|1.| M^r Newton gave an instance of his Differe method of fluxions in his Analysis
per Æquationes numero termin communicated by D^r Barrow \to M^r Colling |s| / in the year 1669 & described
the universality of it in the his Letter to M^r Collins dated 10 Decem 1672 with an
example the\r/of in drawing of Tangents, & desc[illeg] a copy of w^ch \Letter/ was sent to M^r Leibnitz
at Paris in the year 1676, & in his Letters of 13 Iune & 24 Octob. 1676 described the
method further \to M^r Leibnitz/ by as extending to \Quadratures of Curves, invers/ Problems of Tangents & others more difficult &
there \also/ gave an example of it in a general series w^ch breake off for squaring of Curves.
M^r Leibnitz \ came from Paris to / was in London in the same October |began to learn the higher Geometry in the year 1674 & came from Paris to London in October abovemention 1676,| & there saw this last Letter in the hand
of M^r Collins \& by his Letter & that of 10 Decem 1672 knew that ✝ |✝ understanding that the method of new methods of Tangents were a Corollary of M branch of M^r Newtons general method, fell upon considering how to make M^r Newtons method of Tangents (w^ch was the same w^th that of Slusius, become general, & the next year| / & the next year wrote in a Letter \from Hannover/ dated 21 Iune 1677 wrote bak
sent back D^r Barrows method of Tangents, as his own & with the name & charac
teristick changed to make it his own, & \shewed/ how this method gi |a|ve the method of Slusius
& became \& might be improved \much/ beyond his former method (that of D^r Barrow) so as to/ proceeded without taking away fractions & surds as \like/ M^r Newton|s| had described
method & extended to Quadratures, like M^r Newton's method & then \he/ took notice that
this method [illeg] M^r Newton, having described that his method did the same
these performances being the same w^th those w^ch M^r Newton had ascribed
to his method, the |i| |s| methods seemed \he took this | [his]  [sic] | \his/ new method/ to be alike |M^r Newtons. Thus was he e |t|hen endeavouring to find out M^r Newtons method. But now he contends that M^r Newton|. But how he contends that M^r
Newton [sic] had no such method in those days. M^r Newton in his Letter of 24 Octob
represented that his method is |wa| |s| founded in \solving/ this Probleme Data æquatione fluentes
\quotcun / quanti\a/tates [sic] involvente fluxiones invenire & vice versa, & that his method of series
became universal by solving this Probleme Ex æquatione fluentes quotcun
Fluentem ex æquatione fluxiones involvente extrahere. But M^r Leibnitz tells
us that M^r Newton had in those days had no method of fluxions no fluxional
equations, but the[illeg] no characteristick for fluxions & moments. D^r Barrow
published his \differential/ method of Tangents in the year 1670. M^r Newton knew that
method long \some years/ before M^r Leibnitz & yet \is accused of/ wanted |in| |g| a differential Characteristic

| 2 |4| | When h |M| | ^r | e \Leibnitz/ first published his differential Method,1 he wrote that it
reacht to such difficult Problems as could not be solved
without it \the method/ or another method like it. And what other method
he meant you may know by his Letter to M^r Newton dated 17 March 1693
& still extant in his own hand writing. His words are Mirifice ampliaveras
Geometriam tuis seriebus, sed etiam edito Principiorum opere ostendisti patere
tibi etiam quæ Analysi receptæ non subsunt. Conatus sum ego quo, notis
commodis adhibitis quæ Differentias & Summas exhibeant, Geometriam
illam quam transcendentem appello Analysi quodammodo subjicere; nec res
male processit. And hitherto M^r Leibnitz forbore to contend w^th M^r
Newton for the preference.

|4| Afterwards in the year 1699 M^r Fatio contended th published
that M^r Newton was the oldest inventory by many years & M^r
Leibnits pub in his Answer published in the Acta Eruditorum for May 1700
did not dispute it but granted that M^r Newton was the first who by giving
|a| publick specimen of this method \openly/, \had/ proved that he had it, & contended himself|or|
nothing more then that each of them had found the method apart without receiving
light from the other.

|5| In October 1704 D^r Wallis died, the last of the old men who corresponded with
M^r Oldenburg & M^r Collins in these matters. And then M^r Leibnitz began
to claim the precedency. For in Ianuary 1705 in giving an Account of M^r
Newton's Quadratura Curvarum it was presented in the Introduction of w^ch M^r it was
in w^ch M^r Newton had said that he found the Method of fluxion gradually in the
years 167 |6|5 & 1666, it was retorted upon him that he had substituted fluxions for the
differences of M^r Leibnitz the first Inentor. And this representation M^r Leibnitz
And when D^r Keill defended D^r Wallis & M^r Newton, M^r Leibnitz defended what had
been published in the Acta Eruditorum, & demanded that D^r Keill should recant & M^r
Newton exp de taxed M^r Newton with knowing that D^r Keill was in the wrong &
pressed that he should declare his opinion in the |i|s matter, that is, that M^r
Newton should retract what had been \ publickly publickly/ affirmed by D^r Wallis M^r Fatio D^r Keill &
himself, & granted by M^r Leibnitz in his Letter of 21 Iune \1677/ [See Commercium p 88
lin 14 & p. 8 8 |9| lin penult. & p. 90 lin. 26, 27, 28] & in his c not disputed
in his correspondence with D^r Wallis & answer to M^r Fatio The accusation against M^r Newton amount [e]s |s to| to plagiary, & if it be not made good
it ought to go for calumny, & M^r Leibnitz is the man who ought to make it
good.