Pharmacologia, Historical Introduction, p. 16.

The author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises has fallen, as it seems to me, into a similar fallacy when, after arguing in rather a curious way to prove that matter may exist without any of the known properties of matter, and may therefore be changeable, he concludes that it can not be eternal, because “eternal (passive) existence necessarily involves incapability of change.” I believe it would be difficult to point out any other connection between the facts of eternity and unchangeableness, than a strong association between the two ideas. Most of the a priori arguments, both religious and anti-religious, on the origin of things, are fallacies drawn from the same source.

Supra, book ii., chap. v., § 6, and chap. vii., § 1, 2, 3, 4. See also Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, chap. vi. and elsewhere.

It seems that this doctrine was, before the time I have mentioned, disputed by some thinkers. Dr. Ward mentions Scotus, Vasquez, Biel, Francis Lugo, and Valentia.

I quote this passage from Playfair’s celebrated Dissertation on the Progress of Mathematical and Physical Science.

This statement I must now correct, as too unqualified. The maxim in question was maintained with full conviction by no less an authority than Sir William Hamilton. See my Examination, chap. xxiv.