I. THERE are ſome Men that can neither give nor take an Anſwer, but writing mere⯑ly for the ſake of writing multiply words to no pur⯑poſe. There are alſo cer⯑tain careleſs Writers, that in defiance of com⯑mon ſenſe publiſh ſuch things as, though they are not aſham'd to utter, yet, other men may well be aſham'd to anſwer. Whether there be [4] any thing in Mr. Walton's method of vindi⯑cating Fluxions, that might juſtify my taking no further notice of him on the abovemention⯑ed conſiderations, I leave you and every other Reader to judge. But thoſe, Sir, are not the reaſons I ſhall aſſign for not replying to Mr. Walton's full Anſwer. The true reaſon is, that he ſeems at bottom a facetious man, who under the colour of an opponent writes on my ſide of the Queſtion, and really believes no more than I do of Sir Iſaac Newton's Doctrine about Fluxions, which he expoſes, contradicts, and confutes with great skill and humour, under the maſque of a grave vindication.

II. AT firſt I conſider'd him in another light, as one who had good reaſon for keeping to the beaten Track, who had been uſed to dictate, who had terms of art at will, but was indeed, at ſmall trouble about putting them together, and perfectly eaſy about his Reader's underſtanding them. It muſt be owned, in an Age of ſo much ludicrous humour, it is not e⯑very one can at firſt ſight diſcern a Writer's real deſign. But, be a man's Aſſertions ever ſo ſtrong in favour of a Doctrine, yet if his Rea⯑ſonings [5] are directly levelled againſt it, whate⯑ver Queſtion there may be about the matter in Diſpute, there can be none about the Intenti⯑on of the Writer. Should a Perſon, ſo know⯑ing and diſcreet as Mr. Walton, thwart and contradict Sir Iſaac Newton under pretence of defending his Fluxions, and ſhould he at eve⯑ry turn ſay ſuch uncouth things of theſe ſame Fluxions, and place them in ſuch odd lights, as muſt ſet all men in their Wits againſt them, could I hope for a better ſecond in this Cauſe? or could there remain any doubt of his being a diſguiſed Freethinker in Mathematics, who defended Fluxions juſt as a certain Freethinker in Religion did the Rights of the Chriſtian Church.

III. MR. Walton indeed after his free man⯑ner calls my Analyſt a Libel. ^* But this inge⯑nious Gentleman well knows a bad Vindicati⯑on is the bittereſt Libel. Had you a mind, Sir, to betray and ridicule any Cauſe under the No⯑tion of vindicating it, would you not think it the right way to be very ſtrong and dogmatical [6] in the Affirmative, and very weak and puzzled in the argumentative Parts of your Perfor⯑mance? To utter Contradictions and Paradoxes without Remorſe, and to be at no pains about reconciling or explaining them? And with great good humour to be at perpetual vari⯑ance with yourſelf and the Author you pre⯑tend to vindicate? How ſucceſsfully Mr. Wal⯑ton hath practiſed theſe Arts, and how much to the honour of the great Client he would ſeem to take under his protection, I ſhall par⯑ticularly examine throughout every Article of his full Anſwer.

IV. FIRST then, ſaith Mr. Walton, ‘I am to be asked, whether I can conceive Velocity without Motion, or Motion without Exten⯑ſion, or Extenſion without Magnitude?’ To which he anſwereth in poſitive Terms, that he can conceive Velocity and Motion in a Point (P. 7). And to make out this, he un⯑dertakes to demonſtrate, ‘that if a thing be moved by an Agent operating continually with the ſame force, the Velocity will not be the ſame in any two different Points of the deſcribed Space. But that it muſt va⯑ry [7] upon the leaſt change of Space.’ Now admitting thus much to be demonſtrated, yet I am ſtill at a loſs to perceive, how Mr. Walton's Concluſion will follow, to wit, ‘that I am greatly miſtaken in imagining there can be no Motion, no Velocity in a Point of Space’ (P. 10). Pray, Sir, conſider his Reaſoning. The ſame Velocity cannot be in two Points of Space; therefore Velocity can be in a Point of Space. Would it not be juſt as good Rea⯑ſoning to ſay, the ſame man cannot be in two Nutſhels; therefore a Man can be in a Nut⯑ſhel? Again, Velocity muſt vary upon the leaſt change of Space; therefore there may be Velocity without Space. Make Senſe of this if you can. What have theſe Conſequences to do with their Premiſes? Who but Mr. Walton could have inferred them? Or how could even he have inferred them, had it not been in jeſt.

V. SUPPOSE the Center of a falling Bo⯑dy to deſcribe a Line, divide the time of its Fall into equal Parts, for inſtance into minutes. The Spaces deſcribed in thoſe equal parts of Time will be unequal. That is, from what⯑ſoever [8] Points of the deſcribed Line you mea⯑ſure a minute's deſcent, you will ſtill find it a different Space. This is true. But how or why from this plain truth a Man ſhould infer, that Motion can be conceived in a Point, is to me as obſcure as any the moſt obſcure myſte⯑ries that occur in this profound Author. Let the Reader make the beſt of it. For my Part, I can as eaſily conceive Mr. Walton ſhould walk without ſtirring, as I can his Idea of Motion without Space. After all, the Queſti⯑on was not whether Motion could be proved to exiſt in a Point, but only whether it could be conceived in a Point. For, as to the proof of things impoſſible, ſome men have a way of proving that may equally prove any thing. But I much queſtion whether any Reader of common Senſe will undertake to conceive what this pleaſant Man at Inference undertakes to prove.

VI. IF Mr. Walton really meant to defend the Author of the Fluxionary Method, would he not have done it in a Way conſiſtent with this illuſtrious Author's own Principles? Let us now ſee what may be Sir Iſaac's Notion, [9] about this matter. He diſtinguiſheth two ſorts of motion, abſolute and relative. The former he defineth to be a Tranſlation from abſolute place to abſolute place, the latter from one re⯑lative place to another. ^* Mr. Walton's is plainly neither of theſe ſorts of Motion, but ſome third kind, which what it is, I am at a loſs to comprehend. But I can clearly com⯑prehend that, if we admit Motion without Space, then Sir Iſaac Newton's Account of it muſt be wrong: For place by which he defines Motion is, according to him, a part of Space. And if ſo, then this notable Defender hath cut out new Work for himſelf to defend and explain. But about this, if I miſtake not, he will be very eaſy. For, as I ſaid before, he ſeems at bottom a back Friend to that great Man; which Opinion you will ſee further con⯑firmed in the Sequel.

VII. I SHALL no more ask Mr. Walton to explain any thing. For I can honeſtly ſay, the more he explains, the more I am puzzled. But I will ask his Readers to explain, by what Art a Man may conceive Motion without [10] Space. And ſuppoſing this to be done, in the ſecond place to explain, how it conſiſts with Sir Iſaac Newton's Account of Motion. Is it not evident, that Mr. Walton hath deſerted from his old Maſter, and been at ſome pains to expoſe him, while he defends one Part of his Principles by overturning another? Let a⯑ny Reader tell me, what Mr. Walton means by Motion, or if he can gueſs, what this third kind is, which is neither abſolute nor relative, which exiſts in a Point, which may be con⯑ceiv'd without Space. This learned Profeſſor ſaith, ‘I have no clear Conception of the Principles of Motion’ (P. 24). And in a⯑nother place (P. 7.) he ſaith, ‘I might have conceived Velocity in a Point, if I had un⯑derſtood and conſidered the nature of Moti⯑on.’ I believe I am not alone in not under⯑ſtanding his Principles. For myſelf, I freely confeſs the Caſe to be deſperate. I neither un⯑derſtand them, nor have any hopes of being e⯑ver able to underſtand them.

VIII. BEING now ſatisfied, that Mr. Wal⯑ton's aim is not to clear up or defend Sir Iſaac's Principles, but rather to contradict and expoſe [11] them, you will not, I ſuppoſe, think it ſtrange, if inſtead of putting Queſtions to this intrepid An⯑ſwerer, who is never at a loſs, how often ſoe⯑ver his Readers may, I entreat you, or any o⯑ther Man of plain Senſe, to read the following Paſſage cited from the thirty firſt Section of the Analyſt, and then try to apply Mr. Wal⯑ton's Anſwer to it: Whereby you will clearly perceive what a vein of Raillery that Gentle⯑man is Maſter of. ‘Velocity neceſſarily im⯑plies both Time and Space, and cannot be conceived without them. And if the Velo⯑cities of naſcent and evaneſcent Quantities, i. e. abſtracted from time and ſpace, may not be comprehended, how can we comprehend and demonſtrate their Proportions? or con⯑ſider their rationes primae & ultimae. For to conſider the Proportion or Ratio of Things implieth that ſuch Things have Magnitude: That ſuch their Magnitudes may be meaſur⯑ed, and their Relations to each other known. But, as there is no meaſure of Velocity ex⯑cept Time and Space, the proportion of Ve⯑locities being only compounded of the direct proportion of the Spaces and the reciprocal Proportion of the Times; doth it not follow, [12] that to talk of inveſtigating, obtaining, and conſidering the proportions of Velocities, ex⯑cluſively of Time and Space, is to talk un⯑intelligibly?’ Apply now, as I ſaid, Mr. Walton's full Anſwer and you will ſoon find how fully you are enlightened about the Na⯑ture of Fluxions.

IX. IN the following Article of Mr. Walton's full Anſwer, he ſaith divers curious things, which, being derived from this ſame Principle, that motion may be conceived in a point, are altogether as incomprehenſible as the Origine from whence they flow. It is obvious and na⯑tural to ſuppoſe Ab and Ba ^* to be Rectan⯑gles produced from finite lines multiplied by Increments. Mr. Walton indeed ſuppoſeth that when the Increments vaniſh or become no⯑thing, the Velocities remain, which being mul⯑tiplied by finite lines produce thoſe Rectangles (P. 13.) But admitting the Velocities to re⯑main, yet how can any one conceive a Rect⯑angular [13] Surface to be produced from a line mul⯑tiplied by Velocity, otherwiſe than by ſuppoſ⯑ing ſuch line multiplied by a line or Increment, which ſhall be exponent of or proportional to ſuch Velocity? You may try to conceive it otherwiſe. I muſt own I cannot. Is not the Increment of a Rectangle it ſelf a Rectangle? muſt not then Ab and Ba be Rectangles? and muſt not the Coefficients or Sides of Rectangles be lines? conſequently are not b and a lines or (which is the ſame thing) Increments of lines? theſe Increments may indeed be conſidered as proportional to and exponents of Velocity. But excluſive of ſuch exponents to talk of Rectan⯑gles under lines and velocities is, I conceive, to talk unintelligibly. And yet this is what Mr. Walton doth, when he maketh b and a in the Rectangles Ab and Ba to denote mere Velo⯑cities.

X. As to the Queſtion, whether nothing be not the Product of nothing multiplied by ſome⯑thing, Mr. Walton is pleaſed to anſwer in the affirmative. And nevertheleſs when ab is no⯑thing, that is, when a and b are nothing, he denies that Ab + Ba is nothing. This is one [14] of theſe many Inconſiſtencies which I leave the Reader to reconcile. But, ſaith Mr. Walton, the Sides of the given Rectangle ſtill remain, which two Sides according to him muſt form the Increment of the flowing Rectangle. But in this he directly contradicts Sir Iſaac Newton, who aſſerts that Ab + Ba and not A + B is the Increment of the Rectangle AB. And, indeed, how is it poſſible, a line ſhould be the Increment of a Surface? Laterum Incrementis totis a et b generatur Rectanguli incrementum Ab + Ba are the Words of Sir Iſaac ^*. which words ſeem utterly inconſiſtent with Mr. Wal⯑ton's Doctrine. But, no wonder that Gentle⯑man ſhould not agree with Sir Iſaac, ſince he cannot agree even with himſelf; but contradicts what he ſaith elſewhere as the Reader may ſee, even before he gets to the End of that ſame Section, wherein he hath told us that ‘the Gnomon and the Sum of the two Rectan⯑gles are turned into thoſe two Sides by a re⯑troverted Motion’ (P. 11 & 12). which [15] propoſition if you or any other Perſon ſhall try to make Senſe of, you may poſſibly be convin⯑ced, that this profound Author is as much at variance with common Senſe, as he is with himſelf and Sir Iſaac Newton.

XI. MR. Walton in the ninth Page of his Vindication, in order to explain the Nature of Fluxions, ſaith that ‘to obtain the laſt ratio of ſynchronal Increments, the magnitude of thoſe Increments muſt be infinitely diminiſh⯑ed.’ Notwithſtanding which, in the twenty third Page of his full Anſwer he chargeth me as greatly miſtaken, in ſuppoſing that he ex⯑plained the Doctrine of Fluxions by the ratio of Magnitudes infinitely diminiſhed. It is an eaſy matter, for any Author to write ſo, as to betray his Readers into Miſtakes about his meaning. But then it is not eaſy to conceive, what right he hath to upbraid them with ſuch their Miſtakes. If I have miſtaken his Senſe, let any one judge if he did not fairly lead me in⯑to the Miſtake. When a Man puzzleth his Reader, ſaith and unſaith, uſeth ambiguous Terms and obſcure Terms, and putteth them together in ſo perverſe a Manner, that it is [16] odds you can make out no ſenſe at all, or if a⯑ny, a wrong ſenſe, pray who is in fault but the Writer himſelf? let any one conſider Mr. Walton's own words, and then ſay whether I am not juſtified in making this Remark.

XII. IN the twentieth Page of his full An⯑ſwer Mr. Walton tells us, that ‘Fluxions are meaſured by the firſt or laſt proportions of iſochronal Increments generated or deſtroy⯑ed by motion.’ A little after he ſaith theſe Ratios ſubſiſt when iſochronal Increments have no Magnitude. Now, I would fain know whether the iſochronal Increments themſelves ſubſiſt when they have no Magnitude? whe⯑ther by iſochronal Increments we are not to underſtand Increments generated in equal times? whether there can be an Increment where there is no increaſe, or increaſe where there is no Magnitude? whether if Magnitudes are not ge⯑nerated in thoſe equal times, what elſe is ge⯑nerated therein, or what elſe is it that Mr. Walton calls iſochronal? I ask the Reader theſe Queſtions. I dare not ask Mr. Walton. For, as I hinted before, the Subject grows ſtill [17] more obſcure in proportion as this able Wri⯑ter attempts to illuſtrate it.

XIII. We are told (P. 22.) ‘that the firſt or laſt ratio of the iſochronal Spaces hath a real exiſtence, foraſmuch as it is e⯑qual to the ratio of the two motions of two points; which motions, ſubſiſting when the iſochronal Spaces are nothing; preſerve the exiſtence of the firſt or laſt ratio of theſe Spaces, or keep it from being a ratio of no⯑things.’ In order to aſſiſt your underſtand⯑ing, it muſt not be omitted that the ſaid two points are ſuppoſed to exiſt at the ſame time in one point, and to be moved different ways without ſtirring from that point. Mr. Walton hath the Conſcience to call this Riddle a full and clear Anſwer: to make ſenſe of which you muſt ſuppoſe it one of his Ironies. In the next and laſt Article of his performance, you ſtill find him proceed in the ſame Vein of Raillery upon Fluxions.

XIV. It will be allowed, that who ever ſe⯑riouſly undertook to explain the ſecond, third, and fourth Fluxions of Sir Iſaac Newton, would [18] have done it in a way agreeable to that great Man's own Doctrine. What Sir Iſaac's preciſe notion is I will not petend to ſay. And yet I will venture to ſay, it is ſomething that cannot be explained by the three dimenſions of a Cube I frankly own, I do not underſtand Sir Iſaac's Doctrine ſo far as to frame a poſitive Idea of his Fluxions. I have, nevertheleſs, a nega⯑tive conception thereof, ſo far as to ſee that Mr. Walton is in jeſt, or (if in earneſt) that he underſtands it no more than I do.

XV. Sir Iſaac tells us that he conſiders in⯑determinate quantities as flowing, or in other words, as increaſing or decreaſing by a perpetu⯑al motion. Which quantities he denotes by the latter Letters of the Alphabet, and their Fluxions or Celerities of increaſing by the ſame Letters pointed over head, and the Fluxions of Fluxions or ſecond Fluxions, i. e. the Muta⯑tions more or leſs ſwift of the firſt Celerities by the ſame Letters pointed with double points; and the Mutations of thoſe Mutations of the firſt Mutations or Fluxions or Celerities of in⯑creaſing, which he calls Fluxions of Fluxions of Fluxions or third Fluxions, by three [19] points; the fourth Fluxions by four points; the fifth by five; and ſo on ^*. Sir Iſaac, you ſee, ſpeaks of quantity in general. And in the Analyſt the Doctrine is exemplified and the Caſe is put in lines. Now in lines, where there is only one Dimenſion, how are we enabled to conceive ſecond, third or fourth Fluxions by conceiving the generation of three dimenſions in a Cube? Let any one but read what Sir I⯑ſaac Newton or what I have ſaid, and then ap⯑ply what Mr. Walton hath written about the three dimenſions of a Cube, and ſee whether the difficulties are ſolved or the Doctrine made one whit the clearer by this Explication.

XVI. That you may the better judge of the merit of this Part of Mr. Walton's performance, I ſhall beg leave to ſet down a Paſſage or two from the Analyſt. ‘As it is impoſſible to conceive Velocity without time or ſpace, without either finite length or finite duration, it muſt ſeem above the Power of Man to comprehend even the firſt Fluxions. And if the firſt are incomprehenſible, what ſhall [20] we ſay of the ſecond and third Fluxions, &c. He who can conceive the beginning of a be⯑ginning or the end of an end, ſomewhat be⯑fore the firſt or after the laſt, may perhaps be ſharpſighted enough to conceive theſe things. But moſt Men, I believe, will find it impoſſible to underſtand them in any ſenſe whatſoever. One would think that Men could not ſpeak too exactly on ſo nice a ſub⯑ject. And yet we may often obſerve, that the exponents of Fluxions or notes repreſent⯑ing Fluxions are confounded with the Flux⯑ions themſelves. Is not this the Caſe, when juſt after the Fluxions of flowing quantities, were ſaid to be celerities of their increaſing and the ſecond Fluxions to be the Mutati⯑ons of the firſt Fluxions or celerities, we are told that [...] repreſents a ſeries of quantities whereof each ſubſequent quantity is the Fluxion of the preceding; and each foregoing is a fluent quantity having the following one for it's Fluxion. Divers ſeri⯑es of quantities and expreſſions Geometrical and Algebraical may be eaſily conceived in lines, in ſurfaces, in ſpecies, to be continu⯑ed without end or limit. But it will not be [21] found ſo eaſy to conceive a ſeries, either of mere Velocities or of mere naſcent Incre⯑ments, diſtinct therefrom and correſponding thereunto.’ ^* Compare what is here ſaid with Mr. Walton's Geneſis of a Cube, and you will then clearly ſee how far this anſwerer is from explaining the nature of ſecond, third and fourth Fluxions: And how juſtly I might repay that Gentleman in kind, and tell him in his own language, that all his Skill is vain and impertinent, (vind. p. 36).

XVII. BUT it doth not become me to find fault with this learned Profeſſor, who at bot⯑tom militates on my Side, and in this very Section, makes it his buſineſs directly to over⯑throw Sir Iſaac Newton's Doctrine. For he ſaith in plain Terms, that there can be no fourth Fluxion of a Cube (P. 25.) that is, there can be no ſecond Fluxion of a line, and a fortiori, no third, fourth, fifth, &c. Inſo⯑much that with one ſingle daſh of his Pen Mr. Walton deſtroys, to the great relief of the learned World, an indefinite rank of Fluxions [22] of different Orders that might have reached from Pole to Pole. I had diſtinctly pointed out the difficulties in ſeveral Parts both of my Analyſt and Defence, and I leave you to judge whether he explains or even attempts to explain one of them. Inſtead thereof he tells us of the true Dimenſion of a Cube generated by Moti⯑on: Whence he takes occaſion, as hath been obſerved, to explode Sir Iſaac's own Doctrine, which is utterly inconſiſtent with Mr. Walton's And can you now doubt the real deſign of this egregious Vindicator.

XVIII. BEFORE ever Sir Iſaac Newton thought of his Fluxions, every body knew there were three Dimenſions in a Cube, and that a Solid might be generated by the motion of a Surface, a Surface by the motion of a Line, and a Line by the motion of a Point. And this in effect is all we know from Mr. Walton's Explication. As for his dwelling ſo minutely on the Geneſis of the ſolid Parts of a Cube, a thing ſo foreign from the Purpoſe, the only rational Account I can give of it is, that Mr. Walton, by puzzling the Imagination of his vulgar Readers, hoped the better to diſ⯑guiſe [23] his betraying the Doctrine of his great Client, which to a diſcerning eye he manifeſt⯑ly gives up; and inſtead thereof humourouſly ſubſtitutes, what all the World knew before Sir Iſaac was born, to wit, the three Dimenſi⯑ons of a Cube and the geneſis thereof by Mo⯑tion.

XIX. UPON the whole I appeal to you and every intelligent Reader, whether this thing, which Walton is pleaſed ironically to call a full Anſwer, doth not carry through⯑out a fly Inſinuation, that the profound Sci⯑ence of Fluxions cannot be maintained but by the help of moſt unintelligible Paradoxes and Inconſiſtencies. So far, indeed, as Affirmati⯑ons go he ſheweth himſelf an able Support of Sir Iſaac Newton. But then in his Rea⯑ſonings he drops that great man upon the moſt important Points, to wit, his Doctrine of Mo⯑tion and his Doctrine of Fluxions, not regard⯑ing how far the demonſtration of his famous Principia is intereſted therein. To convince you ſtill more and more of the Truth hereof, do but reflect a little on Mr. Walton's Conduct. Can you think it probable, that ſo learned and [24] clear-headed a Writer would have laid down ſuch a direct repugnancy to common Senſe, as his Idea of Motion in a Point, for the ground work of his Explanation, had it been his real Intention to explain? Or can you ſuppoſe, he would have been abſolutely ſilent, on ſo many Points urged home, both in the Analyſt and Defence, which it concerned a Vindicator of Sir Iſaac not to have overlooked? Can you ima⯑gine, that if he meant ſeriouſly to defend the Doctrine of Fluxions, he would have content⯑ed himſelf with barely aſſerting that ‘Sir Iſaac Newton in the Introduction to his Quadra⯑ture of Curves, in the ſecond Lemma of the ſecond Book, and in the Scholium to the firſt Section of the firſt Book of his Princi⯑ples of Philoſophy, hath delivered his Doc⯑trine of Fluxions in ſo clear and diſtinct a manner, without the leaſt Inconſiſtency in terms or Arguments, that one would have thought it impoſſible for any Perſon not to have underſtood him’ (P. 30).

XX. IS it poſſible, I ſay, that Mr. Walton could in earneſt hope we ſhould take his bare Word, as ſo much more credible that Sir I⯑ſaac's, [25] and not rather have endeavoured to an⯑ſwer the Queſtions and reconcile the Difficul⯑ties ſet forth in my Defence of Free-thinking, for inſtance, in Sect xxxvi. Wherein I intreat my Antagoniſt to explain ‘whether Sir Iſaac's Momentum be a finite Quantity or an In⯑finiteſimal or a mere Limit, adding, if you ſay a finite Quantity, be pleaſed to reconcile this with what he ſaith in the Scholium of the ſecond Lemma of the firſt Section of the firſt Book of his Principles: Cave intelligas quantitates magnitudine determinatas, ſed cogita ſemper diminuendas ſine limite. If you ſay an Infiniteſimal: Reconcile this with what is ſaid in the Introduction to his Qua⯑dratures: Volui oſtendere quod in methodo Fluxionum non opus ſit figuras infinite parvas in Geometriam introducere. If you ſhould ſay it is a mere Limit, be pleaſed to recon⯑cile this with what we find in the firſt Caſe of the ſecond Lemma in the ſecond Book of his Principles: Ubi de lateribus A & B deerant momentorum dimidia, &c. where the Moments are ſuppoſed to be divided.’ I ſhall ſcarce think it worth my while to beſtow a ſerious thought on any Writer who ſhall pre⯑tend [26] to maintain Sir Iſaac's Doctrine, and yet leave this Paſſage without a Reply. And the Reader, I believe, will think with me that, in anſwer to difficulties diſtinctly propoſed and in⯑ſiſted on, to offer nothing but a magiſterial Aſ⯑ſertion is a mere grimace of one who made merry with Fluxions, under the Notion of de⯑fending them. And he will be further con⯑firmed in this way of thinking, when he ob⯑ſerves that Mr. Walton hath not ſaid one Syl⯑lable, in Reply to thoſe ſeveral Sections of my Defence, which I had particularly referred to, as containing a full anſwer to his Vindication. But it is no wonder if, with Sir Iſaac's Doc⯑trine, he ſhould drop alſo his own Arguments in favour thereof.

XXI. I HAVE been at the Pains once for all to write this ſhort Comment on Mr. Wal⯑ton, as the only way I could think of for mak⯑ing him intelligible, which will alſo ſerve as a Key to his future Writings on this Subject. And I was the rather inclined to take this trou⯑ble, becauſe it ſeemeth to me, there is no part of Learning that wants to be clear'd up more than this ſame Doctrine of Fluxions, which hath hi⯑therto [27] walked about in a miſt to the Stupefac⯑tion of the Literati of the preſent Age. To conclude, I accept this Profeſſor's Recantation, nor am at all diſpleaſed at the ingenious me⯑thod he takes to diſguiſe it. Some zealous Flu⯑xioniſt may perhaps anſwer him.