had removed the unfavourable impression which we had received as to Dr. Keith's use, or, as we must still call it, abuse, of Bishop Newton's work on the Prophecies. Thinking, on the contrary, that this attempt at defence only makes the matter worse, we should certainly have been silent about it-for the sake of Dr. Keith (who, though he has placed himself in an awkward literary position, is, we understand, a very amiable man)—and for that of his book, which (however concocted) is, as we have always said, a valuable addition to sacred literature; but the Doctor, or rather, we believe, his friend and champion, Mr. Brewster, is so importunate that we should, as a matter of justice, notice his Reply, that we cannot but comply with the requisition.

This Reply consists of two parts: one-much the greater in extent by Mr. Brewster, is more an indictment against us for ignorance, inaccuracy, and even fraud, than a defence of Dr. Keith; the other-three pages of explanation from Dr. Keith's

own pen.

It is obvious that when the principal in such a question as this, the essential truth of which can be known with certainty to himself alone, makes his own personal explanation, the auxiliary amplifications of his advocate must be of secondary importance; for the former must know how the fact really is, while the latter, however able or ingenious he may be, can never go beyond inference and probability. We might therefore be excused if, having Dr. Keith's own succinct defence, we were to disregard altogether Mr. Brewster's accusatory treatise; but as Mr. Brewster charges us, in no measured terms, with not merely ignorance but fraud, it becomes absolutely necessary that we should notice so grave an accusation from the mouth of a clergyman. As to Mr. Brewster's allegations of particular mistakes or general ignorance on our parts-(temptingly as most of them exhibit the very defects they profess to arraign)-we shall say nothing; first, because they certainly cannot affect the facts whether Dr. Keith did or did not make an unavowed and therefore unfair use of Bishop Newton's work; but secondly, because we do not feel authorized to occupy our own pages or weary the patience of the general reader with such personal details. Those who may be disposed to enter into that part of the question, we fearlessly refer to the most minute examination of our article and of Mr. Brewster's elaborately erroneous comments. But on the fraud we cannot be silent.

The first and gravest instance is what Mr. Brewster calls the gross fabrication' and the disgraceful trickery' of our having exhibited the resemblance between Dr. Keith and Bishop Newton in the following form:

The disgraceful trickery is, it seems, that we selected, up and down in Newton, the chapters which we have confronted with Keith's but how, we ask, is it possible in any other mode to compare two works, of which, though one may contain every syllable of the other, it does not contain them under the same capitular numbers nor in the same order? Suppose we had had to show how many of the sneers in Gibbon's celebrated chapters against Christianity were borrowed from Voltaire and other sceptical writers, would it have been disgraceful trickery to have collected from the various works and confronted with Gibbon's pages, the borrowed paragraphs? When Mr. Erskine, in the case of the rival road-books of Cary and Patterson, collected and confronted the imitated passages from different parts of the two works, did the judge or jury think it a disgraceful trickery? In fact, there is no other possible mode of proceeding, unless in the extreme case of the plagiarism being an actual reprint, page for page, of the original, which would then be not plagiarism but piracy. We gave Dr. Keith's chapters and contents in full and in his own order, and we selected and placed opposite to the respective chapters of Keith the corresponding chapters of Bishop Newton.

Newton. Mr. Brewster thinks that we should, as he has done, have exhibited side by side the tables of contents of the two books each in its own order—which, for Mr. Brewster's object, might be convenient enough, for it would be absolutely unintelligible; as, for instance, by Mr. Brewster's very singular mode of comparison, Keith's chapter of Nineveh stands confronted to Newton's dissertation on our Saviour's prophecy concerning Jerusalem, and Newton's dissertation of Nineveh stands compared with Keith's section of the nature of the Christian religion; and it is, it seems, disgraceful trickery' to have compared Keith's Nineveh with Newton's Nineveh, and to have proved—as we did insist, and do insist, that we have most fully done,-that the two chapters are identical in substance, and that of course Keith's must be plagiarism.

6

But this is not all: to this first instance of gross fabrication' and disgraceful trickery' Mr. Brewster adds, 'there is evidently no similarity except what the reviewer has created by the few disjecta membra of Newton which he has brought together as the FULL BODY of his (Newton's) work.'-p. 11.

This really is wonderful! Our readers, by looking at the table, will see that we quoted, of Newton's twenty-six dissertations, only the II., IV., VI., VII., VIII., IX., X., XI., XII., XIV., and XVIII., eleven in all-that of course we did not conceal that there were fifteen other dissertations—and therefore that we did not pretend to give our selections as the FULL BODY of the work.

But moreover we had previously stated that Newton had treated a large class of prophecy which Keith excluded, and which therefore could not enter into our comparison.' And again we quoted Dr. Keith's own assertion that to bring the argument within narrow limits, prophecies were excluded which were fulfilled previously to the era of the last of the prophets, or of which the meaning is obscure or the application doubtful;' whereas a large portion of Newton is employed on such: and again, we stated that the order of topics in Keith and Newton was different, because Newton followed, for the most part, the chronology of the prophecy, and Keith seemed to us to have no order at all;' and finally, we expressly told the reader that the comparison was to be made referendo singula singulis,' a phrase which implies that the corresponding passages were not to be found in the two books in the same order, but were selected and confronted when they treated of the same subject.

So much for the gross fabrication and disgraceful trickery of the comparative table. We are not surprised that Mr. Brewster should be desirous to obscure or evade the irresistible proof which that table supplies on the main point of the case; but we do

wonder

wonder that he should have hoped to produce any favourable effect by such arguments advanced in such language.

He then proceeds at considerable length to perplex* himself and his readers with an examination of the details of the table; we could easily expose twenty errors, some of them actual misstatements, in this part of his pamphlet; but we shall only notice, by way of example, two or three in which he continues his charge against us of fabrication. He observes that our capitular titles NEWTON.

KEITH.

Ch. IV. The Jews.

The Jews, Diss. VIII.'

6

are not correct; and that we have improperly placed them in juxtaposition; for that the real title of Newton's dissertation should have been Prophecies of other prophets (than Moses) concerning the Jews.' Now, the difference between saying Diss. VIII., the Jews,' and Diss. VIII., Prophecies concerning the Jews,' would not be very serious-particularly as, in the very next line, the enlarged title with the same reference is given; but what will our readers think of Mr. Brewster's candour when we show that, in this slight abridgment of the title, we have only followed Dr. Keith's own example in the very passage? In Dr. Keith's first edition his chapter was entitled

'Ch. IV. Prophecies concerning the Jews;' so that had we been labouring to mark imitation, we might have exhibited the comparison still more strikingly thus:

KEITH.

the Jews.

NEWTON.

Ch. IV.-Prophecies concerning Diss. VIII.-(Other) Prophecies concerning the Jewsbut in his later editions, Dr. Keith himself thought fit to abridge his own title into Chap. IV. The Jews,' and we, of course, thought we were authorized to abridge Newton's similar title in the same way-particularly, as we added in the very next line the title in full. To what shifts must an apologist be reduced who can waste time on such trifles-and what must be his accuracy and candour, when it turns out that, even in this trifle, we only followed Dr. Keith's own example!

Mr. Brewster then proceeds to give another instance of what he now calls our legerdemain,—a softer word than he generally uses, but of equally offensive import :

KEITH.

Ch. V.-The Land of Judea and

circumjacent countries.

NEWTON.

Diss. VIII-Other Prophecies concerning the Jews. Desolation of Judea.

By, no doubt, an error of the press of XIV. for VIII., in the seventh line of the table, one of Mr. Brewster's main attacks upon us is rendered unintelligible to the ordinary reader; by correcting the error, we have made not only it, but its utter futility, intelligible.

On

On this Mr. Brewster says→→→

Upon opening Newton's book it may be seen at once, from the list of the real capitular titles of his twenty-six dissertations, that "the desolation of Judea" forms no part of any one of them, as the reviewer has represented.'

6

No part of any one of them' !-The italics are Mr. Brewster's. Now, will it be believed that, upon opening Newton's book it may be seen at once,' (p. xi. of the table of contents) that-after the general head- Diss. VIII. Prophecies of other Prophets concerning the Jews'-several sectional heads are added, and that one of them is The desolation of Judea,' which words Mr. Brewster has the boldness to say form no part of any of the capitular titles of the twenty-six dissertations'?

6

Another of our alleged falsehoods' is, that we called a reference, which occurs in page 232 of Dr. Keith's 12th edition-that which we used, as the last and fullest the first acknowledged quotation from Newton which occurs in the work.' To which Mr. Brewster replies shortly and decidedly,

This is not the FIRST acknowledged quotation from Newton.'-p. 45. But he more prudently omits to tell us where any prior quotation is to be found in that edition-if Mr. Brewster means to say that in some earlier editions Bishop Newton's name did previously occur, it would not invalidate our assertion that it was the first that occurred in the edition which we were reviewing, (and which we distinctly stated to be that which we were reviewing)— Indeed we should not have been justified in quoting, from a former edition, a passage which Dr. Keith had on deliberation thought proper to omit! We shall by-and-by take notice of some very remarkable omissions and variations which occur in the successive editions; but we here repeat our assertion, that the reference in p. 232, 12th ed., is the first acknowledged quotation from Bishop Newton' that we can find in that edition, and we invite Mr. Brewster to show a prior.

Another charge is, that in saying that we had selected for detailed examination the chapter of Nineveh, as the shortest and most suitable to our limits,' we were again guilty, as is stated, of a positive falsehood, and, as is insinuated, with a malicious design. First, says Mr. Brewster, it is not a chapter-but a section;' to which we reply, that the word section no where occurs in Dr. Keith's work. His dissertations on Nineveh-Babylon-The Arabs-African Slavery, &c., are all separate and unconnected treatises, but without any divisional title-we, therefore, called them chapters-as we occasionally called Bishop Newton's dissertations chapters; and as any other capitular division is commonly called a chapter; and chapters they undoubtedly are,

though