can accuse me of the disengenuousness here implied; inasmuch as, having proceeded with my theory up to that point at which Laplace’s theory meets it, I then give Laplace’s theory in full, with the expression of my firm conviction of its absolute truth at all points.  The ground covered by the great French astronomer compares with that covered by my theory, as a bubble compares with the ocean on which it floats; nor has he the slightest allusion to the ‘principle propounded above,’ the principle of Unity being the source of all things—­the principle of Gravity being merely the Reaction of the Divine Act which irradiated all things from Unity.  In fact no point of my theory has been even so much as alluded to by Laplace.  I have not considered it necessary, here to speak of the astronomical knowledge displayed in the ’stars and suns’ of the Student of Theology, nor to hint that it would be better to say that ’development and formation are, than that development and formation is.  The third misrepresentation lies in a foot-note, where the critic says:—­’Further than this, Mr. Poe’s claim that he can account 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