asked information from me, and I repeatedly, by various arguments, proved to him the truth of the Mohammedan faith. Not having a word to say in reply, he stood convinced of the error of his way, but he died without having openly received the grace of being directed in the straight road of salvation." This was his inference, the fact being, probably, that the poor man was no match for this accomplished Moslem in the arts of logic and disputation, who was thus left in the conviction that he had silenced, if not convinced, one who, so far as appeared to him, was the ablest champion of the Christian doctrine. The Sheikh then proceeds to afford us further information respecting his researches in the religion of the Jews, as well as of the Moslem sects. He says: "Among the Jewish inhabitants of Isfahan, who, as they believe, have, since the time of Moses, been dwellers in that town, there was one named Shoaib, the most learned of his brethren. I gained his confidence, and took him to my house. I learned from him the Bible, had the interpretation of it written for me, and informed myself of the truth of all that they maintain. But I found that order of men totally destitute of knowledge and learning, and entire strangers to thought and discernment. Their stupidity and obduracy in ignorance are without end or measure. "I acted in the same way with regard to the varieties of the Mohammedan faith. I read the books of every sect, and considered what each had to say, discreetly and anxiously remarking on their arguments. Wherever I found a person belonging to any sect who was knowingly attached to his own religious opinions, I frequented his society, and made myself acquainted with his views and disIn this way I had much conversation with the followers of different opinions." courses. The Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hazin was not singular in his wish to acquaint himself with the doctrines of the Christians and the Jews. A few years after this time, the king himself, Nadir Shah, on his return from the conquest of India, conceived a desire to obtain a translation of the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Gospels. He accordingly sent a mollah, or doctor of the law, to Julfa, (the Christian suburb of Isfahan,) with the charge to assemble the Jews, the Armenians, and the Franks,* and arrange with them the measures necessary for this work. The mollah confided the translation of the books of the Old Testament to the Jews, and those of the New Testament to the Armenians and the European (Roman Catholic) missionaries. The translation was commenced in the month of May, 1740. The mollah seems to have rendered much assistance in the task. With him cooperated two of the missionaries, two Catholic Armenians, and two monks and two priests of the "schismatic Armenians," as the Roman Catholics call all those who have not conformed to the principles of the Roman church. We are told that every word was carefully examined, and the true sense was sought with solicitude, as well as the terms by which it might be best expressed in the Persian language. The diversity of sentiments among the translators often gave birth to different interpretations, between which it was left for the Mohammedan mollah to arbitrate. The Roman Catholic reporter of this inte *Members of the Jesuit mission to Persia-from a letter of one of whom, in the Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses, these particulars are taken. "The passage in resting transaction says: which Jesus Christ gives the pre-eminence to Peter was very warmly discussed. The Armenians alleged that the words, 'Thou art Peter,' etc., signified that whoever confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, were entitled to participate in the high privileges which this glorious confession obtained for Peter." This just view of the Armenians, badly reported by the Romanist opponents, was contested by the missionaries, who, as might be expected, describe the mollah as astonished at this interpretation, and pointedly demanding of "brother Duhan," whether the Franks held the same view of this passage. But it did not consist with the views of this person to inform the Moslem doctor that there were many Franks who did hold a view of the passage not materially different from that which the Armenians had advanced. He proceeded to expound the Romanist interpretation, which, says the reporter, "he found to be so natural and obvious, that he imposed silence upon the schismatics." He adds: "We had the consolation of seeing that in all these contestations the Mohammedan, guided by the light of reason alone, decided in favour of the Catholic explications, which to him appeared perfectly con formable to the natural sense of the text." But assuming the fact to be true that the Moslem doctor did in all cases decide in their favour, that he was guided by the light of reason alone is a very gratuitous assertion. The Moslem doctors have many other lights than the light of reason in judging of the sense of the book which is accounted sacred among themselves; and the rules which guide them in that judgment, and not "the light of reason only," is that which would influence their decision in a case like this. As we have had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the translation in question, we can pronounce no judgment on the alleged fact of the mollah's preference; but this we can say, that in any case within our knowledge, in which the Romanist and Protestant interpretation of a particular text of Scripture has been presented to the consideration of a learned Moslem, he has in every case seen the Protestant view to be the right one, even when ignorant to which party belonged the view in favour of which he pronounced. This labour occupied six months. When it was concluded, the king, who was then sixty leagues distant from Isfahan, directed that |