asking why he thus elevated one who would not obey him, he replied, that he would shew them how much superior man was to them. He then asked them the names of the animals he had created, but none of them could tell. Thereupon God called Adam, to whom he had previously revealed the names, and bade him tell them, which he did; and the angels, convinced of his superiority, worshipped him, with the exception of Satan. The principal idea contained in this myth is the superiority which knowledge confers, a superiority much greater than moral goodness. Hence it is that they look on the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as conferring a higher status on man, and making him a responsible being.

This brings us now to the fundamental difference between Mahomedan and Christian doctrine. The Mahomedan doctrine teaches that God created man sinful but ignorant, and therefore not responsible; that partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (whether this be accepted literally or figuratively) introduced knowledge, and consequent responsibility, a liability to punishment, but also a capability of reward. The Christian doctrine is, that man was created holy, intelligent, and responsible, with power to stand, and free to fall; that eating of the forbidden fruit made him sinful, gave him a practical knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and made him liable to punishment. The Mahomedan doctrine is certainly more conformable with the ourang-outang theory than the Christian; but which is more conformable with the word of God? Without dwelling on multitudes of other passages which will occur to the reader, let us confine our attention to that under comment. It is said that man was created in the image of God. Is God himself sinful, or is he holy? If the Mahomedan doctrine be true, he must be sinful, for man was created in his image, and he was created sinful. Is God intelligent and wise, or is he ignorant ? If the Mahomedan doctrine be true, he must be ignorant, for man was created in his image, and he was created ignorant. As to responsibility, the very fact that God shewed him that his act would be followed by punishment, shews that he must have been responsible. As to the change which the fall introduced, we see that it produced shame and fear, much more like the result of sin than of knowledge. Which is the more conformable with reason? The Mahomedan doctrine teaches that the fall introduced an entirely new element into man's nature, an element which, while it ennobled him, was withheld by his Maker, and the seeking of which was attended by punishment. The Christian doctrine teaches that the fall introduced only a new exercise of powers already there, in

Fundamental Difference between the two Creeds. 59

a way that was followed by a necessary consequence. Man, in perfect freedom, chose to disobey God, to separate himself from him, and this separation is the very essence of that spiritual death which followed. In this there is nothing magic. or arbitrary, but only a free act producing its natural result. The Mahomedan doctrine is, in its primary article, opposed alike to reason and revelation.

We have dwelt on this point at some length, for from it the two systems of salvation flow. The Mahomedan teaches that, as man was created with sin in him, and the fall was merely the introduction of knowledge and responsibility, being thus a step towards the acquirement of perfection,-the only design of God in sending the prophets is to shew man how to complete the work that Adam began,-how to apply his knowledge of good and evil to the conquest of the latter. The Christian system again teaches, that man having, by his own act, separated himself from God, became guilty, and required the power of God to bring him back, which was accomplished by God himself becoming man, bearing his guilt, and imparting to him strength to return to Himself. Hence the Mahomedan looks to the instructions of the chain of prophets culminating in Mahomed, and the Christian to the sacrifice of Christ and the aids of his Spirit. It appears to us that this fundamental point has not received sufficient prominence from Christian apologists. The Christian truth has been distinctly and fully stated, but the Mahomedan error has not been clearly and decisively exposed. More time and talent have been spent in proving the divinity of Christ, and the propitiatory nature of his death. But what does that avail with opponents who deny the necessity of atonement, and make God the author of man's sinfulness. Let these articles of the Mahomedan creed be overthrown, and the whole of the system falls with it. Let man's primeval purity, and his fall by his own free act, be established, and the mission of Christ becomes a necessity. Sayad Ahmad perceives this, and states it with sufficient distinctness. In fact, the only argument that he brings against Christ's mission is founded on this fundamental view of man's sin not requiring a mediator.

"Christian divines have made it a basis of their faith that, by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin has passed upon all men, and therefore all men are guilty. If their sin was pardoned without any punishment, that would be opposed to justice, and if every one had to bear all his own punishment, that would be opposed to mercy. Therefore God gave the promise of a coming Saviour, namely Jesus Christ, who is God himself, but, who became incarnate in the form of Christ, who was the seed of the woman, not of the man. ... But we Mahomedans do not consider this disobedience of Adam and Eve

to have been the beginning of sin, nor do we look on this event as bringing guilt on the human race. We believe this event to have been the cause of the knowledge of good and evil for mankind, by reason of which they have not remained void of responsibility like other creatures. If, therefore, any one will walk according to the guidance of God, he shall obtain salvation; and if any one shall act in a way opposed to it, he shall be punished."-(Pp. 182, 183.)

It will be seen that Sayad Ahmad perceives clearly enough the bearing which the account of the fall has on subsequent doctrine, and he has therefore done well to make the determined stand for his religion that he has made on this primary point, though we believe that he has altogether failed in it.

But while allowing that the Mahomedan system follows logically and consistently from this first error, we by no means allow that it has been consistently worked out. The same untruth which has tainted the fountain has tainted all its streams. Almost the only dogma which they maintain as a means of salvation, is the sinlessness of the prophets. This was not at all necessary for their theory. They required only to maintain the truth and sinlessness of their writings and teaching. But the former is the position required by the words of the Koran, and universally held by them, that all the prophets were sinless from Adam to Mahomet, and if this doctrine be impugned, the Mahomedan position is broken here again. The first prophet that comes under Sayad Ahmad's consideration is of course Adam. It is difficult to see, after the exposition he has given, what sin could be attributed to Adam; but he does allow that he committed a sin of some kind. To reconcile this with the teaching of the Koran, he divides sin into two classes: sins of commission or sins against law, and sins of omission or of negligence. He is led to this because he says it is contrary to God's justice that he should lay on us the doing of anything which it is beyond our power to do. By the former, direct transgressions of the divine commands are meant, by the latter, being defective in the service and respect which God requires of us. As no one can be free from this sin, not even the prophets, their defects would not be considered sins in ordinary men, but only in men who had the privileges of the prophets :

"From this sin no one is free. The prophets, too, are guilty of it; and this Jesus indicates, when he says in answer to the young man, who asked him, Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life ?'* Why callest thou me good? for there is none good,

This is another case in which the English translation of the commentary does Sayad Ahmad injustice. It runs, "Jesus Christ was pleased to say that 'he should not call him good, as there is none good but one, that is God.'" In the Urdu, from which we have translated, he gives the exact words of

Sinlessness of the Prophets.

61

save one, that is God.' From the other kind of sin, doing anything against the law, the prophets were free. It is not a sin in ordinary men to do anything with a pure and virtuous motive, but it is sin in prophets, for they must do nothing but what God commands them. It was for this motive that Adam fell under the divine displeasure." (P. 163.)

We see here again into what a wretched quagmire Sayad Ahmad has fallen, and could not but fall, in his attempts to explain the facts of the Bible in accordance with Mahomedan theories. According to his explanation of Adam's transgression, he was prompted to transgress by the animal part of his nature, i.e., as he explains, Satan. Was that the pure and virtuous motive which brought the divine displeasure on him? Again, he did not fail to come up to a command of God, but he did most decidedly break through an injunction laid upon him. The only result of the fine distinction which our author has drawn, is to make the prophets more guilty than other men. Greater knowledge and higher privilege make certain sins more heinous, though they cannot make that a sin which would not be a sin otherwise. Adam's act would have been sinful in any man; it was, according to Sayad Ahmad's own shewing, doubly sinful in a prophet. Either God has shewn displeasure against an act which was not a sin, or Adam's act was a sin. He would have been far more consistent, however, had he said that God laid on man an unjust prohibition, and that he ennobled himself and the human race by disobeying it.

The only other prophet who comes under consideration in the commentary is Noah, and not the slightest notice is taken of his drunkenness. We do not know whether Sayad Ahmad considers this to have been merely a defectiveness in the service of God, to which Noah was urged by a pure and virtuous motive. But we have no doubt that he would find some means of explaining it away, as well as the falsehood of Abraham the double dealing of Jacob, the adultery of David, the idolatry of Solomon, and the cruelty and sensuality of Mahomed. Yet the word of God, and the consciences of men, alike testify that these are sins in ordinary men, and the only result of Sayad Ahmad's casuistry is, that in prophets they are more heinous sins.

While he thus fails in seeking to reconcile with the Bible any of the distinctive Mahomedan doctrines, he is not more successful in impugning distinctively Christian ones. He has endeavoured to do so by means of philology, and this is the very point in which he is weakest. The question of Christ's mission is brought up in connection with the prophecy that

Christ, and states his own opinion as an inference from them, whereas the English Version misrepresents the words.

the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. Sayad Ahmad quotes the translation of the Latin Vulgate "She shall bruise thy head." He then says it is a very difficult thing to decide whether this translation or that of the authorised English version is the correct one:

"In Hebrew the masculine and feminine forms of the pronoun are the same. There is a difference only in the use of the vowel points. If the pronoun be read N, hu, it would be the masculine pronoun, and if it be read 1, hiv, it would be the feminine pronoun. There is no connected authority from Moses or Ezra to decide which of these two pronouns it is; but as the Vulgate is a very old translation, very strong and clear reasons must be adduced to prove it false."(P. 72.)

He then goes on to say that Christian divines have been obliged to make it applicable to the seed of the woman, for if they did not do so, a fundamental doctrine of their faith would be affected. Sayad Ahmad seems not to be aware that the gender of the pronoun is indicated by the form of the verb. The verb following is in the masculine form yeshoph, not the feminine form teshoph. The gender of the pronoun therefore does not depend on the vowel points alone but on the verb, and no hypothesis of vowel points can possibly make it feminine. Christian divines have made it refer to the seed of the woman instead of to the woman herself, not because it affects a fundamental doctrine of their faith, but because the rules of Hebrew grammar require them to do so; and they have adopted the fundamental doctrine of their faith to which he refers, because this and other passages of the sacred writings require them to do so.

This brings us to the doctrine of the Trinity, which Sayad Ahmad opposes on like grounds and with like success. He meets it in the third word of the Bible, Elohim or God. The doctrine of the Trinity is not built on this alone, but it comes in as one or a chain of proof. He, therefore, cannot let it pass.

"The word D, Elohim, is derived from the word , elah, meaning worship, but this word is not used in the Hebrew. The word Elowah, derived from it, is still used among the Jews to signify both true and false gods. Elohim is derived from it, and its meaning is gods. It is used also to signify both false gods and the true God. It is also used in the sense of kings, judges, rulers, and angels."(P. 41.)

He then quotes its use as applied to Moses, Exod. vii. 1, 'See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh," to shew that it may sometimes be used as a singular noun-then all cases in which it is used as a noun plural-and concludes, "Whenever reference is intended to the true object of worship, it is used with a singular meaning, and according to this usage in this