JURIN V. ROBIN S AND PEMBERTON 145 



to treat him with that freedom, which his unskilful- 

 ness authorised. ..." 



146. The above preface constitutes what we may 

 cali Robins's apologia prò vita sua. It seems only 

 fitting that Jurin should appear with a similar docu- 

 ment. This he did in a long Letter.^ 



We make the following quotations from Jurin 

 (p. 8) : 



** About five years ago some passages in a paper 

 of Mr. Robins, were shown to me . . . and a question 

 was put to me, whether I should take it ili, if those 

 passages were printed, it being intimated, that 

 Philalethes, against whom they were designed, 

 might possibly be some friend of mine : and indeed, 

 several persons were then guessed at, ali of which 

 happened to be my friends. To this ... I gave 

 answer, that I should not at ali take it ili. But I 

 added, that as I had read the controversy between 

 Philalethes and the Author of the Analyst, with some 

 attention, it seemed to me that in one or two 

 passages Mr. Robins imputed opinions to Philalethes, 

 which . . . that gentleman did not hold. . . . Also, 

 I took notice, that Mr. Robins did not rightly 

 explain Sir Isaac Newton's first Lemma. . . . But 

 when 1 desired to talk with Mr. Robins about the 

 Lemma, before the papers went to the press, as 

 imagining I could convince him that he was in the 

 wrong, answer was made, that the question was 



^ A Letter to . . . Esquire^ In Answer to Mr. Robins^s Full Confu- 

 tation of the Reply to his Remarks on the Essay upon distinct and 

 indistinct Vision. By James Jurin, M.D., London, 1741. 



IO 



