In the eighth place you object not, but ask me _why I define equal bodies apart_? I will tell you. Because all other things which are said to be equal, are said to be so from the equality of bodies; as two lines are said to be equal, when they be coincident with the length of one and the same body; and equal times, which are measured by equal lengths of body, by the same motion. And the reason is, because there is no subject of quantity, or of equality, or of any other accident but body; all which I thought certainly was evident enough to any uncorrupted judgment; and therefore that I needed first to define equality in the subject thereof, which is body, and then to declare in what sense it was attributed to time, motion, and other things that are not body. The ninth objection is an egregious cavil. Having set down the definition of _equal bodies_, I considered that some men might not allow the attribute of equality to any things but those which are the subjects of quantity, because there is no equality, but in respect of quantity. And to speak rigidly, _magnum et magnitudo_ are not the same thing; for that which is great, is properly a body, whereof greatness is an accident. In what sense therefore, might you object, can an accident have quantity? For their sakes therefore that have not judgment enough to perceive in what sense men say the length is so long, or the superficies so broad, &c. I added these words: “_Eadem ratione (qua scilicet corpora dicuntur æqualia) magnitudo magnitudini æqualis dicitur_,” that is, _in the same manner, as bodies are said to be equal, their magnitudes also are said to be equal_. Which is no more than to say, _when bodies are equal, their magnitudes also are called equal. When bodies are equal in length, their lengths are also called equal. And when bodies are equal in superficies, their superficies are also called equal._ All which is common speech, as well amongst mathematicians, as amongst common people; and, though improper, cannot be altered, nor needeth to be altered to intelligent men. Nevertheless I did think fit to put in that clause, that men might know what it is we call equality, as well in magnitudes as in _magnis_, that is, in bodies. Which you so interpret, as if it bore this sense, _that when bodies are equal their superficies also must be equal_, contrary to your own knowledge, only to take hold of a new occasion of reviling. How unhandsome and unmanly this is, I leave to be judged by any reader that hath had the fortune to see the world, and converse with honest men.