if space be not absolutely independent, I do not see what we can conclude is so; for it is manifestly necessary itself, as well as antecedently needful to the existence of all other things, not excepting (as I think) even the self-existent substance.
All your consequences I see follow demonstrably from your supposition; and, were that evident, I believe it would serve to prove several other things as well as what you bring it for. Upon which account, I should be extremely pleased to see it proved by any one. For, as I design the search after truth as the business of my life, I shall not be ashamed to learn from any person: though at the same time I cannot but be sensible, that instruction from some men is like the gift of a prince, it reflects an honour on the person on whom it lays an obligation.
I am, Reverend Sir,
Your obliged Servant.
December 16, 1713.
THE ANSWER TO THE FOURTH LETTER.
Sir,—My being out of town most part of the month of January, and some other accidental avocations, hindered me from answering your letter sooner. The sum of the difficulties it contains is (I think) this: that it is difficult to determine what relation the self-existent substance has to space: that to say it is the substratum of space, in the common sense of the word, is scarce intelligible, or at least is not evident; that space seems to be as absolutely self-existent, as it is possible anything can be; and that, its being a property of the self-existent substance, is supposing the thing that was to be proved. This is entering indeed into the very bottom of the matter: and I will endeavour to give you as brief and clear an answer as I can. That the self-existent substance is the substratum of space, or space a property of the self-existent substance, are not perhaps very proper expressions; nor is it easy to
