2} _End_ is not _Punctum_, but only _Signum_
(which he does allow _non esse nomen Quanti_) even _this_ will serve our
turn well enough. _Euclid_'s [Greek: Semeion], which some Interpreters
render by _Signum_, others have thought fit (with _Tully_) to call
_Punctum_: But if Mr. _Hobs_ like not that name, we will not contend about
it. Let it be _Punctum_, or let it be _Signum_ (or, if he please, he may
call it _Vexillum_.) But then he is to remember, that this is only a
Controversie in _Grammar_, not in _Mathematicks_: And his Book should have
been intitled _Contra Grammaticos_, not, _Contra Geometras_. Nor is it
_Euclide_, but _Cicero_, that is concern'd, in rendring the Greek [Greek:
Semeion] by the Latine _Punctum_, not by Mr. _Hobs_'s _Signum_. The
Mathematician is equally content with either word.

What he saith here, _Chap._ 8. & 19. (and in his fifth _Dial._ p. 105. &c.)
concerning the _Angle of Contact_; amounts but to thus much, That, by the
_Angle of Contact_, he doth not mean either what _Euclide_ calls an
_Angle_, or any thing of that kind; (and therefore says nothing to the
purpose of what was in controversie between _Clavius_ and _Peletarius_,
when he says, that _An Angle of Contact hath some magnitude_:) But, that by
the _Angle of Contact_, he understands the _Crookedness of the Arch_; and
in saying, the _Angle of Contact hath some magnitude_, his meaning is, that
the _Arch of a Circle hath some crookedness_, or, is a _crooked line_: and
that, of equal Arches, That is the more crooked, whose chord is shortest:
which I think none will deny; (for who ever doubted, but that a _circular
Arch is crooked_? or, that, of such Arches, equal in length, _That is the
more crooked, whose ends by bowing are brought nearest together_?) But, why
the _Crookedness of an Arch_, should be called an _Angle of Contact_, I
know no other reason, but, because Mr. _Hobs_ loves to call that _Chalk_,
which others call _Cheese_. Of this see my _Hobbius Heauton-timorumenus_,
from _pag._ 88. to p. 100.

What he saith here of _Rations_ or _Proportions_, and their _Calculus_; for
8. Chapters together, (_Chap._ 11. _&c,_) is but the same for substance,
what he had formerly said in his 4th. Dialogue, and elsewhere. To which you
may see a full Answer, in my _Hobbius Heauton-tim._ from _pag._ 49. to p.
88. which I need not here repeat.

Onely (as a _Specimen_ of Mr. _Hobs_'s Candour, in Falsifications) you may
by the way observe, how he deals