And the page before you exclaim in the following words -"Let us burn or hang up all the mathematicians in Great Britain,or halloo the mob upon them to tear them to pieces every mother's son of them,Tros Rutulusve fuat ,laymen or clergymen,&c.Let us dig up the bodies of Dr.
Barrow and Sir Isaac Newton,and burn them under the gallows.''
10.The reader need not be a mathematician to see how vain all this tragedy of yours is.And if he be as thoroughly satisfied as I am that the cause of fluxions cannot be defended by reason,he will be as little surprised as I am to see you betake yourself to the arts of all bigoted men,raising terror and calling in the passions to your assistance.
Whether those rhetorical flourishes about the inquisition and the gallows are not quite ridiculous,I leave to be determined by the reader.Who will also judge (though he should not be skilled in geometry)whether I have given the least grounds for this and a world of such-like declamation?
And whether I have not constantly treated those celebrated writers with all proper respect,though I take the liberty in certain points to differ from them?
11.As I heartily abhor an inquisition in faith,so I think you have no right to erect one in science.At the time of writing your Defence you seem to have been overcome with passion:but,now you may be supposed cool,I desire you to reflect whether it be not wrote in the true spirit of an inquisitor?Whether this becomes a person so exceeding delicate himself upon that point?And whether your brethren the analysts will think themselves honoured or obliged by you,for having defended their doctrine in the same manner as any declaiming bigot would defend transubstantiation?
The same false colours,the same intemperate sallies,and the same indignation against common sense!
12.In a matter of mere science,where authority hath nothing to do,you constantly endeavour to overbear me with authorities,and load me with envy.If I see a sophism in the writings of a great author,and,in compliment to his understanding,suspect he could hardly be quite satisfied with his own demonstration;this sets you on declaiming for several pages.It is pompously set forth,as a criminal method of detracting from great men,as a concerted project to lessen their reputation,as making them pass for imposters.If I publish my free thoughts,which I have as much right to publish as any other man,it is imputed to rashness,and vanity,and the love of opposition.Though perhaps my late publication,of what had been hinted twenty-five years ago,may acquit me of this charge in the eyes of an impartial reader.But when I consider the perplexities that beset a man who undertakes to defend the doctrine of fluxions,I can easily forgive your anger.
13.Two sorts of learned men there are:one who candidly seek truth by rational means.These are never averse to have their principles looked into,and examined by the test of reason.Another sort there is who learn by rote a set of principles and a way of thinking which happen to be in vogue.These betray themselves by their anger and surprise,whenever their principles are freely canvassed.But you must not expect that your reader will make himself a party to your passions or your prejudices.I freely own that Sir Isaac Newton hath shewed himself an extraordinary mathematician,a profound naturalist,a person of the greatest abilities and erudition.Thus far I can readily go;but I cannot go the lengths that you do.I shall never say of him as you do,Vestigia pronus adoro (p.70).This same adoration that you pay to him I will pay only to truth.
14.You may,indeed,yourself be an idolater of whom you please:but then you have no right to insult and exclaim at other men,because they do not adore your idol.Great as Sir Isaac Newton was,I think he hath,on more occasions than one,shewed himself not to be infallible.
Particularly,his demonstration of the doctrine of fluxions I take to be defective;and I cannot help thinking that he was not quite pleased with it himself.And yet this doth not hinder but that the method may be useful,considered as an art of invention.You,who are a mathematician,must acknowledge there have been divers such methods admitted in mathematics,which are not demonstrative.Such,for instance,are the inductions of Dr.Wallis,in his Arithmetic of Infinites,and such what Harriot,and after him,Descartes,have wrote concerning the roots of affected equations.It will not,nevertheless,thence follow that those methods are useless;but only that they are not to be allowed of as premises in a strict demonstration.
15.No great name upon earth shall ever make me accept things obscure for clear,or sophisms for demonstrations.Nor may you ever hope to deter me from freely speaking what I freely think,by those arguments ad invidia which at every turn you employ against me.You represent yourself (p.52)as a man"whose highest ambition is in the lowest degree to imitate Sir Isaac Newton.''It might,perhaps,have suited better with your appellation of Philalethes ,and been altogether as laudable,if your highest ambition had been to discover truth.
Very consistently with the character you give of yourself,you speak of it as a sort of crime (p.70)to think it possible you should ever"see farther,or go beyond Sir Isaac Newton.''And I am persuaded you speak the sentiments of many more besides yourself.But there are others who are not afraid to sift the principles of human science,who think it no honour to imitate the greatest man in his defects,who even think it no crime to desire to know,not only beyond Sir Isaac Newton,but beyond all mankind.And whoever thinks otherwise,I appeal to the reader whether he can properly be called a philosopher.
