"The third writer--if, as I have said, he be not the second--sets out on a new voyage of discovery ... and still humbly following in the wake of Mr. Newman's great critical discoveries,[3] repeats that gentleman's charges of falsifying passages, garbling and misrepresentation. In doing so, he employs language, and _manifests a temper_, which I should have thought that respect for himself, if not for his opponent, would have induced him to suppress. It is enough to say, that he quite rivals Mr. Newman in sagacity, and if possible, has more successfully denuded himself of charity.... If he be the same as the second writer, I am afraid that the little Section XV." [_i.e._ the reply to Mr. Martineau in 1st edition of the "Defence"] "must have offended the _amour propre_ more deeply than it ought to have done, considering the wanton and outrageous assault to which it was a very lenient reply, and that the critic affords another illustration of the old maxim, that there are none so implacable as those who have done a wrong. "As the spectacle of the reeling Helot taught the Spartans sobriety, so his _bitterness_ shall teach me moderation. I know enough of human nature to understand that it is very possible for an _angry_ man--and _chagrin and irritation are too legibly written on every page of this article_--to be betrayed into gross injustice." The reader will see from this the difficulty of _my_ position in this controversy. Mr. Martineau, while defending himself, deprecated the profanity of my other opponent, and the atheistic nature of his arguments. He spoke as a bystander, and with the advantage of a judicial position, and it is called "wanton and outrageous." A second writer goes into detail, and exposes some of the garbling arts which have been used against me; it is imputed[4] to ill temper, and is insinuated to be from a spirit of personal revenge. How much less can _I_ defend myself, and that, against untruthfulness, without incurring such imputation! My opponent speaks to a public who will not read my replies. He picks out what he pleases of my words, and takes care to divest them of their justification. I have (as was to be expected) met with much treatment from the religious press which I know cannot be justified; but all is slight, compared to that of which I complain from this writer. I will presently give a few detailed instances to illustrate this. While my charge against my assailant is essentially moral, and I cannot make any parade of charity, he can speak patronizingly of me now and then, and makes his main attacks on my _logic_ and _metaphysics_. He says, that in writing his first book, he knew no characteristics of me, except that I was "a gentleman, a scholar, and _a very indifferent metaphysician_" At the risk of encountering yet more of banter and insult, I shall here quote what the third "Prospective Reviewer" says on this topic. (Vol. x. p. 208):--