CHALLENGE.

AN answere you have heard from your Cardinall, unworthy any man of Iudgement, because of a Triple falsity therein. First in the Antecedent, and Assertion, saying that Being in a place or space is not inseparable from a Body. Secondly in the ground of that, because Place is not of the essence of a Body. Thirdly in his In∣stances, which he insisteth upon (for example sake) which are both Heterogenies. Contrary to this Assertion, we have already proved the necessity of the locall being of a Body, wheresoever it is; and now wee confirme it, by the Assertion of One, then whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accu∣rate, and accomplished with Philosophicall learning; even q Iu∣lius Scaliger by name, who hath concluded, as a principle infalli∣ble, that Continuity being an immediate affection, and property of V∣nity, One body can not be said to be in two places, as here, and there, without dividing it selfe from it selfe. So hee. Certainly, because Place being the Terminus (to wit that, which doth confine the Body that is in it) it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once, than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude, or many. Which truth, if that you should need any further proofe, may seeme to be confirmed in this, that your Disputers are driven to so miserable straits, as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Bo∣dy in divers places at once, but only Man's soule, which is a spirit; and God himselfe, the Spirit of Spirits, of both which * hereaf∣ter. Onely you are to observe, that the Cardinals Argument, in proving Space to be separable from a Body, because it is not of the Page  167 Essence of a Body, is, in it selfe, a Non sequitur, as may appeare in the Adiunct of Time, which although it be not of the Essence of any thing, yet is it impossible for any thing to be without time, or yet to be in two different times together.