for the existence of all organized beings--man included--merely from those principles on which the origin and present appearance of suns and worlds are explained, must be set down as mere bald assertion, without a particle of evidence. In other words we should term it _arrant fudge_.' The perversion at this point is involved in a willful misapplication of the word 'principles.' I say 'wilful' because, at page 63, I am _particularly_ careful to distinguish between the principles proper, Attraction and Repulsion, and those merely resultant _sub_-principles which control the universe in detail. To these sub-principles, swayed by the immediate spiritual influence of Deity. I leave, without examination, _all that_ which the Student of Theology so roundly asserts I account for on the _principles_ which account for the constitution of suns, &c. "In the third column of his 'review' the critic says:--'He asserts that each soul is its own God--its own Creator.' What I _do_ assert is, that 'each soul is, _in part_, its own God--its own Creator.' Just below, the critic says:--'After all these contradictory propoundings concerning God we would remind him of what he lays down on page 23--'of this Godhead in itself he alone is not imbecile--he alone is not impious who propounds _nothing_. A man who thus conclusively convicts himself of imbecility and impiety needs no further refutation.' Now the sentence, _as I wrote it_, and as _I find it_ printed on that very page which the critic refers to and which _must have been lying before him_ while he quoted my words, runs thus:--'Of this Godhead, _in itself_, he alone is not imbecile, &c., who propounds nothing.' By the italics, as the critic well knew, I design to distinguish between the two possibilities--that of a knowledge of God through his works and that of a knowledge of Him in his _essential nature_. The Godhead, _in itself_, is distinguished from the Godhead observed _in its effects_. But our critic is zealous. Moreover, being a divine, he is honest--ingenuous. It is his _duty_ to pervert my meaning by omitting my italics--just as, in the sentence previously quoted, it was his Christian duty to falsify my argument by leaving out the two words, 'in part,' upon which turns the whole force--indeed the whole intelligibility of my proposition.