1^ 



But tlie Doctor was eno;a2:ed in a miicK'more animated 

 correspondence, on the nature of space, shortly after. It 

 arose on tlie following occasion. Leibnitz, irritated bj 

 the decision of the Royal -Society'iof 'London, in favour 

 of Newton, on, the ^disputed question, whether he or Sir 

 Isaac Avas the discoveier ofrthe difi'ercntial or fluxionar}- cal- 

 culus, criticized, with much asperity, some parts of Sir 

 Isaac's philosophy ; and particularly, his sentiments on the 

 nature of space. This censure he conveyed, in a letter to 

 the Princesi^ Caroline of Wales^ afterwards queen-consort of 

 Geoi'ge II., who communicated it to Dr. Clarke, and en- 

 gaged him to answer if. His answer she transmitted to 

 Leibnitz, and became the medium of the correspondence 

 that ensued, betwixt these two great metaphysicians. Of 

 their successive answers and replies, I shall give a brief 

 extract. Uni ylioih 



Clurke. Space, finite or infinite, is absolutely indivi- 

 sible, even in thought. To imagine its parts moved from 

 each other, is to imagine them moved out of themselves; 

 and yet ! space is not a mere point. 



y Leibnitz. Space cannot be a real, absolute being, other- 

 Avise it should be eternal and infinite. But, as it consists 

 of parts, it is not a thing that can belong to God. Space 

 is something merely relative, as time is : it is the order of 

 cp-existing things ; as time is, of successive things. If space 

 were an absolute being, something Avould have happened, 

 for which no sufficient reason can be assigned: for space, 

 is absolutely uniform ; and, without the'-tllings placed in 



VOL. X. CO. it, 



