ESSAY I. 347 it seems to be indivisible indeed, but it is net so, if it does not penetrate matter; for put a body into the middle of an empty space, and it really divides it; i. e. the middle part ceases to be empty space, because it is filled with body, and space remainson both sides ; even as a streak of light or sunshine coming from the south destroys darkness or shade so far as it comes, and thus divides the two parts of remaining darkness, the east from the west. A sixth attribute or property ascribed to space, is self- existence, or that it wants no cause. But perhaps the true rea- son why it appears to want no cause, is not that it has' such a real and substantial essence as is toobig to be produced by any cause, but that it is such a subtle, tenuous, unessential or imagin- ary thing, that has not essence, nor existence, nor reality enough to want a cause, or to beproduced or caused : now this is vastly different from the idea of God's self- existence, or his self-sufficien- cy to exist without a cause. Universal darkness wanted no cause before the creation of light. There is yet another supposed property of space, and that is, necessary existence, and that it cannot be annihilated, nor can it begin to exist. But here also light and shade are happy illus- trations of this debate about body and space. Darkness and space are not necessarily existent ; forwhere light comes shadow is an- nihilated and gone ; where body comes, space is vanished and annihilated. When that body is removed, space begins to exist there again, as much as shadow does, when light departs : But in truth it should rather be said in both cases, where something was before, now there is nothing ; and when something returns, the non-entity or nothingness ceases. Body and space mutually exclude one another, as light and shade, as something and nothing. And we are too ready to apply the words existence and annihila- tion to shade and space, whichare non-entities, as well to light and body, which are real beings. Positive terms tend to give us positive and delusive ideas of non-entity. If in our survey of all these supposed properties of space, we used the word emptiness or void instead of the positive term space, we should perhaps arrive at juster ideas of all this matter. Let us take the pains then briefly to run over them again in this manner Is emptiness long, broad and deep ?. Is emptiness extend- ed? Has emptiness a capacity to receive body ? Is emptiness penetrable by matter ? What do we mean by all this ? Does it signify any thing more than that matter or body is absent thence, and it may be brought in there where emptiness was before? This does not render emptiness a substance, or real being, or make it the support or substratum of'real properties. Is emptiness immense or infinite beyond the limits of the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=