Matter not eternal and uncaused. 3 2 5

e d-> imperfeSi thing have a better claim to self-e *ifience } than that whose nature is full andc °tnplete? Here the latter of these hath beenManifestly proved to bean effect: after which**■ Would be absurd to the last degree, toP r etend the former may be independent andEternal. This would be contending, with-Md knowing what was contended for: andlt rs so far from being true, that we cannotc °nceive the creation of matter out of no-ting possible, as is pretended, that it is e-Ve n impossible to conceive it self-exifient andCreated (c). It must have been created

(and

^stantial phantom] is as eternal and necessary as he^‘stiself! I should think men should be ashamed to standthis. If we call to mind Aristotle’ s definition of his^teria prima, we shall find it exactly to agree to thatj^ich must be here supposed necessary and self-existent,1S 5 Nec quid , nec quale , nec quantum, nec quidquam'fstn quibus determinatur ens. This is empty found-, but^ fit enough to describe an empty phantom , -of which.^0 man ever had, nor ever will have any notion. Andthiz is that which the Stagirite makes eternal and ne~^fiary j which, if it had not been felf-existent, no power5tl y Being could ever have supplied!

< c ( c ) “You tell us (fays Dr .Clarke, in his dispute with.^ C. p. 245.) if we have not an idea of the creationmatter out of nothing, we must inevitably concludeY 3 " matter