On grounds no more solid than this, charges of Atheism are often erected by ‘surpliced sophists.’  Rather ridiculous have been the mistakes committed by some of them in their hurry to affix on objects of their hate the brand of Impiety.  Those persons, no doubt, supposed themselves privileged to write or talk any amount of nonsense and contradiction.  Men who fancy themselves commissioned by Deity to interpret his ‘mysteries,’ or announce his ‘will,’ are apt to make blunders without being sensible of it; as did those worthy Jesuits who declared, in opposition to Bayle, that a society of Atheists was impossible, and at the same time assured the world that the government of China was a society of Atheists.  So difficult it is for men inflamed by prejudices, interests, and animosities, to keep clear of sophisms, which can impose on none but themselves.

Many Universalists conceal their sentiments on account of the odium which would certainly be their reward did they avow them.  But the unpopularity of those sentiments cannot, by persons of sense and candour, be allowed, in itself, a sufficient reason for their rejection.  The fact of an opinion being unpopular is no proof it is false.  The argument from general consent is at best a suspicious one for the truth of any opinion or the validity of any practice.  History proves that the generality of men are the slaves of prejudice, the sport of custom, and foes most bigoted to such opinions concerning religion as have not been drawn in from their sucking-bottles, or ’hatched within the narrow fences of their own conceit.’

Every day experience demonstrates the fallibility of majorities.  It palpably exhibits, too, the danger as well as folly of presuming the unpopularity of certain speculative opinions an evidence of their untruth.  A public intellect, untainted by gross superstition, can nowhere be appealed to.  Even in this favoured country, ’the envy of surrounding nations and admiration of the world,’ the multitude are anything but patterns of moral purity and intellectual excellence.  They who assure us vox populi ‘is the voice of God,’ are fairly open to the charge of ascribing to Him what orthodox pietists inform us exclusively belongs to the Father of Evil.  If by ‘voice of God’ is meant something different from noisy ebullitions of anger, intemperance, and fanaticism, they who would have us regulate our opinions in conformity therewith are respectfully requested to reconcile mob philosophy with the sober dictates of experience, and mob law with the law of reason.

A writer in the Edinburgh Review [12:1] assures us the majority of every nation consists of rude uneducated masses, ignorant, intolerant, suspicious, unjust, and uncandid, without the sagacity which discovers what is right, or the intelligence which comprehends it when pointed out, or the morality which requires it to be done. And yet religious philosophers are fond of quoting the all but universal horror of Universalism as a formidable argument against that much misunderstood creed!