not caused or constructed by a pre-existing Designer, than to admit that the universe was not caused or constructed by a Designer.  But no one will contend for an infinite series of Makers; and if, continues the Atheist, what would, if viewed, be indications of design, are no proofs of a designer in the one case, they are not in the other; and as such indications are the only evidence we have of the existence of a Designer of the universe, we, as rational beings, contend there is no God.  We do not suppose the existence of any being, of which there is no evidence, when such supposition, it admitted, so far from diminishing would only increase a difficulty, which, at best, is sufficiently great.  Surely, if a superior being may have existed from all eternity, an inferior may have existed from all eternity; if a great God sufficiently mighty to make a world may have existed from all eternity, of course without beginning and without cause, such world may have existed from all eternity, without beginning, and without cause.’ [23:1]

These are ‘strong reasons’ for Universalism.  They prove that Theists set at nought the rule of philosophising which forbids us to choose the greater of two difficulties.  Their system compels them to do so; for having no other groundwork than the strange hypotheses that time was when there was no time—­something existed when there was nothing, which something created everything; its advocates would be tongue-tied and lost if reduced to the hard necessity of appealing to facts, or rigidly regarding rules of philosophising which have only their reasonableness to recommend them.  They profess ability to account for Nature, and are of course exceeding eager to justify a profession so presumptuous.  This eagerness betrays them into courses, of which no one bent on rejecting whatever is either opposed to, or unsanctioned by, experience, can possibly approve.  It is plain that of the God they tell us to believe ‘created the worlds,’ no man has any experience.  This granted, it follows that worship of such fancied Being is mere superstition.  Until it be shown by reference to the general course of things, that things had an author, Himself uncreated or unauthorized, religious philosophers have no right to expect Universalists to abandon their Universalism.  The duty of priests is to reconcile religion with reason, if they can, and admit their inability to do so, if they cannot.

Romanists will have nothing to do with reason whenever it appears at issue with their faith.  All sects, as sects, play fast and loose with reason.  Many members of all sects are forward enough to boast about being able to give a reason for the faith that is in them; but an overwhelming majority love to exalt faith above reason.  Philosophy they call ‘vain,’ and some have been found so filled with contempt for it, as to openly maintain that what is theologically true, is philosophically false; or, in other terms, that the truths of religion and the truths of philosophy