place where the word Elohim is used to signify the true object of worship, it signifies only the singular and in no way the plural, and therefore the plurality of the object can in no way be inferred "—(P. 42.) It will be observed that here Sayad Ahmad begs the whole question and misses the whole force of the argument. Elohim is derived from Elowah, in precisely the same way as gods is derived from God, as in the Urdu word he has used, Mabudan is derived from Mabud. Why is a plural form used when a singular is at hand? The only case in point which he cites is that where the word is applied to Moses, and in it God might have said to him, "I have made thee a host to Pharaoh," without any impropriety of language, and without implying that a host means a single

person.

In the next verse he meets the doctrine again in the expression, "the Spirit of God." His criticism on it is as follows:

"The word spirit can in no way mean here the third person of the Trinity, for the word spirit is a noun governed by Elohim or God, and as Elohim has the sign of the plural, the three persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are included in it. As the noun governed is always a distinct thing from the noun governing, this spirit must of necessity be distinct from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is to say, the three constituents of the Trinity. How then can this word spirit mean one of the Trinity ?" -(P. 58.)

The absurdity of this quibble becomes apparent if we apply it to any other object. Take, for instance, Gen. xlv. 27, where it is said, "The spirit of their father Jacob revived." According to the above canon of interpretation, this could not mean that Jacob revived, because the spirit here spoken of being a noun governed by the noun Jacob, which includes body, soul, and spirit, must necessarily be something quite distinct from Jacob. He explains the meaning of spirit in this case to be the glory of God. How glory can perform the active functions attributed to the Spirit in this verse, we cannot well understand. The only other case in which the expression occurs in the chapters commented on is in Genesis vi. 3, where God says, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man," in which it is explained to mean the good dispositions of man. It would of course be absurd to say, that "the good dispositions of man brooded on the waters," or that God said, "My glory shall not always. strive with man." But this continual change of interpretation, this invention of a new meaning to suit each individual case, is not explaining the word of God, but re-writing it.

His great ingenuity, and at the same time his great ignorance of Hebrew grammar, are most conspicuously displayed,

however, in the explanation he gives of Genesis iii. 22, “ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil." He first of all takes up the word mimтеппи, which may mean either" of us" or " of it." He gives a full grammatical analysis of it as a pronoun of the third person, according to which he says, it may mean "of it" or " of those." He then proceeds to prove authoritatively that it must be a third person, and in order to do so he quotes in the margin all the cases in which it is used in the Old Testament. It is very true that in three of these cases it has been used to mean "of us," but he says that many arguments might be given to prove that it is much better to look on it as a third person, which arguments he will give when he comes to treat of them in their places; and so he concludes that it must be a third person, with the meaning of " of it" or " of them." He then takes up the word "Kahad," as he calls it :—

"Another Hebrew word in the verse Kahad requires to be noticed. Christian scholars have translated it one, whereas it should be translated unique, corresponding with the Arabic "wahid." Onkelos, a great Jewish scholar, has translated it “Yahidi," which is the same as wahid or unique. In many places of the Bible this word occurs with a similar meaning, of which I have noted two in the margin (Job xxiii. 13; Song vii. 9). After all these preliminary remarks, then, we may conclude that the exact rendering of the Hebrew word is, The worshipped God said, Man is become unique among them (that is, among the creatures), by his knowledge of good and evil.'" -(P. 174.)

It must be allowed that this is certainly a very ingenious way of getting rid of a troublesome verse, of depriving a Christian doctrine of its support, and bringing it in to the support of a Mahomedan one. It must also be allowed that it is very similar to, certainly not worse than, the interpretation which Onkelos has given. But how does it agree with the facts of the case. The same grammatical analysis which shews that mim-mennu may be a preposition construed with a pronoun of the third person, shews also that it may be the same preposition construed with the pronoun in the first person plural. It shews also that, if a pronoun of the third person, it can be only of the third person singular, not of the third person plural. It can mean only "of it," not "of them " or " among them" as Sayad Ahmad translates it, and as is necessary to bring his meaning out of the verse. Kahad is not one word but two words, ka, as, and ahad, one. Sayad Ahmad in his translation omits the article altogether, and he gives to ahad a meaning not borne out by the passages which he quotes, or by any other in the Old Testament-a meaning which belongs rather to T, yahid, which is also a Hebrew word. While

Its Lesson to the Christian Church.

65

doing, then, full credit to Sayad Ahmad's ingenuity, we think that it has been engaged in a vain fight against the plain meaning of Scripture.

We will not pursue the subject any further at present. It must be obvious from what we have said that Sayad Ahmad is no Hebrew scholar. To persons acquainted with the erudition and exactness of European commentaries, it may seem strange that we should have dwelt so long on this work. But it is not merely as a commentary that we look on it, but as the indication of a new movement in the Mahomedan mind. It is the work not of a European but of an Indian Mussulman. He has had none of the advantages in his early training which the former has had. He has been obliged to acquire a knowledge of Hebrew after he had grown up, through a foreign language, amid a press of public business. In such circumstances the wonder is, not that he has not succeeded better, but that he should have done so much as he has. Above all, he has undertaken a work in which the most erudite scholar could not have succeeded, that of interpreting the Bible in accordance with Mahomedan doctrine. Where he has seized the meaning aright, he has done all that ingenuity and subtlety can do to effect his purpose, and he has failed only because he could not possibly succeed. It can scarcely be expected that Sayad Ahmad should complete his commentary on the Bible, though we hope that he may yet be spared to issue a few more volumes, and that, with increasing practice, he may gain increasing exactitude. We rejoice in every step that is made toward a thorough study of the word of God, convinced that it will in the end assert its power, and overthrow all that is opposed to it.

But this commentary is a reproof and a call to the Christian church-especially to the missionary body in India. This is, so far as we know, the first attempt that has been made at a systematic thorough exposition of the Scripture in the most widely diffused language of India, and it has been made not by them but by their opponents, not by a Christian but by a Mahomedan. We trust that there are few of them who are not better able than Sayad Ahmad to write such a commentary. They must have badly improved the advantages of their early training, if they are not. But as yet their ability has borne no palpable fruit. They have long been urging on the Mahomedans the duty of reading the Bible, and now they find themselves in the position, that if their appeals should be successful, the only commentary available is one written by a Mahomedan in support of the Mahomedan faith. It is all very well to talk of circulating the word of God without note or comment; something more than that is needed. It is all very

VOL. XVII.-NO. LXIII.

E

well to talk of the uselessness and absurdity and expense of printing the Hebrew, which not one Mahomedan in a million can read. The Easterns have their ideas and customs, and according to these they will think and act. No translation of the Koran is ever printed without the original Arabic, no commentary is written in which the original Arabic itself is not quoted. Whatever we may think of the plan Sayad Ahmad has taken, Easterns will see in it evidences of scholarship, care, reverence, and sacrifice for which they will look in vain in any Christian work; and this will make them regard it as a much better guide both as regards acquaintance with the subject and earnestness of purpose, than any with which Christian teachers have furnished them. The natives of India cannot be expected to discover the errors we have pointed out. They will not believe that they are errors merely by being told that they are. The only method of convincing them is by shewing in a way that they can understand, our superior scholarship and acquaintance with the subject. Sayad Ahmad has intimated his intention of publishing a translation of the Bible in which all those parts, which, according to the Mahomedan theory, are regarded as the word of God, are to be printed in red, and the narrative parts in black. This indicates earnestness and honesty of purpose, and we trust that he will be worthily met by Christian scholars. It is matter of joy that Mahomedans should now be studying the Bible, and it will be a grateful task for those who are labouring for their conversion, to expend what labour they can in enabling them to study it aright.

ART. IV. Scottish Christianity and Mr Buckle. History of Civilisation in England. By HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE. Vol. II. London: Longmans. Fifth Edition. 1867.

THERE is hardly any problem more perplexing to the Christian mind than the relation which modern literature, in its freshest and most significant forms, bears to evangelical religion. Drawing so largely from the old fountains of Pagan culture, and accustomed to find the standard, not merely of taste, but of character and feeling, in the productions of Grecian and Roman learning, it could not fail to manifest a certain Paganised tone. And though much of existing literature

Modern Literature-Christianity.

67

shews the clear influence of Christian conceptions, and the fruitful working of a genuine Christian spirit, it is still to be feared that, in a special dogmatic sense, there is hardly any phase of our literature more religious than that of the last age. There is certainly a clear advance from the sceptical Epicureanism of the eighteenth century, with its mechanical modes of conception, its tame and narrow spirit, its cold and elaborate classicism; and Christianity regarded, not as a mere system of notions, with a set phraseology, but as a life, touching thought at a thousand points, has powerfully blended itself with every phase of our literature, imparting to it a higher moral ideal, a more humanised cast of thought, as well as greater vigour, passion, and originality. And yet, if we examine the most popular and pleasing productions of modern times, that have, so to speak, fixed the sentiment of society on a large class of questions-whether we refer to popular novelists, like Dickens and Thackeray, who cannot conceive of religion as associated with a cultivated mind or a warm heart; or trenchant reformers, like Theodore Parker, who are sound, in the main, upon all social questions; or the champions of historical liberalism, like Buckle or Lewes; or the worshippers of force, like Carlyle, with his melancholy "Adieu, O Church;" or sentimental moralists, like Martineau; or Broad Church Essayists, like Maurice and Kingsley-we find them all in more or less direct and energetic conflict with the truths of a positive Christianity, and strenuously and contemptuously opposed to every form of evangelical religiousness. The fact is deplorable in the extreme, especially in the present imbroglio of our faiths and superstitions, whether we consider, on the one hand, the danger to Christian habitudes of thought and feeling from such fresh and fascinating works of genius, or, on the other hand, the beautiful uses of literature itself, and the morally exalting power which exists in all its genuine manifestations, even apart from their relations to Christianity.

But there is a class of scientific thinkers who have come in with the era of Positivism, still more unfriendly to, and devoid of all reverence for, positive Christian truth. They shew how fatally modern civilisation has sharpened the edge and envenomed the point of every weapon formerly wielded against the gospel; indeed, there is nothing in church history to be compared with the "Julian-like intolerance and Lucianlike blasphemy of these writers." They are worse even than men of the stamp of Walter Savage Landor-the type of the pure literary Pagan-who makes apologies for idolatry, and paints in the darkest colours the practices and ideas of Christians. We refer to the small but growing school of philosophical historians and critics, who are trying to transplant