Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus repaired [by] Petrus Gassendus ; augmented [by] Walter Charleton ...

CHAP. VI. OF PLACE.

SECT. I.

THat Inanity and Locality bear one and the same Notion, Essentially, and cannot be rightly apprehended un∣der different conceptions, but Re∣spectively; or, more expresly, that the same Space, when possessed by a Body, is a Place, but when left de∣stitute of any corporeal Tenent whatever, then it is a Vacuum: we have formerly insinuated, in the third Article, Sect. 1. of our Chap. concerning a Vacuum in Nature. Which essential Identy, or only re∣lative Alterity of a Vacuum and Place, is manifestly the Reason, why we thus subnect our praesent Enquiry into the Nature or Formality of Place, immediately to our praecedent Discourse of a Vacuum: we conceiving it the duty of a Physiolo∣gist, to derive his Method from Nature, and not to separate those Things in his Speculation, which she hath constituted of so near Affi∣nity in Essence.

Among those numerous and importune Altercations, concerning the Quiddity or formal reason of Place, in which the too contentious Schools usually lose their Time, their breath, their wits, and their Auditors at∣tention; we shall select only one Quaestion, of so much, and so general im∣portance, that, if rightly stated, calmly and aequitably debated, and judi∣ciously determined, it must singly suffice to imbue the mind of any the most Curious Explorator, with the perspicuous and adaequate Notion thereof.

Epicurus (in Epist. ad Herodot••) understands Place to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Intervallum illud, quod privatum Corpore, dicitur INANE, & oppletum

corpore, LOCUS: That Interval, or Space, which being destitute of any body, is called, a Vacuum, and possessed by a body, is called Place.

And Aristotle (in 3. Auscult. Natur. cap. 6.) thinks He hath hit the white, when He defines Place to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Circumdantis Corporis extremum immobile primum; Concava nempe, seu proxima immediataque, & ipsum locatum contingens corporis ambientis super∣ficies: the concave, proxime, immediate superfice of the body circumam∣bient, touching the Locatum.

Now the Difficulty in Quaestion, is only this: Whether this Definition of Aristotle, or that modest Description of Epicurus, doth with the greater measure of verisimility and perspicuity respond to the nature of what we ought to understand, in propriety of conception, signified by the word, Place.

In order to our impartial perpension of the moments of reason on each side, requisite it is, that we first strictly ponder the Hypothesis, or Ground, on which Aristotle erected his assertion, which is this; Praeter dimensiones Corporis locati, & ipsam ambientis superficiem, nullas alias dari (in 4. Phy∣sic. 1.) that in nature are none but Corporeal Dimensions: for, if we can discover any other Dimensions, abstruct from Corporiety, such wherein the formal reason of Space may best and most intelligibly be radicated; it can no longer remain in the suspence of controversie, how unsafe it is for the Schools to recurr to that superstructure, as a Sanctuary impraegnable, whose Foundation is only sand, and depends for support upon no other but a praecarious supposition.

Imagine we, therefore, that God should please to adnihilate the whole stock or mass of Elements, and all Concretions resulting there-from, i. e. all Corporeal Substances now contained within the ambite, or concave of the lowest Heaven, or Lunar Sphere: and having thus imagined, can we conceive that all the vast Space, or Region circumscri∣bed by the concave superfice of the Lunar Sphere, would not remain the same, in all its Dimensions, after as before the reduction of all bodies in∣cluded therein to nothing? Undoubtedly, that conceipt cannot en∣dure the test of Reason, which admits, that this sublunary Space can suffer any other alteration, but only a privation of all Bodies that pos∣sessed it. Now, that it can be no Difficulty to God, at pleasure, to adnihilate all things comprehended within it; and yet at the same time to conserve the Sphere of the Moon entire and unaltered: cannot be doubt∣ed by any, but those inhumane Ideots, who dare controvert his Omnipo∣tence.

Nor can it advantage our Dissenting Brother, the Peripatetick to plead; that we suppose, what ought not to be supposed, an absolute Impossibility, as to the Firm and fundamental Constitutions of Nature, which knows no such thing, as Adnihilation of Elements: since, though we allow it impos∣sible to Nature, yet can no man be so steeled with impudence, as to deny it facile to the Author and Governour of Nature; and should we conced it impossible to Him also, yet doth not the impossibility of any Effect inter∣dict the supposition thereof as possible, in order to the appropinquation of a remote, and explanation of an obscure verity, nor invalidate that Illation or assumption, which by genuine cohaerence depends thereupon.

Besides, 'tis no Novelty, nor singularity in us, upon the same conside∣ration, to suppose Natural Impossibilities: insomuch as nothing is more usual, nor laudable amongst the noblest order of Philosophers, then to take the like course, where the abstruse condition of the subject puts them upon it; and even Aristotle Himself hath been more then once our Praecedent and Exemplar therein. For, when He had demonstrated the Necessity of the motion or circumgyration of the Coelestial Orbs; He yet requires of us, that we suppose them to quiesce constantly: that so we may the more satisfactorily apprehend the truth of that position, at which his whole dis∣course was collineated; viz. that the Cause of the Earths Quiet is not, as some dreamed, the rapid motion of the Heavens; for, having cleared the eye of his Readers mind from all the dust of praesumption, with this suppo∣sition He th••n with advantage demands of him, Ubinam terra moraretur? (2 de Caelo.) Nay, even concerning this our Argument, need we not want the Authority of Aristotle to justifie the lawfulness of this our supposition: for, attempting to enforce, that in a large imagined Vacuum, in part where∣of a Cube of Wood is conceived to be situate, there can be no Dimensi∣ons but those of the Cube; He admits them conceiveable as clearly ab∣stracted from the mass or bulk of wood, and devested of all corporeal Ac∣cidents; wh••••ein (under favour) He more then seems to incurr an open Contradict•••••• of his own dear Tenet, that it is absurd to imagine any Di∣mensions Incorporeal. Nor is the Facility of our supposition less manifest then the Lawfulness thereof: since we dare our Opponents to produce any contemplat••ve Person, who shall conscientiously attest, that He could not, when He fixed his thoughts thereupon, clearly and easily imagine the same; What therefore can remain to impede our progress to the Use, or scope of this our supposition?

Having, therefore, imagined the whole sublunary Region to be one continued and entire Vacuum: we cannot but also imagine, that from any one point designed in the concave superfice of the Lunar Sphere, to another point •• diametro opposite in the same, there must be a certain Distance, or Intercedent Space. If so; must not that Distance import a Longitude, or more expresly an incorporeal and invisible Line? (2) If so; must not the medium of that Line be the Central point of the empty Space, the same which stood for Centre to the Terraqueous Globe, before its adnihilation? (3) If so; may we not conceive How much of that voyd Region was for∣merly possessed by the mass of Elements: and with mental Geometry commensurate how much of that Space did once respond to the superfice, how much to the profundity of each of those Bodies? (4) If so; must we not allow the Dimensions of Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity imaginable therein? undoubtedly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉: since we can no where conceive a Distance, or intercedent Space, but we must there al∣so conceive a Quantum; and Quantity imports Dimensions, nor is there any Distance, but of determinate extent, and so commensu∣rable.

From the pressure of this Socraticism, hath our Peripatetick retreated to that ruinous sanctuary of the Term, Nothing: retarding our pursuit, with this Sophism. When you suppose the sublunary Region to be an abso∣lute Vacuum, you expresly concede, that Nothing is contained therein; and upon consequence, that those Dimensions by you imagined therein, are

Nothing, and so that therein are no Dimensions at all. Why; because Dimensions consist essentially and so inseparably in Quantity: and all Quantity is inseparable from Corporiety. Wherefore, supposing no Body existent in that Empty Space: you implicitely exclude all Quantity, and consequently all Dimensions from thence.

This Evasion, we confess, is plausible; nor hath it imposed only upon young and paedantique Praetenders to Science, such as having once read over some Epitome of the Commentaries upon Aristotles Physicks, and learned to cant in Scholastick Terms▪ though they under∣stand nought of the Nature of the Things signified, believe themselves wise enough to rival Solomon: but even many grey and sage Enquirers, such who most sedulously digged for the jewel of Knowledge in the Mine of Nature, and emancipated their intellectuals betimes from the slavery of Books. For, among the most celebrated of our Modern Physiolo∣gists, we can hardly find two, who have judged it safer to abide the seeming rigour of this Difficulty, then to run upon the point of this Para∣dox; that, if all Bodies included in the ambite of the Lunar Heaven, were adnihilated, then would there be no Distance at all betwixt the opposite sides of the same: and the Reason they depend upon, is this; Necessary it is that those points should not be distant each from other, but be contiguous, betwixt which Nothing doth intercede. Nay, even Des Cartes himself cannot be exempted: since, 'tis confest by him in Princip. Philosoph. articul. 18.) that He subscribed the same com∣mon Mistake, in these Words: si quaeratur, quid fiet, si Deus auferat omne corpus, quod in aliquo vase continetur, & nullum aliud in abluti lo∣cum subire permittat? Respondendum est vasis latera hoc ipso fore conti∣gua. Cum enim inter duo corpora nihil interjacet, necesse est, ut se mutuò tangant; ac manifestè repugnat, ut distent, & tamen ut distantia illa sit Nihil: quia omnis Distantia est modus Extensionis, & ideo sine substantia extensa esse non potest. To him also may we associate Mr. White (in Dialog. 1. de Mundo.)

The most direct and shortest way to the Redargution of this Epi∣demick Errour, lyes in the detection of its grand and procatarctick Cause; which is the Praeoccupation of most Scholers minds by the Peripatetick Institutions, that limit our Notions to their imperfect Categories, and explode those Conceptions as Poetical and extrava∣gant, that transcend their classical Distinction of all Entities into Sub∣stance and Accident. For, first, insomuch as in the Dialect of the Schools, those three Capital Terms, Ens, Res, Aliquid, are mere Syno∣nyma's, and so used indiscriminately; it is generally concluded, that whatever is comprehensible under their signification, must be referred either to the Classis of Substances, or that of Accidents: and upon illation, that what is neither Substance, nor Accident, can praetend to no Reality, but must be damned to the praedicament of Chimaera's, or be excluded from Being. Again, having constituted one Categorie of all Substances, they mince and cantle out poor thin Accident into Nine, accounting the first of them Quantity▪ and subdividing that also into (1) Permanent, i. e. the Dimensions of Longitude, Latitude, Profundity; and so make Place to consist if not in all three, yet at least in one of them, viz. Latitude

or the superficies of a Body: (2) Successive, i. e. Time and Motion, but especially Time, which may be otherwise expressed by the Term, Durati∣on. Hereupon, when they deliver it as oraculous, that Quantity is a Cor∣poreal Accident: they confidently inferr, that if any Quantity, or Perma∣nent, or Successive, be objected, that is not or separately, or conjunctly Corporeal, it ought to be exploded, as not Real, or an absolute No∣thing.

Now this their Scheme is defective. (1) Because it fails in the General Distribution of Ens, or Res, into Substance and Accident: in regard, that to those two Members of the Division there ought to be superadded other two, more general then those; viz. Place and Time, Things most unreducible to the Categories of Substance and Accident. We say, more General then those Two; because as well all Substances as Accidents whatever, have both their Existence in some Place, and their Duration in some Time; and both Place and Time are, even by those who dispute whether they are Accidents, or not, willingly granted to persever constantly and invariately the same.

(2) Because it offends Truth in the confinement of all Quantity, or Dimension, and so of that of Place and Time, to the Category of Ac∣cidents, nay even of Corporeal ones: when there wants not a species of Quantity, or Extension having Dimensions, that is not Corporeal; for, nor Place, nor Time, are Corporeal. Entities, being no less congruous to Incorporeal, then Corporeal Beings. Upon which consideration, 'tis a genuine and warrantable Inference; that albeit Place and Time are not pertinent to the Classis either of sub∣stances, or Accidents: yet are they notwithstanding Realities, Things, or not-Nothings; insomuch as no substance can be concei∣ved existent without Place and Time. Wherefore, when any Cho∣lerick Bravo of the Stagirites Faction, shall draw upon us with this Argument; Whatever is neither Substance, nor Accident, is a downright Nothing, &c. we need no other buckler then to except Place and Time.

To authenticate this our Schism, and assert our Affirmation; we must now evince, that Place is neither Accident, nor substance: which to effect, we need not borrow many moments of its Twin-brother, Time, to hunt for Arguments in. For (1) though it be objected, that Place is capable of Accession to, and sejunction from the Locatum, without the impairment, or destruction thereof; and in that relation seems to be a mere Accident: yet cannot that justifie the consignation of Place to the Category of Accidents; because Place is uncapable of Access and Recess, and 'tis the Locatum to which in right we ought to ad∣scribe Mobility. So that when various Bodies may be successively situate in one and the same Place, without causing any the least mutation there∣in: we must allow the force of this Argument, to bring it nearest to the propriety of a substance. (2) A substance it cannot be; because the Term, Substance imports something, that doth not only exist per se, but also, and principally, what is Corporeal, and either Active or Pas∣sive: and neither Corporiety, nor Activeness, nor Passiveness, are At∣tributes competent to Place: Ergo.

Now, to leave our roving, and shoot level at the mark; the Extract

of these praemised Considerations, will easily and totally cure the despe∣rate Difficulty objected. For, when it is urged, that betwixt the opposite sides of a vessel supposed to be absolutely devoyd of any Body whatever, nothing doth intercede, and consequently that they are Contiguous; we need no other solution but this: that (indeed) nothing Corporeal doth interced, betwixt the diametrally opposite sides of a voyd concave, that is either Substance, or Accident; but yet there doth intercede something Incorporeal, such as we understand by Spatium, Intercape∣do, Distantia, Intervallum, Dimensio, which is neither Substance nor Accident. But, alas! that Thing you call Space is, according to your own supposition, an absolute Vacuum: What though? it must not therefore be Nothing, unless in the sense of the Peripatetick: because it hath a Being (suo modo) and so is something.

The same also concerns those Dimensions, which we conceive, and the Schools deny to be in our imaginary Vacuum: For of them it may be likewise truly said, that they are Nihil Corporeum, but not that they are Nihil Incorporeum, or more emphatically, Nihil SPATIALE, Nothing Spatial. Hence, according to the distin∣ction of Things into Corporeal, and Incorporeal; we may, on the de∣sign of Perspicuity, discriminate Dimensions also into (1) Corpo∣real, such as are competent to a 'Body, wherein we understand Lon∣gitude, Latitude, Profundity: (2) Spatial, such as are congruous to Space, wherein we may likewise conceive Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity. And so we may conclude, that those Dimensions, which must remain in that supposed Inane Region circumscribed by the concave of the Lunar Orb, in case God should adnihilate the whole mass of Ele∣ments, and all their off springs, included therein; are, in truth, not Cor∣poreal, but Spatial.

Let us skrew our supposition one pin higher, and farther imagine, that God, after the Adnihilation of this vast machine, the Universe, should create another, in all respects consimilar to this, and in the same part of Space, wherein this now consisteth: and then shall our thoughts be tuned to a fit key for the speculation, nay the comprehension of Three notorious Abstrusities, viz.

(1) That as the Spaces were Immense, before God created the World; so also must they eternally persist of infinite Extent, if He shall please at any time to destroy it: that He, according to the counsel of his own Beneplacit, elected this determinate Region in the infinite Spaces, wherein to erect or suspend this huge Fabrick of the World; leaving the residue which we call Extramundan Spaces, abso∣lutely voyd: and that as the whole of this determinate Region of Space is adaequately competent to the whole of the World; so al∣so is each part thereof adaequately competent to each part of the World; i. e. there is no part of the World, Great or Small, to which there is not a part of Space exactly respondent in all dimen∣sions.

(2) That these immense Spaces are absolutely Immoveable. And therefore should God remove the World into another determinate region

of them, yet would not this Space wherein it now persisteth; accompany it, but remain immote, as now. In like manner, when any part of the World is translated from one place to another; it leaves the part of Space, which it formerly possessed, constant and immote, and the Spaces through which it passeth, and wherein it acquiesceth, continue also immote.

(••) That, in respect the Dimensions of these Spaces are Immoveable, and Incorporeal: therefore are they every where Coexistent, and Compa∣tient (we speak in the dialect of the Schools) with Corporeal Dimensions, without reciprocal repugnancy; so as in what part soever of Space any Body is lodged, the Dimensions of that part of Space, are in all points re∣spondent to the Corporeal Dimensions thereof. In this case, therefore, 'tis far from an Absurdity, to affirm, that Nature doth not abhor a Penetra∣tion of Dimensions. To bring up the rear of these advantages resulting from our supposition, we may from thence deprehend, Why Aristotle hath not cleft a hair in his position, that there is in the Universe no Interval, nor Dimensions, but what are Corporeal.

To discriminate the Incorporiety of these Dimensions Spatial, from that adscribed to the Divine Nature, Intelligences Angelical, the Mind of Man, and other (if there be any) Incorporeal substances; we advertise, that the term Incorporeal bears a double importance. (1) It intends not only a simple Negation of Corporiety, and so of corporeal Dimensions; but also a true and germane substance, to which certain Faculties and Operations essentially belong; and in that sense it is adscriptive properly to God, An∣gels, the Souls of men, &c. spiritual Essences. (2) It signifies a mere Ne∣gation of Corporiety, and so of corporeal Dimensions, and not any positive Nature capable of Faculties and Operations; and in this sense only is it congruous to the Dimensions of Space, which we have formerly intimated to be neither Active, nor Passive, but to have only a general Non-repug∣nancy, or Admissive Capacity, whereby it receives Bodies either permanen∣tèr, or transeunt••r.

Here we discover our selves in danger of a nice scruple, deductive from this our Description of Space, viz. that, according to the tenor of our Conceptions, Space must be unproduced by, and independent upon the origi∣nal of all Things, God. Which to praevent, we observe, that from the very word Spatial Dimensions, it is sufficiently evident, that we understand no other Spaces in the World, then what most of our Ecclesiastical Do∣ctors allow to be on the outside thereof, and denominate Imaginary: not that they are meerly Phantastical, as Chimaera's; but that our Imagina∣tion can and doth apprehend them to have Dimensions, which hold an analogy to the Dimensions of Corporeal substances, that fall under the perception and commensuration of the sense. And, in that respect, though we concede them to be improduct by, and independent upon God; yet can∣not our Adversaries therefore impeach us of impiety, or distort it to the disparagement of our theory: since we consider these Spaces, and their Dimensions to be Nihil Positivum, i. e. nor Substance, nor Accident, under which two Categories all works of the Creation are comprehended. Be∣sides, this sounds much less harsh in the ears of the Church, then that which not a few of her Chair-men have adventured to patronize; viz. that the Essences of Things are Non-principiate, Improduct, and Independent:

insomuch as the Essence being the noblest, constitutive, and denominative part of any Thing, Substance or Accident; to hold it uncreat and inde∣pendent, is obliquely to infer God to be no more then an Adopted Father to Nature, a Titular Creator, and Author of only the material, grosser and unactive part of the World.

SECT. II.

BY the discovery of Dimensions independent upon Corporiety, such wherein the Formal reason of Space appears most intelligibly to consist, have we fully detected the weakness of Aristotles Basis, praeter di∣mensiones Corporis locati, & ipsam ambientis superficiem, nullas alias dari: it remains only, that we demolish his thereupon-erected Definition of Place, in which his legions of Sectators have ingarrisoned their judgments, as most impraegnable.

That Place is not the immediate and contiguous superfice of the body invironing the Locatum, may by the single force of this Demonstration be fully evicted. Immobility is essential to Place, as Aristotle well acknow∣ledged; for if Place were moveable, then would it follow of inevitable necessity, that a body might be translated without mutation of place, and è converso, the place of any thing might be changed, while the thing it self continues immote; both which are Absurdities so manifest, as no mist of Sophistry can conceal them even from the purblind multitude: Now the superfice of the Circumambient can in no wise praetend to this proprie∣ty of place, Immobility; as may be most conveniently argued from the example of a Tower; for that space, which a Tower possesseth, was there before the structure, and must remain there the same in all dimensions after the ruine thereof; but the superfice of the contiguous Aer, the immediate Circumambient, is removed, and changed every moment, the whole mass of Aer being uncessantly agitated more or less, by winds and other vio∣lences: Ergo. So numerous are the shifts and subterfuges of the di∣stressed Disciples of Aristotle, whereby they have endeavoured to Fix this Volatile superfice of the Circumambient: that should we insist upon only the commemoration of them all; we might justly despair of finding any Charity great enough, to pardon so criminal an abuse of leasure.

Besides, from Epicurus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Space, we may extract Salvo's for all those Scruples, which are commonly met with by all, who worthily en∣quire into the nature of Place. For, when it is questioned (1) How a body can persist invariately in the same place, though the circumambient be frequently, nay infinitely varied? (2) How a body can change place, though the Circumambient accompany it in its remove? (3) Why one body can be said to be thus or thus far, more or less distant from another? we may easily satisfie all with this one obvious Answer, that all mobility is on the part of the Locatum, all Space continuing constant and immote. Fur∣ther, hence come we to understand, in what respect Place is commonly conceived to be exactly adaequate to the Locatum: for, the Dimensions of all Space possessed, are in all points respondent to those of the body posses∣sing

there being no part of the body, profound or superficial, to which there is not a part of Space respondent in aequal extent; which can never be made out from the mere superfice of the Circumambient, in which no one of the Profound or Internal parts of the Locatum, but only the superficial are resident. Moreover, hence also may we understand, How Incorporeal substances, as God, Angels, and the Souls of men, may be affir∣med to be in loco. For, when God, who is infinite, and therefore uncapa∣ble of Circumscription, is said to be in Place; we instantly cogitate an infinite Space: which is more then we can do of Place, if accepted in Ari∣stotles Notion, which imports either that God cannot be in any place, or else He must be circumscribed by the contiguous superfice thereof: which how ridiculous, we need not observe. For Angels likewise, who dares affirm an Angel to be in a place, that considers his Incorporiety, and the necessity of his circumsciption by the superfice of the Circumambient, if Aristotles Definition of Place be tolerable? To excuse it with a distinction, and say, that an Angel may be conceived to be in a determinate place, not Circumscriptivè, but definitivè, i. e. So Here, as no where else: is impli∣citely and upon inference, to confess the truth of our assertion; Since that Here, designs a certain part of Space, not the superfice of any circumam∣bient. For, though you reply, that an Angel, being an incorporeal sub∣stance, wants as well internal and profound Dimensions, by which his sub∣stance may respond to Space, as those superficial ones, that respond to Place: yet cannot that suffice to an evasion, since if his substance hath any Diffusion in place, as is generally allowed; and though it be constituted in puncto, as is also generally conceived: nevertheless, doth that Diffusion as necessarily respond to a certain aequal part of Space, as a point is a deter∣minate part of space. This perhaps, is somewhat abstruse, and therefore let us conceive an Angel to be resident in some one point of that Inane Re∣gion circumscribed by the concave of the Lunar orb, formerly imagined: and then we may without any shadow of obscurity understand, How his substance may respond to a certain part, or point of the Inane Space, so as He may be said to be Here, not There, in this but no other place: but im∣possible it is, to make it out, How the substance of an Angel constituted in puncto of an empty space, can respond to the superfice of a Body Circum∣ambient, because all Bodies formerly included in that sublunary Region are praesupposed to be adnihilated. Lastly, by the Incorporiety of Space we are praeserved from that Contradiction, which Aristotle endeavouring to praevent, praecipitated himself upon no small Absurdity, viz. that the supreme Heaven, or Primum mobile is in no Place. For, if we adhere to his opinion, that place is the superfice of a body circumambient; the Primum mobile being the extreme or bounds of the World, we deny any thing of Corporiety beyond it, and so exempt it from Locality: but if we accept space to be the same without and within the world, we admit the Primum mobile, the noblest, largest, and most useful of all Bodies in the World, to enjoy a Place proportionate to its dimensions, and motion, as adaequately as any other. The necessity of which concession, Thales Milesius well in∣timated, when interrogated, What Thing was greatest? He answered, Place: because, as the World contains all other Bodies, so Place contains the World.

Reduced to these straights, Aristotle, among sundry other Sophisms, entrusteth the last part of his Defence, to this slight Objection; If Place

were a certain Space, constant in three dimensions; then would it inevitably follow, that the Locatuus and the Locus must reciprocally penetrate each others dimensions, and so the parts of each be infinitely divided: which is manifestly absurd, since Nature knows nor penetration of Dimensions, nor infinity of cor∣poreal division.

To this Induction we could not refuse the attribute of Probability, no more then we do now of Plausibility, had we not frequently praevented it, and openly by our Distinction of Dimensions into Corporeal and Incorpo∣real, and appropriating the last to Space. For, indeed, the Fundamental Constitutions of Nature most irrevocably prohibite the substance of one Body to penetrate the substance of another, through all its Dimensions: but, alas! Place is (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) properly and altogether Incorporeal; and therefore may its dimensions Incorporeal be Coexistent, or Compatient with the Corporeal Dimensions of any Body, without mutual repugnancy, the Spatial Dimensions not excluding the Corporeal, nor those extruding the spatial. This cannot be a diaphanous, or aenigmatical to those, who concede Angels to be Incorporeal, and therefore to penetrate the Dimensi∣ons of any the most solid Bodies, so that the whole substance of an Angel may be simul & semel, altogether and at once in the same place with that of a stone, a wall, the hand of a man, or any other body whatever, without any necessity of mutual Repugnancy. Nor to those, who observe the Syn∣thesis, or Collocation of Whiteness, Sweetness, and Qualities in the sub∣stance of Milk: for as those are conceived to pervade the whole substance of Milk, without any reciprocal repugnancy of Dimensions, so are we to conceive that the Dimensions of Space are totally pervaded by the whole Body of the Locatum, without Renitency.

Notes

• Art. 1. The Identy Essential of a Vacuum and Place, the cause of the praesent En∣quiry into the Nature of Place.
• Art. 2. Among all the Quaeries, about the Hoti of Place; the most important is, Whether Epi∣curus, or Ari∣stotles Defini∣tion of it, be most adae∣quate.
• Art. 3. The Hypothe∣thesis of Ari∣stotles Definiti∣on.
• Art. 4. A convenient supposition in∣ferring the ne∣cessity of Di∣mensions In∣corporeal.
• Art. 5. The Legality of that suppositi∣on.
• Art. 6. The Dimensi∣ons of Longi∣tude, Lati∣tude, and Pro∣fundity, imagi∣nable in a Va∣cuum▪
• Art. 7. The G••and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ob∣jecti••n, that Nothing is in a Vacuum; ergo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dimensions
• Art. 8. Des Cartes, and Mr. VVhite se∣duced by the plausibility of the same.
• Art. 9. The Peripa••••∣ticks reducti∣on of Time and Place to the General Cate∣gories of Su••∣stances and Ac∣cidents, the Cause of this Epidemick mistake.
• Art. 10. Place, neither Accident nor Substance.
• Art. 11. The praece∣dent Giant-Objection, that Nothing is in a Vacuum; s••abb••d, at a blow.
• Art. 12. Dimensions Corporeal and Incorporeal, or Spatial.
• Art. 13. The former supposition re∣assumed and enlarged.
• Art. 14. The scope and advantage thereof; viz. the compre∣hension of three eminent Abstrusities concerning the Nature of Place.
• Art. 15. The Inc••rpor••e∣ty of Dimensi∣ons S••atial, Discriminated from that of the Divine Essence, and other Su••stan∣ces Incorporeal.
• Art. 16. This persuasi∣on▪ of the Im∣production and Independency of Place; praeser∣ved from the suspition of Impiety.
• Art. 1. Place, not the immediate su∣perfice of the Body invironing the Locatum; contrary to A∣ristotle.
• Art. 2. Salvo's for all the Difficult Scruples, touch¦ing the nature of Place; ge∣nuinely ex••••a∣cted from Epi∣curus his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Art. 3. Aristotles ulti∣mate Refuge.
• Art. 4. The Invalidi∣ty thereof: and the Coexistibi∣lity, or Compa∣tibility of Di∣mensions Cor∣poreal and Spa∣tial.