con- 
jecture. His great zeal for Sir Ifaac, for which he is 
certainly to be commended (if not blinded by that 
zeal) has hindered him from diftinguidfing between 
the different ways of oppofing that great man’s fen- 
timents. Perceiving then, that my calculations (§ L. 
Part II.) had led me to a refult quite different from 
Sir Ifaac’s affertion, (Prop. XX. lib. 3.) he was of- 
fended at my boldnefs to fuch a degree, that he was 
unable to examine impartially what I faid ; and, in- 
ftead of difeuffing a mathematical quedion quite in- 
dependent of any aClual meafure, wherein if I were 
midaken, he would have forced eveiy geometrician 
to condemn me, he has fuppofed, that I have built 
my argument upon an operation, which was not per- 
formed at the time when I wrote. 
This conjecture would appear to me the true caufe 
of F. Frifius's error, if it were not inconfiftent with a 
proceeding of his towards Sir Ilaac, which I will ven- 
ture to relate. After F. Frifius has examined himfelf 
the 19 problem of the third book of the Principia , 
which is much lefs complicated than that I fpoke of, 
the truth of which is incontedable, he finds, by his 
own miftake, a difagreement with the refult of that 
propofition, and charges that illufirious author, with- 
out the lead; apology, with an error, which, fays he, 
(quite from the purpofe) is the lixth, that has been 
found in the fame work, and alfo gives an enume- 
ration of the five others, altho’ they are not at all 
concerned in the quedion. 
I cannot forbear faying, that the manner, in which 
I have propofed my remarks upon the 2 oth propofition 
4 of 
