Nevertheless, it had wholly escaped my notice that the satirist had ridiculed it, as I now infer that he did.
He tells me he _was not aware_ that the holding that _there are great defects in the morality of the New Testament, and much imperfection in the character of its Founder, was a question pertaining to God_.

Nor indeed was _I_ aware of it.
I regard questions concerning a book and a human being to be purely secular, and desire to discuss them, not indeed with ridicule but with freedom.

When _I_ discuss them, he treats my act as intolerably offensive, as though the subject were sacred; yet he now pretends that _I_ think such topics "pertain to God," and he was not aware of it until I told him so! Thus he turns away the eyes of his readers from my true charge of profanity, and fixes them upon a fictitious charge so as to win a temporary victory.

At the same time, since Christians believe the morality of the _Old_ Testament to have great defects, and that there was much imperfection in the character of its eminent saints, prophets, and sages; I cannot understand how my holding the very same opinion concerning the _New_ Testament should be a peculiarly appropriate ground of banter and merriment; nor make me more justly offensive to Christians, than the Pauline doctrine is to Jews.
In more than one place of this "Defence" he misrepresents what I have written on Immortality, in words similar to those here used, though here he does _not_[15] expressly add my name.

In p.