Hence we arrive at the idea of the eternity of matter.

And in the _eternity_ of matter we are assured of the self-existence of matter, and self-existence is the most _majestic of attributes_, and _includes all others_."[271] "If Natural Theologians were content to stop where they prove a _superior something_ to exist, Atheists might be content to stop there too, and allow Theologians to dream in quiet over their barren foundling."[272] "If I supposed that the Christian meant no more than that something exists independently of Nature, that it may be boundless, that it may be limited, that it may be one, that it may be many beings, if I supposed nothing more than that was meant, then surely I would not occupy your time or my own in discussing a question so barren of practical consequences."-- "If we reason about it, unless we take refuge in the idea of a creation which we cannot understand, we must come to the conclusion that _Nature is self-existent_, and that attribute is so majestic,--the power of being independent of any ruler,--the power of being independent of the law of other beings,--seems so majestic as fairly to be supposed to _include all others_; for that which has power _to be_ has power _to act_, for the power to be is the most majestic of all forms of action."[273] It is here admitted that there must be a self-existent, independent, and eternal Being, that self-existence is an attribute so majestic that it may be fairly said to include all others, that the Being to whom it belongs is exempt from the conditions of other beings, and that the power _to act_ is involved in the power _to be_.

It is assumed, indeed, that these attributes may belong to Nature, and that Nature is mere matter; but, reserving this point for the present, are we not warranted in saying that his doctrine, as stated by himself, involves the same profound mysteries, and is embarrassed by the same difficulties, which are often urged as objections to the theory of Religion, and that it is, at the very least, as _incomprehensible_, as the doctrine which affirms the existence of God?
Suppose there were simply an equality in this respect between the Theistic and Atheistic hypothesis, that both were alike incomprehensible and incapable of an adequate explanation, still the former might be more credible and more satisfactory to reason than the latter, since in the one we have an intelligent and designing Cause, such as accounts for the existence of other minds and the manifold marks of design in Nature, whereas in the other all the phenomena of thought, and feeling, and volition, as well as all the instances of skilful adjustment and adaptation, must be resolved into the power of self-existent, but unintelligent and unconscious matter.
Further it is admitted, not only that we may, but that we _must_, proceed on the principle of Causality, the fundamental axiom of Theology; for "there _must_ always have been something, or there _could be_ nothing now." This principle or law of human thought leads him up to a region which far transcends his present sensible experience, and guides him to the stupendous height of self-existent and eternal Being.
It is assumed and applied to prove the self-existence and eternity of matter.

But if it be a valid principle of reason, its application may be equally legitimate when it is employed, in conjunction with the manifest evidence of _moral_ as distinct from _physical_ causation, to prove the self-existence and eternity of a supreme intelligent Cause.

A principle such as this cannot, from its very nature, be limited within the range of our present sensible experience.