. (m) 
patuor tv.his DV •, ( fag. 41* line 33. ) into thefe (p. 44, /. 5.) apalU pa- 
tnor Lintis , padruftus Re$a DV: And would thence perfwade you, 
that Mr i?o^had afiigneda equal to a Zw, But Mr. Demon- 
ftration was clear enough for Mr .HobfFs Comment. Nor do 1 know any Ma- 
thematician ( unlefs you take Mr. Bobs to be one ) who thinks that a Lins 
multiplied by a Number -will make a Spare ; (what ever Air, Hobs is pleafed 
to teacn us . ) But, Tha ta Number multiflytd by a N umber , may make a 
Spare Number ; and, That a Line drawn into a Line may mak,e a paare Fi- 
gure, Mr, Hobs ( if he were , what he would be thought to be ) might have 
known before now. Or, ( if he had not before known it ) he might have 
learned, ( by what i. fhew him-upon a likeoccafion, in my Heb. He ant: fag. 
142. 143. 144 . ) How to underftand that Language, without an Abfurdity. 
Juft in the fame manner he doth, in the next page, deal with Clavius, For 
having given us his words, pag. 45 . 1 * 3 . 4. Vico hanc Lineam Perpendicular 
rem extra circulim cadere {"becaufe neither infra Circttlum , nor in feripbe - 
ria • ) He doth, when he would fhew an errour, fir ft make one, by falfifying 
his words, line 15. where inftead of Lineam PerpendicuUrem , he fubftt- 
tutes Punflum A. As if Enslide or Clavius h?d denyed the Point A. (the 
utmoft point of the Radim ,) to be in the Circumference Or, as if Mr. Hobs , 
by proving the Point A, to be in the Circumference, had thereby proved, 
that the Perpendicular Tangent A E had alfo lyen in the Circumference of 
the Circle. But this is a Trade, which Mr* Hobs doth drive fo often, as if he 
were as well faulty in his Morals , as in his Mathematical*. 
The Quadrature of a Circle , which here he gives us ,Chap. 20. 22. 2? , i§ 
oneofthofeTWw of hi«, whieftin my Hobbius Heauton-timorumenus (from 
fag* 104. to pag. 1 19) are already confuted ; And is the Ninth in order 
( as 1 there rank them ) which is particularly confidered, pag. 106. 1 07. 1 68. 
1 call it Om, becaufe he takes it fo to be ; though it might as well be called 
Two. For, as there, fo here, it confifteth of Two branches , which are Both 
Faife • and each overthrow the other. For if the Arch of a Quadrant be 
equal to the Aggregate of the Semidiameter and of the T angent of 30. Degrees s 
( as he would Here have it, in Chap, 20. and , There, in the clofe of Prop. 27-) 
Then is it not equal to that. Line, Vehefe Spare is equal to Tenfquares of the 
Semiradius, ( as, There, he would have it, in Prop. zS* and. Here , in Chap* 
2 3 > ) And if it be e'quai to This , then not to That * For This, and That, are 
not equal: As 1 thendemonftrated •, and need not now repeat it. 
The grand Fault of his Demonftration ( Chap, 20. ) wherewith he would 
now New- vamp his old Faife quadrature •, lyes in thofe words Page 49. line 
30, 3 1- ^uod Impcffibile efi mfi b&tranfeat per c. which is no impofiibility at 
all For though he firft bid us draw the Line R c , and afterwards the Line R d: 
Yet, Becaufe he hath no where proved ( nor is it true ) that theft two are the 
fame Line • (that is,that the point d lyes in the Lint R c, or that R c pafTeth 
through d; ) His proving that R d cuts of from ab a Line equals to t, he line of 
-R e , doth not prove,that \ab pafTeth through c .-For this it may well do,though 
ab Sye under e,(vid„ in cafe d lye beyond the line R c , that is, further from Axi) 
©r though it lye above c 5 : (vid, in cafe Abe nearer, than R c, to the point A . ). 
And therefore, unlefs he firft prove ( which he cannot do ) that A d(i a fixth 
part of AW) doth juft reach to the line R c and no further ■ he onely [roves 
that 
