And how does he set about his reply?
By trying to identify the third writer with the second (who was notoriously Mr.Martineau), and to impute to him ill temper, chagrin, irritation, and wounded self-love, as the explanation of this third article: He says (p.

221):-- "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....