ly diviſible; and of all the Difficulties and Abſurdities conſequent thereupon?
Qu. 18. Whether from Geometrical Propoſitions being general, and the Lines in Diagrams being therefore general Subſtitutes or Repreſentatives, it doth not follow that we may not limit or conſider the number of Parts, into which ſuch partiticular Lines are diviſible?
Qu. 19. When it is ſaid or implied, that ſuch a certain Line delineated on Paper contains more than any aſſignable number of Parts, whether any more in truth ought to be underſtood, than that it is a Sign indifferently repreſenting all finite Lines, be they ever ſo great. In which relative Capacity it contains, i. e. ſtands for more than any aſſignable number of Parts? And whether it be not altogether abſurd to ſuppoſe a finite Line, conſidered in it ſelf or in its own poſitive Nature, ſhould contain an infinite number of Parts?
Qu. 20. Whether all Arguments for the infinite Diviſibility of finite Extenſion
