5, by insinuating, first, that it is my doctrine, "that man is _most likely_ born for _a dog's life_, and there an end;" next, that I have taken under my patronage the propositions, that "the miracles of Christ might be real, because Christ was a _clairvoyant_ and mesmerist, and that God is not a Person but a Personality." I cannot but be reminded of what the "Prospective" reviewer says of Zeuxis and the grapes, when I observe the delicate skill of touch by which the critic puts on just enough colour to affect the reader's mind, but not so much as to draw him to closer examination.

I am at a loss to believe that he supposes me to think that a theory of mesmeric wonders (as the complement of an atheistic creed ?) is "a question pertaining to God," or that my rebuke bore the slightest reference to such a matter.

As to Person and Personality, it is a subtle distinction which I have often met from Trinitarians; who, when they are pressed with the argument that three divine Persons are nothing but three Gods, reply that Person is not the correct translation of the mystical _Hypostasis_ of the Greeks, and Personality is perhaps a truer rendering.

If I were to answer with the jocosity in which my critic indulges, I certainly doubt whether he would justify me.

So too, when a Pantheist objects (erringly, as I hold) that a Person is necessarily something finite, so that God cannot be a Person; if, against this, a Theist contend that God is at once a Person and a Principle, and invent a use of the word Personality to overlap both ideas; we may reject his nomenclature as too arbitrary, but what rightful place ridicule has here, I do not see.