which may as truly be denied of the space penetrated with the moon: here are then two portions of space really distinct from one another, since they receive two contradictory denominations, of being penetrated, and not being penetrated with the sun. This fully confutes those who venture to assert, that space is nothing but the immensity of God; and it is certain that the divine immensity could not be the place of bodies, without giving room to conclude that it is composed of as many parts really distinct, as there are bodies in the world. It will be in vain for you to allege that infinity hath no parts; this must necessarily be false in all infinite numbers, since a number essentially includes several unities: nor will you have more reason to tell us, that incorporeal extension is wholly contained in its space, and also wholly contained in each part of its space; for not only we have no idea of it, and it thwarts all our ideas of extension, but besides it will prove that all bodies take up the same place, since each could not take up its own, if the Divine extension were entirely penetrated with each body, numerically the same with the sun, and with the earth. You will find in Mr Arnauld a solid refutation of those who say that God is diffused throughout infinite space.

By this specimen of the difficulties which may be raised against a vacuum, my readers may easily apprehend, that our Zeno would, at this present time, be much more formidable than he was in his own age. It is no longer to be doubted, would he say, that if all is full, motion is impossible. This impossibility hath been mathematically proved. He would be far from disputing against those demonstrations, but admit them as incontestable; he would solely apply himself to prove the impossibility of a vacuum, and would reduce his adversaries to an absurdity. He would confute them on whatsoever side they turned; he would plunge them into perplexities by his dilemmas; he would make them lose ground wherever

they retired; and if he did not silence them, he would at least force them to confess, that they neither understand nor comprehend what they say. "If any one ask me (they are Mr Locke's words), what this space I speak of, is? I will tell him when he tells me what his extension is. They ask whether this space be body or spirit? To which I answer by another question, Who told you that there can be only bodies and minds? If it be asked, (as usually it is) whether this space, void of body, be substance or accident, I shall readily answer, I know not: nor shall I be ashamed to own my ignorance, till they who ask that question, shew me a clear, distinct idea of substance." Since so great a metaphysician as Mr Locke, after having so well studied this subject, is not able to answer the questions of the Cartesians, otherwise than by asking other questions which he thinks yet more obscure and perplexed than theirs, we may judge that the objections which Zeno might propose, could not be answered; and we may certainly conjecture that he would speak thus to his adversaries: You shelter yourselves in the hypothesis of a vacuum when you are driven from that of motion and a plenum ; but you cannot hold out in this hypothesis, as the impossibility of it is demonstrated. Learn some better way to come off; for by that which you have already chosen you avoid one precipice, and throw yourselves into another. Follow me, I will shew you a better way: do not conclude, from the impossibility of motion in a plenum, that there is a vacuum, but rather conclude, from the impossibility of a vacuum, that there is no motion, I mean real motion, but at most an appearance of motion, or an ideal and intellectual motion.

Thus, or in a manner very like it, we may suppose our Zeno of Elea to have argued against motion. I will not affirm that his reasons persuaded him that nothing moved; he might be of another opinion, though he believed that none could refute them, nor

tum.

elude their force. If I should judge of him by myself, I should affirm that he as well as other men believed the motion of matter; for though I find myself very incapable of solving all the difficulties which we have just now seen, and though the philosophical answers which may be made to them do not seem to me very solid, yet that does not hinder me from following the common opinion. Nay, I am persuaded that the proposing of these arguments may be of great use with respect to religion; and I say here with regard to the difficulties of motion, what M. Nicolle said of those of the divisibility in infini"The advantage which may be drawn from these speculations is not merely to acquire this sort of knowledge, which in itself is very barren; but to learn to know the limits of our understanding, and to force it however unwilling to own that some things exist, though it is not capable of comprehending them for which reason it is proper to fatigue the intellect with these subtilties, in order to subdue its presumption, and deprive it of the assurance of ever opposing its faint light to the truths which the church proposes, under pretext that it cannot comprehend them for since all the force of human understanding cannot comprehend the smallest atom of matter, and is obliged to own that it clearly sees that such an atom is infinitely divisible, without being able to conceive how that can be, is it not plain that the man acts against reason, who refuses to believe the wonderful effects of God's omnipotence, which is of itself incomprehensible, because our minds cannot comprehend these effects."-Art. ZENO.*

*The above conclusion from Nicolle is one of the peace offerings which it is usual for Bayle to present to authority when he has been doing his best to undermine it. These arguments against the existence of motion, have been selected in order to afford a curious example of the intellectual subtilty which Harris of Salisbury, and others, would have us restore, as the only genuine philosophy.-ED.

NATURE AND DUTY.

GUARINI in his Pastor Fido composes a remarkable scene. He introduces a young woman, who, being at the discretion of two tyrants, who hate one another, Love and Honour, envies the happiness of beasts, whose love is directed by no other rule than love itself. She is amazed at the opposition that is between nature and the law. One of them annexes a great pleasure to certain things, and the other will have them to be severely punished. Her conclusion is, that it cannot be accounted for without the revelation of Moses; and I have often wondered that the ancient philosophers have so little reflected upon it. I mean only such philosophers, as acknowledged the unity of God; for those, who admitted of many gods would find no difficulty in it: it was only to suppose, that one deity was the cause of the inclination of nature; and that some other deities imprinted the instincts of conscience and the notions of honour. The difficulty concerns only those, who believe, that the world is the work of one most holy Being. How is it possible that under such a Being men should be drawn to evil by a bait that is almost insurmountable, I mean, by the sense of pleasure, and be deterred from it by the fear of remorse, infamy, or several other punishments? They spend their lives, tossed by these contrary passions, pulled sometimes one way, and sometimes another; sometimes overcome by the sense of pleasure, and sometimes by the fear of the consequences. Manicheism probably arose from a strong meditation on this deplorable condition of man.-Art. GUARINI.

NESTORIUS.

(Reflections produced by the defeat of)

THE disputes between Nestorius and St Cyril, have only served to augment the honours of the

Holy Virgin by accident. These two prelates did not contend about any point of devotion: their quarrel had no relation to worship; and supposing that, at the time, the Holy Virgin had been invocated, Nestorius did not pretend to alter the custom, nor did St Cyril require it to be enlarged. The difference between them was about a speculative opinion: one apprehended the confounding the two natures of Jesus Christ; and the other feared the human nature of our Saviour would be looked upon as a person. We may however conclude, that the defeat of Nestorius, and the innovation introduced into Christianity, by establishing the worship to the Virgin three or four hundred years more or less, after the ascension of Jesus Christ, has been countenanced by the natural and mechanical disposition of mankind, since it has made a continual and prodigious progress, and still subsists at this very time in all the full vigour it ever obtained. There is no conceiving that if it had not met with very great dispositions in the human passions, it could have made such progress, destitute as it was of all support from scripture and authentic tradition. This has moved some curious wits to enquire what those natural modifications of the soul of man might be, which have favoured the innovations here spoken of; and this is the result of their enquiries.

In the affair of religion, there is nothing which better suits with the gross genius of the people, than representing Heaven to them as resembling the earth. This was the reason, that the fancies and caprices of the poets, concerning the marriage of the gods, their councils, their divisions and intrigues, passed so easily upon the Greeks, and afterwards upon the Romans, for articles of faith. It was impossible to raise man to the gods; and therefore the gods were to be brought down to man; and thus was formed the point of contact and center of union. Had it been