You should first have gotten into your minds the perfect and distinct ideas of all the motions mentioned in this chapter, and then have ventured upon the censure of them, but not before. And then you would have seen that the body moved from A, describeth not the line A C, nor the line A B, but a third, namely the semiparabolical line A H D. Again, where I say, _Wherefore, if the whole A B be uniformly moved to C D, in the same time wherein A C is moved uniformly to F G_; you ask me “_whether with the same impetus or not?_” How is it possible that in the same time two unequal lengths should be passed over the same impetus? “_But why_,” say you, “_do you not tell us with what impetus A C comes to F G?_” What need is there of that, when all men know that in uniform motion and the same time, impetus is to impetus, as length to length? Which to have expressed had not been pertinent to the demonstration. That which follows in the demonstration, _rursus suppono quod latus A C_, &c. to these words, _ut ostensum est_, _Art. 12_, you confute with saying you have proved that article to be false. But you may see now, if you please, at the same place that I have proved your objection to be frivolous. After this you run on without any argument against the rest of the demonstration, showing nothing all the way, but that the variety and concourse of motions, the speculations whereof you have not been used to, have made you giddy. To the nineteenth article you apply the same objection which you made to the eighteenth. Which having been answered, it appears that from the very beginning of your Elenchus to this place all your objections (except such as are made to three or four mistakes of small importance in setting down my mind), are mere paralogisms, and such are less pardonable than any paralogism in Orontius, both because the subject as less difficult is more easily mastered, and because the same faults are most shamefully committed by a reprehender than by any other man.