And what he now Adds, being to this purpose; That though _Euclid_'s [Greek: Semeion], which we translate, _a Point_, be not indeed _Nomen Quanti_; yet cannot this be actually represented by any thing, but what will have some Magnitude; nor can _a Painter_, no not _Apelles_ himself, draw a _Line_ so small, but that it will have some Breadth; nor can _Thread_ be spun so Fine, but that it will have some Bigness; (_pag._ 2, 3, 19, 21.) is nothing to the Business; For _Euclide_ doth not speak either of such _Points_, or of such _Lines_. He should rather have considered of his own Expedient, _pag._ 11. That, when one of his (_broad_) Lines, passing through one of his (_great_) Points, is supposed to cut another Line proposed, into two equal parts; we are to understand, the _Middle of the breadth_ of that Line, passing through the _middle_ of that Point, to distinguish the Line given into two equal parts. And he should then have considered further, that _Euclide_, by a _Line_, means no more than what Mr. _Hobs_ would call _the middle of the breadth_ of his; and _Euclide_'s _Point_, is but the _Middle_ of Mr. _Hobs_'s. And then, for the same reason, that Mr. _Hobs_'s _Middle_ must be said to have no _Magnitude_; (For else, not the _whole Middle_, but the _Middle of the Middle_, will be _in the Middle_: And, the _Whole_ will not be equal to its _Two Halves_; but Bigger than _Both_, by so much as the _Middle_ comes to:) _Euclide_'s _Lines_ must as well be said to have no Breadth; and his _Points_ no Bigness.