342 On the Fundamental Principles of Mathematics. 



Wherein Necessary Truth is to be found, and the Final 



Hypothesis. 



(26.) The consideration of the two great relations of things, 

 duration and space, has often prompted the question whether, if 

 the visible universe were annihilated, space would remain? 



On the one hand — since the limits of things actual are, (8.), no 

 part of those things; but their surfaces, as connected with the 

 things themselves, bound them and are removed whenever and 

 wherever those things are transferred ; yet cannot be removed 

 from the things, and thus placed by themselves — it would seem, 

 from all this, that what is less a relation of things, would, if those 

 things were gone, not exist by itself; or no longer be. 



On the other hand, surface, &c, are dependent relations of 



things — as must appear from what has just been stated — while 



space is independent of them, in so far, that when the thing is re- 

 moved the space, (15.), which it occupied, is forsaken or left behind ; 

 and may be again occupied by something else. Hence, it would 

 seem that, if all such things were gone, space would still be. 



Certain it is, moreover, that, in so far as we can discern, if the 

 visible creation were annihilated, there would be room for another. 

 But does this conclusion amount to anything more than the asser- 

 tion, That, under the new system of things, space would again 

 exist as a relation of them ; as it does now ? If so, then this 

 cannot determine what would be, if there were no such things. 

 It appears then that such a state (or rather absence) of things is 

 so far without the pale of our experience, that we can form no 

 adequate idea of it ; and must therefore leave the question of the 

 existence or non-existence of space, in the absence of such a cre- 

 ation as we now have, without an answer. 



But whatever the reply to that question ought to be — space 

 exists not, nor can it exist independent of the great first cause, 

 who formed all things, and " by whom they also consist; 17 with 

 whose existence, moreover, the absolute infinite of duration, (19.), 

 is interwoven.* 



Could space, indeed, exist independent of him, or does it so 

 exist, then it exists not of "his good pleasure"— then was it 

 not created— then must it be self existent— but then must it, also, 

 be found in him; which contradicts the hypothesis: and that 

 hypothesis must therefore fail. 



We know therefore of no space which is not pervaded by his 

 presence, as we are certain that there is no duration which "He 

 inhabiteth" not. 



* If it were imagined that duration might exist, th the first cause were not, 



the reply must be that the hjpothesi n-existencts is itself the greatest 



possible absurdity— to say nothii 



