[fn66 I have a right to believe so, for Mr. Everett quotes Priestley's notes, p. 339 of his work. Dr. Priestley united in his character, the rare concurrence of a keen controversial writer, with great fairness and candour. He seems always to have been willingly disposed to resign an untenable opinion, when convinced by the arguments of his opponent. His conduct in regard to the question between the Jews and Christians, may be considered as a proof of this. He wrote letters to the Jews in defence of Christianity, which were replied to by Levi. In this controversy Levi had evidently the better of Priestley. Priestley seems to have been sensible of this, which occasioned him to examine the question more minutely. The result of his examination led him to avow, in a Dissertation in the Theological Repository published in England, I believe in the very one which Mr. Everett refers to [Theol. Rep. vol. 5.] that the prophets clearly justify the Jews for expecting as their Messiah, a glorious monarch of the house and name of David, who should reign over them and all the human race; but he also maintained as I think in the same Dissertation, that Jesus Christ is nevertheless predicted by the 53d. of Isaiah. Several years afterwards, when Priestley resided in America, he published his notes on Scripture, wherein he abandons the Christian interpretation, of the 53d. of Isaiah, and applies it as I do to the Jewish nation.] [fn67 If all that Mr. Everett has said upon this subject were true, it would amount after all only to an argument ad prejudicium, for the Jews of past times, who believed the dreams of the Rabbies, but is of no weight whatever with those who reject them, as do all the Biblical critics of the present day.] [fn68 There occurs to me an instance of carelessness or something worse on the part of Mr. Everett in p. 342 of his work. I had said in my first publication, that "there is in the speech of James, Arts xv. a quotation from Amos in which, to make it fit the subject, (which after all it does not fit) is the substitution of the words "the remnant of men," for "the remnant of Edom," as it is in the original." On this Mr. Everett remarks with astonishing' composure, "There are few of my readers to whom I need say, that the same Hebrew word means 'men,' and 'Edom,' according' as it is pronounced, and St. James has as fair a right to pronounce it men,' as Mr. English has to pronounce it 'Edom.'" The only way by which Mr. Everett can escape the charge of fraud in this affair, is by allowing that he did not take the trouble to look at the passage quoted from Amos, ix. 12. in the Hebrew Bible, from which it will appear that neither St. James, nor any other Saint, has a right to read the passage "the remnant of men" (or Adam;) because the Hebrew word contains a letter (vau,) which the word Adam does not contain, and which limits its signification to Edom.