_i.e._ 'the knowledge of which does not require the knowledge of
anything antecedent to itself'--our meaning is exactly the same.

To exclude matter from our conception (if it were possible) would be to
think universal existence out of existence, which is tantamount to
thinking without anything to think about. The ideas of those who try
their brains at this odd sort of work, have been well likened to an
atmosphere of dust superintended by a whirlwind. They who assume the
existence of an unsubstantial _i.e._ immaterial First Cause, outrage
every admitted rule and every sound principle of philosophising. Only
pious persons with ideas like unto an atmosphere of dust superintended
by a whirl wind would write books in vindication of the monstrously
absurd assumption that there exists an unsubstantial Great First Cause
of all substantialities. Nothing can be wilder than the speculations of
such 'hair brained' individuals, excepting only the speculations of
those sharp-sighted enough to see reason and wisdom in them.

A Great Cause, or a Small Cause, a First Cause, or a Last Cause,
involves the idea of real existence, namely, the existence of matter. By
cause of itself, said Spinoza, I understand that which involves
existence, or that the nature of which can only be considered as
existent. And who does not so understand Cause? Why Gillespie and other
eminently dogmatic Christian writers whose Great First Cause cannot be
considered an entity, because they assert, yes, expressly assert its
immateriality.

If Nature is all, and all is Nature, nothing but itself could ever have
existed, and of course nothing but itself can be supposed ever to have
been capable of causing. To cause is to act, and though body without
action is conceivable, action without body is not. Neither can two