3 Bo Matter not eternal and uncaused

ternally prcjeSied: which supposes the thifl£in question, but no way (hews how it is P o1 'sidle. All these examples preposterously &P'pose the unejseSled eternity of matter incircumstance or other, in order to ssieWit might have had an ejf eEled eternity, 1°speak; which is, I conceive, to supped ° nCabsurdity, in order to prove another.they change the question to this, Whe £God be a free Being , or a necessary jlg ent ] j git is called > though any Being, so fas aS l£ ^determined by a physical necejjity, is rath e J .patient than an agent, being passi ve front £thing which imposes the necessity. To ^ l0their comparisons suit the design, itfollow, that it is the nature of God to c smatter, as necessarily as it is of the S ul1emit light, which cannot not do it.

XVII. But to be a little more P art ‘ C £yIconcerning necessity. To be deterrrn liephysical necessity is a mark of a depends ..ture-, as here in the fun or opaque bodj ^

ot t]l01

(«) Here this question hath been put, “ n ^ e /iu»necessary effects, which have been ascribed to ^and opaque body, arise from their nature ? ^ ^ a

is it more a mark of dependence in them* ^ j^glc

fe