(in) 
that a fixth part ofab U efuai to the Line of B c. But, whether it lye Mve it^ 
or hdojt^ it<i or fas Mr. Boh would have it) Jaft ufon it ; this argument doth 
not conclude. (And therefore HftgemHs's affertion, which Mr. Habs, Chap^ 
2 1 . would hos^ give way to this Demonftration, doth , nocwithftanding this, 
remain fafe enough. ) 
His deraonftration oiChap 2? . ( where he would prove, that thea^gregAU 
of the Radif4s and of the Tangent of ^c. Degrees is equal to a Une^rphofi [quart 
ii^ecjHai to 10 S^ptaresofthe Semiradius ) is confuted not only by me, ( in the 
place foreciced; where this is proved to be impoffible ^) but by himfclf alfo 
in this fame Chi^ pag^^g (where he proves fufficiently and doth confcflc,that 
this demonftfation, and the 47» Prop, of the firft of Ettclide^ cannot be both 
true. ) But, ( which 15 worft of all •) whether Ef*cliis Propofition be Falfe or 
True, his detnonftration mult needs be Falfe. l or he is in this Dilemma: if 
that Propofition be T'rwf, his demonftration is Falfe, foi he grants that they 
cannot be both True, page %9 it fie 21. 22. And again, if that Propofition be 
Falfe, his Demonftration is fo too ^ tor This depends upon That, page 55. line 
22 and therefore rauft fall with it. 
But the Fault is obvious in Ws Demonftrati9n (not in EficH^'j Propofition:) 
The grand Fault of it( though there are more ) lyes in thofe .words, page 56. 
line 26, Erit ergo MO minns quam MR Where,»nftead of minaj, he (hould 
have faid majus. And when he hath mended chat t rror • he will find,that ihe 
major \n page 56. line penult, will very well agree with majorem in page 57, 
line I f where the Printer hath already mended the Fault to his handj and then 
ihe F^i/Ww frp will van; fti 
His Seftion of an Angle in ratione data ; Chjip^ 22 hath no other foiTnda. 
tion,thanhisfoppofed^/f^^r4f//reof Chap. 20. And therefore, that being 
falfe • this rriuft faJl with it. It is {uft the fame with that of his 6, Dialogue. 
Prop 46, which ( befides that it wants a foundation) how abfurd it is, i have 
already (hewed in my Hohhius Heauton timor, page i ip^ r :o. 
H'S Appendix , wherein he undertakes to fliew a Method of finding avij 
fifiwberof mean Proportionals y between tvfo Lines given: Depends upon the 
fuppofed Truth of ais 22. C haptcr about Dividing an Arrh in any proportion 
given : ( As himfclf profeffeth and as is evident by the Conftruftion • which 
fuppofeth fuch a Sedion. ) And therefore, that failing, this falls with it. 
And yet this isoiherwife faulty,though th;it (hould be fuppofed True. For, 
In the firft Dcmonftrarion • page 67. line i 2* ProduHaLf incidet in 1 '^ \% 
not proved ^ nor doch it follow from his ^mniam igitur. 
Inthefecond Demonftration^ page 6% line R^^a Lfincidit in x 
is not proved ; nor doth it follow from his ^are, * 
In bis third Demonftration; pageyi: Inej, PrcduElaY P tranftbit'per 
M •, is faid gratis nor is any p»^oof offered for it. And fo this whole ftmc- 
ture falls to the ground. And wichill, the Prop. 47. El 1 dothftill ftendfaft 
(wh'chhetellsus, page $96^,7^. muft h^ve Fallen, if his Demonftrationi 
had ftood : ) And fo. Geometry and Arthen^eti (^do ftili agree, which (he tells 
us, page 78: line 10. ) had othtrwife been at odd*:. 
And this ( though much more might have been faid, ) is as much as need ta 
be faid againft that Piece 
Printed with Licence for f hn Afartyn, and f^mes AUt^rj ^ 
Printers to the Royal society. 
