1825.] 
tions of this description are involved. 
It is impossible to conceive that either 
eternity or infinitude are divisible into 
parts: or if parts are admitted, every 
part, however sub-multiplied, is equal to 
the whole; for that which is illimitable, 
in all directions, is incapable of diminu- 
tion. Itis a circle, of which every part 
is the centre. The eternity that begins 
to day (if eternity could begin) is as 
much an eternity, and as long an eter- 
nity, as that which began a thousand, 
or a million, or a hundred thousand 
million years ago. 
5. (c) This clause is not equally self- 
evident with some of the precedent. 
Nor is the term omnipotent satisfac- 
torily defined. Who, indeed, has ever 
satistactorily defined it? Mr. Coleridge, 
when once hard pressed upon the sub- 
ject, at last triumphantly exclaimed— 
“ He has all the power that zs: he can- 
not have the power that zs not.” But, 
notwithstanding the triumphant tone, 
this definition sets limits to omnipo- 
tence; and, supposing the definition 
just, what becomes of the impossibility 
of more than one eternally self-existent ? 
If indestructibility be an inherent qua- 
lity, or attribute of a self-existent, there 
is, or can be, no power of destroying it; 
and, consequently, Mr. Coleridge’s om- 
nipotent could not possess such power. 
The phrase superiority to every thing 
else comes in a /ess questionable shape. 
But still superiority of power does not 
necessarily infer the power, much less 
the need or will, of annihilating—es- 
pecially, annihilating any thing else that 
(however subordinate to operation) 
should also be self-existent. I refer, 
of course, merely to the validity of the 
argument, and the satisfactoriness of 
the definitions; and, most assuredly, 
have not the slightest inclination to 
advocate the hypothesis of a plurality 
of gods.* 
8.(d) We come now to something 
more tangible to our imperfect reason, 
—the visible world: because, here our 
finite senses (upon which, after all, our 
* We admit the discrimination, and con- 
sider the whole of this disquisition as a 
trial of the intellect: as “a journey into the 
dark to discover how far we can see.” Yet 
we perceive ourselves, at every step, on the 
brink of a precipice, and tremble at our 
temerity in admitting this disquisition into 
our columns, lest it should betray our cor- 
respondents into the heat of theological 
controversy. We trust, however, that the 
instant it shall assume such an aspect the 
discussion will close. —Epir. 
- Onthe Eternity of Matter. 
407 
boasted faculty of ratiocination is alto- 
gether dependent!) furnish us with 
some data from which to argue: and 
all that relates to the existence of this 
world (the organic existence — the 
created world, or visible system of 
worlds) seems to be satisfactory. At 
least, there are data quite sufficient that 
might be appealed to, which would 
seem to demonstrate, by the light of 
reason alone, the non-eternity of our 
world and planetary system.* But the 
arguments of our correspondent go no 
further: they do not even touch the 
question of the eternity or non-eternity 
of matter: except by inference, where 
he says, that a being omnipotent, eter- 
nal, and indivisible, is, consequently, im- 
material. That every thing in our 
world decays, as we call it—that is to 
say, disorganizes—is evident to our 
senses; but our senses, also, when em- 
ployed in experimental inquiry and 
research, equally prove to us that noth- 
ing, in reality, perishes :—generation 
and decay, organization and disorgani- 
zation, concretion and solution, in ani- 
mal, vegetable and mineral—in solid 
and in fluid—go on in perpetual reyo- 
lution; but nothing is annihilated— 
nothing is actually destroyed. The 
constituents seem to be imperishable, 
though the aggregate identities change. 
Mutation is every where—material ex- 
tinction no where. The researches of 
science, the analyses of experimental 
philosophy, the extended familiarity 
with the processes and phenomena of 
nature, nay, the every-day experience of 
our ordinary senses, all, as far-as they 
go, when calmly reflected upon, seem 
to affirm, not to negative, the idea of 
the eternity of matter. Nor, let it be 
observed (though this is no part, in 
reality, of the abstract question,) does 
this hypothesis gainsay, in any respect, 
the truth of the Mosaic account of the 
creation. Revelation itself carries us 
no further than to a chaos—a chaos 
from which arose our planetary system : 
and chaos is matter as much_as is crea- 
tion ; 
* With respect to the sun, however, the 
centre of our system, it seems to be ad- 
mitted among the learned in astronomical 
science, that La Place has demonstrated it 
to be constittited with attributes for eternal 
existence. But in this there is nothing in- 
consistent with the idea of new creations, 
the decay of old, ‘‘ the war of elements,” 
that may ultimately produce “the wreck 
of matter, and the crash of subordinate 
worlds.” 
