hat it is a translation, and maintains his
proposition not less from the unanimous testimony of the ancients
than from internal evidence." p. 472, of Mr. Everett's work.

I beg the reader after reading this to attend carefully to what is
said by Mr. Everett in p. 464. "Semler's opinion of the origin and
composition of the three first gospels, was the same as that of Le
Clerc, MICHAELIS, Lessing, and Eichorn, and which has been
illustrated and maintained by professor" Marsh. This opinion is
that they were compiled from documents [not one document or
gospel, but several] of our Lord's preaching and life, which had
been committed to writing during his life, or immediately after, and
which became after different additions, revisions and translations,
the BASIS of our present gospels." Here the reader sees that
when it is necessary to oppose my statements, in one place Mr.
Everett avers that Michaelis maintained that the Greek gospel
according to Matthew, was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew; in
another place, where it is also necessary to oppose me, he avers
that Michaelis believed that the gospel according to Matthew,
Mark, and Luke were compiled compositions, and of course none
of them were translations from any one work. "I would, says Mr.
Everett, answer Mr. English fairly, or not at all." If this and the
other instances quoted be specimens of Mr. Everett's fairness,
what would be his conduct upon the very impossible supposition
that he could be guilty of duplicity?

2. Mr. Everett tells his readers, that the Jewish Rabbies "are the
most contemptible critics that have appeared;" that "they are so
silly that he is almost ashamed to quote them;" that they were in
short idiots. If so, of what value can their opinions be on
controverted points, which must after all be settled by reason and
scripture, and not by any bare human authority.[fn67]
Nevertheless Mr. Everett is continually calling upon his reader to
believe his arguments and statements upon the authority of these
said Rabbies. If I were one of his Christian readers, I should
consider myself insulted by such a procedure. It is almost
tantamount to saying, "'it is true, my arguments are built upon the
authority of fools, but yet they may serve to convince you."

3. I had accused the writers of the New Testament in my first
publication, of having blundered in applying passages of the Old
Testament as prophecies of Jesus Christ. Mr. Everett justifies
them by mai