190 



to their knowii signification, one stumbling-block, in me- 

 taphysical inquiries, will be removed.* This, then, is the 

 purport of the present paper. But moreover, to shew the 

 necessity of investigating subjects, which seemingly require 

 no discussion, the difficulties that occurred on considering 

 them, with the different opinions they suggested, must 

 previously be stated. 



, The different systems of the Epicureans and Peripate- 

 tics, gave the first occasion to the controversies concerning 

 the nature of space. The Epicureans admitted a vacuum, 

 or empty space, as one of their first principles. The Pe- 

 ripatetics allowed, indeed, the possibility of a vacuum, but 

 denied its existence. Des Cartes, in examining the ques- 

 tion, denied even its possibility; asserting, that spade ne- 

 cessarily implies extension : but a mere nothing, or non- 

 entity, such as a perfect vacuum, if it existed, must be 

 allowed to be, can have no properties, and, consequently, 

 cannot be extended; for it would be absurd to say, for 

 instance, so many acres of nothing. His disciples farther 

 insisted, that space must be either • a substance, or the 

 modification of some substance, as, between these, nothing 

 intermediate can be supposed to exist: but space is not a 

 mode of any substance; therefore, it must, itself, be a sub- 

 stance, and, consequently, can never be supposed empty. 



To 



* It is strange, tliat so eminent a metaphysician as Condillac should say, 

 that we know nothing of the nature of space or duration. Art de Penser, 

 p. US, in i2mo. 



