211 



he allows it may be said to be in the space which it takes 

 up; which is thus improperly distinguished from its exten- 

 sion, that is, the distance of its parts from each other. 



Almost all the assertions of Dr. Clarke originated in the^ 

 erroneous supposition, that space does exist, where, in re- 

 ality, there is nothing at all. He supposed it to exist be- 

 yond the bounds of the corporeal universe, where even 

 distance cannot exist. And this for no other reason, than 

 that he conceived an extension, to which he could set no 

 bounds: not recollecting, that this extension was a mere 

 creature of imagination, being barely the idea of visual 

 distance extended at pleasure; and, consequently, derived 

 from a sense, through which the knowledge of extension 

 and distance is acquired only by experienced connexions 

 ■with the sensations of touch. Whereas it is certain, that 

 a man, born blind, would never imagine space to exist, 

 where there were no objects of touch betwixt which a di- 

 stance might be found. He inferred the necessity of God's 

 existence every where; that is, in every place, when there 

 was no place whatsoever: and, even if there were places,^ 

 neither God, nor any spiritual being, can have any proper 

 location. God is omnipresent, by his power, his knowledge, 

 and his operation, and not by the fictitious attribute of 

 immensity, which cannot be distinguished from unlimited 

 extension. 



Hence, he farther asserted, as I have already mentioned, ■ 

 that extension was necessary for every being. An opinion, 



as 



