... و چون عاقل را اشارتي كفايت است ما نيز عبادت شمارا عاقل بندشته (پنداشته( مسك اختصار اختيار

We need not now notice your worship

ping wooden images of the Virgin Mary and Jesus, whether such worship be intended as respectful to their persons, or for the purpose of paying them divine honours. ... And, as a word is enough for the wise, believing as we do that you are such, we shall content ourselves with the mere hint.

We then have the character and miracles of Mohammed enlarged upon, and his law described as one which should continue to the day of judgment with the assertion, that he had been foretold by all the Prophets; all of which is supported by some text or other cited from the Koran. We then have the excellency of Mohammed's character contrasted with the perfidy of Judas, and the desertion of the disciples, at the time of our Lord's trial. The book then closes with some remarks on the dispersion of the Jews in consequence of our Lord's crucifixion, and because they rejected Mohammed. We then have some verses so composed as to give the date of the tract, by adding together the numerical values of the letters in which they are written: the following is one of the couplets.

پرتو يابد لوامع رباني

از دولت ايمان علي عمراني

"These divine rays receive light from the prosperity of the faith of Ali of Amrán. The sum of the letters in the last line being added together, makes the number 1031, for the date of the Hejira, which answers to A. D. 1621. We

تمام شد این نسخه .then have this epigraphe

ه شهر شعبان المعظم سنه شريف في يوم الاربعاء حررة العبد صدر الدین ابن جعفر علي معمار تم.

This manuscript was finished on Thursday the fifth day of the month Shabán A. H. 1031, by Sadr Oddeen Ibn Jaafar Ali Maamár. The date of the tract, therefore, is A. D. 1621-2. This tract was written, consequently, twelve years after the book of Xavier had been published, and was completed in the 8th month after its commencement.

REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING EXTRACTS.

Before we proceed to notice Guadagnoli's reply to this tract, which enters into the question at too great a length to be transcribed here, it may be proper briefly to consider a few of the Persian's objections; especially as Guadagnoli's book is scarce.

The first objection, viz. that the original Gospel had been lost, and that the Evangelists assembled in order to fabricate four new ones, is not only without the least foundation in history, but is altogether improbable. The objector thinks, that the discrepancies, as he calls them, which he has found in the different books, are proof sufficient of this fact. I cannot help thinking, that they constitute a much stronger proof to the contrary. If the Evangelists had conspired for the purpose of forging new Gospels, surely they would have made their copies agree, supposing they had published more than one: but, in such a case, the probability is, they would have published one only. It is rather extraordinary that Dr. Marsh, and some others, should have formed a similar hypothesis, not from the disagreement, but the agreement observable in the text of the different Gospels. The merits of the Bishop of Peterborough's hypothesis have been sufficiently discussed. Those of our author are too futile to need a moment's consideration.

The objection that our Lord's precepts apparently oppose those of Moses is grounded on a mistaken view of the subject. The judicial and ceremonial parts of the Law of Moses, were manifestly temporary. It was, therefore, to be expected that they would cease to be binding,

when that Prophet should arise from among his brethren, to whose injunctions he commanded the Israelites particularly to attend.* Besides, our Lord's commission had nothing to do with temporalities. The sentiments which he delivered in his sermon on the mount, had nothing to do, either with the authority of the Sanhedrim, or with that of Pilate. His law, therefore, was not intended to affect their jurisdiction, but for individual edification: not for the statutes of the country, but to be written in the hearts of his followers. Divorce, as allowed by Moses, was a temporal enactment, and allowed only on account of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. Lord's declaration, therefore, on that subject, was intended to restore to its original purity, the law which had existed prior to that of Moses. His forbearing to give sentence against the woman taken in adultery, was only a forbearance to interfere with the duties of the Sanhedrim; and to meddle with a question, which, he must have known, was intended to involve him in difficulties.

Our

The rite of circumcision, again, was merely temporary; and, as far as we know, it had no existence prior to the call of Abraham. There could be no reason, therefore, why it should con

Deut. xviii. 18, 19.

tinue, when the Jews should cease to be the peculiar people of God; or, that inspiration which had originated it, should not command its cessation. The same may be said of all the other particulars adverted to by our author, it will, therefore, be unnecessary to notice them severally.

But, supposing the whole to be unanswerable, it would not hence follow that Islamism is right. Prophecy knows nothing of it. The passages cited by our objector have either been totally misunderstood, or erroneously cited; and it will be found, that Mohammed opposes, not only Moses, but Jesus, and all the Prophets. If then the Scriptures, as we now have them, should propose difficulties infinitely greater than those alluded to, it would by no means follow, that Mohammed was a Prophet: and, as we have abundant reason for believing that he was an impostor, it is our duty to reject him.

As to the objection of Christ's being occasionally called the Son of God, the Son of Man, or the like, this, we shall perceive, is nothing more than might have been expected, when we consider his character.

With respect to the discrepancies found in the different accounts of the same events, however irreconcileable they may appear, it will not hence