As I was not starting any new theory, but accepting what is notorious, nothing more than an indication was needed.

I gave, what I should not call definition, but description of it.

My critic conceals that I have avowed agreement with Christians; refers to it as a theory of my own; complains that it is obscure; pretends to quote my definition, and leaves out all the cardinal words of it, which I have above printed in italics.

My defender, in the "Prospective Review," exposes these mal-practices; points out that my opponent is omitting the main words, while complaining of deficiency; that I profess to agree with Christians in general; and _that I evidently agree with my critic in particular_.
The critic undertakes to reply to this, and the reader has before him the whole defence.

The man who, as it were, puts his hand on his heart to avow that he anxiously sets before his readers, if not what I _mean_, yet certainly what I have _expressed_,--still persists in hiding from them the facts of the case; avoids to quote from the reviewer so much as to let out that I profess to agree[8] with what is prevalent among Christians and have no peculiar theory;--still withholds the cardinal points of what he calls my definition; while he tries to lull his reader into inattention by affecting to be highly amused, and by bantering and bullying in his usual style, while perverting the plainest words in the world.
I have no religious press to take my part.