What does necessarily wound me, is his misrepresenting my thoughts to the thoughtful, whose respect I honour; and poisoning the atmosphere between me and a thousand religious hearts.

That these do not despise me, however much contempt he may vent, I know only too well through their cruel fears of me.
I have just now learned incidentally, that in the last number (a supplementary number) of the "Prospective Review," there was a short reply to the second edition of Mr.Rogers's "Defence," in which the Editors officially _deny_ that the third writer against Mr.Rogers is the same as the second; which, I gather from their statement, the "British Quarterly" had taken on itself to _affirm_.
I proceed to show what liberties my critic takes with my arguments, and what he justifies.
I.In the closing chapter of my third edition of the "Phases," I had complained of his bad faith in regard to my arguments concerning the Authoritative imposition of moral truth from without.

I showed that, after telling his reader that I offered no proof of my assertions, he dislocated my sentences, altered their order, omitted an adverb of inference, and isolated three sentences out of a paragraph of forty-six lines: that his omission of the inferential adverb showed his deliberate intention to destroy the reader's clue to the fact, that I had given proof where he suppresses it and says that I have given none; that the sentences quoted as 1,2,3, by him, with me have the order 3, 2,1; while what he places first, is with me an immediate and necessary deduction from what has preceded.

Now how does he reply?
He does not deny my facts; but he justifies his process.

I must set his words before the reader.