But the Rev. Mr. Smith is no Atheist; at least he makes no profession of Atheism. Au contraire, he makes fine sport with those who do.  Himself a Pantheist of the all-God school, he took to calling Atheists ’ugly names,’ as if quite innocent that no ‘thinking mind’ can fail to perceive the downright lunacy, or something worse, of supposing a pin to choose on the score of piety, between universal Deity and no Deity at all.  The ‘Shepherd’ of a new philosophic flock should have known better than to attempt the reform of ‘vulgar theology’ by setting forth the mystical nonsense of ‘vulgar’ Pantheism.  All falsehood is ‘vulgar’; but the most ‘vulgar’ of falsehood is that which assumes the convenient garb of transcendentalism, with a view to throw dust in the eyes of ‘vulgar’ lookers-on.  If Pantheists of this reverend gentleman’s school are neither sophists nor simpletons, Materialism is neither true nor false.  They do not plainly write down philosophy of so strangely negative a kind; that would be too ridiculous; but every reader of the ‘Shepherd’ knows that, in their way, they cleverly demonstrate all doctrine—­their own of course excepted—­true and false, which, no one need mount a pair of ‘universal’ spectacles to see, comes to neither true nor false.  Spiritualism receives at their hands no better treatment than Materialism, nor Southcottianism than either.  Southcottianism (they say) is true and false; Materialism is true and false; Spiritualism is true and false:  in brief, all doctrine, positive or negative, faithful or unfaithful, is true and false, except the doctrine of Pantheism alias Universalism, which is, bye and bye, to supersede every other.  According to this mystically wise, but rather inconsistent school, Atheists are stupid as Christians, Christians stupid as Mohammedans, and Mohammedans stupid as nearly everybody else.  These men are peculiarly fitted to make in the world of intellect the best possible ’arrangements for general confusion.’  Atheists in all but good sense, and seemingly without knowing it, they contrive to mix up, with skill worthy of better employment, a very novel and amusing species of philosophical hodge-podge.  Their Reverend leader or ‘Shepherd’ was wont to rail most furiously against dogmatists, especially those of the Atheistic sort; but his own dogmatism is at least a match for theirs.  He did more than dogmatize when combatting Materialism, he from ignorance or design, libelled it by putting, according to a custom ’more honoured in the breach than the observance,’ words into the mouths of Materialists that no real Materialist could utter.  Take an example.  In the periodical just referred to and quoted from, [50:1] are these words:—­’The mode of (matter’s) existence is the only subject in dispute.  The Materialist says, it is an infinite collection of dead unintelligent particles of sand; the spiritualist, that it is the visible and tangible development of an infinite, eternal, omnipresent,