( 2249 ) 
fnot^, but)^-.' All which added together make not2oo-~, 
butip^+4 +4 t-^ r=) 204-^5 which is juft the fame widi 147^ 
multiplied into it lelf. So that,had he known how to mukipiy 
a number into a number, efpecially v/hea incumbred with fra- 
ftions (which it is manifeft he doth not,) he would have found 
nodifagreement between the Arithmetical calculation, and what 
hQCzlls th^Geometricai But I am afliamed (for him) that fo 
great a pretender to fuchhigh things in Geometry, ftiould be 
lomiferably igaorant of the common operations of practical 
Arithmetick* 
His repeated Quadrature he now es^prefleth thus, The Ra^ 
dius of a> Circle is a mean Proportional hetmehn the Arc of a ^adrant 
and trvo fifths of the fame. But inftead of two fifths, he might as 
well have faid the half or te^thyot hundredth part^^c , or (^taking 
T in DC produced beyond C,) the double ^decuple^centuple^^c^ or 
what youpleafei For his Demonftration would have proved ic, 
which is this* Defcribe a Square ABCD^and in it a G^uadrant DC A. 
In thefide Df (continued it need be,) take dT two fifths of DC, (or 
its HalfjOouble^Hundredth part, or what you plcafe 5 ) and be« 
tmeeuDCandDT a mean proportional DR i and defcribe the ^lu^a^ 
drantal Arcs J^SfTF, Ifay^the Arc RS is equal to the Jlr eight line 
D C, For feeing the proportion of DC to DT is duplicate of the prop or-- 
tion of DC to DR^ it rvili be alfo duplicate of the Proportion of the Arc 
CA to the Arc RS^andlikermJe duplicate of the Proportion of the Arc 
RS to the A rc TV^ Suppofe feme other Arc, Ufs or greater than the 
Arc RS^to be equal to DC for example rs i Then the proprrtion of the 
Arc rs to the fireioht line DTmH be duplicate of the proportion of RS 
to TV^ or DR to DT^ which is aifird j beeaufe Dr is by confiruHion 
greater or lefs than DR*, Therefore the Arc RS is equal to the fide 
DC 5 which was to be demonfirated. Which demonftration there- 
fore proving indifferently ^i/^ry proportion, doth net indeed 
prove ^;zy* In brief: The force of his Demonftration is but this, 
DT being to DC ^ 2 to 5 (or in any other proportion) and DRa 
mean proportional between them ; RS wiS be fo between TV and CA > 
and therefore rs (greater or lefs than RS^wili not be a mean proporti- 
onal between TV and CA : which is true ; but why it may not be equal 
to DC^v/Q have nothing but his word for it ^ there being nothing 
to flieWjthat DCxs equal to fuch a mean proportional. Again ; though 
rs be not a mean proportional between TV and CA, yet it may 
be between tv and CA^which ferves his Demonftrauoa as well 5 
O 00 2 which 
