book, because it is a tissue of impudent ignorance or impudent
fraud, and as such I will prove it.[fn65]

I have always supposed, that in quoting the opinion of an author
as authority, it is the fairest way to quote his last avowed opinions.
Now the work of Priestley's which I refer to as applying the
prophecy of Isaiah to the Jewish nation, as I do, is entitled
"Priestley's Notes on Scripture," and was published after arrival in
America, several years AFTER the work to which Mr. Everett.
refers, wherein Priestley, maintained that it was impossible to
explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ." Therefore this fact
"gives cause to think, that Mr. Everett did not know, or knowing
forbore to state (which I believe in my conscience is the truth) this
circumstance" which completely acquits me at least of a
suppressio veri.[fn66]

"What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and
Michaelis!" Several--among whom Eichorn stands pre-eminent.
Moreover, how has it happened that "the keen detector of
dissonances" has contradicted himself in quoting Michaelis? Here,
because he chooses to cling to the 53d. of Isaiah as favouring his
cause, he quotes the name of MICHAELIS as asserting "its literal
application to Christ." In another place, (p. 247.) where it is
necessary to defend the New Testament from the charge of false
application of the prophecies of the Old Testament to Jesus, he
quotes again the great name of MICHAELIS as the patron of the
system of accommodation, which system maintains that the 53d.
of Isaiah has no application to Christ at all! but is quoted by the
writers of the New Testament merely by way of allusion. Mr.
Everett himself may live to learn, that such double dealing
attempts to slander his opponent, and impose upon his readers,
"whatever immediate effect they may produce, will finally stand in
the way of his character for veracity," or at least for fairness and
candour.

These are not the only instances in which Mr. Everett has
calumniated me, and abused the good nature of his readers. For
example--

I had maintained in my first work, that the gospel called of
Matthew was a forgery, and not a translation from the ancient
Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and had supported my opinion by
saying, that learned Christians allowed that "it had not the air of a
translation." This Mr. Everett contradicts as follows: "But Mr.
English is aware that MICHAELIS, the highest authority on these
subjects, pronounces t