Your third accusation is: “_That I had my doctrine of vision, which I pretended to be my own, out of papers which I had a long time in my hands of Mr. Warner’s_.” I never had sight of Mr. Warner’s papers in all my life, but that of _Vision by Refraction_ (which by his approbation I carried with me to Park, and caused it to be printed under his own name, at the end of Mersennus his _Cogitata Physico-Mathematica_, which you may have there seen, and another treatise of the proportions of alloy in gold and silver coin; which is nothing to the present purpose). In all my conversation with him, I never heard him speak of anything he had written, or was writing, _De penicillo optico_. And it was from me that he first heard it mentioned that light and colour were but fancy. Which he embraced presently as a truth, and told me it would remove a rub he was then come to in the discovery of the place of the image. If after my going hence he made any use of it (though he had it from me, and not I from him), it was well done. But wheresoever you find my principles, make use of them, if you can, to demonstrate all the symptoms of vision; and I will do (or rather have done and mean to publish) the same; and let it be judged by that, whether those principles be of mine, or other men’s invention. I give you time enough, and this advantage besides, that much of my optics hath been privately read by others. For I never refused to lend my papers to my friends, as knowing it to be a thing of no prejudice to the advancement of philosophy, though it be, as I have found it since, some prejudice to the advancement of my own reputation in those sciences; which reputation I have always postposed to the common benefit of the studious.