As to the accounts, which are said to be generally received, but which are termed the understood; and from which, it is said, we are enabled to come to the conclusion that Mohammed is a Prophet, although we may not be in possession of any of the particulars, we observe: That if it be true that people may arrive at the truth by means of accounts which vary, it must follow, that what the Hindoos have written, in their endless accounts of the miracles of Rama and Lachman, as well as what the Chinese have written respecting their idolatrous Prophet, must at least prove that all these pretenders were Prophets.

If it be replied, that, unless this be allowed, the mission of no Prophet can be established, we answer: Accounts of miracles to be worthy of credit, must be subject to the two following conditions: First, that either the Prophet himself, or his companions, must write down an account of his miracles and publish it. It should also be known from collateral circumstances, that such a person appeared at the time, at which such account is said to have been written, as is the case with Moses and Jesus. Mohammed too has in many places spoken of the Koran as his miracle. But by no means should such accounts be written at any considerable time from that in which the facts referred to are said to have taken place : much less should they be variable or contra

G 2

dictory. Because, had such accounts been written and published immediately after the facts to which they referred had taken place, it is impossible they could have been made public without being refuted by some one or other. Now, upon enquiry, we shall find that what has been related among the Hindoos of Rama and Lachman, is supported by no such condition: but, that the miracles of the other Prophets among the Jews, are.

The second condition is, that force should not be resorted to in matters of religion: but, that every one should be at liberty to write a refutation to such accounts of miracles, &c. as he knows to be false. Among the Mohammedans, however, this has never been tolerated: for if any one should write or say any thing to this effect, allowing that the judge may so far connive at his conduct as not to condemn him to death; yet such would be the threats held out to his wife, children, and others, that no one would think of having any intercourse with him; and thus would his future silence on these points be effectually insured: contrary to what is the practice among people professing other religions.

It has been said too, that allowing these particular accounts not to be such as to produce conviction, yet, from the aggregate testimony of the whole, the result will be sufficient for that purpose. We ask, has it ever yet been supposed

that a certain number of madmen may be reckoned upon as one sane person? Or, that so many dead men may stand for one living one? If it be replied that we may obtain something from the whole, which we cannot from every particular considered separately, we answer; If indeed each particular were true in the main, then would the conjoint testimony of several to the same point, give a force not to be found in each alone. But this is not the case in the accounts referred to the result of such must therefore be, what it usually is upon the addition of nothing to nothing. The Christian Minister Henry Martyn.

THE END OF THE FIRST REPLY.

TRANSLATION

OF THE SECOND

PERSIAN TRACT OF MR. MARTYN,

IN REPLY TO MIRZA IBRAHIM.

It must have appeared from the preceding Tract, that no good reason can be offered, why any one should place his faith in Mohammed; though it was not there shewn positively why a person ought not so to place his faith: when however the former of these has been proved the latter must follow of course. Now, with respect to this question, there are certain considerations which, when taken separately, may perhaps be so glossed over as to lose their force but, when taken in the aggregate, must lead to the unavoidable conclusion, that the person whom they affect is no Prophet. The first of these considerations is this: That in the ancient Prophecies there occurs no mention whatever of Mohammed. If it be replied that the ancient Prophecies have been corrupted, we say, this is a mere pretence, which ought not to be regarded, unless it can be shewn, by whom, by what means, and for what end, such corruptions have been made: for it appears from the Koran itself, that up to the time of Mohammed

no such corruption had taken place. In the chapter entitled The Evidence,' we have this passage." The unbelievers among those to whom the Scriptures were given, and among the idolaters, did not stagger, until the clear evidence had come unto them an Apostle from God, rehearsing unto them pure books of revelations*." Where the Commentators are unanimous in declaring, that the evidence here mentioned relates to Mohammed. Again in the Chapter on Jonas: "If thou art in a doubt concerning any part of that which we have sent down unto thee, ask them who have read the book of the Law before theet." And again in the Chapter on the Prophets: "Ask those who are acquainted with the scripture, if ye know not this."

Now, after Mohammed had appeared, it was impossible any such corruption could take place : because, from the times of Jesus to those of Mohammed, a period of six hundred years at least had elapsed; every State too which is now in the possession of the Christians was then so; although some, on account of the spread of Islamism, have since passed into the hands of the Mohammedans. In all these States, we know, the Holy Scriptures had been circulated; and had, besides, been translated into most of the languages of those times. Again,