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 that 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."