already considered. The word means the particle "Be," by which all things were created, and specially Christ, who was born without a father; "the word be was in the beginning," before all creation, "and the word was God," that is, by an ellipse,"was the word of God;" and "the word became flesh," that is, was the cause of Christ's birth!* To the Catholic interpretation of this passage he opposes the dictates of reason regarding the impossibility of the incarnation of God; and he asserts that Mr. Pfander has mistranslated the words "dwelt among us,”—the Arabic version having in this place,k, "he entered into us," which involves the doctrine of migration. or communication of the divine essence to anothe","

ވ

حلول

a tenet regarded by orthodox Mussulmans with peculiar horror. Had the Maulavi consulted the original, he would have found that the words εσκήνωσεν εν ημίν, were most aptly rendered by

Indeed, the Maulavi is too much in the . و در میان ما قرار گرفت

habit of throwing grave suspicions on the integrity of Mr. Pfander's views and translations, merely on the authority of Arabic translations; this may for a time acquire for him some credit with his unlearned brethren, but as soon as the untenableness of his positions become generally known, it will end only in his confusion: we would strongly recommend the Maulavi to become a student in Greek and Hebrew at the Lucknow Martinere, and to make himself thoroughly master of

* Of his frivolous perversions of the Sacred text, a few examples may be acceptable: "No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from heaven;" this, and all similar passages as "I am from above," apply equally to Elijah, who also "ascended up" and must therefore have also "come down from heaven." The last clause, even the son of man which is in heaven," is denied as an interpolation, and a curious tradition is mentioned (page 73) of Imam Riza having publicly stated before a Christian minister called Hathuliq, who could not deny the correctness of the quotation, that the verse originally ran thus ; "Verily verily, my disciples, I say unto you that no man shall ascend into heaven, but he that descended from heaven,- except the camel-mounted, the last of the Prophets,-he indeed will ascend to heaven, and again descend," referring to Mahommed's mirage; and this tradition he says is a thousand times more deserving of credit than all your corrupted Gospels put together. Even admitting the present reading, he says, "who is in heaven," does not mean actual presence there, but alludes, by a common mode of speech, to his residence in heaven as being close at hand. The power of raising the dead, which Christ assumed as inherent in himself, he gratuitously describes as referring to the approaching miracle of Lazarus, and as implying no higher virtue than Elisha possessed. His presence, promised to his disciples to the end of the world, is explained metaphorically, "I shall be so aware of the state of each, that, as it were, I shall be always in the midst of you;" or if it does mean spiritual presence, it is nothing more than what we believe of other angels, and extends at most to the Judgment day,-intimating that then like other men, he must die.

those languages, before he again ventures to call in question the renderings of competent persons.

The proofs from the Old Testament he treats with still less fairness; he passes over some of the most important passages, and under the pretext that many of them apply to Mahommed, he takes the opportunity of advancing a great many others;* and at last, quite forgetting the object of his book, produces what he considers two irrefragable arguments in substantiation of Mahommed's mission; the first is, the perfection of his religion as a code of morals and director of devotion: the second is, that Mahommed must have been either a true prophet or a mad man. He proves by his many virtues and talents that he was not the latter, and triumphantly asserts that he must have been the former. He forgets that the same argument applies with incalculably greater weight to the apostles; for with them, we have many claimants to inspiration, instead of one, we have pure morals, and an utter absence of any worldly motive.

In taking up the chapter on the Trinity and Divinity of the Holy Ghost, he leaves almost unnoticed the strong passages and reasoning from the New Testament, and dwells upon the uncertain intimations, which Mr. Pfander himself acknowledged, were no more than allusions. He mistakes the gift and influences of the Holy Ghost, for that Divine spirit itself; and asserts that our doctrine would lead to the supposition that Christ was in the womb of Elizabeth and Mary at the same time; for "John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his

* Like Kazim Ali he applies the glorious promises of the XLII. of Isaiah to Mahommed; though with greater candour. but less consistency, he allows that the introductory verses" he shall not cry, &c." refer to Jesus. With similar perversity, he holds that part of the second psalm applies to Jesus, and part to Mahommed; but he does not show us how to distinguish between the two. He denies that the 53rd of Isaiah can refer to Christ, because at V. 10, it is said, "He shall see his seed;" on the contrary, he holds, that V. 15, which contains promises of "a portion with the great and spoil with the strong," is an evident token of Mahommed, forgetting the remarkable words that follow, "because he hath poured out his soul unto death, &c." The commencement, too, of this chapter he insists could not designate Christ, because the Prophet speaks in the past tense," he was despised, and we esteemed him not ;" it can therefore only mean that "we despised and rejected Ishmael," and, by a common figure of speech his descendant Mahommed in him: the " root out of a dry ground," is a reference to Hagar, who, to worldly appearance, was an unlikely source for a prophet ;-or more probably to the arid plains of Mecca, noted for their dryness and sterility. Truly, when the idea of his prophet gets into a Mussulman's head, it would appear as if all sense and reason got out of it!

The learned Hindu of Lucknow, referred to in a former note, attacks the Maulavi on this point; he asserts that he has omitted a supposition which was much more likely than either of those he mentioned. viz. that of fraud,—which every body but the Mahommedans themselves attribute to their prophet. It is very pleasing to see the subject so soon attract the notice of the Hindus, and elicit so very pertinent a criticism.

mother's womb." He holds that it means the gift of repentance, or the spirit of faith, which was imparted by the apostles to those who believed. The Athanisian creed, turned into Arabie by Sabat, is brought forward, and by applying the attributes and nature of one person in the blessed Trinity to another, as he affirms he is warranted to do upon the supposition of real unity, he reduces the doctrine ad absurdum, and holds it up in a variety of lights, as involving contradictions and impossibilities. He wilfully omits, throughout his reply, the orthodox doctrine of the two natures of Christ, whichhad he approached the subject in a proper spirit,—would have extricated him from many of his dilemmas.

The examples and analogies from nature are rejected, because, while the unity is that of figure or substance, the plurality is stated to consist in parts or qualities. He does not fail to take Mr. Pfander to task for the examples of the circle, &c.; but his language is perhaps less strong and improper than that of other Mahommedans upon similar occasions. Our opinion of the disadvantage of these illustrations, is, if possible, strengthened by the Maulavi's remarks, and we trust that they will find due consideration with Mr. Pfander.* The disadvantage of metaphysical reasoning on this vitally important subject is strikingly shown at pp. 153, 154, and 229, where it is assumed by our opponent that we consider the Son and the Holy Ghost to be manifestations of the divine essence; the former being the attribute of wisdom or intelligence, the latter, of power and love. Such views are far from scriptural, and however carefully the language may be chosen, are undoubtedly prone to denude the Blessed Persons of that individuality which the Bible attributes to them.

The Maulavi exults that his adversary has been driven for examples of the Trinity, to the tenets of idolatrous nations and heathen philosophers, and quotes the proverb "the drowning man catches at every straw," to intimate that he could only have adopted so

9

الغريق يتشبث بكل حشيش

* We apprehend that the verbal criticism upon the terms

and life, is correct:

and نفس ناطقه روح حیوانی

are certainly more in

accordance with the oriental idea, although the former, may not perfectly express the meaning of soul: the Maulavi is naturally surprised at the new nomenclature, and asks with wonder what that life is which stands "between" the soul and body; and he requires whether between applies to place or time; there may however be as much waggery as real surprise, in his remarks.

*

dangerous and fatal an expedient from the badness of his cause. He warns him that religion is a serious and a delicate subject, and that we are not here as in worldly matters, to seek assistance from all by force or by fraud.† If these remarks be the genuine dictates of his mind, they show how totally he misunderstands Mr. Pfander's argument, which is to prove the consistency of a species of plurality in unity with human reason: now, the Grecian philosophers, for instance, had certainly by nature as strong and sound a faculty of reason as our adversaries or we possess; and since it is upon reason, unaided by revelation, that the Mahommedan hangs his cause, it is surely reasonable in us to adduce the evidence of impartial reasoners, whose minds, unwarped by any prejudices we may be supposed to contract, directed the intensest thought towards the discovery of the mode in which the Divine Being exists: such deductions, surely we may safely oppose to the simple ipse dixit of our adversaries, without being suspected of any intention to countenance the doctrines themselves. The sufis are abused by the Maulavi, as unbelievers, still more than ourselves, but he will not admit that their views in any degree assist us; because first, they hold a greater variety of manifestations than mere intelligence and will, and the analogy, therefore, proves too much; and, secondly, their doctrines are not allowed by the orthodox Mussulmans. He likewise accuses Mr. Pfander of inconsistency, in first representing these sufi philosophers as believing in a trinity, and afterwards asserting that absolute metaphysical unity would land its professor in the sufi error of regarding the divinity as a mere existence, and all creation his attributes. He distinctly denies that they or any other Mussulmans look upon the deity as a rigid metaphysical unity, but as a being endowed with attributes and perfections, although absolutely one in person and individuality.‡

He throws the proverb in our teeth

.ވ

الكقرملة واحدة

Idolatry and infidelity of every shade, are but one religion,-implying that we and the idolaters are much alike in error.

He denies that the Hindus hold plurality in unity regarding their deity; asserting that Brahma, Vi-hnu, and Mahesh. represent the angels A-rafael, Michael, and Azrael, and are in fact only the ministers of the Deity; and he makes large extracts upon this subject from a Persian writer. He, accordingly, denies that they hold the incarnation of the Deity.

On this subject, we may mention that the Persian and English Dictionaries afford little facility for discovering the metaphysical or technical meaning of philosophical ter ns. If the learned editor of the last edition of Richardson's dictionary, would supply this deficiency, in the new edition which we understand is under preparation, he would confer a vast favour upon the l'ersian scholar. Such meanings would be of

The

Mr. Pfander's most important concluding chapter he treats with contempt, and allots but six pages to its reply. knowledge of God, he says, can be obtained only in accordance with reason and revelation, and both he affirms point to unity and not to trinity. That the salvation of man is dependent upon this subject, he ridicules as the height of absurdity, because, he says, we hold that Christ actually descended into Hell, a shocking blasphemy which no other people ever dared to affirm of their prophet. The all-important doctrine of Christ's vicarious suffering he treats with scorn, and applies to us this proverb,—

that is, in seeking to escape from a slight misfortune, viz. the punishment of our sins, we run into the greater danger of charging God with extreme injustice, in inflicting the punishment of the guilty upon the innocent. Having thus abandoned the atonement, he satisfies himself with saying that faith in Christ, to which pardon is promised, is nothing more nor less than the faith and obedience which every prophet has insisted upon, and in return for which he has promised the same blessings.

Upon the whole, we see nothing to discourage us in this production. The fallacy of the greater part of the reasoning must approve itself to the majority of thinking Mussulmans, if they choose to reflect with impartiality; and though it may for a time throw dust unto the eyes of the less candid and intelligent portion of the community, still, as Mr. Pfander's entire work is quoted chapter by chapter, we cannot but rejoice that so great a portion of truth is placed before the Mahommedan reader (if he will but attend to it,) as an antidote to the poison. We understand that Mr. Pfander, at the close of the controversy with Ali Hussain, which he is about to publish, intends to add a few remarks in refutation of the volume we have been considering in this Note.

infinitely greater service than a multitude of indecent applications, which serve little practical purpose, but to disfigure the pages of that valuable Lexicon.

* This popular delusion the Mahommedans have probably picked up from the apostle's creed; it certainly appears to be very generally promulgated among them.

-the last word pro الفرار عن العطر و الوقوف تحت الميزاب + :

perly means parnala or spout.

The eleventh page alone is omitted, we cannot see with what object.