538 
newly born child, not under the same 
identical organization,’ which may pos- 
sibly be’'the case with a person fifty 
years old. ~ iD ek Sees ar 
°And if ‘by “ world’ the Inquirer 
mean matter itself—this palpable some- 
thiig—still® the premises and conse- 
quences must share the same fate, as 
théy aré at present worded. But per- 
haps he* meant to say, that the earth 
may be further proved not to be self- 
existent thus :—all the subordinate mo- 
difications of the particles which com- 
pose it are produced by an external 
cause ; now, if all the modifications of 
all its parts be effects, the whole must 
be stich ‘too; for what may be said of all 
the parts may also be said of the whole. 
But who can say. this of ad/ the parts of 
this modification we call the earth? and 
to say it with respect to some will not 
answer the purpose. What is true of 
some parts of a whole may not be true 
of the whole. There is another clause 
of the Inquirer’s argument open to the 
same objection as the ninth. It is ex- 
pressed—“ But if all parts of the uni- 
verse are thus changed and produced, 
the same must be true of the whole.” 
Here the term “universe” is vague ; 
does it mean organized or unorganized 
matter? for there may be both in the 
universe ; but supposing the former, it 
will then read—But if all parts of or- 
ganized matter are thus changed, and 
all the modifications of all parts are 
thus' produced independently of them- 
selves, the whole of organized matter 
may be changed, and allits modifications 
produced independently of themselves 
or by some external cause: which 
amounts to nothing,—the logic has no 
reference to the question of the eternity 
of matter, although I believe it was the 
Inquirer’s intention it should have such 
reference, directly—for matter may be 
eternal in spite of it. Neither can it 
shew, on the supposition that matter is 
eternal, that organized matter may not 
haye existed from eternity, as it can 
only infer, but can never demonstrate, 
that—because all the modifications. of 
matter which come under the evidence 
of our senses, are effects—all which can 
never so appeal to us, are effects also. 
“Having made these objections to the 
logic employed in the latter part of the 
een argument, it is unnecessary to 
go farther with it, as, on account of the 
_ same destitution of specific expression 
in which his ideas ate conveyed, we 
should only have to repeat what. has 
Strictures on “ the Non-Eternity of the World.” 
just been said, I will, however, refer to 
one of the examples given to, substan-. 
tiate his reasonings.. To shew, that, 
every thing (vagueness again!) in. the 
universe is dependent. on something else. 
for the continuance of its existence, and 
that by parity of reasoning the universe 
is the same, we are told that “ the:inha- 
bitants of the earth depend on it fora 
supply of nourishment ;”. what is, this 
but saying that one modification is de= 
pendent on another, or that many.are, 
so dependent? the question whether. 
matter itself be dependent, which I be. 
lieve he had in view, or even whether 
our earth be dependent, is left unaffected 
by this mode of illustration, 
I shall now proceed to examine the 
concluding reasonings of the Commen-. 
tator :— Ci 
It would have given these considerable 
force, if the commentator had instanced 
some of those “ researches of science,” , 
those “ analyses of experimental philo- 
sophy,” some of that “ every-day ex- 
perience of our ordinary senses,” which 
affirm the idea of the eternity of mat- 
ter ; and also favoured us with some of 
those metaphysical or astronomical in- 
ductions, by which the learned have 
been convinced that La Place has “ de- 
monstrated the sun to be constituted 
with attributes for eternal existence,” 
and pointed out why those inductions 
would not apply with equal force to the 
earth and the rest of the planetary sys- 
tem. Although I know nothing of 
these demonstrations of the French 
philosopher, yet I doubt not that he 
can and does make them so apply; and 
if the learned admit such application, 
they must also admit that revelation is 
an imposture; yet I am not prepared to 
say that it is essentially affected by the 
assumption of the eternity of matter, 
simply. tai ior 
Ido not know of any method of re-,. 
futing an argument, on any, subject, so 
successfully as that of the ae 
absurdum, which is at once the,;most, 
simple and efficient weapon that can be, 
wielded. I have employed, it.veny, fre- 
quently in this paper—how conclusively, . 
it must be left with my readers to deter-. 
mine. But this weapon is seized. by the. 
Commentator most unwarrantably, where » 
he takes it up on, the, assumption that,” 
nothing in the Inquirer’s,. paper;affects., 
the doctrine of the eternity of 1 atter. | 
which, until granted by the Ingu 5 
proved by himself, itis evident that ie, 
weapon must be pointless. © ° 
’ » How, 
