Striclures on “ The Non-Eternity of the World.’ 
apd institutions with those of bis own coun- 
ty 7,9nd the person whoyhas the courage to 
yeint of. the:defects of existing institutions, 
;prebably be.assailed. with, the imputa- 
Uop.of being .an,enemy to his, country, and 
anyadmirer sof the defunct.arch-enemy of 
nankind,, But the)malice and folly _ of 
seh unputations are regarded. with perfect 
indifference .by those who, wish to see their 
75101 bus zrodsus? 
tosas seusls st 
035 
country, airiye atthe highest perfection and 
happiness, which, are within, the reach of hu- 
man, attainment,” in, which liberal and 
enlightened. sentiments we entirely agree,, 
and hope that proper. attention will be. paid. 
to their, salutary monitions, by.those who are: 
engaged in the amelioration of our system, 
of jurisprudence, |. ASAIN C: 
Ma) 
LILBI EY 
tres 
STRICTURES ON “ THE NON-ETERNITY OF-THE WORLD.*' © 
"9W7Og YOs 732 
NDAUSES '1, 2, assert, that what- 
a7" ever has existed from eternity must 
be Self-exisrent, as whatever is self-ex- 
Sa a Noes: from eternity. 
ot think, will be.disposed to 
agree with the Commentator, that these 
twojclauses of the Inquirer’s argument 
contain postulates which cannot be con- 
troverted; although; perhaps, the pre- 
eet from is not quite proper, as it 
seems to imply a’starting point; yet the 
ostensible truth embodied therein ap- 
peals 50. powerfully to the understand- 
ing as, to, command. its, assent almost 
without an. effort... It, may also be said 
here, that..every effect must have a 
cause; there are: effects—therefore there 
must be causes ; consequently the first 
effect must have had a cause, and the first 
caiise must always have had being, or 
else it never could have had—because if 
ever it began to be, it must have been 
the first, effect, not the first cause. And, 
if it be said that the inherent activity of 
piatter.is the eternally self-existent cause 
of all, the. phenomena we see connected 
withat, and that. the various modifica- 
tions, of matter, and not the parts of 
matter itself are effects, then must the 
activity of matter and the matter itself 
bé’two ‘distinct existences, and if so, 
Meat ea ; and if distinct and 
c-eval, we “have thus two eternally 
s¢li-existent, heings—or, if the inherent 
agit y,of matter be indentical with that 
which 4s, ,.moved).and, necessarily con- 
nested with: it, then. must one .part be 
‘superior tovdnother, which in’ a self-ex- 
istentvbeing is impossible: but, further, 
this’ activiry mast be distinct from that 
fications; ‘whi 
a ‘the’ effects’ atid not’ the aggregate 
oh ato VHS snotante As combi- 
Bato BAX», these esha be the 
‘paIMg,,as, thre one)is cognizable by all our 
ih donot JRA oro Sih,” Ibauwo 
able in its own nature; its existence ¢cati’ 
only be known by the effects it pro- 
duces, nat vie 
Whatever is not an effect. must be 
eternally existent, as whatever is eter- 
nally existent cannot bean effect. . Now, 
although it be admitted that no part; of 
matter is an effect proximately, yet: it 
does not follow that it is not) am effect 
remotely. I will just observe here, 
that “ eternally ew-istent certamly does 
appear to be contradictory agreeably 
to the Commentator’s note, but ‘that 
© eternally self-existent’”? is not; and 
where the former is used in this dis- 
quisition, the same idea is included in it 
as in the latter expression. nit 
3.—In this clause it appears that, the 
Inquirer has committed. himself... What 
propriety can there be in, or what. con- 
ceivable necessity was there’ for’ the 
supposition that. something within ar 
eternal being might give it existence! 
How could something exist if nothing 
existed, which is implied in the idea 
that the self-existent being “ began to 
be.” But if it is. intended here to 
oppose the notion that an eternally 
self-existent being can possess the. power 
of self-multiplication, I think the argu- 
ment conclusive; for such a being can- 
not emanate’ new parts, because then 
every portion of his substance’ cannot 
be co-existent, but some must be effects 
and finite, and consequently, not partak- 
ing of the properties from which iy 
emanated, they cannot be indentical with 
them—or rather there can be,no sneh 
thing as a self-multiplying Deity... j..5 
4,—It is here stated, that “it is,am- 
possible that the — self-existent..bemg 
can be divided into parts ;° for? if-so, 
then it behoved every part to’ be *selt- 
existent?’ and it js objected by ithe 
Commentator — “no, not sélf-existeit 
as a part, but a part of the self eatistenter 
To this it, may. be, replied Yes, self 
existent as, @ part, if that nant ite 
imagined, as detached, and,therg can, be 
no- division’ without: detachment); Lf 
any 
