ion of Biblical Criticism.

Mr. Everett, in several passages of his book, has thought proper
to charge me with errors; but in the course of his discussion of my
interpretation of the 53d. of Isaiah, has directly accused me of
falsehood and of fraud, p. 148. of his work.

With regard to many of these errors, the situation and
circumstances I am in at present, put it out of my power to defend
myself, because I cannot get the books he refers to in order to test
his statements;[fn60] but of the latter imputations, the work of Mr.
Everett itself not only enables me to justify myself, but to fix those
charges upon him.

He says in the 148 page of his work, remarking upon my assertion
in "The Grounds of Christianity Examined."--"In a word the literal
application of this prophecy [the 53d. of Isaiah] to Jesus is now
given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow that the
literal sense of the original can never be understood of him,"-
"Why does not Mr. English name these Hebrew scholars? Simply
because his assertion is not true." Indeed! Does not Mr. Everett
himself say in the 247 p. of his work, that Eichorn in a view of a
work of Dr. Ekerman says, that "the principle of accommodation,
which the better interpreters had already applied to many
violations [fn62] in the New Testament, is by this author extended
to all." "Though this opinion of Dr. Ekerman," says Mr. Everett,
must be allowed to savour a little of the extravagance of theory,
Eichorn adopts it. As the work alluded to, the "Theological
Contributions" has become a classical book with one class of the
German divines, who are thought to excel in critical learning, there
is no doubt that this doctrine is generally received among them.
MICHAELIS we all know admits it; and Marsh is the only famous
critic of the present day who does not embrace it.

Now the 53d. ch. of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament,[fn63]
of course, therefore, according to Mr. Everett's own
representations of the opinions of these learned critics, they must
deny that the prophecy of Isaiah has any reference to Jesus, and
hold that it is quoted merely by way of accommodation. And if so
how has Mr. Everett dared to accuse me of falsehood in
representing, that "the literal application of this prophecy to Jesus
is now given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow
that the literal sense of the original can never be understood of
him"?! There is undoubtedly a falsehood told in thi