Hitchens did enclose the first of these paragraphs in quotation marks, making it clear that the words were not his own (although he failed to properly credit the source.) In the case of the second paragraph, Hitchens was misquoted by Werleman. His words were altered to make them appear much closer to the terminology of the 1923 essays, and in the course of this alteration, they were also made grammatically incorrect. If nothing else, Hitchens was well versed in English grammar, unlike the individual who altered his words. (see ~loc. 965, Amazon Kindle edition of Werleman; p. 38 of the large-print edition of Hitchens, ISBN 978-0-446-55229-5, or, according to Werleman, pp. 22-23 of an unspecified edition.)

Furthermore – and here’s the best part – this well founded accusation of plagiarism seems itself to be plagiarized. It echoes a blog post by Christian apologist Ronald V. Huggins, dating from September 8, 2013, some two years before Werleman’s book was published. (This is unless that individual also stole it from somewhere – I can’t be completely sure that he didn’t, but I strongly doubt it as he seems to write eloquently on many matters related to apologetics, he appears to hold a genuine Ph.D. in theology, and he seems to have a hard-earned reputation to protect. At least he quotes Hitchens accurately. He would surely receive the scathing label of ‘fundamentalist’ from Werleman.)

Huggins receives no credit. How embarrassing for Werleman. Plagiarizing an accusation of someone else’s plagiarism. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The next couple of pages consist of Werleman acknowledging that he has indeed plagiarized in the past and accepting that failing in himself, but promising that he will never will do it again. All of this, apparently, on the heels of an egregious plagiarism. How very sad.

Huggins’ blog post may be found here;

http://ronaldvhuggins.blogspot.ca/2013/09/christopher-hitchenss-plagiarism.html