His Answer to the Argument from Physicks in the fifth Paragraph.
To this he Answers, First, by asserting it possible, That a Body occupying a space equal to it self in one place, may •et be elsewhere without occupying any place at all; and he would prove this more then possible, from the opinion of the Learned, who maintain that actually the supreme Heaven occupies no place. Secondly, by denying the Inferences I make 〈…〉 of one Body being in two places at once, as first, That the Body will be equal to those 〈◊〉 s•aces, What needs that, Mr. Doctor, sa•s he, It is enough that in each of those two spa∣ce• it be onely equal or commensurate to that deter∣mina•e place it there occupies, suppose of six cub••s, and in neither of them equal or commensurate to a Page 119 space of twelve Cubits. And then for my Inference, That granting this Body equal to the spaces it occu∣pies at once, it will be double to it self, he denies the consequence. Because a Body of one Cubit rare∣•ied into a double dimension, and therefore occupying a double space, will not be double to it self. And a rational Soul informing a Body of a span length, when the Body is grown to another span still in∣formed by the same Soul, it does not follow that the Soul is double to it self. Is not this rare Di∣vinity, says he. Let the Doctor show a material di∣sparity in these two Cases, or else acknowledge the unconclusiveness of his own Objection. This is the sum and substance of that wherewith he would en∣•rvate my Argument, drawn from Physicks against Transubstantiation. What follows belongs rather to his Answer to my Argument drawn from Meta∣physicks which we shall consider there.
The Reply.
In the mean time to his first Answer, I Reply thus, That it is a fetch beyond the Moon or rather beyond the World, to endeavour the en∣ervation of my Consequences from the supposal of a Body in two internal places at once, that it so filling those two places, is equal to the two places equal to one another, and that therefore it is double to it self; by saying, that a Body occu∣pying a place equal to it self in one place, may yet be elsewhere without being in any place, be•cause the supreme or extimate Heaven is in no Page 120 place; which yet is to be understood of no ex∣•ernal place. But Eustachius and other School∣•hilosop•ers, and all that hold an internal place • which Truth is plainly demonstrable) do hold that it is in a place internal, upon which our Argument goes, but is equally true of locus externus. Nor then will this high flight beyond 〈◊〉 supreme or extimate Heaven serve for any ev•• 〈◊〉. For as much as we speak of Bodies placed •n this side of 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven, and no Bo•y can b• found amongst Bodies, but it will be 〈◊〉 cumscr•bed b• the ambient superficies of the next Bodies about it, that superficies of the ambient Bodies that do immediately compass 〈…〉 Body being its place. And every Body •ill h•ve such a place that is found on this 〈…〉 extimate Heaven. This is a Truth that 〈◊〉 be denied. And our Question is 〈◊〉 onely of suc• Bodies as are on this side 〈◊〉 extimate Heaven. From which the unsea∣sonablen•ss of my Adversaries subter•uge is plainl• d•cerned, which in no sense will serve his turn, unle•s for the amuzing the minds of the People.
To 〈◊〉 Second Answer I return this; To the first 〈◊〉 thereof, That it is not onely enough to him but it is also en•ugh to me that in each of the two •paces the Body be equal to that de∣•erminate place it t•ere occupies, understanding either an internal or external place. For sup∣pose one and the •ame Body at each place at •nce 〈◊〉 either an internal or external place of Page 121 such a quantity, of six Cubits suppose, which it cannot fill unless it be commensurate to them, it is plain it fills as much space as comes to twelve Cubits, if six and six make twelve, which is as sure as two and two make four. And there∣fore that it is equal to twelve Cubits, be∣cause it plainly fills up the space of twice six Cubits. Or how ever at the same time fills the ambient superficieses that would exactly fit twice six Cubits in several. There is no great∣er demonstration of equality then this, which the Geometricians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Co•gruen∣tia. So certain is it that a Body adequately fil∣ling two places of six Cubits big at once, has it self the magnitude of twelve Cubits: But the Body is supposed but one and the same Body in both places, and therefore can be but six Cubits. Wherefore it is both six Cubits and twelve Cubits at once, that is to •ay, it is double to it self at the same time, which is impossible.
Nor does the Second part of my Adversa∣ries Answer evade this Impossibility: That it will no more follow that a Body occupying at •he same time two places, and so being equal to those two places, which are double to one single place, that the Body is double to it self, then that a Body of one Cubit •a•ified into a double dimension and therefore occupying a double space is double to it self: Or the rational •oul informing a Bod• of a span length at first, but 〈◊〉 the same Body grown another span, is thereby Page 122 double to it self. For not at all to quarrel with the mistake of the nature of Rarefaction, which I must confess I take to be the Cartesian way not the •ristotelean, and candidly interpreting his meaning, in those words, (a body of a span length and then grown up to another span) which grown up to another span naturally implies the Body not double but octuple to what it was before, passing by these and medling onely with his own meaning, (as it may be hoped) and Hypotheses, the examples do not at all reach the present pur∣pose. For speaking in his sense, a body of one Cubit rarified into a double dimension is double to it self unrarified; that is, It is as big again as it was when it was unrarified. But it is not as big again or double to it self at the same time, but double it is to what it was before. And the same is to be said of the soul, (in such a sense as extension is applicable to her, and increase or de∣crease of it, namely by dilatation and contraction Spiritual) that it is double when the Body is grown as big again as it was when it was but a span long, to what it was when the Body was but a span long. But here in the present Case a Body is de∣monstrated double to it self, compared with it self and its present condition at the same time: Which is impossible, viz. That the same Body should be double now to what it is now. That it now should be as big again as it self is now. For neither can the Soul her self be said to be now as wise again as she is now, but onely as wise again as she was some time ago. And so my Page 123 Adversaries Answer does not at all reach the point in hand. And therefore my Demonstrati∣on stands firm and unshaken, of the Impossibili∣ty of Transubstantiation from this Argument taken from Physicks, as any unprejudiced eye may easily discern. Nor had we any need here to consider the continuity or discontinuity of places. But all is clear from what we have thus briefly represented.
