misrepresentations, and to attempt again the exposure of some fallacies most tenacious of life. I. It was distinctly stated by us in the course of this Controversy, that not upon any grounds of _literary evidence_ did we discredit those prefaces which relate to the miraculous (or as, in insult to the purest and holiest human feelings, our opponents are not ashamed to call it, the _immaculate_) conception; and that our estimate of them was formed solely upon grounds of inherent incredibility, and of proved inconsistencies both with themselves and with the general statements of the New Testament. Yet in total disregard of this our denial, the Preface (p. xiii.) reasserts the charge, as if it never had been contradicted. We also distinctly stated that the miraculous conception _in no way interfered with Unitarianism_,—that many Humanitarians believed in it; yet it is _the policy_ of Trinitarianism to _repeat_, that we pervert these portions of Scripture, for the sake of evading a fact fatal to our system. Unitarianism is so little concerned to evade the fact of a miraculous conception, that many Unitarians themselves adopt it. It is the “tactics” of the “thirteen Clergymen,” their system “of holy war,” (_see Preface to Mr. Ould’s Lecture_) to ignore whatever we may say on our own behalf, either in way of correction or of defence, and to reassert the false statement. II. The “Unitarian Creed” is described by our reverend opponents as “_a mere code of unbelief_” (p. xiv.) it being the policy of the “thirteen Clergymen,” not only to pay no regard to our most solemn assertion of our faith in Christianity, as God’s full and perfect revelation to man, but also to assume to themselves the functions of infallible judges of what is Christianity, and what is not; and so, again to return upon them their own language, to “deify their own fallible” (p. xii.) interpretations and inferences. Yet they can impose upon the simplicity of the world, by charging others with the “pride of reason.” Infallible themselves, to differ from their infallibility can of course be nothing else than the _pride_ of reason.