And first, you object that equality and inequality are in the same predicament: a pretty argument to flesh a young scholar in the logic school, that but now begins to learn the predicaments. But what do you mean by _æquale_ and _inequale_? Do you mean _corpus æquale_, and _corpus inequale_? They are both in the predicament of substance, neither of them in that of quantity. Or do you mean _æqualitas_ and _inæqualitas_? They are both in the predicament of relation, neither of them in that of quantity; and yet both _corpus_ and _inæqualitas_, though neither of them be quantity, may be _quanta_, that is, both of them have quantity. And when men say body is quantity, or inequality is quantity, they are no otherwise understood, than if they had said _corpus est tantum_, and _inæqualitas tanta_, not _tantitas_; that is, bodies and inequalities are _so much_, not _somuchness_; and all intelligent men are contented with that expression, and yourselves use it. And the quantity of inequality is in the predicament of quantity, because the measure of it is in that line by which one quantity exceeds the other. But when neither exceedeth the other, then there is no line of excess, or defect by which the equality can be measured, or said to be _so much_, or be called quantity. Philosophy teacheth us how to range our words; but Aristotle’s ranging them in his predicaments doth not teach philosophy; and therefore no argument taken from thence, can become a doctor and a professor of geometry. To prove that the proportion of inequality was quantity, but the proportion of equality not quantity, my argument was this: that _because one inequality may be greater or less than another, but one equality cannot be greater nor less than another: therefore inequality hath quantity, or is tanta, and equality not_. Here you come in again with your predicaments, and object, that to be susceptible of _magis_ and _minus_, belongs not to quantity, but to quality; but without any proof, as if you took it for an axiom. But whether true or false, you understand not in what sense it is true or false. It is true that one inequality is inequality, _as well_ as another; as one heat is heat _as well_ as another, but not _as great_. _Tam_, but not _tantus_. But so it is also in the predicament of quantity; one line is as well a line as another, but not so great. All degrees, intentions, and remissions of quality, are greater or less quantity of force, and measured by lines, superficies, or solid quantity, which are properly in the predicament of quantity. You see how wise a thing it is to argue from the predicaments of Aristotle, which you understand not; and yet you pretend to be less addicted to the authority of Aristotle now than heretofore.