Part, §

 1    Text,  XII    |    quite satisfyed with his own demonstration: This sets you on declaiming
 2    Text,  XIV    |   infallible. Particularly, his demonstration of the Doctrine of Fluxions
 3    Text,  XIV    |         as Premises in a strict Demonstration. ~
 4    Text,  XX     |       are not to be admitted in Demonstration: That if a man destroys
 5    Text,  XXVII  |            that, neither in the Demonstration of the Rule for finding
 6    Text,  XXVII  |        Author in the end of his demonstration understands his incrementum
 7    Text,  XXVII  |         it self prefixed to the Demonstration? The sense whereof is (as
 8    Text,  XXVII  | therefore the conclusion of the demonstration is not the thing which was
 9    Text,  XXVIII |      one, who has any notion of Demonstration, that the incrementum in
10    Text,  XXXII  |     considered that Lemma, it's Demonstration and it's Consequences. For,
11    Text,  XXXII  |     indeed, who sees not that a Demonstration ad absurdum more veterum
12    Text,  XXXV   |   without which there can be no demonstration? I own frankly that I see
13    Text,  XXXVIII|   Analysis should not amount to demonstration? I further appeal to the
14    Text,  XXXVIII|   merely upon the strength of a Demonstration involving second or third
15    Text,  XLII   |        overlooked in Theory and Demonstration. if you say no, it will