JURIN V. ROBJNS AND PEMBERTON 131 



than any quantity, and at last vanìshes into 

 nothing" (p. (8)). 



"He is grossly mistaken in thinking, that 

 quantities, which, before the end of a finite time, 

 come nearer together than to have any assignable 

 difference, will therefore become equal before the 

 end of that time " (p. ( 1 2)). ' ' I have clearly proved 

 in November and January last, that Sir Isaac 

 Newton designed no quantities or ratio's to be com- 

 prehended within the sense of this lemma, which 

 do not become actually equal " (p. (13)). 



" Has then Mr. Robins, . . . offered to shew, 

 that any quantities or ratio's incapable of an actual 

 equality are compared in this lemma? I think not" 

 (p. (22)). In January, '' I use the following words, 

 ' This determinate proportion of the finite quantities 

 a and e, is what I understand by the proportion of 

 the evanescent augments.' This, l say, ought to 

 have been attended to, before this charge against 

 me was renewed " (p. (24)). As regards the ratio 

 between the inscribed and circumscribed figures, 

 **have not I truly expressed it ? If my expression 

 be too complex, let these great Geometers shew me 

 a simpler, if they can, and I will make use of that " 

 (p. (34)). Robins's argument about the last form of 

 parallelograms differing from the limiting curve is 

 defective in the minor of the syllogism : " Things 

 which are equal are distinct from each other. " *' Is 

 it," says Jurin, " the part of a candid and ingenious 

 adversary, to insist always upon the word equal, when 

 a more proper expression, as that of co incidi ng, has 



