“Nature” is with me the same as “universe,” the same as “existence;” i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the happening of each and every phenomenon. It is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal, infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discontinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have no meaning for the word “create” except to denote change of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“Lectures and Discussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new appearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has originated any new existence; that we are utterly unable to think that the complement of existence has ever been either increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive nothing becoming something, or something becoming nothing. Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God” as existing “distinct from, and independent of, what he has created.” But what can such words mean when used of the “infinite?” Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the “universe” existing distinct from God mean in addition to? and in other place than? or, have the words no meaning? Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the same as I should mean if I used the same words in the highest possible degree of any human being. Here I maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteousness and benevolence are two of the words of description included in the definition of this creator and governor of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create men and govern nations so that the men act criminally and the nations seek to destroy one another in war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256) “that God could have originated a sinless moral system,” and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have created only such angels as were sure to keep their first estate.” But it is inaccurate to describe a “God” as righteous or benevolent who, having the complete power to originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have originated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevolent in “God” to contrive and create a hell in which he is to torment the human beings who have sinned because made by him in sin. “God,” if omnipotent and omniscient, could