Excerpted from Questiones supra libros octo Physicorum Aristotelis

I hold that the universe has a location through coincidence; it is asked how the universe has a location through coincidence rather than through itself. This opinion is threefold: because certain men say that the universe has a location through coincidence because its parts have a location through themselves, others because its center has a location through itself. Which if this should be true, certainly first, it is seen: because Aristotle says that the parts of the universe have a location through themselves and the universe through coincidence; therefore through it has a location through coincidence because it has a location through the nature of its own parts. In reply: the greatest circumference does not have parts except parts placed near it, nor does it have anything confining it outside nor anything that contains it, and on account of this the universe is said to have a location through coincidence; therefore similarly its parts also have a location through coincidence.

original latin

Quod non videtur verum: quia similiter omnia corpora mundi habent sic suas superficies distinctas secundum essentiam et diffinitionem, nec tamen potest dici quod sint locus eorum, immo falsum est hoc; quare similiter nec celum habet propter hoc locum. CONTRA: locatum continetur per sui ultimum; set ultimum celi est superficies convexa; ergo, si illud est locans et ultimum contenti, ergo ultima convexitas potest dici locus celi. ...

Alia est positio [3] quod caelum habet locum per accidens quia suum centrum habet locum per se et caelum determinat sibi centrum.... Quod videtur falsum: quia ... motus locali caeli est prior omni motu inferiorum ...; sed quies est privatio motus... quare locus eius est prior omni quiete terrae et eius motu. Contra: ... caelum habet fixionem a fixione [et] quiete sui centri et quiescit semper secundum se totum, licet moveatur secudnum partes ... quare si per naturam alicuius habeat locum per accidens, hoc erit per naturam sui centri. Quod concedo quod ejus motus est semper circa centrum, quia debet habere solum locum circa quem et per se et primo est ipsius centri, quia sic est circumscribens;

Ad objectum respondeo: quedam participant locum et ejus proprietatem in quo fiant, et de istis intelligendum quod [si] aliquid participant aliqua, oportet quod conjungantur sine distantia et divisione, sicut est in aliis proprietatibus;

quedam participant locum circa quem, et sic non oportet quod participantia se habeant per indistantiam et indivisionem, et sic celum et centrum participant locum, et ideo per accidens, non conjunguntur per se.