In 1722, a new edition of the Commercium Epistolicum was published, and there was prefixed to it a general review of its contents, which has been falsely ascribed to Newton.[72] When the third edition of the Principia was published in 1725, the celebrated scholium which we have already quoted, and in which Leibnitz’s differential calculus was mentioned, was struck out either by Newton or by the editor. This step was perhaps rash and ill-advised; but as the scholium had been adduced by Leibnitz and others as a proof that Newton acknowledged him to be an independent inventor of the calculus,—an interpretation which it does not bear, and which Newton expressly states he never intended it to bear,—he was justified in withdrawing a passage which had been so erroneously interpreted, and so greatly misapplied. In viewing this controversy, at the distance of more than a century, when the passions of the individual combatants have been allayed, and national jealousies extinguished, it is not difficult to form a correct estimate of the conduct and claims of the two rival analysts. By the unanimous verdict of all nations, it has been decided that Newton invented fluxions at least ten years before Leibnitz. Some of the letters of Newton which bore reference to this great discovery were perused by the German mathematician; but there is no evidence whatever that he borrowed his differential calculus from these letters. Newton was therefore the _first_ inventor, and Leibnitz the _second_. It was impossible that the former could have been a plagiarist; but it was possible for the latter. Had the letters of Newton contained even stronger indications than they do of the new calculus, no evidence short of proof could have justified any allegation against Leibnitz’s honour. The talents which he displayed in the improvement of the calculus showed that he was capable of inventing it; and his character stood sufficiently high to repel every suspicion of his integrity. But if it would have been criminal to charge Leibnitz with plagiarism, what must we think of those who dared to accuse Newton of borrowing his fluxions from Leibnitz? This odious accusation was made by Leibnitz himself, and by Bernouilli; and we have seen that the former repeated it again and again, as if his own good name rested on the destruction of that of his rival. It was this charge against Newton that gave rise to the attack of Keill, and the publication of the Commercium Epistolicum; and, notwithstanding this high provocation, the committee of the Royal Society contented themselves with asserting Newton’s priority, without retorting the charge of plagiarism upon his rival.