and jhewn inconclusive. 319

h .° m t ^ e different appearances they make, when^ ed at different distances from the eye; for why»t ° uld ^ey have one magnitude , or figure , ratherl Czv at iother.” This, which our Author and his Fol-S "Est much on, is taken from Pyrrho , and his

4)

on,

" —Koihx tStoi r leanoy rt» JouSflot eivou

I U, X$0i (pOAVijoU' T» rs7g«T(IV«, ffOJ'/vAflS" TOi

i%cvlx

T« op

xex*.et<ruivœ.-

Hinst the fj r ft Elements of Geometry , that any ob-t "’ s Book for instance, stiould subtend the same an-

Jeft.

file by

tioyj ra y s proceeding from it to the eye, at all the va-tb e j. d ^ ar >ces at which it may be placed. Thus uponft^PPofition that objects really exist, there is a demon-b; t( ^ e nec effity that they should appear of different mag-tb p , 6s ai rd figures, placed at different distances fromHo

'older. Hence it seems very unskilful to makeof 3sl a Ppearance an objection against the real existenceponded objects, which must necessarily obtain, sup-l ^ em t0 ex *st- If such an objection prove any

Nu

fa.

sto

W,

lf: proves extended objects impossible, becauser impossibility cannot become fact-, viz. That

' S dr ;

line should always subtend the fame angle, by" ra tvn from it to any point.

''!) ^ d have pretended to ridicule this scheme,

*' to eildeavour l n g to put some propositions, according'J'jj >u ridiculous language.” This I directly deny.is y ^ an S u age into which I have put these propositions,f P ro Per according to this scheme. This was de-

‘gnedtnl,

a s an argument against the scheme, not as ridi-When it is said in the

o. and ^ stdl think it is one.

-' ee ion, « -{'hat an oljeSl (this Book , v. g.) placed

" within