that there must be a cause; which therefore is taken to be the object itself; and that, no doubt, is an evident contradiction.

But to say that any thing is produced, or to express myself more properly, comes into existence, without a cause, is not to affirm, that it is itself its own cause; but on the contrary in excluding all external causes, excludes a fortiori the thing itself, which is created.

An object, that exists absolutely without any cause, certainly is not its own cause; and when you assert, that the one follows from the other, you suppose the very point in questions and take it for granted, that it is utterly impossible any thing can ever begin to exist without a cause, but that, upon the exclusion of one productive principle, we must still have recourse to another.
It is exactly the same case with the third argument [Mr.Locke.], which has been employed to demonstrate the necessity of a cause.

Whatever is produced without any cause, is produced by nothing; or in other words, has nothing for its cause.

But nothing can never be a cause, no more than it can be something, or equal to two right angles.