95, he chooses to quote my word _What_ in italics, his reader is led on to interpret me as saying "_every thing whatsoever_ which we know of God, we learn from within;" a statement which is not mine.
Besides this, the misrepresentation of which I complained is not confined to the rather metaphysical words of _within_ and _without_, as to which the most candid friends may differ, and may misunderstand one another;--as to which also I may be truly open to correction;--but he assumes the right to tell his readers that my doctrine undervalues Truth, and Intellect, and Traditional teaching, and External suggestion, and Historical influences, and counts the Bible an impertinence.

When he fancies he can elicit this and that, by his own logic, out of sentences and clauses torn from their context, he has no right to disguise what I have said to the contrary, and claim to justify his fraud by accusing me of self-contradiction.

Against all my protests, and all that I said to the very opposite previous to any controversy, he coolly alludes to it (p.

40 of the "Defence") as though it were my avowed doctrine, that: "_Each_ man, looking exclusively within, can _at once_ rise to the conception of God's infinite perfections." IV.

When I agree with Paul or David (or think I do), I have a right to quote their words reverentially; but when I do so, Mr.Rogers deliberately justifies himself in ridiculing them, pretending that he only ridicules _me_.