JURIN V. ROBINS AND PEMBERTON 143 



*'My friend brought me the Doctor's answer 

 importing, that he could not believe, my paper 

 would displease any one, since, if the tenets, I 

 excepted to, were really erroneous, it was reason- 

 able, they should be exposed ; and if otherwise, it 

 was the business of Philalethes to defend them . . . 

 it was however added, that I had in two places 

 censured doctrines, whìch, if 1 supposed them to 

 be the opinions of Philalethes, I must bave mis- 

 apprehended him. Now ... 1 immediately ex- 

 punged them, and published the remaining part 

 in the Republick of Letters for October 1735, as 

 an account of my hook on Sir Isaac Newton's 

 method of fluxions, and of prime and ultimate 

 ratios. 



" To this Philalethes answered in the foUowing 

 month, and I again replied, till five papers were 

 successively written in this controversy, that is, 

 three by me, and two by him. And ali this time 

 so very desirous was I on my part of avoiding 

 irritating circumstances . . . that I thought even 

 the most intimate friend . . . could not be offended 

 with it. . . . But alas . . . Philalethes in his reply, 

 part of which was published in the July foUowing, 

 and the rest in the succeeding month, runs out into 

 the most extravagant heats of passion . . . charg- 

 ing me with dishonestly writing against the con- 

 victions of my own judgment. . . . After so gross 

 and unprovoked an abuse, ... I should surely bave 

 been acquitted of any breach of decency, if . . . I 

 had sharply exposed his ignorance in the subjects, 



