JURIN V. ROBINS AND PEMBERTON 123 



ing the limit is no valid argument against the con- 

 tention that the limit is reached ; even in the 

 ancient geometry there are demonstrated truths 

 that He beyond the reach of the imagination, as 

 for instance, that three cones may equal a cylinder, 

 ali of the same base and height (p. 130). The 

 meaning of moment^ a truly diffìcult concept, is dis- 

 cussed again, Jurin holding that Newton took it as 

 *'a mcmentaneous increment, . . . less than any 

 finite quantity whatsoever, and proportional to the 

 velocity of the flowing quantity," while Robins seem- 

 ingly claimed that Newton meant them to be finite 

 quantities (p. 151). With respect to Newton's 

 early use of the infinitely little, Jurin and Robins 

 were in disagreement, and Robins was in our 

 opinion nearer the truth. Robins claimed that 

 Newton at first used infinitely little quantities ; that 

 afterwards he improved his method by discarding 

 them ; Jurin claimed that Newton's alleged absurdity 

 of expression and inconsistency with himself, as 

 charged by Berkeley and others, **arises wholly 

 from misinterpretation, or misunderstanding him " 



(P. 179). 



134. Jurin's article appeared in the July and 

 August numbers, 1736, of the Republick of Letters. 

 Robins could not wait in patience until the entire 

 article of Jurin had been printed. In the August 

 number he replies to the part of Jurin's article that 

 had appeared in the July number. The August 

 number was given up to Jurin and Robins, to the 

 entire exclusion of ali othcr articles and of the usuai 



