JllRIN V. ROBIN S AND PEMBERTON 141 



to theìr common labours, and who possibly, when 

 he Comes to study suo Marte, and to see with his 

 own eyes, or to meet with abler instructors, may 

 make some figure in the Learned World, that pure 

 humanity induces me to oblige them with this one 

 Reply"(p. 54). 



145. Of course, Robins wrote a tract in reply,^ 

 but only the preface of this tract demands our 

 attention. In answer to the charge made by Jurin, 

 that he (Robins) had conducted the controversy 

 "with passion and abuse," Robins proceeds to 

 explain their past relations to each other. 



'* About six years since a pamphlet was publish'd 

 under the title of the Analyst ; in which the author 

 endeavors to shew, that the doctrine of fluxions in- 

 vented by Sir Isaac Newton is founded on fallacious 

 suppositions. As that writer had a false idea of this 

 doctrine, ... I thought the most effectual method 

 of obviating his objections would be to explain . . . 

 what Sir Isaac Newton himself had delivered with 

 his usuai brevity. . . . And with this view I pub- 

 lished a Discourse on Sir Isaac Newton's method 

 of fluxions, and of prime and ultimate ratios, But 

 in the mean time a controversy was carrying on 

 between the author of the Analyst and another, 

 who under the name of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis 

 had undertaken the defence of Sir Isaac Newton : 

 and as I at last perceived, both by the concessions 



^ A Full Confutation of Dr. Jurin* s Reply io the Rcmarks on his 

 Essay upon Distinct and Indistiiut Vision. By Benjamin Robins, 

 London, 1740. 



