1 particle of matter has length, breadth, and thickness. Figure in the fame manner enters into the conception of every particle of matter; because every particle of matter is bounded. By the power of abstraction, figure may be conceived independent of the body that is figured; and extenfion may be conceived independent of the body that is extended. These particulars are abundantly plain and obvious; and yet obferve what a heap of jargon is employ'd by the followers of Leibnitz, in their fruitlefs endeavours to define extenfion. They begin with fimple exiftences, which they fay are unextended, and without parts. According to that definition, fimple exiftences cannot belong to matter, because the smallest particle of matter has both parts and extenfion. But to let that pafs, they endeavour to fhow as follows, how the idea of extenfion arises from these fimple exiftences. " We 66 may look upon fimple existences, as having mutual relations with respect to "their internal state: relations that form a certain order in their manner of exist"ence. And this order or arrangement of things, coexifting and linked toge "ther "ther but fo as we do not diftinctly un"derstand how, caufes in us a confused idea, from whence arifes the appearance "of extenfion." A Peripatetic philofopher being asked, What fort of things the fenfible fpecies of Ariftotle are, answered, That they are neither entities nor nonentities, but something intermediate between the two. The famous aftronomer Ifmael Bulialdus lays down the following propofition, and attempts a mathematical demonstration of it, "That light is a mean proportional between corporeal substance "and incorporeal." I clofe with a curious fort of reafoning, fo fingular indeed as not to come under any of the foregoing heads. The first editions of the latest version of the Bible into English, have the following preface. "Another thing we think good to admo"nish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrafing, or to an identity of words, as fome peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that fome learned men fomewhere have been as exact as they could be that way. "Truly, that we might not vary from the "fenfe "fense of that which we have tranflated "before, if the word fignified the fame in "both places, (for there be fome words "that be not of the fame sense every where), we were especially careful, and "made a confcience according to our du ty. But that we should exprefs the fame "notion in the fame particular word; as, "for example, if we tranflate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never fuppofe; if one where pain, never "ache; if one where joy, never gladness, " &c. ; thus to mince the matter, we thought to favour more of curiofity than "wisdom, and that rather it would breed "fcorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the king"dom of God become words or fyllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, "if we may be free; ufe one precisely, when we may use another, no lefs fit, as commodiously? We might also be charged by fcoffers, with fome unequal dealing toward a great number of good 4 English words. For as it is written by great philofopher, that he "fhould a certain "should say, that thofe logs were happy "that were made images to be worship ped; for their fellows, as good as they, 66 lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we "fhould fay, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of "like quality, Get ye hence, be banished "for ever, we might be taxed peradventure with St James his words, namely, to be partial in ourselves, and judges "of evil thoughts." Queritur, Can this tranflation be fafely rely'd on as the rule of faith, when fuch are the translators ? A P APPENDIX. IN reviewing the foregoing sketch, it occurred, that a fair analysis of Aristotle's logic, would be a valuable addition to the hiftorical branch. A diftinct and candid account of a fyftem that for many ages governed the reafoning part of mankind, cannot but be acceptable to the public. Curiofity will be gratified, in feeing a phantom delineated that fo long fascinated the learned world; a phantom, which shows infinite genius, but like the pyramids of Egypt or hanging gardens of Babylon, is abfolutely useless unless for raifing wonder. Dr Reid, profeffor of moral philosophy in the college of Glasgow, relished the thought; and his friendship to me prevailed on him, after much folicitation, to undertake the laborious task. No man is better acquainted with Ariftotle's writings; and, without any enthusiastic attachment, he holds that philofopher to be a first-rate genius. The |