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.