•co

:LT)

CO

\

A Manual of the Leading

Miiliammadan Objections to Christianity.

COMPILED BY THE

REV. W. ST. CLAIR TIS^ALL, M.A., D.D.,

C.M.S.

" Of all men . . . thou shalt certainly find those to be nearest in affection to them (i.e. to Muslims) who say, 'We are Christiana '."—(Silrah Al Mdidah, V., 85.)

"Aftab amad dalll i aftab; Gar dalllat bayad, az vai ru ma tab." —

LONDON SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE

NiilUMI .MlU:i{|..\NI) \\IMK, W.C. ; 4;J, Ul'KKV VICTORIA STUEKT, E.t .

BitioiiTox : 129, NORTH Sim i i

NEW YORK : E. S. GORHAM

1904

PUBLISHED UNDER DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE.

Rv

IZ

JAN 2 IS })

PREFACE.

I. AN English reader, unacquainted with the East and with the Muhammadan controversy, will be inclined, on reading this book, to think that the arguments heie used on the Christian side are in sufficient, being weakly stated and based too much upon the Qur'an. It is hoped that mission aries of experience will not think so. The reason why at first sight the work may seem open to these •ctions is that the Christian controversialist has limit his choice of proofs to those which lie within the range of a Muhammadan's knowledge, «nd this is generally extremely limited. To appeal j the history of the Jews, of the world at large, of his own nation, to criticism of whatever nature, to the Bible, to the opinions of European writers, or anything of the kind, would for the most part be to refer to that of which a Muslim has no know ledge, or at least very little indeed. Should he have read the Bible (except certain extracts torn from their proper context and wrested to support the foregone conclusions of Muhammadan con troversial writers), he still denies its authenticity, genuineness, and authority, except again in the case of the most enlightened of the Indian Muslims. It is evident, therefore, that no appeal to the Bible

4 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

can have any weight until the objections which Muslims bring against it are removed. The best, nay, almost the only way to do this is, as ex perience has proved, to show that these objections are opposed to the Qur'an's own clear statements and to the views of eminent Muhammadan com mentators of the past. Of course Muslims know that the Christian missionary does not accept the Qur'an in the sense in which Muhamraadans accept it. In appealing to the testimony of the Qur'an it must not be supposed, however, that we are building upon sand. We do not appeal to its evidence as of any real weight in support of the claims of the Bible upon men. But we quote its testimony to show that the arguments which Muslims now bring against the Bible are confuted in large measure by the statements of the book which they themselves believe to be God's best and final revelation to man, and to be God's own Word, inscribed upon the " Preserved Tablet " in Heaven ages before the creation of the world. In quoting it we acknowledge merely that it has been handed down from Muhammad, and that he claimed for it the lofty position which Muslims accord to it.

Our choice of arguments is limited by our opponent's lack of knowledge ; because arguments founded upon circumstances with which he is unacquainted not only fail to hit the mark but are injurious, since Muslims fancy that we are endeavouring to shirk the question at issue, and

PREFACE.

they are thus confirmed in their belief as to the strength of their position.

2. I have tried to arrange Muhammadan ob jections as simply and clearly as possible, indicating the line of argument which I think the best to adopt in answering them. I most gratefully ac knowledge my indebtedness to those missionaries and others who have kindly, in compliance with my request, ^communicated to me the objections they have actually had to meet, and have suggested what seemed to them the best answers to give. I have endeavoured to thank all such by letter, but trust they will permit me to do so here also. It has not been possible, of course, to accept the very words of such suggestions in every case, but I think they will be found to have been carefully considered. Sometimes an optional answer to a difficulty has been given in order that I might avail myself of such valuable hints and advice.

3. The C. M. S. Committee have expressed their desire that I should as far as possible abstain from quoting authorities l at any length. I have therefore merely referred my readers to books where they will tind the authority for my statements, when this seemed really necessary. Hence too I have not quoted the Qur'anic passages in the original

1 The Rev. Canon Sell hopes to be able to publish in a separate form at Madras tljc <-lii. f Aral.ir passages to -s\hi<-h n-l'i-n-n,-.- is made in this manual. This might be found of use as a kind of supplement to the book.

6 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

(though the missionary should look them up in the Arabic in every case, knowing that the Muslim will not accept any translation as of authority). In translating verses of the Qur'an, I have departed from Rodwell's version only when absolutely necessary. The verses are numbered as in Fluegel's Arabic edition, though the habit of numbering them is by no means as yet universally adopted in the East. ,

4. Certain passages are put in square brackets to indicate that care should be taken in using such arguments, or that the matters dealt with are of slight importance. In some cases these passages are mainly intended for the information of the young missionary himself, in case he should not be able at the moment to obtain fuller information on special points.

5. I have supplied (in brackets) the technical Arabic words used by Muhammadans with reference to certain doctrines or opinions of theirs, so that the young missionary may know exactly what word to use in order to convey his meaning to the hearer, and may understand the word when he hears it used. A knowledge of such terms is of very great importance indeed.

6. The book is put into the form of a dialogue not only to make it more readable, but also because the Muhammadan arguments could best be ar ranged and given their due weight in that manner. It is the natural arrangement too, because conversa-

PREFACE. 7

tions or controversies about the Faith must (or at least should) assume that form in real life. The order in which the subjects are taken has been decided upon, after considerable thought, as that which seems to me to be the one in which the con troversy between the Muslims and ourselves may be the most profitably conducted. The individual arguments on the Muhaminadan side are arranged in as orderly a manner as possible. But as the same argument is often brought forward in slightly different terms, I have often given it in more forms than one, though answering it at length only once. In consequence of the introduction of arguments in this way more than once, and that of other trifling ones in what seemed the most convenient place for them, the chapters are not models of orderly and logical controversy ; for I had to re present Muslims as speaking as they actually do, and not as would best suit the line of argument to which I wished to adhere. Before we can discuss such questions as the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Atonement, and others peculiarly Christian, which rest upon the Bible for their proof, it is necessary to remove the difficulties in his mind which prevent the Muslim from accepting as of authority the statements of Scripture. T/^ an I /tor it i/ <>f ///<- />W<- is f/tr (/(•••(// fin-xtinn njitni ii'/tii'/t tum8 t/ie whole 3/«-

It is impossible to hope that such a work as this should be anything but very imperfect at first.

8 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

I therefore invite and shall be grateful for all suggestions and criticisms, hoping to profit by them in rendering (by God's blessing) a second edition more useful to my fellow labourers than the first can be.

7. It has again and again been asked, "Why should missionaries enter at all on the discussion of such doctrines as that of the Trinity when dealing with either Muhammadans or heatheps ? Why not imitate the Apostles and at first inculcate belief in the Divine Unity, letting the doctrine of the Trinity evolve itself, as it were, in the minds of converts, very much as it did in the early Church ? " This seems very sensible advice indeed as far as our dealings with polytheists are concerned, and it is doubtless just what workers among them do. But missionaries to Muhammadans are forced to enter upon the doctrine of the Trinity, because all Muslims know that Christians hold it, and Muhammadans deem it the weakest point in the Christian faith and therefore invariably select it for attack. As they imagine that by the doctrine of the Trinity we express our belief in three Gods (one of whom they often fancy to be the Virgin Mary), we have to explain what the true faith is, and to prove that it is taught in Holy Scripture.

8. It must be borne in mind that this book is not intended to be a manual of Christian dogmatics, but only to be a handbook dealing simply and briefly with the most usual Muhammadan objections

PREFACE. 9

to certain Christian doctrines and to Christianity in general. Hence we have not attempted anything like &fnll treatment of such matters as the Atone ment, the Nature of God, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Messianic Prophecies, the Authenticity of the various books of the Bible, the Nature of Sin, and so on. Books dealing with all these subjects are readily accessible to the Christian student, and his knowledge o( them is of course taken for granted.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION

*

CHAPTER I.

ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL ... 24

CHAPTER II. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF THE BIBLE AS IT

NOW EXISTS

CHAPTER III. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PBESEKT AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE 89

CHAPTER IV. OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BlBLE . . . TOO

CHAPTER V.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST LEADING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (CON-

TINUED) : THE TKIMTY M5

CHAPTER VI.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF CUBIST'S ATONEMENT 168

12 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTEE VII.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY ON THE GROUND OF MU HAMMAD'S DIVINE MISSION 189

CHAPTER VIII. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS 218

APPENDICES.

SOME USEFUL BOOKS ON ISLAM AND THE MUHAMMADAN

CONTROVERSY (IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES) . . . .227

MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

INTRODUCTION.

A MISSIONARY labouring among Muslims will almost of necessity find himself, to a greater or less degree, compelled to engage in (written or oral) controversy with them at some time or other, possibly very frequently. As the women in Muham- madan lands are, for the most part, little instructed even in their own creed, lady missionaries are perhaps, in some places, not so frequently called upon as men are to argue with those to whom they are sent. Yet at any time questions involving a knowledge of the Muhammadan controversy may be asked, and it is absolutely necessary to be ready with a suitable reply to each and every one of these. A missionary will never seek controversy merely for its own sake, but he must never *liun it, lest he convey the impression that no answer can be given to Muhammadan objections. The model of Christian controversy is given in Acts xvii. 23, sqq. When controversy arises it may be well to observe the following rules, which I venture to suggest to the young missionary :—

i. Remember that our aim is not to silence our

14 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

opponent, nor to gain a merely logical victory, but to win souls to Christ. Hence, in argument, we should endeavour to remove misconceptions which hinder Muslims from giving careful attention to the Gospel message. The object that we have in view in controversy is chiefly to remove stumbling- blocks. We must not expect it to convert a soul. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must at every step be prayerfully and believingly invoked. Urge the inquirer or opponent prayer fully to read the Bille, especially the New Testa ment, and not to content himself with finding fault with it and discovering difficulties in it T.

2. Endeavour to limit the discussion on each occasion to one or two definite points, which should be settled upon with your opponent beforehand. To let him hurry off from one point to another without waiting for an answer is a mere waste of time, or worse. Try also to bring the argument to some definite conclusion. This can be done only by planning out the course of the discussion, as far as possible, in one's own mind, and keeping the goal steadily in view.

3. It is impossible to pay too much attention to fairness and courtesy 2 in your arguments. If you are polite and kind in your words and manner,

1 Rev. F. Laurence.

2 "I should lay at least equal stress on fairness. I think it is much less frequently found in arguments than is courtesy of manner, and I believe it has an enormous effect." (The Right Rev. the Bishop of Lahore.) Vide No. ir below.

INTRODUCTION. 1 5

your opponent will generally, even against his will, be forced to observe the rules of courtesy. Regard him as a brother for whom Christ died, and to whom you are sent with the message of reconcilia tion. You can generally repress any rudeness on his part, without offending him, by showing courtesy to him and making it clear, by your manner, that you expect the same conduct from him. Never let an argument degenerate into a quarrel.

4. Remember that your opponent may be en deavouring to make you angry. If he can succeed in even leading those present to imagine that you are so, he will in their opinion have gained the victory. For example : as Byron states, a Turk's very beard is supposed to curl with wrath. (" Then curled his very beard with ire.") To prevent one's anger from being thus evidenced, an Oriental will frequently stroke his moustaches. If a Christian should do this, even thoughtlessly, in argument, his opponent has been known to pause, look round on the audience to call their attention to it, and then begin most profusely to apologize, with the appearance of fear, for having quite unintentionally made him angry 1 He has gained the day ; he has made his opponent angry, or pretends to think he has, and perhaps convinces the rest that it is so 1 Anger of course shows consciousness of defeat.

5. Endeavour to make your opponent feel the terribly </,;-/f importance of the matters he is inclined to dlxm** so lightly. Show him that you regard them as matters

l6 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHKISTIANITY.

of life or death. However frivolous he may at first be, he will generally feel with you very readily, if you are in earnest. If you are not, you are no true missionary.

6. Never be beguiled into answering (in a dis cussion) such a question as, " What do you think of Muhammad1?" or into making a direct attack upon him. To do so would be to offend your hearers and do immense harm. It, is needless to tell them your opinion of Muhammad, for they will not accept it on your authority. By and by, if they read the Bible, they will form a very decided opinion themselves. It is better to reply somewhat in this manner : " What does it matter what my opinion of Muhammad is1? I have nothing to say to you about him : I come to tell you about Christ!' The meaning of this will be quite clear to the audience : they will appreciate your courtesy, and will probably ask you to tell them your message about Jesus1.

1 In this Manual I have on certain occasions pointed out certain facts with reference to Muhammad, e. g. that he is not in the Qur'an regarded as sinless. This has been done for the information of the Christian student, and is necessary in a book of this description. But it is very delicate ground indeed on which to tread in speaking to a Muslim. It must be borne in mind that I am not suggesting the actual words that should be used when dealing with the subject. In conversation it would be well to ask the meaning of the passages in the Qur'an which imply that Muhammad (and the Prophets) were not devoid of sin, and merely imply by one's manner that the answers given were not satisfactory. This will make the Muhammadan

INTRODUCTION. 17

7. The missionary should be careful to give some title of courtesy to Muhammad (or, in case of need, to 'All or Fatimah or other person honoured by Muslims) in countries where to do otherwise would be esteemed disrespectful. In India it is best to say "Muhammad Sahib" in Persia " Hazrat -i Mu hammad 1." Higher titles we as Christians cannot give him, and Muslims are content if we give him these. In Eg^pt and Palestine they do not seem to resent him being spoken of simply as "Mu hammad," but in India and Persia to speak thus would be insulting to your interlocutor 2.

8. Be careful of the theological terms you use. See that you thoroughly understand them yourself in the first place, not merely the Enytish terms but the words used in the native language — Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, or whatever it may be. Do not fancy that the words, e.g. for holiness, atonement, sin, kingdom of heaven, peace, &c., which are used in the vernacular version of the Bible,

interlocutor think about them afterwards himself. In open- air controversy in public the subject should bo avoided, and the disputant invited to a private discussion.

1 Of course in this book this is needless, but it should bo borne in mind in case a translation is undertaken.

3 Missionaries in Eastern Arabia sometimes use the expression Nabikum ("your Prophet") out of courtesy. Is not this, however, liable to misconstruction ? The Rev. P. M. Zenker wisely points out the necessity of our always adding to the name of our Saviour the title "Lord." Muslims themselves always give Him some title of respect, and they are offended if ice omit to do so.

B

1 8 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

convey their Christian theological meaning at the first glance to the interlocutor. Guard against any misunderstanding on his part. Use his own theo logical terms as far as possible, making quite sure that you fully understand them.

Whenever your opponent quotes and founds an argument upon any passage in the Bible, make a point of turning to that passage (in the original, if possible) and ascertaining from the Context exactly what is said and what is meant. Do not rely upon memory. This is of the utmost importance. To read the verse aloud with the context will often afford a complete reply to the difficulty which has been mooted. The same plan might profitably be applied to the Qur'an, which must be quoted in the original.

9. Kemember that although, generally speaking, the Bible, being an Oriental book, is more readily understood in some respects by Orientals than by Europeans, yet passages which to us present no difficulty to an Oriental occasionally require ex planation. E. g., in Persia a very intelligent Kurd ish convert asked me the meaning of Isa. i. 18, "Though your sins be ... red like crimson, they shall be as wool." His difficulty is readily under stood when we remember that in Persia most sheep are black. I once found a Persian of some learning under the impression that John the Baptist (Yahya') was Yahya' ibn Barmak, the noted minister of Harunu 'r Rashld. In India the expression (Matt.

INTRODUCTION. 19

xxvii. 7) "to bury strangers in " seemed to the native mind to denote " to bury strangers alive in !" Other similar mistakes have occurred and should be guarded against.

10. Before entering into an argument — before going out as a missionary at all —one should not only know the Bible well, but should have made up one's mind on matters which are in dispute. Of course we tfmst be fully convinced of the truth of nil t^e main Christian doctrines; but we should also know exactly what the Bible teaches and what it does not teach on such subjects as, e.g., the Fall, " Conditional Immortality," " Eternal Hope," the Atonement, and many more. The case of F. W. Newman, and his difficulty when in Baghdad he was asked a question about the Trinity, affords an extreme example of the danger of want of preparation for our work.

11. Readily accept, and make it plain tliaf you ////////// accept, all the truth that is in any way common to Christianity and Islam. Then lead on from these points of agreement and show how much truer are some of their tenets than they have any idea of. You can show that the Bible teaches all that is true in such tenets of theirs, and that it goes very much further on such points than their theology docs *. Illustrations of this will be afforded

1 In s|x--(kiii^ of theQur'an one has to IKJ v»-ry much on one'l guard, and tins the Muslim knows well. But in treating of the great truths which are common to the two religions, the B 2

2O MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

in the answers to various objections ; see especially the articles dealing with the Mubammadan admis sion that Christ is Kalimatiittdh ("the Word of God")1.

1 1. Try to convince of sin and of mans need of a Saviour. Muhammadans have very little idea of the guilt of sin. Endeavour to reach men's hearts and not merely their intellects. Appeal to them as men for whom Christ died, who neeci the salvation which He has commissioned you to offer through the Gospel.

13. Put yourself as much as possible in your opponent's place, so as to try to understand his difficulties. You will thus be the better able to frame your answers in such a way as to be under stood by him. The Socratic method of asking questions and leading your opponent to find the answers, and thus to convince himself of the truth of what you wish to teach him, is perhaps the best in general, if properly used. We have illustrated this in the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity.

14. Remember what your interlocutor, if he be an " orthodox " Muhammadan, will be ready to admit, and what he will not at first admit. You will thus be on sure ground in your arguments, and will have a TTOV o-ra> whereon to plant your lever.

Christian can speak freely and heartily, and in so doing he can awaken a glow of sympathy in the hearer, which will at least dispose him to listen to what one has to say in regard to distinctive Christian doctrines. (Rev. P. Z. Easton.) 1 Vide §§ 158 sqq.

INTRODUCTION. 21

(a) He is bound to admit the validity of argu ments based on the assumption (for the sake of argument, as far as you are concerned) that the Qur'an is the Book of God, that every word and letter of it in the original is of Divine authorship.

(b) He accepts the great doctrines of : ( i ) God's Unity, Almighty Power, Wisdom, Eternity, Un- changeableness, and that He is the union of all good attributes; (2) His creation of the universe, and His Divine government and Providence ; (3) the Divine Mission of all the Prophets (including Jesus) ; (4) the eternal distinction between the Creator and His creatures ; (5) the -existence of the world and of human personality, of the human spirit, of life after death, of future rewards and punishments, the Resurrection, the need of faith, the existence of good and evil spirits ; (6) Christ's Divine Mission, His birth of a Virgin, His sinl«--s- ness (all the Prophets being by Muslims called sinless), His Ascension, His life in Heaven now, His future Advent, and that Christ is "the Word of God" (Kalimafiiildli] and "A Spirit from Him" i Iu'//i(/i M in/tit) ; (7) that the Bible, a* »ri</hm(/// ////>;/, was a Divine revelation; and he believes (8) that Idolatry is the one unpardonable sin. (Surah IV., An Nisa' 51, 116.)

On the other hand he does not realize the guilt of sin, the existence of an eternal Moral Law : ho has no real conception of God's holiness, or justice, or love. He prai-fii-ath/ conceives of

22 MUHAMMADAN OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

God's omnipotence as eclipsing all His other attri butes. He sees no need of an Atonement. He denies the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ, and His death on the cross. He believes the Bible to have been corrupted, and at any rate he thinks that it has been annulled by the " descent of the Qur'an upon Muhammad." A missionary, Dr. Pennell, well writes : " Nine out often of the Muhammadan objections come from their ineradicable tendency to look upon everything and interpret everything carnally. My main endeavour is to try and set forward the spiritual side of the text or doctrine. If I can even get them to realize that there is a spiritual side to religious observances, I think something is gained. For instance, when they raise the objection that we do not perform ablution before prayers, the objector has probably never looked on ablution as more than a form, and the spiritual teaching that may be derived from it is very likely quite a revelation to him. My line with that and similar objections would be to take the objector a step back to the nature of prayer, and of what prepara tions are required when we approach our Creator. Similarly, objections about the cut of our beard and moustaches or the make of our clothes, or the fact of our removing or not removing our hats and shoes under certain conditions, all bring the discussion back to the underlying motives and internal nature of true religion. Help may be obtained by reminding them of the words they

INTRODUCTION. 23

use in the niyyat before prayers, which lay stress on heart preparation as opposed to externalities."

15. Finally, let the servant of Christ remember and act on Bengel's advice : " Never enter upon controversy without knowledge^ without love, with out necessity" and, let us add, without prayer 1.

1 I do not suggest that a missionary should endeavour to convert a Muslim, learned or unlearned, by such a course of argument as that contained in this Manual. The appeal in each case is to the man's heart and conscience, and is made through the Gospel message. The object of this Manual is merely to suggest to objections when they are brought forward.

CHAPTER I.

ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL.

IT is convenient to divide a Muhammadan's difficulties in the way of accepting the Gospel and salvation through Christ into two great divisions : (i) those arising from his unregenerate human nature ; and, (2) those arising from his belief in Islam and his ignorance of the true nature of the Christian Faith.

The difficulties which arise under the first head are those which are common to men everywhere, because "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom. viii. 7). It is due to this that we often find educated Muhammadans availing themselves of all the modern European arguments against Christianity with which they are acquainted. These are to be answered just as in England or America. To deal with arguments of this descrip tion is not within the province of this book, for they are not properly described as Muliammadan objections, and to deal with them at all adequately would require whole volumes. It suffices to say that such arguments are really quite as much opposed to Islam itself as to Christianity, at least for the most part, for they are levelled at all

ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL. 25

revealed religion, or what professes to bo such. The men who adduce such arguments are not really Muhammadans at all, and a Muhammadan audience can often be led to see this and to take part with the missionary against such men.

Another form of thought which largely prevails among educated and thoughtful professing Muslims, at least in certain countries, is Mysticism. This may be said* to be Protean in its forms, but it generally resolves itself into Pantheism *. As such it may, in large measure, be traced back to Hindu philosophy. The Ma-viari affords a good example of this. That work, though professing to be an orthodox Muhammadan composition, in reality — to those who understand it aright — holds Islam up to ridicule. It was for a long time prohibited in Persia for this reason. " Muhammadan " mystics must not be considered as really Muslims at all ; hence we cannot here deal with their difficulties.

We are concerned in this book only with

1 "Not only the Shaikh! but the Mutasharri' also is en tangled in the Pantheistic net. Aggressive Muhammadanism t«»-d:iy is largely of the darvlsk type, and this is Pantheistic. It is important to bring before the Muslim mind the fact that the great truths (Introd. §§ n and 14, 6) of primitive Islum have I" • n and are being undermined by an insidious Pantheistic teaching, and that the only refuge for those who would hold these truths is in the acceptance of a full-orbed Christianity." (Rev. P. Z. Easton.) Mr. Harding says, " I find almost all thoughtful Muslims tinged with mysticism of a kind which predisposes them to Christianity." Of such mysticism as this the missionary should make good use, while opposing the Pantheistic element in it.

26 ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL.

genuine Muhammadan objections. The vast mass of the objections which Muhammadans, whether Sunnis or Shi'ites, bring against Christianity may be arranged under the following heads : — -

I. Objections against the genuineness of the Bible as it now exists.

II. Objections against the present authority of the Bible, regarded as annulled by the Qur'an.

III. Objections against certain leading Christian doctrines as alleged to be taught in the Bible, on the ground that they are contrary to Reason and the Qur'an ; e. g. the doctrine of the Trinity.

IV. Objections against the doctrine of the Atone ment of Christ.

V. Objections against Christianity on the ground of Muhammad's Divine mission, as asserted to be proved by prophecies in the Bible.

VI. Miscellaneous Objections.

These divisions to some extent overlap one another, and some objections may be ranged under more than one head. Many arise from a misunderstanding of what the doctrines of Christianity really are, others from a knowledge of the corruptions of certain forms of Christianity. Bigotry, prejudice, and boundless ignorance, even ignorance of the facts of Muhammad's life and ignorance of the teachings of the Qur'an l, are among the things that make it

1 So much is this the case that Dr. 'Imadu'ddin's Urdu Version of the Qur'an has already brought some Muslims to Christ by enabling them to learn the real nature and teachings of

ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL. 27

difficult to convince a Muhammadan that Christi anity is true, and that (inferentially) his own creed as a whole is not The want of order and method in the arrangement of their own Qur'an leads them to fancy that the Bible must be in much the same condition, and that almost any verse will bear equally well any interpretation they may choose to give it. As they believe that every word and letter of theii* Qur'an is of Divine authorship, they fancy that our idea of the Inspiration of the Bible is similar to that which they entertain regarding the Qur'an. Hence it is often difficult for them to see that an argument directed against our fancied opinion on this point is entirely devoid of force. It is difficult, for example, for a Muhammadan to perceive that, when we admit the human element in, e.g., St. Paul's Epistles, we are not conceding that they are uninspired. This should be borne in mind in argument. Proofs which would quite convince a European, or at least silence him, seem for

that much belauded book, and thus to compare it with the Gospel.

Muhammadan ignorance and credulity are well illustrated by what Mir/a Riza writes in his answer to Henry Martyn : "It is told of Plato (1} that, when he heard of Jesus' having restored one to life who had been three days dead, he said, 'I can do the same thing.' . . . When Plato wrote to Christ to know if any OMO could be saved by his intervention, the answer of Jesus was, ' Divine Physician, without my mediation no one can be saved.'" (Sir W. Muir, The Muhammadan Controversy, p. 15.) Plato's opinion of Christ (!) was quoted to mo by a Persian prince a few years ago.

28 ON MUHAMMADAN DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL.

the most part unmeaning and hence extremely feeble to a Muslim. This often arises from his ignorance.

The line of argument which a missionary has to use, therefore, must be accommodated to the limits of his opponent's knowledge or comprehension. Being himself inclined to suppress or even deny facts known to be true when necessary for his argument, the Muslim does not credit the Christian with any higher regard for truth than he entertains himself. It is necessary therefore to argue from facts which the Muslim deems incontrovertible. Hence we frequently have to appeal to the testimony of the Qur'an in support of our arguments, occasionally introducing the evidence of Muhamrnadan tradition and Muslim commentaries. Only when we have proved the genuineness and authority of the Holy Scriptures is it permissible for us to appeal, with any hope of effect, to the Bible.

One must not be surprised at finding among Muhammadan controversialists a great want of logic, though much pretence to a knowledge of it. They often mistake illustration for argument, and are especially skilled in the dialectic feat known as " petitio principii." Against this the missionary must be continually on his guard.

These all constitute difficulties in the way of the acceptance of the Gospel by Muhammadans. They are not "Muhammadan Objections" but they are very real Muhammadan difficulties, and have to be reckoned with as such.

CHAPTER II.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS,

1. "How I do pity you Christians!" said a Mulla to a missionary recently; "you have no Holy Book now."

The meaning of this is that the Mulla believed that the Old and New Testaments as we now have them are corrupted, and are therefore unworthy of consideration. At one time this opinion was firmly held by all Muslims, and it is still the general conviction of Muhammadans in all lands except perhaps in India. There many learned Muslims confess that our Bible exists just in the same state as it did in Muhammad's day. This is one result of Pfander's, Sir W. Muir's, 'Imadu'ddin's, Safdar 'All's, and other controversial works. But even in India the unlearned frequently bring forward this objection, asserting that the Jews and Christians have corrupted the Bible. In proof of this they assert that the Qur'an states that the Bible has been rendered tahrif1 (muharrqf). Others declare that, on His Ascension, our Lord

1 The word strictly moans " corrupted through the trans position of letters in certain words." But Muslims often employ the term to denote more serious corruption of the text.

30 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

carried off the New Testament with Him into heaven1! "Hence it logically follows," they argue, "that the Gospel which Christians now have cannot be the original one which descended (from heaven) upon Jesus, the Son of Mary."

In reply it may be said: (i) The Qur'an nowhere states that Jesus took the Gospel up to Heaven with Him, nor does any reliable tradition. (a) This statement therefore rests upon noting but your mere assertion, and as you were not present at the time you cannot give evidence. (3) The " Gospel " that the Lord Jesus preached and taught by His whole life was not fully written down then, just as the Qur'an was not " collected " into a fixed form until after Muhammad's death. To say that the Gospel was carried off to heaven is therefore absurd, just as it would be to say that the Qur'an was. If we asserted the same fact regarding the Qur'an, you would laugh, and confute us by producing a copy in the original Arabic. So we refute your statement by showing you a copy in the original Greek. (I have often done so and found it quite sufficient to settle the question, for " seeing is believing," and, on the other

1 The Rev. T. Grahame Bailey says that some Muslims hold that the Gospel was carried away by Satan. I have never met this argument myself. In reply, the Muslim should be asked to quote his authority for the statement. He might be shown that, since the Gospel which we have is the one acknowledged in the Qur'an (§§ 3 sqq.), his objection lands him in con siderable difficulty.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 31

hand, as Horace says, " Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus." J) (4) Just as Muhammad's disciples (ashdb) remembered his words and so the Qur'an was afterwards put together (majnnT) by Zaid ibn Thabit, so the Gospel in its four forms was written down after and not before Christ's Ascension. (5) The meaning of Gospel (Ei'a>y«'Aior, corrupted into J-s>j1) is good\ news, and this is contained in an epitome in John iii. 16. (6) We are glad to know that Muslims confess that " the Gospel 2 descended on Jesus," and the Qur'an states that it was given by God "for a light3 and a guidance to men." This fact refutes your assertion, for the All- wise God surely knows that men are on eart/i^ not in the heavens : hence He would not make such a mistake as to send the Gospel up to the sky and leave men, for whose guidance it was sent, on the earth. (7) At any rate, the Qur'an shows that it was still on the earth in Mvkioiimad'* ft me, else the Qur'an would not have appealed to it so fre quently.

2. Turning now to the assertion that the Bible

1 Photographs of passages in the oldest Greek MSS. of the New Testament (such as are given by Nestle in his Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, in Paterson Smyth's How we got our Bible, and Merrill's Parchments of the Faith} will bo found useful in this way.

a Though of course this does not express the matter from the Christian point of view. (Vide §§ 37 and 79.)

3 Cf. Surahs V., Al MAidah, 50 ; and III., Al 'Imran, a.

32 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

as we now have it has been corrupted (muharraf}1, the following is the style of argument which has been found most effective.

Christian. When was the Bible corrupted ? before Muhammad's time, or after it ?

3. Muslim. Before it.

C. You cannot really mean that, for you are a Muslim, and to assert that the Bible was cor rupted before Muhammad's time is Jo accuse Mu hammad of being a false teacher, and to state that the Qur'an is untrue and a forgery, which is just what the idolatrous Arabs in Muhammad's time did.

4. M. How so ?

C. Because the Qur'an, which Muhammad claimed to have received from God through the archangel Gabriel, asserts the authority and genuineness of the Bible which was then in circulation among the Jews and Christians, and declares that the Qur'an itself was sent down as being "confirma tory of previous Scripture, and its safeguard 2 " (Surah 3 V., Al Maidah, 52). Now, if the Bible had

1 The Muhammadans practically charge the Bible with being "corrupted " in two respects, (i) by the suppression of Muham mad's name and of passages relating to him, and (2) by the substitution of our present Gospels (which they regard as made up of untrustworthy traditions) for the supposed original Gospel that " descended on Jesus." (Rev. W. A. Rice.)

3 Muslims now endeavour to explain these words as denoting that the Qur'an "is a correct re-statement of the older Scrip tures." (Rev. J. T. Allnutt. ) Of course this is not what the verse means.

3 Of course the full transliteration of the Arabic would be

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 33

been corrupted before his time, Muhammad must have been, knowingly or ignorantly, leading people who believed in him astray. If the Qur an thus confirms a corrupted book, how can you believe that your Quran has come from the All-knowing (Alim r,U) God?

5. M. But you Christians do not accept the Qur an, and therefore have no right to quote its evidence in defence of your own books. If you do not believe in it, why do you rely on it as a proof of the genuineness of your Bible ?

C. We do not rely on its testimony, but you do ; and as you will not accept any other proof, we adduce proofs that you must accept, if you are Muslims. Your statement that the Bible was cor rupted before Muhammad's time is contrary to the statements of the Qur'an. Which are we to believe '\ 6. M. The Qur'an does not state that the Bible existed uncorrupted in Muhammad's time.

C. Then will you kindly explain the meaning of the following, among many other passages that might be quoted : —

1. Surah X., Yunus, 94.

2. Surah V.,AlMaidah, 70.

3- •> » 72>

4- » 4~'

5. „ „ 50,51,52.

Snratu! Maidati, and similarly in other OMM. Hut it is more convenient to transcribe U ;ib *•, The K-nuuii figures give the number of the Sur.ih.

34 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

6. Stirah IV., An Nisa , 50.

7- „ „ J35-

8. Surah VII., Al A'raf, 168.

9. Surah III., Al 'Imran, 78.

10. Surah II., Al Baqarah, 70.

11. Sftrah XXI., Al Anbiya', 49.

These verses teach us that the Taurdt and Injil were then in the hands of the People of the Book, that they had been sent down by (^fod, and that they were carefully studied. The Bible is called the Word of God, and the Law is also distinguished by the title Furqan, which you deem the highest title of the Qur'an itself. Is this consonant with your assertion that the Bible had been corrupted before Muhammad's time ? If so, why does the Qur'an represent Muhammad as commanded to tell the People of the Book to accept the Qur'an be cause it confirmed what was then in their hands ? Why is he directed to bid the Muslims believe in the " previous books " (the Taurat and Injil) as well as in the Qur'an ? Why are rewards promised to " the People of the Book " if they continue to obey " the Book " ? Why are they warned that their hopes are founded upon nothing unless they do so ? Our third and fifth quotations show that they still had the Law and the Gospel. Why are the People of the Gospel bidden to judge Muhammad's claims by God's revelation contained in the Gospel, if it had already been corrupted ? You must see that, by attacking the Bible as it existed in Muhammad's

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 35

days, you do it no harm but are really overthrowing your own faith in the Qur'an and in Muhammad.

7. M. But the Qur'an itself tells us that the Law at least had been corrupted before Muhammad's time (tahrif, muharraf], as it is said, for example, in the following passages :—

1. Surah II., Al Baqarah, 56.

2. Surah VII., Al A'raf, 162.

3. Surah V., Al Maidah, 45.

4. Surah IV., An Nisa, 48.

5. Surah II., Al Baqarah, 70, 73.

6. „ „ 141.

7. Surah III., Al 'Imran, 64.

8. Surah II., Al Baqarah, 39.

C. The last few passages prove that the Jews then had the Taurat in an uncorrupted state in their hands : else, how does the Qur'an say, " They tran scribe the Book " ? Or how could they knoiv and conceal the truth, if the Taurat had already been cor rupted ? for corrupted truth is truth no longer, but falsehood. Or how could they clothe the truth with falsehood, or sell it for a small price, or even transpose the words (QY letters) in their places, if they no longer had the Taurat in an uncorrupted state ? These passages therefore fail to prove your assertion ; in fact they prove the very opposite. The first two passages you quote inform us that, in Moses time, certain impious Jews mispronounced a word which God had spoken, and thereby changed its meaning, for which they were at once punished. But even these C 2

36 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

men are not charged with corrupting the Book. When it is twice said that certain Jews in Muham mad's time (not before his time) used to shift the words from their places , such a charge is never brought against the Christians. So that, even if we admit that this expression means what you take it to mean, it relates only to the Law and not to the Gospel. But leading Muhammadan commentators1 say that the meaning is that on certain occasions the Jews denied that certain commands were to be found in the Taurat, though they well knew they were there. As an example a tradition is quoted that at Khaibar the Jews, when asked whether the Taurat did not command the stoning of adul terers, denied it, though the command to that effect is still in the Taurat, as they knew it was. But they are not accused2 of changing the text, and the occurrence of the verses in question in the Taurat which they and we still have proves that they did not strike them out. This explanation agrees with what other passages in the Qur'an say about the sin of the Jews in concealing the truth while they knew it. Or, as Ar Razi says, they perverted the reading "with their tongues" (Surah III., Al

1 See the opinions of some of these quoted and commented on in the Mandru'l Haqq (Arabic : English translation by Sir W. Muir ; Persian version — entitled Mishqdt i Sidq—by myself;.

2 Hence the opinion of learned Muslims is that the Law was by these men perverted orally, and as to its meaning (ma'navi'), not in its text (lafzi).

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 37

'Iinran, 72), not the actual text. Another explana tion which Ar Razi gives is that the Jews used to ask Muhammad questions and then falsely report his reply. If so, it was not the words of the Taurat but Muhammad's words that they are accused of shifting from their places. Hence we see that the Qur'an does not state that the Scriptures were corrupted before Muhammad's time.

8. M. Welithen, if the Bible was not corrupted before Muhammad's time, it was certainly corrupted in his time, as some of the verses I have quoted

prove.

C. In saying this you contradict your leading commentators, and your controversy is with them, not with me. Besides, you must remember that the Qur'an asserts that it was "sent down" to " attest the Scriptures preceding it, and to act as guardian to them " (Surah II., Al Eaqarah, 38 ; Surah IV., An Nisa, 50; Surah V., Al Maidsih, 50 ; Surah III., Al 'Iniran, 75). It is strange for a Muslim to accuse the Qur'can of attesting cor rupted Scripture*, and still stranger for him to assert that the guardianship of the Qur'an was of no avail to hinder their corruption even in Muham mad's own time.

9. M. By " attesting the Scriptures which pre ceded it" is meant that the Qur'an agrees with tin- genuine teaching of previous pn.phrts, and shows the fulfilment of the pn.ph.-eies regarding Muham mad contained in their books, that is to say, in the

38 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

Taurat and Injil. By preserving such doctrines the Qur'an acts as a guardian to those books.

C. Such is your explanation. But if the Qur'an, as we have seen, attested the Scriptures which in Muhammad's day were extant in the hands of Jews and Christians, and was constituted their guardian, surely you cannot hold that those Scrip tures were at that very time corrupted or had previously been so. And, if the Qur'an then ap pealed to certain passages in the Bible as it then existed in proof of Muhammad's claim to be a prophet, does not that show that in Muhammad's time the Bible was not corrupt?

10. M. Well then, if the Scriptures were not corrupted before Muhammad's time, or in his days, they must have been corrupted since that time, for they are corrupt, as everybody knows, because they used to agree with the Qur'an and no longer do so. The Qur'an appeals to its agreement with the Bible as one of the proofs of its inspiration ; that is one meaning of several of the verses which you have quoted. This it would not have done if the Bible had then been what it now is, since it now contradicts the Qur'an in many important points, and this is the reason why we cannot accept your Bible ]. Muhammad would not have been com-

1 Muhammad was ignorant of the real teaching of the Bible, and rashly fancied that it must agree with his doctrine. To say this, however, would be considered by Muslims as an insult to Muhammad.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 39

raanded to call a witness to give evidence against him.

C. Let us inquire in the first place whether it is possible, on the supposition that the Qur'an is a Divine Revelation, to believe that the Bible has been corrupted since Muhammad's time, remem bering that, according to the Qur'an, one reason for the " descent " of that book and for Muhammad's mission was tp confirm the Law and the Gospel, as we have already proved. The Qur'an itself asserts that God preserves the " Warning" (j&) which He has sent down (Surah XV., Al Hajr, 9), and more over repeatedly affirms that the Word of God can not be altered by any one (SiirahsLXIX., Al Kahf, 26 ; VI., An'am, 35, 115 ; X., Yunus, 65) *.

11. M. But "the Warning" is one of the titles of the Qur'an itself, and these verses all refer to the Qur'an and not to the Bible. We are quite ready to admit that the Qur'an cannot be changed.

C. No doubt "the Warning" is sometimes a title of the Qur'an, but the same title is also, in the Quran toelfi given to the Bible, as for instance in Surah XXL, Al Anbiya', 7 and 49 ; and it therefore no more belongs exclusively to the Qur'an than the title " Al Furqan" does, which in the latter verse is bestowed upon the Taurat, which we are there told was given to Moses and Aaron. If we take the promise in Surah XV., Al Hajr, 9 as applying to

1 See IbhdthiCl Mujtahidin, p. 8.

40 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

the Bible as well as to the Qur'an, we find that it agrees with Surah V., Al Maidah, 53, where we are told that the Qur'an is a safeguard to the Bible. Put in any case the statement that none can change the Word of God is general and not par ticular^ and it applies quite as much therefore to the Bible as to the Qur'an, since in Surah II., Al Baqarah, 70 the Bible is called God's Word. This is the logical conclusion fromrthe verses of the Qur'an which I have quoted, and all who are acquainted with logic must accept this argument. Hence, if the Qur'an' s statements are worthy of credence, it follows that the Bible, being God's Word, cannot have become corrupted. In this matter the Qur'an is in complete accord with the Bible (compare Isa. xl. 8 ; i Pet. i. 24 ; Matt. v. 1 8 ; Luke xvi. 17 ; Matt. xxiv. 35 ; Mark xiii. 31 ; Luke xxi. 33) ; and you Muslims, although doubt ing many parts of the Bible,, hold that its teaching is to be accepted when it is in accord with the Qur'an.

12. M. Have you no better answer than this to give to the universal assertion of all Muslims that your Scriptures have been corrupted ?

C. It is by no means correct to say that all Muslims hold that the Bible has been corrupted. Among ancient commentators Imam Muhammad Isma'il Bukhari, Imam Fakhru'ddin Razi (as well as Shah Waliu'llah), and others, were of opinion that it was not corrupted. In our own times in

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 41

India hardly any learned Muhammadan ivho lax examined the evidence to the contrary asserts that it is so. But even if all Muhammadans did agree in asserting the corruption of the Bible, mere asser tion is not proof, and we wait in vain for your proofs. Even a well-supported tradition (IfaditJi) is not deemed by learned Muslims worthy of acceptance if it is contrary to the Qur'an, and this assertion of the corruption of the Bible is contrary to it.

13. M. Apart from the Qur'an, which you do not accept, what evidence have you that the Bible has not been corrupted since Muhammad's time ?

C. We have in abundance both the kinds of

evidence which you Muslims consider admissible

both ^lic (aoj,i, evidence from Reason) and Jjij (naqtt, evidence based upon Testimony). I shall briefly mention a few proofs of each kind.

*• L^ (<df^0' What possible object would either Jews or Christians have had in endeavouring to corrupt their own Scriptures ? In Rev. xxii. 18, 19, a terrible penalty is denounced upon those who add to or take away anything from God's Book. The Jews also were commanded to avoid this sin (Deut. iv. 2 ; xii. 32 ; Prov. xxx. 5, 6). By cor rupting their own Scriptures and still continuing to believe in them (if that were possible), or at least to hand them down to their descendants as God's Word, the People of the Book would be destroying both themselves and their children, and that too without any hope of gain. Moreover, long before

42 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

Muhammad's time the Jews were in the habit of numbering even the words and letters of their Holy Books, and this they still do. How then can they be accused of corrupting them ?

14. M. Their object in altering the Old Testa ment, and that of Christians in corrupting the New, was doubtless to strike out all prophecies relating to Muhammad.

C. Why 1 What did they hope to, gain by doing so l "? If such prophecies were to be found in the Bible, why did they not accept Muhammad ? By becoming Muhammadans they would have shared in the spoils promised to the Muslims, and given to them when they conquered and plundered Persia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and many other countries. They must have been tempted to insert prophecies of Muhammad rather than to eliminate them. By becoming Muslims they would have escaped from persecution, from slaughter at Muhammad's hands, and from all the suffering which has ever since been the lot of zimmfa. Why should they, by striking out such prophecies (if any existed), have doomed themselves and their children to sufferings here and hereafter ? But you Muslims answer your own charge against both Jews and Christians by asserting that both in the Old and in the New Testament as they at present exist there are still

1 If they did not eliminate the prophecies relating to Christ, was there not still less reason for their striking out those referring to Muhammad ? (Eev. W. A. Rice.)

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 43

to be found many clear prophecies of Muhammad's coming. If so m&ny have been left in, why do you accuse us of striking out a few ?

15. M. Another reason was to insert passages in support of the false doctrines and evil practices that you had adopted, and to strike out those which were contrary to them.

C. How can that be, when the Taurat and Injil as they exist a£ present so distinctly forbid many practices and oppose many doctrines held by some Jews and Christians ? For instance, the Jews are noted for usury, which is forbidden (Exod. xxii. 25; Lev. xxv. 35-37 ; cf. Surah IV., An Nisa', 159). So too, idolatry is forbidden to Christians (Rev. xxi. 8), yet, if any misguided Christians practise and justify it, they do not try to alter the Bible, which so severely condemns idolaters.

16. M. Let me hear your other proofs.

C. The Jews and Christians could not have altered their Scriptures in or after Muhammad's time, even had they all been seized with madness and desired to do so. For they were already spread over a large part of the world, and could not meet together to agree upon corrupting the Bible. Had they altered it without collusion, their alterations would have differed from one another and been readily detected. Both Christians and Jews wcro then to be found in every part of Europe, in India, Persia, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and throughout

44 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

the whole of the north of Africa. Jews and Christians were hostile to one another, and, if either party had endeavoured to alter the text of the Bible, the other party would have detected and exposed the crime by producing the original. Yet the Jews have always accepted the same Hebrew Old Testa ment as that which we do, and all Christians accept the same Greek New Testament. Moreover, then as now Christians were divided int^ many sects, as the Qur'an testifies (Surah V., Al Maidah, 17), which often persecuted one another. It was obviously impossible for them therefore to conspire together to corrupt the Bible. You will in some measure understand this when you consider whether or not it would be possible for the Muslims (Sunnis, Shi'ites, Wahhabis, Sanusis, and all their other sects) to agree together to corrupt the text of the Qur'an, and to accept the corrupted form of the book.

Again, the Qur'an informs us (Surah III., Al 'Imran, 109, no) that "Among the People of the Book is an upright folk . . . and these are of the righteous." If so, they would not have permitted, without a protest, such a crime as the corrupting of the Holy Scriptures. Is this statement of the Qur'an true or false ? If true, is not your assertion impossible 1

The prophecies which are contained in the Bible, some of them fulfilled (e.g. those regarding Baby lon, Tyre, Egypt, Edom, in Isaiah ; and those about

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 45

the Jews in Deut. xxviii. 15 fin.) and some being fulfilled in our own days (e. g. that in Rev. xiv. 6, about the spread of the Gospel in our time, and the passages relating to the restoration and conversion of the Jews, which are now going on), show that the Bible which we now have in our hands has come from none other but the All- wise God l.

In Muhammad's time, and later, not a few Jews and Christians , in many different lands which were conquered by the Muslims, embraced Islam, through fear or for other reasons. If the Jews and Christians had conspired together to corrupt the Bible, surely some of these converts would have been able to produce unaltered copies of the Holy Books where with to convict the perpetrators of their crime. Yet neither in ancient times nor at present do we hear of a single such copy having been brought forward. The Kitd/ml AgJtdni relates of Waraqah ibn Naufal (who had once been for a time a Christ ian, and who knew both the Christian and the Jewish Scriptures, at least to some extent) that in Muhammad's lifetime he used to copy from the (Jnspel whatever he pleased. He at least would have been able to prove the corruption of the Scriptures, had it occurred in his time. But he

1 All Muslims acknowledge that parts of the Bible are preserved free from alteration. But our argument seeks to prove that no part of it can have been corrupted since Muhammad's time. The (.t>ui 'an itself testifies to its authority and freedom from corrup tion in his day.

46 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

brought no such charge against either Jews or Christians.

Hence from the ^lic. ^aqli) part of the evidence on the subject it follows that the Scriptures cannot have been corrupted after Muhammad's time ; and we have previously proved that they cannot have been corrupted in or before his time. We conclude therefore that they are still uncorrupted.

17. M. Well, what are your ^JUj fyaqli) proofs ?

C. They are many, but it will be sufficient to adduce only a few of the chief of them, any one of which by itself is a sufficient refutation of the charge which you bring against us.

II. We possess a number of Greek MS. copies of the Bible, which were copied from still earlier MSS. long before Muhammad's time. It is from these that the printed Greek text of both the Old and the New Testaments is taken. This enables us to know what was the text of the Bible in the hands of the Christians of Muhammad's day, and to prove that it was the same Bible that we now have. These old MSS. may be seen by any of you who wish to examine them. The principal of these MSS. are:—

(i) The Sinaitic (Codex Sinaiticus), written T in the middle of the fourth century, about 370 years before the Hijrah of Muhammad. It contains the whole of the New Testament and a large part of

1 " Written in the fourth or more probably at the beginning of the fifth century." (Nestle, Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament )

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 47

the Old, and is preserved in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg.

(2) The Alexandrian (Codex Ahxandrinus\ written early 1 in the fifth century, more than aoo years before the Hijrah. It contains the whole Bible, except a few pages that have been lost, and is in the British Museum, London.

(3) The Vatican (Codex T'alicanits), written early in the fourth century, nearly 300 years before the Hijrah. It contains the whole 2 Bible, though the latter part of the New Testament (from Heb. ix. 14) is written in a later hand, and is in the Vatican Library at Rome.

(4) Codex Ephraemi, written early in the fifth cen- century, or about 2co years before the Hijrah. It3 is fragmentary, and contains pages from each book of the New Testament and fragments of the Old. It is kept in the National Library at Paris.

1 "Middle or end of the fifth century." (Nestle, op. cit.) It " is defective at the beginning of the N.T., the first 26 leaves, down to Matt. xxv. 6, being absent, as also two containing John vi. 5o-viii. 52, and three containing 2 Cor. iv. i3-xii. 6." (ibid.)

3 " Like A " (Cod. Alex.} " it once contained the whole of the Old Test. The first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. i-xlvi. 28, are now wanting, as well as 20 from the Psalms, containing Ps. cv. (cvi) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii) 6. The N T. is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks off at KaOa[pt<i]. i and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse are, therefore, also wanting." (ibid.)

s "The MS. once contained the entire Bible, but the whoh of i and 2 Thess. has been lost, as also some 37 chapters from the Gospels, 10 from the Acts, 42 from the Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse." (ibid.)

48 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

18. M. How do you know that these MSS. are as ancient as you say they are ? What proof have you that they were not written in quite recent times ? How could paper last all these cen turies 1

C. All these old MSS. are written on parchment, not on paper, and their great age is evident at a glance. This also accounts for the loss of some pages from some of them. They t. are written in very old l Greek characters, as different 2 from later Greek writing as is the modern Arabic character from Curie, which we find on old coins. Learned men have made a special study of this ; and it is well known that the modern Greek writing itself, which is far more recent, came into use before Mu hammad's time3. All men of learning, believers and unbelievers alike, are agreed as to the fact that these MSS. were written not later than the dates which I have mentioned (in the text or notes), though it is acknowledged that some of

1 I mean in Uncial (Majuscule), not in the later Cursive (Minuscule) characters. "This running hand found its way into MSS. of the Bible in the course of the ninth century." (Nestle, op. cit. p. 35.)

3 Here again an object lesson will be useful. It may be given by showing the photograph of an extract from an old Greek MS. of the N.T., and asking the inquirer to compare its letters with those in a printed Greek N.T.

3 Cursive Greek writing of a kind, though not the modern kind, " arose even previous to the Christian era. . . The oldest Cursive MS. of the N.T., the exact date of which is known, is 481 evv- ; it beari the date 835." (Nestle, op. cit. p. 35.)

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 49

them may be still more ancient l than I have said. We have plenty 2 of other MSS. dating from about Muhammad's time and onward, the writing of which is quite different 3.

19. M. You have said nothing about the Hebrew Old Testament,

C. We have no MS. of the Hebrew text of it which is as ancient as the Greek ones mentioned above, but we know from Josephus and other historians that the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) was made from the Hebrew between 250 and 200 years before Christ, that is between 872 and 822 years before the Hijrah, and every one knows that a translation must be more recent than the original from which it is made. We have also other translations of the Old Testament made

1 Table showing the centuries to which the loading MSS. of the N.T. belong, according to different opinions.

Vollert. Scrivener. von Oebhardt.

IVth cent. 5 a

V „ 4 I0 J5

VI „ 18 22 24

VII ,,6 9 17

(Nestle, op. cit. p. 35.)

3 3,829 MSS. of the N.T. have been catalogued up to the Mt. There may bo thouMinds more. See Nestle, pp.

33» 34-

» On this paragraph the Bishop of Lahore writes: "In my experience thil kin.l ••»' ar.mim.-nt Oftrrie* .-..nviction to very few of those with whom we mostly have to do. It really appeals to t lii! critical and scholarly instinct im>n- « \. n than we realize, and in these the average Muhammadan is NV holly lacking. Still, a* this is the true answer, it must be best to give it. In will sink in."

D

50 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

centuries before Muhammad's time, and of these I shall soon speak. Besides this, we have the Samaritan Pentateuch in Hebrew, but in very ancient characters. This was preserved by the Samaritans, enemies of the Jews, from tho time of the Babylonian Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. The modern Samaritans still keep it safe, and have even an ancient translation 1 of it into a later form of their own spoken language, that is to say, into the language the}7 used to speak hundreds of years ago, before they learned to speak Arabic.

20. M. Have you any other proof that the Bible has not been corrupted since Muhammad's time ?

C. Our second proof is afforded by the existence of versions of the Bible which were made ages before Muhammad's birth. These languages have long ceased to be spoken, but we have the transla tions of the Bible into them, and our learned men can read them all. The principal of these ancient versions are : —

(i) The Septuagint (Greek), which I have already mentioned.

(3) Three versions of the New Testament and one of the Old into Syriac. Of these, two are of especial value. The first of these is called the Curefontan, from the name of the discoverer of the ancient MS. which contains it. This version was made at latest in the second century after Christ :

1 The Samaritan Targum.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 5!

the MS. l was written in the fifth century. The second is the Peshittd, made at latest in the third century : the oldest MS. of it which we have was written in the fifth century. Even the third, or Phdoxenian version, was made long before Muham mad's time, in 508 A.D.

(3) Three Coptic versions : the Buhairic 2, made in the second or third century ; the Sahidic 3, and the Bashmuric or 'Middle Egyptian, both probably of the same date. The oldest Coptic MSS. belong to the fourth or fifth century. These three Coptic versions are in the three chief dialects of ancient Egypt.

(4) Two Latin versions ; one the Old Latin, made in the second century. We have MSS. of its remains which date from the fourth and fifth centuries. The other is the Vulgate, a more correct translation made by Jerome A.D. 383-5. He trans lated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, whereas the Old Latin was translated from the Greek version. The oldest MS. of the Vulgate was written before A.D. 546 4.

(5) The Ancient Armenian, made by Mesrob and

1 At least 10 Syriac MSS. of the N.T. date from the fifth and 30 from the sixth century (Nestle, p. 96). The Sinai-Syria (or Lewis-Syriac) MS. is closely related to the Curetonian.

2 Nestle, p. 100. A revision of the Philoxenian, the Harklean or Heraclean, was made in 616-17. (ibid., p. 101.) " M«»i.- than 50 Bohniric MSS. are preserved in the libraries of Europe." (ibid., p. 134.)

3 More properly Sa'idi, from Sa'id or Upper Kcrypt.

This is the Codex Fuldensis, written between 5^0 and 546 A. D. (Nestle, p. 132.)

D

52 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

published in A.D. 436, just 186 years before the Hijrah1.

(6) The Gothic, made by Ulphilas, who died A.D. 381. The MSS.2 of it date from the end of the fifth to the middle of the sixth century.

(7) The ^Ethiopic, made by Frumentius in the fourth century 3.

(8) Several Aramaic versions of the Old Testament made by Jews in the second and t&iird centuries. The Targum of Onkelos, the most famous of these, dates from the end of the third century.

21. M. How do you know all these dates ?

C. From history in many cases, and in others from finding quotations from these versions in writers who lived at the periods we have men tioned. No one can quote a book before it is written 4.

22. M. Have you any further proofs ?

C. Only two more that need be mentioned. One, the third proof, is, that we have a vast number of verses quoted from the Bible in the works of early Greek, Latin5, Syrian, and even Armenian

1 See my Conversion of Armenia, Chapter xiii.

a The Codex Argenteus, in the library at Upsala, " written in the fifth or sixth century." (Nestle, p. 138.)

3 Previous to the fifth century according to tradition, which Dillmann accepts (Nestle gives other opinions, p. 140).

* Though the Qur'an (Surah XXI, Al Anbiya') quotes Ps. xxxvii. 29, and yet the Muslim belief is that the Qur'an was composed in heaven before the creation of the world !

5 Nestle (pp. 336, sqq.) gives lists of the Greek and Latin writers referred to.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 53

writers, all of whom lived before Muhammad's time, and whose dates are perfectly well known. These quotations are so numerous that we could reconstruct nearly the whole New Testament and much of the Old from them, if we had loat all our ancient MSS. and versions. The fourth proof is afforded by ancient catalogues of the books of the Old and New Testaments. Six of these, all drawn up before Muhammad's time and some many centuries before him, contain the names of all the books of the Bible that we now have. The most ancient of all, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, is torn at both ends, but it contains just the same list of books that our present Bibles do, as far as it goes. It dates from the second century l.

23. M. You Christians seem to have taken a lot of trouble in order to refute our objections.

C. No amount of trouble would be too much to take in order to remove the prejudices which prevent men, for whom Christ died, from coming to Him for salvation. But it was not to refute Muslim objections that we made all these investigations and many more. We made them, in the first place, to satisfy ourselves, lest we should have been led astray in religion. We did not wish to be in any uncertainty about the Bible, upon which our re ligion is founded ; and we are told in the Bible to " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good " (T Thess. v. 21).

1 See Westcott's Canon of the New Testament.

54 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

24. M. But your ancient MSS. and versions differ from one another so much that you have thousands of different readings in your Bibles. How can you be sure which is correct ?

C. That shows how carefully we have collated MS. with MS. and version with version, noting even the varied spelling1 of the same word in different MSS. But the result of all our investiga tions is that all the varied reading^ put together do not alter or render doubtful one single article in our creed.

25. M. How do you account for these various readings'? Do they not prove that attempts were made to corrupt the text of the Bible ?

C. Not at all ; for, as I have said, they Jtave not, altered one single doctrine taught or one single precept given in the Bible. The variety of readings arose in different ways. The most usual cause was a mistake of the copyist, who often wrote from dictation. Another reason was that certain words were sometimes written and spelled in one way, sometimes in another. Occasionally also, when a note was written in the margin of a MS., a later scribe in one or two instances mistook it for a passage that had been omitted by mistake, and hence inserted it in the text of the copy he made. But we have so many copies that we are easily

1 The nature of the various readings can be easily shown from Nestle's, Dr. Weymouth's, or any other good edition of the Greek N.T.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 55

able to detect such mistakes now, and distinguish the few verses which are at all doubtful.

[26. M. Can you mention any which have thus been pointed out in the New Testament1?

C. There are only four passages of any importance which we know to be doubtful. These are, in our Greek Texts and in our Revised English Version, and in some others, either omitted or printed separately foi; this very reason. The doubtful passages are : — (i) Mark xvi. 9-20. In some ancient MSS. and versions these verses are not found : hence it is not quite certain that they were written by St. Mark. They may have been written by some very early l scribe as a note at the end of his copy of St. Mark's Gospel, and afterwards mistaken for part of it. Or they may have formed part of the Gospel, but the piece of parchment upon which they were written may have been torn off before the oldest MSS. were copied. At any rate we are not so certain of them as \ve are of all the rest of the Gospel2. (2) John v. 3. The words " waiting for the troubling of the water," and the whole of verse 4 are considered to be an ancient marginal note incorporated into the text by mistake, since they are not found in the oldest MSS. and versions. (3) John vii. 53-viii. u. These verses also are not found in the oldest MSS. and versions. Hence many scholars suppose that they were originally a marginal note-only, though the incident

1 Vide Nestle, p. 142. » Vide § 62.

56 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

they relate is true. (4) i John v. 7. This verse is universally acknowledged to be only a marginal note, and it is not therefore now printed in the Greek text or in the Revised English Version.]

27. M. If the Bible is really inspired, why should it contain all these variations, discrepancies, and doubtful passages ? Surely God would ensure that in an inspired book there should be nothing to present difficulties to an inquiring mind.

C. Very often what appear to us to be discrepan cies are not really such. If we knew all the facts of the case, we should see that there is no discrepancy at all in the matter. The doubtful passages also are few, and all taken together do not affect one doctrine of the Christian faith. Any argument against the Bible on the ground of certain alleged moral difficulties may be alleged also against the existence and government of God in general, for the present state of the world and of man affords many difficulties which it is not easy to reconcile with belief in God's moral government. But as these do not suffice to shake our belief in the latter, the occurrence of similar difficulties in another of God's works, the Bible, does not suffice to justify us in rejecting it. (See Butler, Analogy, Pt. I, Intro duction, § 6, and Origen quoted there, also Pt. II, cap. viii, §§ 5, 7.) The fact of the existence of so many earnest Christians in all ages since the ascension of Christ shows that these difficulties have not prevented true and earnest inquirers from

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 57

becoming Christians. These very difficulties are doubtless useful as a test to our earnestness (Analogy, Pt. II, cap. vi, § 13).

28. M. You do not really believe that the Bible which you now have is the Word of God, for, holding it in your hands, you stand here preaching with your shoes on. Yet in Exod. iii. 5, Moses was told to put off his shoes at the sight of the Burning Bush.

C. Your own traditions1 tell us that Muhammad entered the very presence of God in heaven without removing his sandals. How then can you blame us for wearing sandals in this muddy road 2 ? •

[29. M. What a blessing it is that in our Qur'an there are no such doubtful verses as are found in the Bible !

C. If you will not be offended I shall show you that, whereas there is practically no doubt about the text of our Bible, it is certain from tradition that the text of your Qur'an is very far from reliable.

30. M. Prove it, if you can: I shall not be offended.

1 Vide Qisasu '1 Anbiya, Haidari Press Ed., p. 33 7.

2 This question and answer were given in Bombay at a street-preaching at which I wa.s present. The Muhammadan was laughed at by the crowd, and went away, crying out,

he highest heaven was honoured by the touch of his holy sandals." The reasonable answer, that customs change and that Europeans do not show reverence by removing their shoes would have had no effect, for the retort would have been made, " Why don't you, if you believe the Biblo ? "

58 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

C. Muslim the Traditionalist1 in the Kitdbu* z zakdt tells us that, since 'Uthman's revision of the Qur'an, some verses which once formed part of the book are no longer found in it. He says, for example, that at Basrah, Abu Musa' 'Ashari said to 500 reciters of the Qur'an, "Verily we used to recite a Surah which, in length and sharpness, we used to compare with an arrow. I have forgotten it, except that I have preserved from i£ the words . . . And we used to recite a Surah which we used to compare with one of the Subuhdt, and I have forgotten it except that I have preserved from it the words ' O ye who,' &c." In the Kitdbn'r Rizd, Muslim quotes from 'Ayishah a tradition that the verse on Giving Suck was known at the time of Muhammad's death ; but it is no longer found in the Qur'an. In the Kiidbul Hudud, Muslim proves that the verse on Stoning once occurred in the Qur'an, and 'Uinar was so firmly convinced of this that, according to Abft Daud, he swore by God that he would have caused it to be entered in that volume, had he not feared lest men should accuse him of adding something to it. According to Ibn Majah (Abivdbu'n NiMh), 'Ayishah affirmed that two verses, one of which was this very verse on Stoning, met with a strange fate. She says that they were duly revealed and written out, and that the manuscript was placed under her bed ; but

1 From the Epiphany of June 6, 1901, and from the Misdnul Haqq,

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 59

that when Muhammad died and all his wives and friends were busy in consequence, some tame animal (probably a goat) came in and ate it, and so these verses perished! Again, the Shi'ite accuse 'Uthman of intentionally eliminating from the Qur'an all passages relating to 'Ali l. The 'Ainu I Ifayaf- affirms that Surah XXXIII. , Al Ah/ab, was originally longer than Surah II., Al Baqarah, but was afterwards corrupted by the omission of many verses. It is not we Christians who say these things, but some of you Muslims.

81. J7. Such statements are unworthy of credit, for they rest upon unreliable traditions.

C. It is too difficult a task for me to decide between your traditions (^jj'oJ), which are reliable, which doubtful, and which false 2. But fortunately the text of the Bille does not rest upon tradition but upon MS. authority.]

32. M. Produce the original MSS. of your Taurat and Injil, written by the hands of Moses and Jesus upon whom they descended, and we shall

1 In the Dabistdn i Ma$ahib & whole additional Surah of the QurYin is given in the original Arabic. It is called the Surah An Nurain. Many Shi'ites assent that it formed part of the Qur'an as recited by Gabriel to Muhammad, and that it was omitted by 'All's opponents. Most Muslims, of whatever sect, however, deny the authenticity of this Surah, and it is never published as part of the Qur'an. Sec the whole matter dis cussed in the Rev. Canon Sell's article on the " Recension of the Qur'an" in his " Kssay on Islam."

2 Those contained in the collections of Muslim and Bukhari are never discredited by the Sunnis.

60 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

at once admit that your Bible has not been cor rupted.

C. Before asking us to do that, you should pro duce the original MS. of the Qur'an, written by Mu hammad, upon whom you assert that it descended l.

33. M. At least we have no various readings in our glorious Qur'an, as you have in the Bible.

C. You have not so many, though it would be easy to point out a few 2. But as the text of your Qur'an is so much more recent than that of the Bible, as it forms a book so much smaller, and as it rests entirely upon the authority of a single MS., it is not strange that you have so few various readings 3. [In the Mishkdtu'l Masabtt, chapter iii, we are informed that, by the command of the Khalifah Abu Bakr, the Qur'an was "collected" by Zaid ibn Thabit "from palm leaves4 and stones and

1 Vide § 37.

2 Among various readings may be mentioned : (i) in Surah XXVIII., Al Qisas, 48, some read sdhirdni for sihrdni : (2) in Surah XXXII., Al Ahzab, 6, after ummahdtuhum one reading adds the words wa hua abun lahum : (3) in Surah XXXIV., Saba, 1 8, for rabband bd'id some read rabbund bd'ada : (4) in Surah XXXVIII., Sad, 22, for tis'un another reading is tisatun : (5) in Surah XIX., Maryam, 35, for tamtaruna some read yam- taruna. See also the Mizdnu^l JHaqq on this subject.

3 As soon as the Qur'an was " revealed" to Muhammad, however, its preservation depended upon fallible men (Hdfizes and others). Hence there is a fallible element in its text. All objections against the text of the Bible will disappear as soon as Muslims come to know a little about the Text of the Qur'an. (Rev. J. T. Allnutt.)

* All these are but fallible means for the preservation of the

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 6l

from the breasts of those who had learned off by heart " portions of the supposed revelation. This took place in A.H. 14'. Abu Bakr kept the MS. until he died, and then 'Umar took possession of it. This is what Al Bukhari says. Afterwards it came into the possession of Hafsah, one of Muhammad's widows. But so many copies with different readings and so many discordant forms of certain Surahs were repeated by men who had learnt them off by heart (the Hafizun), that 'Uthman some years later caused Zaid with the assistance of three others to make fresh copies of Hafsah's MS., and, sending these to be kept in different places, com pelled those who possessed other copies to give them up to be burnt. Some resisted, but in vain. That the new edition of the Quran thus published differed from the first edition seems probable from the fact that, as Qustalani says, after Hafsah's death her copy was torn in pieces by Mirwan, governor of Medina under Mu'awiyyah. The burn ing of all other copies shows that serious variations had already found an entrance into the text, and this drastic remedy prevents us from comparing ancient copies with one another. What Muslim (Kitdb Fazdilul Quran) and others tell us about the

text. Hence the very original MS. was fuUible. How can absolute certainty about the text be attained, if leaves, stones and human memory were the sources whence the present text of the QurViii was derived? (Rev. J. T. Allnutt.)

1 See Sir W. Muir's The Caliphate, p. 163. Vide also my lidigion of the Crescent, pp. 180, sqq.

62 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

(< Seven Readings " (^-J/»l Lx^*) prevalent even in Muhammad's time points in the same direction. Muhamrnadans assure us that these were merely differences in pronunciation, but this may well bo doubted, for in the same book Muslim tells us that 'Umar bin al Khattab was so much offended at the way in which Hisham bin Hakim recited Surah XXV , Al Furqan, that he took him by the cloak and brought him to Muhammad toocomplain of it. After hearing both men repeat the Surah, Mu hammad declared that both were right, and asserted that the " Seven Readings " were all alike ad missible ! But according to Nisai, certain words (letters, ^-J^*-) occurred in Hishdms version which were not in what o'hers professed to have learned from

it/ €/

Muhammad. Ubai is represented by Nisai as saying that the fact that others repeated verses in a form different from that in which he had learnt them gave him quite a shock.] If our leading men had burnt all the ancient MSS. of the Bible and compelled all copies to be made from one which they had caused to be written, we too should have but few varied readings in our Bible, but all men of learning would feel that no reliance whatever was to be placed upon the text thus produced *.

1 The Bishop of Lahore writes : "I used to find the following illustration effective : — Suppose a master dictates a piece of prose to ten scholars. Probably in each copy there will be one or more mistakes. But these are easily corrected by comparison with the other copies, since the same mistake will not be made by many. If, however, all copies are destroyed but one, there

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 63

34. [J/. Doubtless it is because of these various readings and passages of uncertain authenticity that many learned men in Germany and England at the present day assert that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and that much of the Old Testament and even of the New is untrue. You must convince them to the contrary before you can convince us.

\C. Not so." The Higher Critics, as they are called, do not base their arguments upon the various readings, for they know that no single doctrine of the Bible is at all affected by them. You will find on inquiry that the extreme conclu sions you refer to are largely based upon a principle which denies both miracle and prophecy l. They thus attack the very foundation of belief in all revealed religion. You Muslims cannot really ad duce these men's objections without accepting their

will be no admitted various readings, for no standard of com parison exists : at the same time all proof of accuracy is gone. So we see that, the larger is tin- numU-r of copies preserved, the larger will be the number <-f various readings, yet the greater the certainty as to the text, though this seems .1 paradox ! "

1 So Delitzsch (Commentary (>n Isaiah, vol. I, pp. 60 and 61 : Edinburgh, 1881), and Dr. Payne Smith (Bampton Lectures, Preface, pp. xiii, sqq.) Of course I do not ai-'-u-c all who have in any nicasun- a<'«'»-ptr<l (h,. conclusions of t he IIL-li' r < 'rit irisrn of consciously denying l-.th miracle and pr.-pluTV. But thin denial is certainly implii-d in tin- writings of Wi-llhau-«-n and ('h'-ym', to mention only two of the leading rxp..n«'nt- «.f this em.

64 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

principles, and if you accept these you are no longer Muslims. The Bible has in all ages been attacked by its enemies, but it has always prevailed over them in the past, and we feel sure that it will pre vail in the present also1. All the great modern discoveries in Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt sup port 2 the statements of the Bible in opposition to these assertions and theories, as you will perceive if you study the subject.]

35. M. Why do the different translations of the Bible which you now make into so many languages differ so much from one another 1 Why are you continually correcting and re-correcting these ver sions, if your original text is not corrupt ?

C. They do not differ from one another to any extent, as you may see from comparing them with one another. We find that in some instances the earliest translators either used words not generally understood, or, from not knowing the vernacular languages as well as they are now known, did not make quite perfect translations. Hence we en deavour to perfect them, especially when a new edition is required. This shows how much care

1 An admirable little book on the subject is Dr. House's Old Testament Criticism in New Testament Light (Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta). See also Criticism Criticised, ed. by Rev. Dr. Wace, Dean of Canterbury (Bible League, London) : also Religi Critici (S.P.C.K.).

8 This is the conclusion I have reached after very considerah study of Assyrian and Egyptian. Vide Sayce, The Higher Ori and the Monuments.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 65

\ve take to make the Bible understood by the people who speak each language. A change of translation does not imply a change or corruption of the original text, as you must know. Your interlinear translations of the Quran in Persian, Urdu, and other tongues, may vary, and new translations have from time to time appeared, but the original Arabic does not alter.

36. M. The JJrdu, Arabic, Persian, English, Turk ish, and other copies of the New Testament are only translations. How can we be sure that they agree with the original ? Even if they do, they cannot be quite as good as the original.

C. We have the original and constantly consult it, to be quite sure that our translations and explan ations are correct. As you know, these transla tions are made by a number of learned men, not only Europeans but natives of the various countries being employed and consulting together as to the correct interpretation of every word. Moreover, we publish the original Greek text, and are willing to teach all who desire to learn Greek, so that they may read it for themselves. If you do not choose uO take this trouble, as we do, is it our fault or yours ?

37. M. Not one of the Gospels was written by

• •MIS Christ Himself, and St. Luke's not even by

\ eye-witness. Even if they have been preserved

tj from corruption, they are only traditions,

< >ponding to our cu^LJ (atddltk).

66 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

C. The Qur'an itself was not written down by Muhammad, whom you call the unlearned (^.*1) prophet, but by his companions, and the whole book was not "collected" till after Muhammad's death. Three evangelists' accounts (if we remember that St. Mark was St. Peter's scribe) were written down by eye-witnesses, and that by St. Luke was (as he tells us) compiled by him from the statements not of one eye-witness but of many (Lu^e i. 1-4). The evangelists were guided by Divine inspiration, according to Christ's promise (John xiv. 26). More over, do not forget that your own Qur'an, as we have seen, bears witness to the Gospel, and teaches that it must be received as having " descended on Jesus V We have proved that it has not been lost or corrupted.

38. M. There are Apocryphal Gospels ; how do you know that only the present Four Gospels are genuine, and not some of the Apocryphal ones ?

C. We know it just in the same way that we know that the Qur'an is genuine, and not some other book instead. The Four Gospels have been

1 This expression should not be adopted by Christians, for it is not correct. The Bishop of Lahore says : " I always pointed out that our Lord was Himself the Word of God (Kalimatu'lldh), or, in other words, the Gospel. The reduction of this to writing— so far as that is possible— was naturally not for Him to do (being, in a sense, beneath His dignity), but for His disciples, who received the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this work."

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 67

handed down among all Christians everywhere, and not a single one of the Apocryphal Gospels has ever been received by the Christian Church as a whole. We have studied them and know that they are of later date than the genuine ones. Moreover, they do not in general contradict the genuine ones, but were intended to supplement them. Tbe latest of them, and the only one that does in one matt/or contradict the genuine Gospels, is the so-called Gospel of Barnabas, which is known to have been forged considerably after Muhammad's time. In it the writer was ignorant enough to apply the title " Messiah " to Muhammad ! (See Sale's remarks in the Preface to his translation of the Quran1.)

39. M. Your Bible as it now exists cannot be from God (that is, it must have been corrupted), because it uses language about God which is un fitting: e.g. it speaks of God's hand, God's eye, and again and again says that He " repented." How can we believe that ?

C. Such an argument is unmeaning when brought forward by a Muslim : for we find exactly the same style of language used in the Qur'an, with this

1 The Clarendon Press is j.ulilNliing the Italian version of the Gosj.d df UK- p-ciido-Barnabas, and an English translation is also being prepand. 1 ha«l li«.],.-.| t<> U- able to give a short account of tin- \>«»\i ln-iv, but, as it is not yet publishni, this has not been possible. In view of the expected ajijx aran< ( ,,f tin- work it is better not to attempt a (necessarily inij.. -rf- «:t; account of it.

E 2

68 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

addition, that the Qur'an1 represents God as " annul ling " certain verses, which the Bible never does. As to His " repenting," you tell us that one of His ninety-nine "most excellent names" is L->VJ^JI, i.e. "He that is continually repenting," or "relenting/3 from the root of M>J, repentance. But it is no real objection either against the Bible or the Qur'an that such language is used in both books ; for it is clear that all human language must pri marily have reference to appearances ((f)aLv6jj.€va) and to earthly life, and is only by analogy used to describe spiritual realities or even mental concepts. It is therefore inaccurate with regard to God, but is used because we have no better way of expressing our thoughts. "To repent" in Arabic is " to turn back," and in reference to God denotes that He " turned back " from punishing, &c. It has no moral meaning as in the case of the repentance of sinners, where it denotes turning back from sin. 40 2. M. In Jer. xxii. 30 we read that King Coniah

1 Surahs II., Al Baqarah, 100 ; XVI., An Nahl, 103: vide §§67 and 68. The Muhammadan doctrine of the Ndi>ikh and Mansukh ("annulling" and "annulled") verses of the Qur'an renders it quite impossible for Muslims to know for a certainty which parts of the Qur'an are now in force, since they are not agreed in every case as to the question which are the abrogated and which the abrogating verses.

3 The objections given in §§ 40-8 are not imaginary but have all been adduced by Muslims in controversy. The answers in the text are only suggestions. They express the opinion of the compiler of this Manual : but he has no wish to dogmatize on such matters. Others may be able to furnish better answers.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 69

(Jeconiah, Jehoiachin) was to be childless ; yet in i Chron. iii. 17-19, we find that he had several sons, one of whom (Matt. i. 12) was ancestor of Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. Is not this a contradiction ?

C. The expression "Write ye this man childless" is explained in Jer. xxii. 30 as meaning that, though he had children, yet he should be as if devoid of them, inasmuch as none of them should ever suc ceed him on the throne. The Bible shows that none of them ever did 1.

41. J/. If Christ be descended from him then, He cannot be " the king of the Jews."

C. As Joseph was not Christ's father, Jesus was not descended from Jeconiah -. Moreover, Christ

It is well known that Christians differ in their explanations of some of these points, so that it would be well to refer to standard commentators. The difficulty in giving absolutely conclusive answers arises from our ignorance of so many of ihe circumstances. This is excusable, because we have no information on thes-e points except what the Bible itself affords. (V'n\u §§ 47, 48.)

1 It is, of course, possible that Jeconiah was literally childless, for he was carried capthe at the age of eighteen (2 Kings xxiv. 8, 15) and was freed from confinement only when fifty-five years old (a Kings xxv. 27). If so, then t Chron. iii. 17, 19, gives not his .hildren but his heirs. Solomon's line probably en<l<-d in Jeconiah (because of the massacres in 2 Kings x. 13, 14 ; xi. i). On Jeconiah's death Nathan's lino became the heirs in tli< throne. Salathiel was the first of that line who thus inherited. Zerubbabel (his nephew, i Chron. iii. 18, 19) succeeded him. Thus Matthew giv<-> th.- list of the heirs of tin- throne of David, and Luke the natural genealogy. (Rev. A. E. Johnston.) Vide Farrar's view, Excursus ii to St. Luk< .

3 If Jeconiah wa- lit. -rally childle>s, having only adopted

70 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

Himself said, " My Kingdom is not of this world " (John xviii. 36).

42. M. But from comparing Matt. i. 12 with Luke iii. 27, we see that Salathiel and Zorobabel occur in both genealogies, and from I Chron. iii. 17, 19, it is clear that both Salathiel (Shealtiel) and Zorobabel (Zerubbabel) were descended from Jeco- niah. If Jeconiah was unworthy to hand down the temporal sovereignty to his .sons, still less could he be the ancestor of the Messiah. As Christ was a prophet, there must here be some corruption in your Bible.

C. From Luke iii. 27 it is doubtful whether the Salathiel and Zorobabel mentioned there are the persons of the same name who are mentioned in Matt. i. 12 and i Chron. iii. 17, 19. Moreover, what possible object could Christians have in cor rupting the text of the Gospel so as to introduce this difficulty 1 1

43. M. In Deut. xxiii. 3 and Neh. xiii. i we read that a Moabite was not to come into the congre gation of the Lord "for ever." Yet both genealogies represent Christ as descended from David, whose ancestress was Ruth the Moabitess. Here is another contradiction.

C. Ruth iv. 21, 22 shows that the Jews (who

children, then of course Christ was not actually descended from him. Thus th-5 difficulty vanishes. (Rev. W. A. Rice.)

1 Others prefer the idea that the Salathiels, &c. are the same. I state my own opinion here.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 71

must best have understood their own Scriptures) did not understand the passage in Deuteronomy (repeated in Nehemiah) as you do, otherwise the prophets would not have recognized any of the Kings of Judah (who were descended from Ruth through David) as being members of the Chosen People at all, nor would they have prophesied the Messiah's descent from David. The Jews them selves paraphrase the passage thus : " Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite man is fit to take a wife from the congregation of the Lord's people; nor unto the tenth generation shall they take a wife from the congregation of the Lord's people" (Palestinian Targum). Thus no male Moabite was to be admitted into the Israelite nation, unless, of course, he became a true convert. The same rule may have applied to women ; but Ruth was a convert (Ruth i. 1 6). From Neh. xiii. 3, 33-8, we see that Nehemiah understood Deut. xxiii. 3 as forbidding Moabite idolaters to be reckoned among the Israelites. This is therefore the proper meaning of the passage. Moreover, a time is defined," even to their tenth gener ation" (Deut. xxiii. 3). Christ was not a Moabite but a Jew by birth, even though many generations pre viously a Moabitess had been among his ancestresses.

44. J/. What proves the corruption of the Bible beyond all doubt is that it contains so many con tradictions and discrepancies. Two contradictory accounts of the same thing cannot both be true.

C. The Bible does not contain contradictions, and

72 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

the apparent discrepancies can be easily accounted for. Please mention a few.

45. M. Matthew's Gospel contains one genealogy of Christ, Luke's quite a different one. How can both be right 1

C. \_Every man1 has two genealogies, one on his father's side, the other on his mother's. Hence we may infer that one of the two genealogies of Christ is probably that of Joseph, His putative father, the other that of the Virgin Mary, His mother2. St. Matthew gives the former, St. Luke the latter. In Luke iii. 23 we find Joseph called " (the son) of Heli," doubtless because he was his son-in-law. He may have been adopted into the family lest it should die out — a common practice among the Hebrews and Romans, and one which still prevails among most nations. An old tradition represents Mary as daughter of Heli.] You must see yourself that it is a great proof, not of the corruption of the Scriptures, but of their remaining free from inten tional alteration, that both genealogies occur in them. Had the Christians wished to make any

1 Commentators are by no means unanimous on this subject. I give my own opinion for what it may be worth, though this is not the place to enter fully into arguments in support of it. Headers of this Manual should notice that the passage is in brackets, and should consult commentators.

3 The Right Rev. Bp. Stuart prefers Dean Hansel's view (Speaker's Comm. on Matthew) that both genealogies are those of Joseph, Matthew giving the table of the royal line and Luke that of actual descent. Dean Mansel (on Matt. i. 16) conjectures that Jacob was Mary's father, and Joseph his adopted son.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 73

change, how easy it would have been to remove all difficulties by placing Mary's name instead of Joseph's in Luke iii. 23. That they did not do so is a sign that (i) the early Christians, who knew all the facts of the case, found no difficulty in the matter, while any difficulty that now exists arises from our not knowing all the circumstances ; and that (2) Christians in later times have had too much venera tion for the Bible to venture to make any change in its text in order to remove opponents' grounds for objections.

46. J7. But if, as both the Bible and the Quran (Surahs XXL, Al Anbiya, v. 91, and LXVL, At Tahrim, v. 12) assert, Jesus had no human father, what was the object of giving Joseph's genealogy in Matt. i. ?

C. It was doubtless given for the sake of the Jews a, in order that, whether they believed in His miraculous birth or not, they might see that He was descended from David, according to prophecy (Amos ix. u, &c., &c.). According to Mary's genealogy in Luke iii. the same result follows.

47. J/. There are many contradictions in the Bible which cannot be thus explained. One is that of the blind men whose eyes Jesus is said to have opened at Jericho. The Gospels give three contradictory accounts of this miracle. St. Mat-

1 For in tho « yo of the law t v. ry man must have a father, rf.il, putative, or adoptive. Thus Christ was tho heir of tho promises made to David. (Rev. W. A. Rice.)

74 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

thew (xx. 30) says that Jesus healed two blind men when He was coming out of Jericho ; St. Mark (x. 46) says He healed only one ; and St. Luke (xviii. 35) saJs that only one was healed, and that too, not when Jesus was going out of the city, but before He entered it.

C. There is no contradiction here, though the three accounts differ somewhat from one another. If you look again at St. Mark's ac6ount you will perceive that he does not say that only one was healed, though he mentions Bartimaeus by name. Putting St. Mark's account and that of St. Luke together, we arrive at an agreement with St. Matthew's account in the number of those healed at Jericho on that occasion. Beyond this we can not at this distance of time go. St. Matthew may have spoken of the two together for the sake of brevity, or (as St. Mark does not say that Barti maeus was alone) Christ may have healed one as He entered and two as He came out of the city. But the very fact of there being a difference, though not an irreconcilable one, between the three accounts, shows the absence of 'collusion, and that we have three independent testimonies to the fact of the occurrence of the miracle at Jericho. If a judge Jim] s that three witnesses agree with one another exactly, he suspects collusion : but if he finds that they agree on the main point, though differing in reference to details, he gives far more weight to their evidence. You have here adduced a very strong proof that the Bible has not been corrupted. For many

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 75

hundreds of years assailants of the Bible have dwelt upon this and other similar differences between different Gospels, and yet we have never changed a single word to endeavour to bring the accounts into complete accordance with one another.

48. M. Again, it is hard to reconcile with one another the varying accounts of Christ's appear ances after His .Resurrection. Moreover, we have two contradictory accounts of the death of the traitor Judas, and differences as to the number of the angels seen at the sepulchre.

C. The difficulty in each case arises from our want of full knowledge of all the circumstances. It is easy to show theoretically that the varying accounts are not really contradictory. But the important point is that the very divergencies in the different narratives prevent the suspicion of collusion1, and that our retaining them in the text of the Gospels proves that we have not ventured to change the text in order to get rid of difficulties2.

49. M. Again, the Gospel of St. Matthew tells us that Herod died when Jesus was still an infant in Egypt (ii. 19), while St. Luke (xxiii. 8) assures us that Herod was alive more than thirty years later,

1 This was pointed out by St. Chrysostom, as the opponents of the Gospel had brought forward the apparent di.M-rupancies even in his time.

2 If the text had really been corrupted and mutilated as freely as Aluhummadans often assort, sun ly these obvious difficulties would have been removed long ago. (The Bishop ci' Lahore.)

76 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

and that Jesus was brought before him to be tried. How can you deny the contradiction here ?

C. There is no contradiction whatever, as you will see by referring to Luke iii. I. The Herod who died in Jesus' infancy was Herod the Great. He ruled over the whole of Palestine, though sub ject to the Romans, who supported him on the throne. On his death the country was divided into four parts ; hence Herod Antipan, his son, who ruled over Galilee (Luke iii. i), is generally called " Herod the Tetrarch " (Matt. xiv. i). It was Herod the Tetrarch before whom Christ was tried, as is clear from the very chapter of St. Luke which you quote (Luke xxiii. 6, 7 : " Galilee . . . Herod's jurisdiction,'* cf. Luke iii. i). This same Herod is spoken of in Acts iv. 27. Another Herod, known as Herod Agrippa, is mentioned in Acts xii. i, 23. All this is confirmed by the Jewish historian Jose- phus ; and the Roman historian Tacitus (Hist. Lib. v. 9) tells us that after Herod the Great's death his dominions were divided among his sons. It should not seem strange to a Muslim that several people should bear the same name, especially when a father's name is transmitted to a son or a grand son. What would you think of a man who con founded together the various Turkish sultans who bore the name Murad ? This objection of yours is easily answered, because we happen to have exact know ledge of the circumstances. It is fair to infer therefore that other objections would vanish as completely if we

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 77

had as full acquaintance milt f/tc tir/atl* in each case. The difficulty rises from our limited knowledge.

50. M. How can you assert that your Bible is free from interpolation when in the last chapter of Deuteronomy we find an account of the death and burial of Moses, which certainly cannot have been written by him 1

C. The Jews hold that it was written by Joshua, Moses' successor. Whether this chapter is con sidered part of Deuteronomy or of Joshua does not make any real difference, as the chapter does not claim to be from the hand of Moses \

51. M. Your Bible is defective, since certain books mentioned in it, e. g. the book of Jashar and many of the works written by Solomon, are no longer extant.

C. These were never included in the Bible, hence their loss in no way affects the question.

52. M. The Gospel acknowledges its own de- fectiveness (John xx. 30 ; xxi. 25).

C. Not at all. These verses show that certain things were not written in the Gospel. They cannot therefore have ever formed part of the written Gospel to which your Quran bears testimony, and hence cannot be said to have been taken away from it. Moreover, John xx. 31 shows that what

1 Joshua was Moses' •' minister " and scribe (Exod. xxiv. 1 3 a> well as his successor (Joshua i. i , a). Hence a chapter appended by him, giving an account of Moses' death, cannot be regarded as an interpolation. (Rev. Dr. Wherry.)

78 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

is written is sufficient for us to know so as to obtain salvation by faith in Christ.

53. M. There is a discrepancy between Mai. iii. i and the same verse as quoted in Matt. xi. 10, where my has been changed to thy. This proves that the text of the Scriptures has been tampered with.

C. The difference lies between ^^? (lefdndy} and T3?P (lifneykhd), that is to say there j.s a difference of one letter in the Hebrew, the letter k, which may easily have been dropped out of the Hebrew text. It is a mere matter of a various reading, and does not really affect the sense or the argument. This is an additional proof that no one has willingly tampered with the text, otherwise an attempt would have been made to insert the missing letter.

54. M. In Acts i. 15 we are told that after the Ascension there were only 120 disciples of Christ, whereas in i Cor. xv. 6 it is stated that He appeared to " above 500 brethren " after His Resurrection. How can you reconcile the discrepancy ?

C. There is none to reconcile. In the Acts we are not told that there were only 120 believers in existence, but merely that about 120 were present one day at a meeting in Jerusalem. The 500 met in Galilee (Matt, xxviii. 7), where much of Christ's work had been done, and where He had many disciples. The statement that there are 20,000 Muhammadans in Lahore is not a contradiction to the assertion that there are 160,000 in Bombay.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS.

79

o5. JA In Matt, xxvii. 44 it is said that both thieves railed at Christ on the Cross, while in Luke xxiii. 39 we are told that only one did so. Is not this a contradiction ?

C. You must not interpolate the word only into the Gospel. If I tell some one that you came to see me to-day, does that imply that you were my only visitor? Careful reading of the two passages shows no contradiction between them, though St. Luke mentions a circumstance in addition to the one recorded by St. Matthew. Two accounts state that the thieves railed at Christ, and St. Luke adds the fact that one of them afterwards repented. It was probably the patient meekness with which our Lord bore the railing of both thieves, as well as His other sufferings, that ultimately softened the heart of one of them.

56. H. Christ tells us (John v. 22, 27) that He is to judge the world, whereas St. Paul says that the saints are to do so (i Cor. vi. 2, 3). Is this not contradictory ?

C. Is it contradictory in our courts to speak of Judge So-and-So, although the case is heard before a jury or assessors as well?

57. M. In i Cor. vi. 10 we are told that drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Yet in i Tim. v. 23 Paul directs Timothy to drink wine. Is this not a contradiction? Islam is superior to Christianity, since it prohibits all drinking of intoxicants.

80 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

C. Is there no difference between taking a little wine for medicine, as St. Paul advises Timothy to do, and being a drunkard? We Christians, even though many of us are total abstainers, are nowhere forbidden ever to taste wine, as you Muhammadans are. Yet i Cor. vi. 10 shows how great a crime we are bound to consider drunkenness to be, while the maximum punishment prescribed by Muslim law for that offence is scourging,. Hence you evidently consider it a less crime than we do, while you condemn as wrong what is not in itself a sin1.

58. M. In 2 Cor. xi. 17 Paul expressly disclaims inspiration for himself, and yet you include his epistles in the New Testament as part of the Word of God.

C. In and for that special passage he disclaims the highest kind of inspiration, but that does not amount to a denial of his writing even that passage under Divine guidance, to which his being called to the Apostolate (i Cor. i. I ; ix. i ; 2 Cor. i. i, &c.) gave him a claim. The difficulty in your mind arises from your confounding your idea of inspiration with ours. (Vide Chapter IV, initio.)

59. M. In Matt. v. 17 Christ declares that He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them. In contrast to this, in Heb. vii. 1 8, it is written, "There is a disannulling of a fore going commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness."

1 Rev. W. A. Rice.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 8 1

C. The Sermon on the Mount, from which you quote, gives example after example to show that Christ fulfilled and did not destroy the Law and the Prophets, both of which we Christians still read and reverence1. The other passage shows that only certain outward and temporary enact ments had been done away with, because they had fulfilled their purpose and were being perverted by the Jews so as«»to be a hindrance instead of a help to men. For example, sacrifices were enjoined under the Law of Moses ; but as these were useful only as bearing witness to the need of the death of Christ as the One true Sacrifice, they were no longer of any avail after His death. Just in the same way a cheque is of value until it is honoured ; after that it may be useful as a proof that it has been paid, but it has no monetary value. Yet we do not say that the bank annuls it, but honours it, that is, pays it. We may also say that the bank in one sense annuls it, though not in another 2. 60. M. Another contradiction is found in what

1 We show our reverence for Law, Prophets, and Psalms by reading passages from them in our services. The Muslims talk a great deal about their reverence for the Former Books, but how totally do they fail to show it in any way of this sort ! (The Bishop of Lahore.)

3 Vide §§ 71, 72. Moreover "the Law of Moses was not of universal application. It was of the nature of a covenant between certain parties (God and the Hebrew nation), a sort of sub contract within the Abrahamic covenant. Again, principks are eternal, while details of the application of these principles may differ under different circumstances." (Mr. Harding.)

P

82 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

is told us regarding the way of obtaining salvation. In Jas. ii. 14-26 we are told that a man is saved by works, not by faith, and this agrees with Ezek. xviii. 20 and John v. 29. But elsewhere we are told that a man is saved by faith and not by works (cf. Heb. xi. 17; Bom. iv. 3 ; Gal. iii. 6). How can a book which thus contradicts itself be from God, or how can you deny that your Bible is corrupted ? <•

C. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews itself gives you an answer. All those who are there mentioned were saved by faith, but that faith was a living faith and, as that chapter tells us, produced works. St. James says that faith devoid of works is dead (Jas. ii. 26), and he points out that a dead faith cannot save. If a man really believes in Christ, his life will be changed thereby and he will do good * : but if we find a man who professes to believe and yet does evil instead of good, he has not living faith ; and dead faith — that of the lips or even of the reason, and not of the heart— cannot save him. This is plain if we remember that salvation denotes deliverance from loving and com mitting sin (Matt. i. 21).

61. M. Christ Himself says, "If thou wouldest

1 The Bishop of Lahore truly says that the question of the relation between Faith and Works is one of vital importance in dealing with Muhammadanism, and that the matter should be dealt with much more fully than is possible here. The mis sionary should illustrate it by, e.g., the fruit of a growing tree, &c.

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 83

enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. xix. 17). Does not this prove that salvation is obtained by good works, and not by faith in Christ ?

C. If you read further on you will see that, though the young man to whom this was said claimed to have kept the commandments, yet he did not thereby obtain salvation. Christ said concerning him, "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God " (v. 24). He showed the young man that he had not kept even the first commandment, since he preferred his riches to God, and thereby became an idolater. But Christ proved the necessity of faith in Himself by bidding the young man follow Him. Only through faith in Christ is it possible to keep God's command ments.

62. M. If your Bible in its present condition is the Word of God, why are not the promises in Mark xvi. 17, 18 fulfilled in our time?

C. [You remember that I pointed out that we are not quite so certain that Mark xvi. 9-20 forms part of the original Gospel as we are of the rest J.] If you read the Acts of the Apostles you will

' An Armenian MS. of the year 986 A.D. (at Echmiadzin) ittnbutes these verses to "Ariston the Presbyter," and in »ome ancient MSS. of that version they are omitted (vide Dr. Nestle's Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, p. 142). But further investigation may prove their authenticity and genuineness (vide § 26).

F 2

84 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

see that these promises were almost all, perhaps all, fulfilled in the time of the apostles. The verses you have quoted do not assert that these signs will always be granted to the end of time. On the contrary, in i Cor. xiii. 8-10 we are told that these signs will ultimately cease when Christianity is perfectly established. A celebrated Christian writer, St. Chrysostom, explains the reason by saying that, when a tree* planted by the roadside is young, it requires* to be protected by a fence, lest it should be trodden down and destroyed: but, when it has taken root and grown large, the fence must be removed lest it should hinder the further growth of the tree. So when the tree of the Christian faith was yet tender, it required to be fenced in with miracles, but after a time these were withdrawn lest they should hinder its growth. If all true Christians could now work miracles, people would say that there was nothing wonderful in the miracles of Christ and His apostles, and miracles would cease to be miracles. Moreover, in place of physical miracles we have now moral miracles, in the changed lives of men who become true Christians : and we have the fulfilment of prophecy as a better sign and proof of the truth of the Bible than any other that can be imagined *.

1 There is probably much truth in the Eev. P. M. Zenker's suggestion that our inability to work miracles is largely due to our oXiyoTTiGTia (Matt. xvii. 20). He refers to Paludan Miil- ler's The Visible and the Invisible. But the best answer is that

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 85

[Another form in which this objection is often put is : —

63. M. Have you faith l ?

C. I trust that I have.

M. Then (Mark xvi. 17) prove your faith by drinking poison or taking up a deadly serpent.

C. What do you mean by faith ? We Christians mean by it such faith as Abraham had, that is to say, faith in God. If therefore Gud commanded us to take up a deadly serpent or to drink poison, we should obey, as Abraham did in reference to Isaac. But I have no faith in you, that I should do that at your suggestion, for that would be to tempt the Lord our God, which is forbidden (Deut. vi. 16; Matt. iv. 7). You are playing the part which Satan tried to play (Matt. iv. 5, 6), and

miracles were granted only (i) on the occasion of a new reve lation (as that of Moses and Christ), and (2) at certain great crises in history, as in the time of Elijah. Hence we cannot expect them now, more than Abraham did. The Bishop of Lahore says : " I believe I am right in saying that Muhamma- dans themselves teach that one of the chief functions of miracles is to authenticate a new Revelation, to accompany lUidm. Throughout the Bible miracles are not scattered broadcast at all times, but group themselves at special epochs of progress in Revelation. It is in accordance with this law that, while granted for a time for the reason indicated, they then ceased, as was necessary for them to do in order to accord with their own function."

J Mr. R. Maconochie, C.S.I., says, " Another form of this objection came before me as a magistrate. A Muslim asked a Cntechist if he had faith. * Yes.1 « Then ' (taking off a pair of shoes and placing them before him), * if you move those shoes an inch by faith, without touching them, I will become a Christian.1"

86 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF

deserve the answer which Christ gave him (Luke iv. 8)i.]

64. M. No matter what arguments you adduce to prove that the Bible is not corrupt2, there is a final one that you cannot answer. We kno^v that it is corrupt, because in many places it contradicts the Qur'an. Our principle is to use the Qur'an as the touchstone, and to accept only what is in accordance with it. This is justified by reason, because the Qur'an is God's latest and most perfect revelation (Jy^j), written on the Preserved Tablet before the creation of the world. It is justified by the Qur'tfn, since the latter is styled the "Furqan"

1 The Kev. A. E. Johnston says : "The answer I found it best to give was to point out that it is not said that every believer would be able to show all these signs, and then to read i Cor. xii. 4-11, and point out the distribution of the gifts of the Spirit amongst the faithful, all for the common edification, and to assert that such of these gifts as are still necessary to that end are in fact exercised, and that, in a sense, the others do still follow ov accompany us, for we have in the N. T. the evidence of their having been displayed by Christians in attes tation of the faith." Be very careful in using the bracketted sentence at the beginning of § 62.

a Muslims often say, " If you Christians believed the Bible to be the Word of God, you would treat it with greater reverence. You put it into your coat-tail pockets and sit upon it. We should never think of doing that with our Qur'an." To us this may seem a trivial matter, but it is not so to Muslims. The Rev. T. R. Wade writes : "This was always a favourite argument with the Pathans in Peshawar, and was used by the Amir of Kabul when he was staying there in the Gurkhatri. Bishop French was always most careful to carry his large Urdu Bible in a nice bag when he went to preach in the Bazar."

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS. 87

(Surah XXV., i) because it distinguishes the true from the false.

C. There are several weak points in your argu ment. Before you can rely on it, you have to prove, to yourselves in the first place, that the Qur'an is a revelation from God. This you cannot prove. Again, the title " Furqan " (whatever be the meaning of the word, which is really Syriac and Chaldee adopted into Arabic) is not given exclusively to the Qur'an, for in Surah XXI., Al Anbiya', 49, and Surah II., Al Baqarah, 50 J, the same title is given to the Taurat. Moreover, instead of using the Qur'an to test the Bible, as you say, you are bidden in the Qur'an itself to test the Quran by the Bible : for in Surah V., Al Maidah, 47- 52 we read : — " But how shall they make thee their judge, since they already possess the Law, in which are the behests of God ? . . . Verily, We have sent down the Law, wherein are guidance and light. . . . And whoso will not judge by what God hath sent down — such therefore are unbelievers. . . . And in the footsteps of the prophets caused We Jesus the Son of Mary to follow, confirming the Law which was before Him ; and We gave Him the Evangel with its guidance and light, confirmatory of the preceding Law, a guidance and warning to those who fear God ; and that the people of the Evangel may [or, let the people of the Evangel] judge

1 The Qamus, however, in this latter passage explains Furqan as meaning the division of the sea before the Israelites!

88 OBJECTIONS AGAINST GENUINENESS OF THE BIBLE.

according to what God hath sent down therein. And whoso will not judge by what God hath sent down — such then are the perverse. And to thee We have sent down the Book with truth, con firmatory of previous Scripture and its safeguard." And in Surah X., Yunus, 94 the command is given to Muhammad himself to make the Bible the touchstone by which to judge the Qur'an, for there we read: "And if thou art in doubt as to what We have sent down to thee, inquire of those who are reading the Scriptures before thee." There fore your principle is contrary to the Qur'an itself. We have also seen that the Qur'an never asserts that the Bible has been corrupted, but acknow ledges it to be the Word of God and says that God's Word cannot be corrupted or changed. And if you appeal to reason, your reason must prove to you from what has been already said that the Bible was not corrupted before Muhammad's time, nor during his life, nor has it been corrupted since. Finally, whether or not there are differences in teaching between the Bible and the Qur'an, it is certain that in many points in which you object to the doctrines of the Bible, the Qur'an confirms them, as indeed reason also does 1.

1 Vide Chapter IV.

CHAPTER III.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

65. M. You Christians are always quoting the Bible to us and endeavouring to persuade us to read it. This is all in vain. Even if, as you say, the Bible has not been corrupted, nevertheless it has been annulled by the descent of the Qur'an, God's latest and most perfect Revelation. There fore we are not bound to read or to obey it. We Muslims have no need of the Bible: we have the Qur'an. All that is good in the other books (Taurat and Injil) is contained in the Qur'an, according as

it is said i^-3 *^ja 1+**1.

C. Is what you state in accordance with the Qur'an itself?

66. M. Undoubtedly it is.

C. Will you then kindly quote one single verse in the Qur'an which declares that the Bible has been annulled (rendered -jj-~ju) by the descent of the Qur'an ?

1 " In them are upright books " (Surah XCVIII, 2). Muslims quote the words as if they meant that the essential parts of the previous Scriptures were contained in the Qur'an. But they mean nothing of the kind. Vide Baizawi in loco.

90 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT

67. M. Unfortunately I do not recollect one at the present moment.

C. And no wonder, for none such exists. The verb "to annul" (LIo) is used only twice in the Qur'an, and on each occasion it refers not to the Bible but to certain verses of the Quran itself, which 1 are declared to be "annulled." Your learned men declare that there are 225 verses thus annulled in the Qur'an, though they are not agreed which they are. Do you still read these annulled verses ?

68. M. We do, for we read the whole Qur'an.

C. If then you read verses which the Qur'an states to be annulled, and think yourselves bound to do so, why should you deem yourselves free from the obligation to read the Taurat and Injil, which the Qur'an does not declare to be annulled, but which you find the Qur'an commanding you to profess belief in? (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 130: " Say ye : We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down to us, and that which hath been sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which hath been given to Moses and to Jesus, and that which was given to the prophets from their Lord. No differ ence do we make between any of them : and to God are we resigned.") You see that the idea that the Gospel is annulled is not supported by the

1 Vide Surahs II., Al Baqarah, 100 ; and XXIL, Al Haji, 51 : see also XVI., An Nahl, 103.

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. 9!

Qur'an. Nor do I know any one of your authwita- tive traditions l by which it is confirmed.

69. M. It stands to reason that such is the case* As the Taurat was annulled by the descent of the Zabur (Psalms) upon David, and as the Zabur were annulled by the descent of the Injii upon Jesus, so the Injil was annulled by the descent of the Qur'an upon Muhammad.

[In reply, qu»te the Ten Commandments and ask after each, Has this been abrogated 1 If not, how can you say that the Taurat was annulled ?

With regard to the Sabbath, show how and why the Sunday is observed — the first day of every week — instead of Saturday.] Then add : —

C. Can you quote any verse of the Qur'an to prove that the various books you mention did successively annul one another?

70. M. No ; but all Muslims know that it is so. C. The verses in which the Qur'an speaks of the

Bible2 are very numerous, and the whole of the teaching which they give is contrary to this view, for the Qur'an speaks of the Taurat, the Zabur and the Injil as all still of authority in Muhammad's

1 I have never met with any such authoritative tradition in my own reading, nor has any Muhammadan to whom I have appealed been able to produce one. "Not a single tradition of this nature is found in Sihdh Sitta, which contains six books by six great Imams and Traditionalists. No Sunni Muhamma dan can dare to doubt these books. The Mishkdtu'l Masdbih and the Talkhizu's Sihdh are abridged from these six books." (Rev. Ahmed Shall.)

2 All collected in Sir W. Muir's Testimony of the Goran,

92 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT

time. The verse we have just quoted (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 130) alone suffices to prove this. This is another matter in which modern Islam has entirely departed from the teaching of the Qur'an.

71. M. Each successive apostle1 (J^) was sent by God to teach the right way to the people of his own time. As Moses was succeeded by David and David by Solomon, so Solomon was succeeded by John the Baptist (^Jy* ^ <&**>), and the latter by Jesus, and He in turn by Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets. Each successive prophet was commissioned to give God's commands to his own people. Hence of course the later abrogated the earlier. Just in the same way the laws of the present king of Persia or of England abrogate those of the preceding sovereign.

C. Even granting this, remember that you con fess that Christ is still alive. Until He dies (as He never will, Rev. i. 1 8), there can be no question of a successor2. But the laws of the new king do not abrogate those of the preceding unless it is precisely stated in the new laws that they do so, wholly or partially. Christ distinctly declared that He had not come " to destroy the Law, or the Prophets " (Matt. v. 17) " but to fulfil " them. This is easily understood from the use of progressive

1 Easul must be distinguished from Hawdn ((jj^\ the latter denoting an Apostle of Christ. Hawdri is an JEthiopic word, and is the word used for t( Apostle " in the ^Ethiopic N. T.

2 Mr. Harding.

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. 93

textbooks in a school. The Second Reading Book does not annul the first, but assumes the facts taught in it, while giving more advanced teach ing1. The Qur'an does not state that it came to annul the Taurat and the Injil, but to confirm and protect them.

72. M. Why then do you Christians not observe the ceremonial parts of the Law of Moses, with regard to washings, festivals, and circumcision ?

C. For two reasons, (i) Because these com mands were given to the Jews only and not to all nations. (2) Because they were not abrogated but fulfilled in Christ. Circumcision was intended to keep the children of Abraham apart until Christ came ; the purifications and sacrifices received their fulfilment in Christ. The ordinances, given not to all nations and for all time (like the Moral Law generally), but only temporally and to the Jews alone (for example those regarding sacrifices, cir cumcision, going up three times a year to the Temple, abstinence from certain kinds of food, &c.), were therefore abrogated by Christ as far as tie letter is concerned, but they were not abrogated but filed up and made eternally binding on all men so far as their spiritual meaning is concerned 2. For example, in Exod. xii. the Israelites were commanded to observe the Passover; and in i Cor. v. 7, the spiritual meaning and necessity of the

1 Bishop of Lahore.

3 Vide Rev. Dr. Rouse's Is the Gospel Abrogated?

94 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT

observance of the true Passover is explained and enforced upon Christians 1. Circumcision again was enjoined upon Abraham and his descendants (Gen. xvii. 9-14) as a sign of God's covenant with them, until the fulfilment of the covenant in the coming of Christ (Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii, 18 ; xxii. 1 8 ; xx vi. 4) through whom all nations were to be blessed, and who was to be descended from Isaac (Gen. xvii. 19). This covenant was tb be everlasting and therefore not subject to abrogation, as that verse proves. Hence Christ cannot be succeeded by any one else to all eternity. Circumcision be comes spiritual at His Advent ( Jer. xxxi. 3 1 -34 ; xxxii. 40; Deut. xxx. 6; Rom. ii. 28, 29; Phil, iii. 3), after which circumcision in the flesh (as with Jews and Muslims) practically becomes a sign of unbelief in Him as the Saviour. This is some thing like the case of the Brazen Serpent in the Wilderness, made by Moses at God's command (Num. xxi. 8, 9), but afterwards broken by the pious king Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4) because the Israelites had made it into an idol. These rites and ceremonies were like a cheque, which is of value until it is cashed, but after that is of no

1 As truth underlies all error, so the truth which underlies the erroneous doctrine of naskh (abrogation) is that the perfect must ultimately take the place of the imperfect, the permanent and eternal that of the temporary. This is what Christ teaches when He claims to have come to fulfil the law. The Rev. Dr. Hooper shows that the Epistle to the Hebrews argues on these lines (cf. Heb. vii. 11-19).

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. 95

monetary value, and is worth preserving only as a sign that the money was promised and has been paid, as we have already seen. But here you are arguing against yourself, for Muslims still keep up the practice of circumcision, because (as they rightly say) God once enjoined it upon Abraham and his descendants, and they think it still neces sary. Hence it is evident that the Law, the Psalms, and the Qur'an «did not abrogate that command, at least in (Jieir opinion. This completely overthrows your argument. Again, the Qur'an represents Muhammad as stating that Abraham was a Muslim (Surah III, Al 'Imran, 60). If so, in what respect has his religion been abrogated ?

73. M. Since Christ and Timothy were circum cised, how can you say the rite is not binding on Christians ?

C. Christ was born of a Jewish mother, and therefore He received circumcision according to the Law of Moses. Timothy's mother (Acts xvi. 1-3) was also a Jewess, hence Paul circumcised him, else he would not have been able to work among Jews. But this was not necessary from a Christian point of view, for St. Paul himself says, " Circum cision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing" (i Cor. vii. 1 8, 19 ; Rom. ii. 25-29; Phil. iii. 3).

74. M. A king can change his laws as he pleases : why should not God do so ? Jesus came to preach the Gospel peaceably, and forbade His disciples to draw the sword to spread their faith.

96 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT

Muhammad was "the Prophet with the sword," and was commanded to " fight in the way of God." Each did what was right, because the latter com mand abrogated the former.

C. The question is not what God can do but what God has done. You cannot bring a single proof that the Bible was abrogated by the Qur'an. Muhammad's assertion that he was commissioned to spread his religion with the sword is rather a proof against his claim than in favour of it.

75. M. Why1? Did not Moses do the same by God's command?

C. No. Joshua was commanded to overthrow and punish the Canaanites, but he was not com manded to convert them by the sword. Moreover, you who appeal so much to Eeason should be able to explain how the command which you say was given to Muhammad was consonant with reason and justice. You assert that God hates hypocrites so much that the lowest pit of hell has been assigned to them ; and yet you tell us that God sent Muham mad with the sword to make men hypocrites. For a man who embraces Islam without proof, and merely to save his life, must evidently be a hypo crite. In this respect the Qur'an is contrary to the Gospel, and also to the reason and conscience which God has given us.

76. M. The Qur'an preserves and re-imposes upon men the essential parts of the Law and the Gospel, and abrogates the rest.

AUTHORITIY OF THE BIBLE. 97

If I am to accept this, I must do so on your authority alone, since you cannot prove it from the Quran. But I notice that now you admit that part at least of earlier revelations have not been abrogated by the Qur'an. Reason teaches us that what the Bible says of (i) the Nature and Attributes of God, (2) Historical facts, (3) the Moral Law, (4) Prophecies, and (5) the Plan of Salvation, cannot possibly be abrogated.

77. M. Some of these may be. Why should not the way of salvation be altered from time to time? In Moses' time it was necessary to believe in him, in Jesus' time in Him, in Muhammad's time m him. So it is necessary to obey successive kings, each in his own time.

C. This is contrary to Reason, for it repre sents God as fickle and changeable. He is the one King in religious mattery so the analogy does not exist. Moses did not claim to be the Saviour, nor did any other prophet. They all bore witness to Christ, in whom alone can salvation be found (John xvii. 2, 3; Acts iv. 12). The Messianic prophecies are the essence of the Old Testament, and that of the New is contained in John iii. 16. Moreover, Christ declares « Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away " (Matt. xxiv. 35). He states that at His second coming He is to be the judge of living and dead ( -Matt. xxv. 31-46 ; cf. Acts iv. J2). Reason show, us that these things can never be annulled. Your

a

98 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PRESENT

argument in proof of the abrogation of the Injil by the Qur'an is therefore contrary to the Qur'an itself, to the Gospel, and to Reason.

78. M. Christ and Moses gave different and contrary commands regarding divorce. Thus we see that the Gospel did annul the Law, even in certain matters of morality.

C. Not so : for Christ tells us that the permission for divorce which Moses gave (Mett. xix. 3-10; cf. Matt. v. 31, 32), because of the "hardness of heart" of the Israelites, was but temporary, and it was given only in order doubtless to prevent worse evils. But Christ does not annul this by making a new law on the subject. He points to the fact that, in Gen. ii. 24, God had once for all stated the eternal Moral Law in this matter, and that that Law is still and must ever be in force. Neither Moses nor any one else could abrogate that Law, recorded as it is in the Taurat itself. It is God's law, and is in force from the beginning to the end of the world. It can never be annulled, because it is founded on the eternal principles of morality.

Somewhat similarly in certain countries the people are so prone to commit murder, and think it so slight a crime, that the legislature of those countries has attached to murder something less than the death penalty: otherwise no one would ever be there convicted of murder. But the law of God on the subject (Gen. ix. 6) cannot be altered

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. 99

or annulled, though even Christian rulers may reasonably relax the punishment in such cases, in consequence of the " hardness of men's hearts."

There is therefore no ground whatever for saying that the Gospel or any other part of the Bible has been annulled by the Qur'an, even if we accept the latter as from God. The opinion of Muslims that the Qur'an has annulled the Bible is contrary (j ) to the Qur'an itself (see the passages referred to in § 6), and also (2) opposed to Reason and to the distinct statements of Christ Himself (Matt. xxiv. 35).

a 2

CHAPTER IV.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE.

c

79. M. You claim that the Bible as it now exists is the Word of God. Yet when we examine it we find that it is made up of books which bear certain men's names, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Letters of St. Paul, and so on. Again, it contains the history of the Israel ites, tales about the Prophets and Apostles, and even a letter from Judas the traitor. How can we accept such a book as having come down from heaven ? Which of the four Gospels is the one which descended on Jesus, the Son of Mary ? Is not your doctrine that this Bible of yours is a Divine Revelation (J^ tanzU1) contrary both to Reason and to the Qur'an ?

C. This whole objection, like very many others, arises from a misunderstanding. The Epistle of Jude was not written by the traitor Judas, who was dead long before it was written. If you read the very first verse of the Epistle, you will see that it is from the hand of Judas the " brother

1 The word properly means something "sent down."

OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. IOI

of James," and this apostle is thus described in Luke vi. 16, and Acts i. 13 \ Again, how can it be contrary to the Qur'an to speak of the Bible as the Word of God, when the Qur'an itself (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 70) gives it that very title ? We have proved that the Bible which we now have is the same as that which the Jews and Christians had in Muham mad's day, and surely you do not accuse him of giving you as from God teaching contrary to reason. The Gospels are not strictly called those of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, but in Greek the title is "the Gospel according to (Kara) Matthew," &c. The word Gospel means "good news," in Arabic »,LLJ1 \TujU J~»j1 being a mere corruption of EvoyyeAioi;], that is to say, the good news of God's love towards mankind as shown by His offering us salvation through Jesus Christ. Four men were directed and inspired by God to relate to us, each in his own words, under Divine inspiration and guidance, the sayings and doings of Christ, so that we might not depend upon merely one single man's evidence regarding such an important matter. There is only one " Gospel," as there is only one Christ, but the one Gospel is transmitted to us in four separate ways, so to speak, though delivered to us by Christ 2 Himself, who claimed that His teaching was from God

1 The other view, that the writer of the Epistle of St. Judr ll the one mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55, is more commonly held. But the result is the same, t. <?., he was not Iscariot.

3 Vide note to § 37.

102 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

(John vii. 16 ; viii. 28 ; xii. 49, 50 ; xiv. 10, 24). We Christians do not believe that the Law and the Gospel were written down in heaven ages before the creation of the world and then brought down piecemeal to the prophets and dictated to them word for word. Such a doctrine might perhaps be described as contrary to Reason, but you Muslims at any rate could not bring such an argument against us without condemning your selves. It is true that the Bible does contain a great deal of history, because our faith rests upon historical facts, not upon fancies and assertions. But the history of the Israelites and the narratives given us of the lives of prophets and apostles are capable of being proved true, and have been so proved wherever means exist of testing them. We do not find in the Bible statements like some in the Qur'an, e. g. that Haman was Pharaoh's wazir (cf. Surahs XXVIIL, Al Qisas, 5; XXIX., Al 'Ankabut, 38 ; XL., Al Mu'min, 25, 38), and that the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sister of Aaron (Surah XIX., Maryam, 29) and daughter of 'Imran (Amram) (Surah III., Al 'Imran, 31, &c.), and hence identical with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron 1. God teaches by the history contained in the Bible the reason for the coming of Christ

1 In a note Sale refers to the Muhammadan attempt to answer this charge brought against the Qur'an. All they can say is that the Virgin Mary had a brother called Aaron, &c. &c. But this is only assertion, without a particle of proof.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 103

and the manner in which His way was prepared. There is good reason, therefore, why so large a portion of the Bible should consist of history, telling us of God's dealings with mankind, and revealing to us God's view of human history. In this way we learn to judge our own conduct, and perceive that « Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. xiv. 34). The Epistles that bear the names of certain apostles were written by them under Divine guid ance (John xiv. 26), and hence, as " all l Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. iii. 16), the Qur'an is justified in giving the Bible the title of the " Word of God," and so are we. In our view of Inspiration, God did not use merely the apostles' or prophets' mouths or hands, but made use of their whole being, the wisdom which He had bestowed on them, their minds and hearts and souls and spirits as well as their bodies, to convey His message to men. When we find, therefore, a human element in Scripture, this by no means disproves its inspiration, since we do not hold an illogical view of inspiration like that held by some, as for example the Hindus and the Sikhs. Nor do we hold the Muhammadan view of Inspira tion, which seems to us to bo illogical too. If you consider all these facts I think you will perceive that in accepting the Bible as the Word of God we

UVMTK *oi (ty^os irp^ MaaxaXiav. As ,\ w.-Il known, this v.-rse is differently rendered by sum,-.

104 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

are not upholding a doctrine which is in itself opposed to Reason or even to the Qur'an.

80. If. But many of your doctrines, which you say are taught in the Bible, are contrary to both. For example, your Bible represents all men except Christ as sinners — even the prophets. Consider what shameful tales it tells of the sins of Lot, David, and Solomon. Even Moses is said to have sinned. Peter is said to have thrice* denied Christ, and Paul speaks of himself as the chief of sinners. Is it not contrary to reason to represent God as using wicked men as His messengers ? We deem all the prophets sinless (.,7-0**), at least after1 their call to the prophetic office.

C. And thereby you contradict your own Qur'an, which mentions sins as committed by all the prophets except Jesus, regarding whom alone it is never said that He sinned or asked pardon for having sinned. Your traditions (v^ojU.1) agree with this : for Imam Muslim tells us that Muham mad said to 'Ayishah that every child who is born of Adam's seed is at his birth pricked by Satan, except Jesus and His mother 2. Imam Ghazzali says that Satan declared that he had been present at the birth of every child except at that of Jesus. This agrees with Surah III., Al 'Irnran, 31: i( I have

1 This is said to be the correct form of the dogma, but Muslims generally seem to forget this clause, at least at the outset of an argument on the subject : vide § 82.

2 Or, 'touched under the rib.' Vide Mishkat, Bab XXV., fasl. i., i, and Bab I., fasl. iii., i.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 105

named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan the stoned."

81. M. Where does the Qur'an accuse the prophets of sin ?

1 C. In very many places, as for example : — («) Adaw is accused of sin in Surahs XX., Ta Ha, 119, and in II., Al Baqarah, 33. 34. He sinned in dis believing God's word and in disobeying His com mand, and als£ in believing what Satan said and in obeying him. From the words *Zj ^ ^^ j (wa *a*a Aflamu ralbahu, " and Adam rebelled against his Lord ") in the first of these passages it is clear that Adam's sin deserved the punishment of hell fire, in accordance with Surah LXXIL, Al Jinn, 24, and it was one of the greater ( J&S kabdh') sins.

82. M. But Ar Razi says that Adam sinned before he became a prophet, hence this cannot be counted as a sin committed by a />r»/i/n-f. Moreover, Ar Razi states that Adam repented and was forgiven, and that his sin was not imputed to him.

C. How does Ar Razi know that Adam sinned before becoming a prophet ? Besides, you accused us Christians of holding irrational views and ideas contrary to the Qur'an in thinking that ** God chose sinful men as prophets." Baizawi agrees with Ar Razi in acknowledging that Adam sinned. The very fact of his repentance proves his sin,

1 Vi«l«- llfititlm'l Mujtahidin, pp. 29 sqq., and also Mr. ,7am. I Monn/.- tr;i'-t» mentioned in tin-

IO6 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

as does his being pardoned, for even Almighty God cannot forgive a sin that has not been com mitted in thought, word or deed.

83. M. What other prophets are said in the Qur'an to have sinned ?

C. (b) Noah is represented in Surah LXXL, Nfth, 29, as asking forgiveness for himself. This im plies that he had sinned, otherwise the words are meaningless. «•

(c) Abraham was guilty of idolatry (e)^), as is stated in Surah VI., Al An'am, 76, 77, 78. This is the one sin for which, according to Surah IV., An Nisa/, 51, 116, there is no forgiveness. In Surah II., Al Baqarah, 262, we are told that Abraham doubted God's power to raise the dead (and this is confirmed by the expression ^ dLUb ^\ ^.so p^Ajjl). This is another of the u greater" sins. Imam Muslim and Bukhari on Surah XXI., Al Anbiya', 64, quote from Abu Hurairah a saying of Muhammad that Abraham told " only " three lies, all of which are mentioned in the Qur'an 1. Abraham confessed that he had sinned, and prayed for pardon (Surah XIV., Ibrahim, 42), so there can be no doubt about his guilt.

(d) Moses, we are told in Surah XXVIII., Al Qisas, 14, 15, committed murder, and confessed that this was the work of Satan ; he asked for forgiveness and was pardoned. In Surah XXVI., Ash Shu'ara', 19, Moses confessed that he had done the deed

1 Cf. Mishkat, Bab XXIII., fasl. xii.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 107

when he was one of the " transgressors " .

In Sarah VII, Al A'rAf, 150, Moses begged forgive ness for himself and his brother Aaron, thus con fessing that they had loth sinned. He also sinned in throwing down the two tablets of the Law, and in insulting Aaron, as there recorded. Some of these sins were of the " greater " order.

(e) Aaron, as is confessed by Moses in the last quoted passage, sinned in permitting the idolatry of the Israelites when they worshipped the Golden

(/) Joseph is accused of sinning in thought by Wahidi (KitdMl Bavit) in his comment on the word ^ in Surah XIL, Yusuf, 24, though this is not in accordance with the Biblical account of the inci dent there referred to, and the Arabic may be otherwise understood.

(ff) David, in Surah XXXVIIL, Sad, 23, 24, asked forgiveness, repented, and was forgiven. Uns bin Malik, Ibn 'Abbas and Wahab agree in thus ex plaining the text.

(k) Solomon also, in Surah XXXVIIL, Sad, 34, we are told, asked forgiveness. He must therefore have been conscious of guilt.

(/) Jonah too is said in Surah XXXVIL, As Safat, 1 39-i 44, to have fled from God's command and to have therefore been " blameworthy " (^Ju). The passage clearly states that this sin was' committed at the time when ]„• was one of God's messengers or "apostles " (ov^L,JJ ^ min al m

T08 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

Do not therefore accuse us of altering the Bible by inserting accusations against the prophets. Your own Qur'an does this ; and if we agree with the Qur'an in holding that the prophets were sinners who repented, what is there against reason in the belief l ? At any rate, any fault you find with the Bible in this respect recoils upon the Qur'an.

84. M. The prophets are by us called sinless because they repented and their sias were there fore not reckoned to them.

C. If that is what you mean, your argument against the Bible, on the ground that it mentions that the prophets did commit sins, falls to the ground, for you say the same thing yourselves. We are not called upon to discuss the entirely different question whether or not God forgave them their sins. Before He could forgive them, they must have committed sins which required forgiveness.

85. M. At least Muhammad is never said to have committed sin.

C. If you read what Muhammadan writers have related concerning his life, his treatment of the Jews, his conduct towards those who had lam pooned him, his matrimonial relations, and other

1 A well known Tradition states that on the Judgment Day every prophet except Jesus, when asked to act as Mediator or Intercessor, will decline, alleging his sins as a reason for not being able to do so. Unfortunately, however, this Tradition represents Muhammad as undertaking the task, which our Lord also is said to decline, though He gives no reason for so doing. (Mishkat, Bab XXIII., fasl. xi.).

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 109

such matters, you will be able to form an opinion of your own upon that matter.

86. M. Some of these things would have been wrong in any one else, but in the Apostle of God they were not, because God commanded him to act as he did. Certain privileges also were granted him in matrimonial matters because he was God's chosen one. This we learn from Surah XXXIII Al Ahzab, 38. •

C. The affair of Zainab, to which that verse refers, and which is dealt with in the preceding (v. 37) verse of that Surah, is one upon which it would be well to reflect before pronouncing Muhammad sinless.

87. M. The Quran never attributes sin to Muhammad.

a In Surah XLVIH., Al Fath, 3, God is repre sented as saying to Muhammad, " Verily, we have won for thee an undoubted victory, in order that God might forgive thee what went before of thy fault and what followed after1." 'Abbasi says that this means the faults he committed before he

1 Zamakshari is commenting on this verse says : « < What went I" f<-re of thy fault,' i.e. the matt, •r.-f/aiuab, < and what f.,11, ,w,-,l after,' i.e. the matter of Mai-yam (Mary the Copt)." In both the* cases, as Muslims must thus confess, Mulmmnia,|\ •<• n.ual passions were the cause of his sin. (Kov. Dr Zwemer Tradition represent* Muhammad u acknowledging Ins 0WB MMiuln,^. Cf. Hayutu'l Qulub, vol. II, pp. 75, 30I . UtohkU, I- ii'., i; and fad. vii., i; J{al, XXII., I.,,], rfl - Ijal, IV., la.rl. xii., i ; fasl. xix., I ; la I. xx.v., ,. Vl,|, Mr. James «onry. Ticking of the Moulds as to the Sinfulness of Maho,, -•i,.l \- A. I'art> I an.l II .

110 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

received inspiration, and those that he should commit even until his death. Again, in Surah XLVIL, Muhammad, 21, he is bidden "Ask pardon for thy sin, and for believers, both men and women." In Surah XL., Al Mu'inin, 57, and Surah IV., An Nisa', 106, the command to Muhammad to ask for pardon is repeated : cf. also Surah XCIV., Al Inshirah, 1-3. If you accept the Qur'an as a revelation from God, you must penueive that God is here represented as commanding Muhammad to ask forgiveness, and as promising to grant it. Does not this amount to a Divine assertion of Muhammad's sinfulness?

88. M. By no means, for our commentators for the most part, as Ar Razi and Zamakshari, explain this by saying that by "thy offence" is meant " thy people's offence."

C. You must see that the passage above quoted from Surah XLVIL, Muhammad, ai, refutes this argument, for there he is bidden to pray for forgiveness for his own sin first, and then for those of " believing men and believing women."

89. M. The word used (vloi) does not mean sin but only fault : it is explained by Baizawi (on Surah XL., Al Mu'min, 57) as denoting in that passage some remissness on Muhammad's part in spreading the true religion. In reference to the prophets it means only the natural weakness of man, to overcome which he requires the strength and support of God.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. Ill

C. With reference to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Solomon and others, we have seen that it means much more than that. In Surah LY., Ar Rahman, 39, the word tank (v-^) in the plural is applied to the sins of \>Q\\\jinns and men. In Surah XXVIIL, Al Qisas, 78, it is thus said of idolaters, "But such sinners [^^-^s^ mnjrim^na\ need not be asked about their crimes [vjoJ zunui~\" The To/sir i lluxaihi distinctly and rightly says that this is said of idol-worshippers ; and their sin is the unpardon able one. This text shows that a junn. [*/*•] *s rightly called a qanb [v-Ji], so that the latter word does not denote a slight and unavoidable weakness but a sin actually committed. In Surah LXVIL, Al Mulk, 1 1, the souls of the wicked " shall confess their sin " (^J3) in hell-fire. In Surah XII., Yilsuf, 39, the crime of Potiphar's wife (lying, slander, lust) is called ^3. In Surah XCL, Ash Shams, 14, the people of Thamud are said to have been de stroyed for their ^i, which consisted in accusing their Prophet Salih of imposture, disobeying God's command, and slaying the Prophet's camel. Hence the Qur'an itself proves that u>Ji does not mean mere human weakness, or at worst some trivial otfence, for the word is used of "greater" sins

90. JA Muhammad, like all others who are of the number of the cj^V*-* (***JflfraW*4f, those nearest to God), felt remorse for even slight faults, and to him they seemed serious.

112 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

C. But, if the Qur'an is not Muhammad's com position but God's, it is not Mv-kammad but God who speaks of Muhammad's acts as crimes (vj^)- [Moreover, tradition shows that Muhammad con fessed his own sinfulness, for Muslim and Bukhari relate that when he said to his followers, " Not even one of you shall enter Paradise except through the mercy of God Most High," and was asked, "Not even thou, 0 Apostle of God ?" he said, "Not even I, except that God through His mercy cover me." Abu Hurairah relates that he heard Muhammad saying, "Verily I ask God for pardon, and I turn to Him in penitence seventy times in the day.'' In the Mishkdtul Masdbth (Babul Masdjid, sect. ii. p. 62) we are told by Tirmadhi and Ahmar and Ibn Majah, on the authority of Fatimah, Muhammad's granddaughter, that whenever Muhammad entered the Mosque he used to say, " 0 my Lord, forgive me my sins (Vj-^) and open to me the gates of Thy mercy," and on going out again he used to say, " 0 my Lord, forgive me my sins and open to me the gates of Thy grace."] — My object is merely to show you that in speaking of the sins of the Prophets the Qur'an does not contradict the Bible, and that your argument against the Bible on this point falls to the ground, if you accept the teaching of your own Qur'an. Remember too that the Quran agrees with the Bible in never accusing the Lord Jesus Christ of sin.

91. M. When Jesus said, "There is none good

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 113

but one, that is God," did He not imply l that He was not sinless? (Luke xviii. 19 ; see bent reading)2. C. The idea that this is the meaning of the verso is refuted by the whole tenor of the Gospels, and by His own words, John viii. 46. (See also T Pet. ii. 22 ; J John iii. 5 ; Heb. iv. 15.) It means, "If you call Me good, remember that means more than an empty compliment. Only God is good : hence, if you acknowledge Me to be good, you recognize My oneness with the Father3."

92. M. Baptism was given only to repentant sinners, yet Jesus was baptized (Matt. iii. 1 3 sqq. ; Luke iii. 21). Does not this prove that He was not sinless, if we accept your Gospels ?

C. If you read what John the Baptist said in Matt. iii. 14, you will obtain an answer to this question.

93. M. Why then does the Gospel say that Christ was crucified, which the Qur'an denies? If He was crucified (which we deny), He must have been

1 The Bishop of Lahore says, «• I used to lay stress on the form of the question, * Wlnj ralN-st th«.u me?' &c., i.e., 'On what grounds do you think what is implied in the word good?' See Dean Chuivh's famous M rmon on the t«-xt."

a Muslims also sometimes argue that Ps. li. 5 applies i<> Christ as well as to other men. (Rev. J. I. Hasler.) But I vii. 14 : Matt. i. 18-25 : Luke i. 35) Christ'* Immaculate Conception i> a.lmitt.-d l.y tin- IJurYin ^Vido §§ 80. 116, 117, Il8).

Dr. H. Martin Clark says, " In my ttp0ri*nM tl..- in-st h.-lpful UMIWer i- »•• point out that Christ did n>.t n-pudiat.- His p.-t-'iial goodlMM, '"•'•an>o to one who professed t<> all tin- Law of God He said, ' On<^ thin.ir th-.u Mo' (Mark x. 21 : Luke xviii. 22)." 11

114 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHKISTIAN DOCTRINES

a sinner and a false prophet, according to the Taurat : for in Deut. xviii. 20 [cf. xiii. 5, and Jer. xiv. 14, 1 5, and Zech. xiii. 3] it is prophesied that a false prophet " shall die," that is, shall be put to death.

C. This is not a prophecy but a command. It is one thing to say that a false prophet shall be put to death, and quite a different thing to declare that every prophet who was put to death was a false prophet. For example, John (Yahya') the Baptist was put to death, but the Qur'an speaks of him as a true prophet in Surah III., Al 'Imran, 34 (and in Surah XIX., Maryam, 13, he is mentioned as given "the Book" by God: cf. verses 1-15* also Surah XXI., Al Anbiya', 89, 90). Abel [Habil] was slain by his brother (Surah V., Al Maidah, 33), but that did not prove him to be a false teacher. So also in Surah II., Al Baqarah, 81, and Surah V., Al Maidah, 74, it is said that the Israelites slew some true apostles sent to them by God.

94. M. But the Qur'an distinctly denies that Jesus was crucified and slain by the Jews (Surah IV., An Nisa', 156), which the Gospels assert.

C. Possibly the reason why the Qur'an denies that He was crucified by the Jews is because, as the Gospels assert, He was really crucified, not by the Jews, but by the Roman soldiers (Matt, xxvii. 26- 35) at the command of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea (Matt, xxvii. 2, 26) 1. The guilt,

1 This is suggested only as a way for Muslims to escape from

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 115

nevertheless, rested on the Jews (Matt, xxvii. 24, 25 ; Acts ii. 23). The Qur'an, however, elsewhere (SCtrah III., Arirnran,48, and Surah XIX., Mary am, 34, and perhaps in Surah IV., An Nisa', 157) speaks of Jesus' death, though your commentators endeavour to explain that this is yet future1. We are quite willing to grant that in this matter the Qur'an contradicts the whole teaching of the apostles and of1 many of the prophets (cf. Ps. xxii. ; Isa. Hii.) on the subject, but that shakes the argu ment in favour of the Quran, not that in favour of the Bible.

95. M. Why do you think that He was cru cified ?

C. Because (i) the prophets foretold it; (2) the Gospel relates it; (3) the apostles testify to it; (4) the Jews confess it ; and (5) so do the Romans, as their historians testify. When the guilty parties themselves confess the crime, how can we doubt their guilt? Certain heretics in early times, like Mani in Persia, said that the Jews had crucified some one else2 in mistake for Jesus, but this is

a difficulty. Christians consider that the Qur'an is wrong here, as it implies that Christ did not die on the cross.

1 Yet Baizawi admits the death of Christ on the cross, but says He remained without life for only a few hours. Vi«l- his commentary, Cairo edition. roL i. p. 209. (Rev. Dr. /women)

a See Mo^heim's History, Bead's edition, Cent. III., Pt. II., Cap. v., § 6. Mani (Ep. Fund. ;ip. Evodium) taught " Prinr.-ps it;,,,u. t,.|i«.|.ranun .Tii.-i ed ailixu-." '1 IM- i;n>ili'l 1X11 h.-iiii that Sim«.n of Cyrene had been crucified in mistak. f,,r Christ; the " Gospel of Barnabas" says Juda- \va^. i'hotius mentions that II 2

Il6 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

contrary to the testimony of the Word of God, and therefore should not be believed. Those who were present, like the apostle John, testify to Christ's crucifixion, while those who deny it were born hundreds of years afterwards and cannot therefore be accepted as witnesses. The punishment of the Jews for their terrible crime is evident to every one, and this is an additional proof that they are right in saying that they were guilty of crucifying Jesus 1.

[The following arguments on the Muhammadan side may be entered here, as they are in some measure answered in the reply to the preceding- question. We therefore reply to them very briefly :— ]

96. M. If what your New Testament says about the deity of Christ be correct, then why was Muhammad sent to reclaim men from error by bidding them not call Jesus the Son of God 1

C. You here acknowledge that the New Testa ment does teach the Divine Sonship of Christ. As the Qur'an was sent to " confirm " the Gospel, and

the book called the TlepioSoi JAiroaTo\ojv taught that Christ was not crucified, but some one else in His stead. Muhammad's denial of our Lord's crucifixion was based on Docetic error.

1 The Kev. M. G. Goldsmith mentions as standing proofs from Church history those afforded by : — (i) The use of the sign of the cross ; (2) The Lord's Supper ; (3) The ancient creeds (Nicene, A.D. 325, &c.). Perhaps, however, Muslims can hardly grasp the value of these proofs. But the Bishop of Lahore thinks that the immensely strong evidential value of these things can be put clearly and briefly so as to be understood by Muhammadans. (See The Death of Christ, published by the C. M. S. in 1885.)

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 117

as the Gospel has not been corrupted since Mu hammad's time, you have logically no escape from admitting the doctrine to be true, if you believe in the Quran. You have not proved that Muhammad was sent by God, and you can hardly expect us to admit it without proof. The question you put is an argument against your own religion and Mu hammad's claim, if he really did come to deny a doctrine taught in the Gospel, for that would be to lead men astray. But the Qur an does not tell us that he came to bid men not call Jesus the Son of God, but rather to recall them to the faith of Abraham. Hence he was born not among Christians (believers in Christ, of whose coming Abraham received the promise) but among the heathen Arabs. The Qur'an denounces carnal ideas like those which led the Arabs to attribute daughters to God, but these are not what the Gospel inculcates when it calls Christ God's Son. (Vide § 114.)

97. M. At one time Christians did not believe in the deity of Christ.

C. That is not correct. In early times the Arians and other heretics arose and denied His perfect deity, but they were confuted by arguments drawn from the Bible, and also the old creeds of the various Christian Churches were adduced in proof tlmt the Arian heresy was a new and false doctrine \

1 See Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation ; Athanasius Orations against the Arians. &c.

Il8 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

98. M. If God had a son, He must have had a wife : but to assert that is blasphemy l.

C. Certainly it is, and therefore such a thought has never entered into a Christian's mind. Your argument shows that you do not understand in what sense we believe in Christ's Divine Sonship

(§ XI4)2.

99. M. Where is it written in the Bible that

Jesus Christ is God ? •

C. In many places, e. g. Isa. ix. 6 ; John i. I ; xx. 28, &c.

100. M. If Christ was God, how was it possible for Him to be hungry, to be tempted, to be killed, as your Gospels say He was. Can God die ?

C. The Gospels tell us that there are three kypostases (*--oU»l) 3 in the Divine Unity 4, as we shall

1 A more learned form of somewhat the same objection is thus given by the Kev. T. E. Wade from a written controversy : —

M. Between the begetter and the begotten there must necessarily be either the likeness of species or that of genus. But everything that implies, as this does, lack or change in the Self- Existent Eternal One is impossible.

C. The Christian doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son does not imply lack or change in the Godhead. (Vide also §§ 114, 135-7, 147-166.) The question ultimately turns not upon metaphysics but on the Divine authority of the Biblical teaching on the subject, upon which rests our doctrine of the Trinity.

2 See Rev. Dr. Rouse's tract, God our Father (Christian Literature Society for India).

3 The Arabic word (sing, aqnum, pi. aqdmm) comes from the Syriac qnum, which is used in the technical Christian sense of ovffia or viroaraffis. Its derivation is doubtful, but I suggest that it is the Assyrian qinum, from the Sumerian gin. It would thus mean " that which is firm, enduring." * Cf. Matt, xxviii. 19.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 1 19

see in discussing the doctrine of the Trinity. One of these, the Son or Word, assumed the perfect nature of a man (John i. 14), and in His human nature was hungry, tempted, slain. God cannot, but man can, be tempted (Jas. i. 13), or be hungry, or die : hence, in order to suffer thus for and with us, Christ assumed human nature.

101. M. How could Jesus be the Son of God or one with God, since on the cross He cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"?

C. This is a quotation from Ps. xxii. i, and calls attention to the fact that His death was there prophesied of. That Christ was the Son of God and one with His Father is clear from His own statements. If these were false, how can the Qur'an speak of Him as a prophet? He spoke in His human nature on the cross, just as in His human nature He suffered and died. The words show (i) that His was a real human body, in which He suffered mental and physical pain for your sake and for mine : and (2) they are therefore a proof of His Humanity. We need proofs of His human nature as much as proofs of His Deity, for both natures in union were requisite to make His atoning work perfect (§ loo)1.

102. M. From John xvii. 3 it is clear that He was distinct from God, and was merely sent from

1 Of course this is not intended as a/wK explanation of tho passage.

120 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHEISTIAN DOCTRINES

God like other prophets. If God sent Jesus, then God must be greater than Jesus.

C. These are some of the difficulties which the doctrine of the Trinity helps us to understand. They help to prove that doctrine, for all Christ's teaching must be true, if He is even a true prophet : and He made these and other statements about Himself (e. g. His oneness with the Father) which can be reconciled with one another only by accepting that doctrine. Christians have always acknowledged that the Father is the " Fountain of Deity," and that in lit is sense the Son is subordinate1 to Him, just as the ray of light springs from the sun ; but the sun would not be the sun if it were devoid of rays, nor would the Father be Father without the Son. (Vide § 114.)

103. M. How can Jesus be Divine when He said that He could do nothing of Himself (John v.

C. A careful study of the passage will show that in it He claimed to do all that God did. How then can He le less than God ? Besides, the context shows that He was proving that what He did was in ac-

1 The Eev. P. Z. Easton says "The fundamental Muham- madan objection to Christianity is that Christianity does not teach the Unity of God. This objection is not met and cannot be met by any presentation of Christianity which either denies or ignores the doctrine of the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father. There can be no question of Arianism so long as the Son is set forth as the Eternal Logos, nor of Sabellianism so long as the Father is set forth as the root and fountain of Deity."

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 321

cm-dance with the will of God His Father, and not contrary thereto, as His enemies were trying to show.

104. M. How can the " Word of God " be God I C. We shall see by and by what is meant by

calling Christ the "Word of God," as the Quran1 does as well as the Bible. We shall then see that it is impossible that the " Word of God " should be other than Divine.

105. M. How is it possible for the Divine to mingle with the human, the Infinite with the finite ?

C. We clearly teach that the Divine nature was not confounded or mingled with the human in Christ, but that the Eternal Word of God assumed human nature without any lessening of His own Divine nature. Of course our knowledge of the Divine nature is too limited for us to understand the whole mystery of the Incarnation, but our reason teaches us that what God has revealed must be true. We cannot understand /ton- our own immaterial spirit acts upon our material body ; how much less can we understand how the Divine can unite with the human. We must therefore accept what God has taught us in the New Testament. So too we cannot understand how the Kesurrection will occur, or how God created all

1 It may bo said that the value of tli- t.-tim<>ny • .!' the (Jur'an in tin- ni.-itt. r is iiiimilli-1 by its very dinVr-nt t.-U'-hin-

,,r, tli.- s,ib]Y«-t ebewhere. But if the (jm-'an otmtrw&t

that Is an arumnent against the book. Muslims have tu take it as it a a ads.

122 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

things out of nothing, yet He has taught us that it is so, and we know that He is true. The same thing applies to the Incarnation. We accept it because God has revealed it.

106. M. If, as you say, Jesus did not foretell the coming of Muhammad, then He was not omni scient, and therefore not Divine.

C. This begs the question as to Muhammad's apostleship, which we deny, as you know, since we cannot find any proof of it. It would be more logical to say, since Christ did not foretell the coming of Muhammad, we have all the less reason to believe the latter's claims to be sent from God.

107. M. If Christ was the Son of God, why did He so constantly call Himself the Son of Man ?

C. That He was the Son of God is clear from many passages, of which one is Matt. xxvi. 63, 64, where we find Him answering to that effect on oath. He called Himself also the Son of Man (not a Son of Man) to make His real Manhood evident, but especially (i) because in the Syriac language, which was His mother-tongue, the expression, Son of Man, is con tinually used to denote Man ; (2) because Daniel (vii. 13) uses the title to denote the Messiah, and Jesus claimed to be that ; (3) because of the promise that a man, one of Adam's descendants, the seed of the woman, should bruise the Serpent's head (Gen. iii. 15), and Christ was the person referred to. All this we learn from His use of the expression. Thus the Bible teaches that He is both God and Man.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 123

108. M. Why then did He tell His disciples not to let people know that He was the Christ (Matt. xvi. 20) ?

C. Because the time had not yet come for the announcement. The Jews would have taken up arms to make Him their King, if they had then heard that the Messiah had come, as they tried to do (John vi. 15). Even His disciples had not yet learnt that, instead of coming to receive an earthly kingdom, He had come to die on the cross. He had to teach them this, and He began to do so as soon as ever they had learnt that He was the Christ (Matt. xvi. 16, 21).

109. M. If He was Divine, He ought to have been omniscient, as God is (Surah VI., Al An am, 59), yet He said that He did not know when was the time fixed for the Day of Judgment (Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32). [Nor did He know who touched Him (Mark v. i)1.]

C. In the very verses in which He is recorded to have said this, He speaks of Himself as the Son of God. Evidently therefore there can be no con tradiction intended. He probably meant that in His human nature He had laid aside that know ledge, as He had laid aside His freedom from suffering and death.

110. M. If He was God's Son, why did He say that He could not give a place on His right or on

1 This question no more implies ignorance than does that in Luke xx. 24, or those in Gen. iii. 9, n, 13.

124 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

His left except to those for whom it had been prepared by God (Matt. xx. 23 ; Mark x. 40) *?

C. Probably for the same reason1. All this is explained by such passages as lt The Word became flesh" (John i. 14), and " He humbled Himself" (Phil. ii. 8) 2. In the verses you quote, Christ speaks of God as His Father, thereby asserting His own Divine Sonship.

111. M. Many of the passages which you quote to prove the deity of Jesus do not prove it at all. For instance, He said, " Before Abraham was. I am " (John viii. 58). Now that does not prove His deity, for we can all say the same (since Muslims believe in the pre-existence of souls).

C. None of us can truthfully say the same. For, on the supposition of the pre-existence of souls (a doctrine which you have derived from heathen philosophers, and which is not taught by the prophets and apostles), if Christ had meant to say merely " Before Abraham was born, I existed," the phrase would have been meaningless, since (on that theory) Abraham also existed before his birth. Whether the theory be true or false, Christ clearly stated that He existed before Abraham and other creatures came into existence at all. This shows

1 Our Lord's answer also means that such rewards could not justly be made on the basis of simple favouritism, as the two apostles wished, but must depend on moral characteristics. (Bishop of Lahore.)

2 More forcible still is the expression in verse 7, titivcaatv tavrov.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 125

that He claimed not to be a creature like Abraham and ourselves. Moreover, Christ did not say, <• Before Abraham was, I tea*" but " Before Abraham was, I am." He thereby claimed for Himself God's highest title (from which " Jehovah " was derived : Exod. iii. 14). The Jews understood this, and, not believing in Him, desired to stone Him for what they considered blasphemy. So the passage does bear the meaning which we assign to it.

112. M. Christ is only a prophet, like the prophets which were before Him.

C. That is contrary to the Taurat, the Zabur, the Injil, and the Quran, in all of which language is used of Him that is not used of any other prophet. No other prophet was born of a Virgin, no other is called "The Word1 of God" (it Ljtf) Or "a Spirit from Him " (L^ ^), of no other prophet is it said that he was " illustrious in this world and in the next " (Surah III, Al 'Irnran, 40), and He is the only sinless prophet.

113. M. It is said (Surah III, Al 'Imran, 52), " Verily the similitude of Jesus is as the similitude of Adam " in the sight of God : for we are told that God " created him of dust : He then said to him, Be, and He was." Hence Jesus was not the Son of God in any other sense than Adam was, to whom the

1 The exact words of the Quran are: "Innama '1 Muslim 'KV 'too Marv.-ima ra - ulu'llal.i wa kallmatuhu, alqaha Ha' Maryama, wa rnlnn. minim " (Surah IV., An Nisii,' 169). The contexi ihowi that /.-,///„,«/«</*»« ("His \v,,i-,r^, ,.«,uals •'God's Word"). Vide§n8.

126 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

title Son of God is also given in the Gospel (Luke iii. 38), as it is to the angels in the Old Testament and to believers in the New (i John iii. 2).

C. Doubtless the meaning of that verse in the Qur'an and the verse in Luke is that Jesus was like Adam in having no human father. The angels are probably called sons of God in Job i. 6 ; ii. I, &c. But neither of Adam nor of the angels are the other things said that are said of Christ. (Vide Heb. i.) For example, Adam was not sinless, nor is he called " The Word of God " (vide §§117,118,1 19). All the prophets believed in Christ and received life from Him (John xiv. 6). The difference between them and Him is seen from the whole teaching of the Bible (e. g. John i. 17, 18). Believers become " sons of God " only through union with God's Son (John i. 12).

114. M. The Bible certainly does call Jesus the Son of God (John i. 34, &c.), and teaches His Deity. This is contrary both to reason and to the Qur'an, as is clear from Surahs IX., At Taubah, 30 ; X., Yvinus, 69 ; XXXIX., Az Zumar, 6 ; II., Al Baqarah, 1 10 ; VI, Al An' am, 100, 101 ; XIX., Maryam, 36, 91-93 ; LXXIL, Al Jinn, 3 ; XLIIL, Az Zukhruf, 81 ; CXIL, Al Ikhlas, 3 ; and V., Al Maidah, 19, 76, 78.

C. Many of these verses (e. g. VI., Al An' am, 100, 101) show that what Muhammad wished to repudi ate was the carnal idea of the generation of a Son, an idea similar to that which the heathens of Greece and Rome had held before they became Christians,

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 127

just as the Hindus hold it now regarding some of their deities. The heathen Arabs of Muhammad's time held it also, and called their goddesses daughters of God (Surah XVI., An Nahl, 59). Such an idea is blasphemous, and Christians have never held it. Centuries before Muhammad's time a learned Christian writer, Lactantius, wrote a work in which he told the heathen that the Christians did not hold such carnal and blasphemous ideas regarding the generation of Jesus Christ as those which were attributed to them. It is this In-athm doctrine which is contrary to reason, not the Christian one. When the Gospel speaks philo sophically, it speaks of Christ as "the Word of God " («u)T L*tf). The expression " Son of God " really denotes the same \ but is used for the benefit of simple people. It reveals the Lore which must exist between the Persons (^Vsl Jy«W///) of the Trinity. No human language can be really in every respect suitable to express the realities of the Divine nature, but we are quite justified in using the words employed by the inspired writers themselves. The relationship between the Persons

1 This is the reason why we call Christ Ibnu'lldh and not Waladu'lldh. In Arabic there is a clear and beautiful dis tinction between Ibn and Walad ("Son"), just as there is b.-t\vi-«-n Ab and Wdlid ("Father"). Christians never use the latter of each group of words (Walad and Wnlid f'«»r " Son " and "Father" respectively in reference to the Trinity, as they denote physical Son.ship and Fatherhood ; not so the won I- K n and .!'', which are often used in Arabic in & spiritual 01 j.h'.rkal sense. (Kev. Dr. Zwemer.)

128 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

of the Godhead so transcends all human thought and language that we cannot fully comprehend or express it. Whether we call Jesus the Son of God or the Word of God, the meaning in each case is to express His Deity. When we come to dis cuss the doctrine of the Trinity, we shall see that belief in His Divine Sonship is not contrary to reason but demanded thereby. No true doctrine can be directly contrary to reason, but all that concerns the nature of God Most High may well be superior to our fallible and limited intellect. This is why your Tradition (oiAjjua. Jfa<UtJi] says, " Argument about the nature of God is blasphemy " (j^ 4iJl ui>lj> ^ ^^Jl). All we can know of such matters is what has been revealed to us by God Himself, and the Bible very clearly asserts the Divine Sonship of Jesus.

115. M. The Qur'an denies the Deity of Jesus, and declares that God can destroy Him (Surah V., Al Maidah, 19). He was a prophet, and is com pared to Adam (Surah III., Al 'Imran, 52) ; and he was a servant of God (Surah XLIIL, Az Zukhruf, 59: cf. V., Al Maidah, 109, no), but no more. Your Bible must therefore be wrong in proclaim ing His Deity.

C. Again you take the Qur'an as a touchstone, and assume that it is from God. This, however, you cannot prove. Until it is proved, the argu ment that the Qur'an is opposed to the Bible may shake the authority of the Qur'dn l>ut not that of the

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE, 129

Bible. For the Quran not only confesses the Bible to be the Word of God, but xta/cx thai It wax ifm-ff sent down to confirm and guard the Bible ; nay more, it appeals to the Bible in support of MukammatT* cLiims (Surah VII, Al A'raf, 156 ; Surah LXL, As Saff, 6). Even taking into consideration the verses to which you refer, the teaching regarding Jesus which the Qur'an gives amounts to this, that He is far higher in nature and dignity than any other prophet.

116. M. It certainly cannot be proved from the Qur'an that Jesus is superior to Muhammad, who is called " the Apostle l of God and the Seal of the Prophets " (Surah XXXIII., Al Ahzab, 40).

C. Besides these titles, the first of which is given to Salih as well as to Muhammad (Surah XCL, Ash Shams, 13), the latter is also called a "Warner" (Surahs LL, Adh Dhariyat, 50, 51 ; XXIX., Al 'Ankabut 49 ; XV., Al Hajr, 89). But we are told by Tradition (as we have seen), by implication at least, that he was not exempted from receiving the prick of Satan at his birth. He needed to have his breast opened and his burden removed (Surah XCIV., Al Inshirah, 1-3), and his sins forgiven (Surah XLVIL, Muhammad, 21). Moreover, Mu hammad died and was buried, and he wrought no miracles. Regarding Christ the Qur'an gives much higher testimony. We have sivn tliut Muhammad, according to Tradition, testified that at Christ's birth alone Satan was not present, Vide note at the end of Chaj.t. i VII. I

I3O OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

nor could he prick Him 1. We have seen that, according to the Qur'an, Christ did not die, and that He was taken up alive to Heaven, where He still lives *. We have also noticed that to Him alone of the prophets no sin is ascribed. He did not need to have His breast cleansed, His burden removed, or to ask forgiveness of His sins. Besides all this, the Qur'an acknowledges that Jesus was born of a virgin (Surahs LXVL, At Tahrim, 12 ; XXL, Al Anbiya', 91 ; XIX., Maryam, 16-22 ; III, Al 'Imran, 40-42), through God's Spirit (Surah XXL, Al Anbiya', 91), and was strengthened with the Ho]y Spirit (Surah II, Al Baqarah, 81, 254). These things are said of no other prophet 3.

117. M. Why do you make so much of Jesus' birth from a virgin ? The Qur'an teaches us that, no doubt : but it also teaches us that Adam had neither father nor mother. Ought he not then to be preferred to Christ, with whom we have seen that the Qur'an compares him, doubtless for this very reason, as commentators say ?

C, If that is the reason of the comparison, why do Muslims try to explain the verse (Surah III.,

1 Vide § 80.

2 Mr. Harding says : " I have found most effective the argu ment that Jesus is alive and Muhammad is dead." This is a very general experience of missionaries, and much use should be made of the admitted fad.

3 A missionary should use the Qur'an only as a subsidiary aid, to show the greatness of Jesus even from the took on which the Muslims rely, but not to prove distinctively Christian truths. (Rev. W. A. Eice.)

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 131

Al 'Imran, 52) as implying that Christ was not greater iJian Adaml The verse may mean that (as the New Testament says) Christ is the second Adam ([ Cor. xv. 45), greater than the first because He gives spiritual life, whereas it is merely our natural life that comes from the first Adam. " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive " (i Cor. xv. 22). Adam was not born but created : Christ was born l without a father. The creation of Adam was in this respect similar to the creation of the world, plants, and the lower animals ; whereas the Qur'an itself says that Christ's supernatural birth took place through God's purpose to give men a sign, and this is not said of any other prophet's birth. To Abraham and Zacharias there was promised, according to the Qur'an, " a wise son," " a righteous prophet." But regarding Christ's birth the language used is very different, for of Mary it is said, " Her who kept her maidenhood, and into whom We breathed of Our spirit, and made her and her son a xi(jn fo all crea(t>rc* (Siirah XXL, Al Anbiyta , 91). The Qur'an there fore represents Christ's birth as without a parallel.

1 In dealing with this question, I used to lay stress on the significance of interrupting the ordinary method of human generation, after it had been once established, in the case of our Lord, and of Him only. If the human race was to commence at all, it must hare been, so f;ir a> \v<> c.-ui see, by something likt fix- creation of Adam directly by God Himself. But this is wholly different from the unique interruption in the chain of human life once it had been started." (Bishop of Lahore.)

I 2

132 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

The same language is used neither of Muhammad nor of any one else. Why is this, except because Christ is superior to all other prophets ?

118. M. He is a servant of God and an apostle, but no more.

C. He is that, but also much more. In Isa. liii. ii He is styled God's servant, but the expres sion is " My righteous servant," because He was the only one of the prophets who was without sin, as the Qur'an acknowledges. In Phil. ii. 6, 7, we are told that He was much more than this originally, but "took upon Him the form of a servant" for your salvation and for mine. The Qur'an agrees with the Bible in stating that He was much more than a servant of God and an apostle of God, for in Surah IV., An Nisa', 169, He is called " An apostle of God and His Word (JJLJ5) which He conveyed into Mary, and a spirit from Himself " ; and in S&rah III., Al 'Imran, 40 we read, " When the angel said, ' 0 Mary, verily God announceth to thee the Word from Him : His name shall be Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, illustrious ((4.^*3) in this world and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God (^^ail cr») V Here Christ is called "His Word," and "the Word from Him," and "a spirit from Him." These titles must have some meaning, and they are applied to no other than to Christ. No other prophet has such lofty 1 titles given him by God.

1 " I always used to quote the titles of the other five greater

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 133

119. M. Ar Razi and Jalalain well explain this by saying that Jesus is called the Word of God because He was created by God's command, born without a father.

C. If we assume this explanation to be sufficient, we still see that He was superior to all other prophets in that very particular. But the explana tion is wrong, for Adam was created without either father or mother by God's command, but is not called God's Word. We shall consider the full meaning of this title when treating of the doctrine of the Trinity1. Meanwhile, is not God's Word or " a spirit from Him " greater than any apostle 2 or messenger can be ? Moreover, Jesus is said to be " illustrious in this world and in tfie next" which is not said of any other prophet.

120. M. In Surah XXXIII., Al Ahzab, 69 it is said of Moses that " with God he was illustrious "

jjjl ±±c. ^ kdna 'inda 'lldhi wajihan). C. Yes, but not that he was "illustrious in this world and in the next." Ar Razi explains the " illustriousness " (laUj wajdliali) of Moses as consisting in his " knowledge " of God (i^-xil al marifa/i] : whereas Zamakshari in his Al Kash- shaf explains that of Jesus as " The office of prophet

prophets, and show how each of them can obviously be ;ip|>li< >l to a creature, and then contrast with these the titles * The Word of God,' 'The Spirit of God,1 given by Muslims to Christ." (Bishop of Lahon-.)

1 Vide §§ 158 sqq.

a In Arabic apostle (-) is used of any messenger.

134 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

and supremacy (*JJS^J1 at taqadduni) over men, in this world ; and in the next world the office of inter cessor (aLftUjJl ash shqfaaJi) and loftiness of rank in Paradise V So clear is it from the Qur'an that Christ was superior to Moses as well as to all other prophets. Here again the Qur'an harmonizes to some extent with the Bible; for in Heb. iii. 5, 6, we read : " And Moses verily was faithful in all His (i. e. God's) house as a servant ; . . . but Christ as a son, over His own house." Besides all this, there is another passage in the Qur'an which goes further and ascribes Divine power to Jesus.

121. M. Impossible.

C. Is not the act of creating (<jl^ al Khalq) peculiar to God, and an act of Divine power 1

122. M. It is.

C. Well then, in Surah III., Al 'Irnran, 43, Jesus is represented as saying, " Verily I CREATE (jl tjla.1 inni akhlaqu) for you from clay as it were the likeness of a bird, then I breathe into it, then it becomes a bird by God's permission." Here the Qur'an represents Him as creating a bird 2 in the same way in which God created Adam, when He

1 The Rev. W. Goldsack observes that Baizawi uses similar language in his comment on Surah III., Al 'Imran, 40. Baizawi's

words are IcUUT s^iSl <y j jjj^Itt W^f ^J ^W^ : "The illustriousness in this world is the office of a Prophet, and that in the next world the office of Intercessor."

a Vide Ibhdthu'l Mujtahidin, pp. 62 sqq. Of course it is possible that Muhammad used the verb khalaqa here in a loose sense, but a Muslim can hardly grant that.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 135

formed him from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen. ii. 7).

123. M. The Gospel does not say that Christ made a bird in this way.

C. We are not now talking of the evidence of the Gospel but of that which the Qur'an gives to Christ's superiority to the rest of the prophets. The New Testament says that all things were created in or through Christ (Col. i. 16 ; John i. 3).

124. M. The Qur'an says that the bird was made " by God's permission."

C. Of course : the Gospel says that all that Christ does is in accordance with the will and per mission of God (John v. 19 ; viii. 28).

125. M. We honour Jesus more than you do, for we call Him " a spirit from God." But we do not thereby imply His Deity. All men are spirits from God.

C. All men's spirits were created by God, which is a different thing. Your last words hardly agree with your preceding ones. Nor does the Qur'an call any other man <; a spirit from God," as it does Christ (Surah IV., An Nisa', 169). According to your argument this expression becomes meaning less. If you honour Jesus more than we do, why do you assert that Muhammad was superior to Him, and why have you left Christ to follow Muhammad1 ?

1 The proper way to honour a prophet is to hear and obey his Divinely given message. (Rev. W. A. Rice.)

136 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

126. M. Because Muhammad's miracles were far greater than Christ's \

C. The Qur'an acknowledges that Christ wrought miracles (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 254, &c.), but denies that Muhammad did so. Christ's are acknowledged not only in the New Testament but by the Jews (who thought they were wrought by magic, but yet could not deny that they were really performed, as their own books show), and by the Muhammadans, in accordance with the Qur'an, while none but Muslims believe that Muhammad wrought any miracles. Of his miracles we have no contem porary written account, for those mentioned in the Traditions were not written down till long after the death of his contemporaries. Moreover, the Qur'an shows clearly that he wrought none.

127. M. Our Traditions are full of accounts of Muhammad's miracles, and moreover the Qur'an asserts that it is itself a miracle (Surah X., Yunus, 38, 39). Besides this, the Qur'an records the split ting of the moon (Surah LIV., Al Qamar, i), the night journey (Surah XVII., Al Asra', i), and the victory at Badr (Surahs X., Yunus, n, and III., Al 'Imran, n). In addition to this we have the prophecy in Surah XXX., Ar Rum, 1-3: "The Greeks have been defeated in a land hard by, and

1 The Bishop of Lahore says, " I do not think that any at all well-instructed Muhammadan would make this reply." But the majority of them are not well instructed, and, if they accept the teaching of such books as the Rauzatu'l Ahbdb, for instance, they are led to think and say so.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 137

after their defeat they shall defeat (their foes) in a few years." The Persians under Khusrau Parviz [A.D. 615, B.H. 6] defeated the Greeks, and in accordance with this prophecy the Greeks under Heraclius defeated the Persians [in A.D. 625, A.H. 3] ten years later. This wonderful prophecy is of itself a sufficient proof of Muhammad's being a prophet. C. Let us take the prophecy first. As the text stands, the verses assert that the Greeks would be victorious "within a few years" (c^i— /^ (j}> Jalalain's commentary explains ^ as denoting a period "between three years and nine or ten," and asserts that the Greeks gained their victory " in the seventh year." It was not, however, until rather more than ten years had elapsed that they were victorious. Nor was this statement of Mu hammad worthy of being called a prophecy, for it was not difficult for a clever man to see that the Roman Empire was stronger than the Persian, and would in the long run prove victorious. But we know that the vowel points were not written in the early copies of the Qur'an ; hence, had the Greeks again been defeated, the passage would have been just as correct, for the word ^jU**-1 8"Va~ gMildnat"\h*y shall defeat," would have been read, with a change of two vowels, J,^li-U 9ayngUMnal " they shall be defeated." You must really produce some better proof than this, if you can. The Bible prophecies are of quite a different description, as we have already seen.

138 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

Now let us consider the alleged miracles of Muhammad. The victory at Badr was not a miracle, for many idolaters have gained quite as great victories. No one but Muhammad seems to have seen the angels who are said to have fought on his side. As for the Night Journey, commen tators differ regarding it. Muhiyyu'ddin says it has only a spiritual meaning, and 'Ayishah asserted that during that whole night Muhammad had not quitted her chamber1. There are no witnesses of the event, and there is this strong evidence against it. Regarding the splitting of the moon 2 (j+jd\ JU'), commentators and traditions differ. According to some, the passage means that one of the signs of the approach of the "Hour" — that is, the Day of Judgment — will be the splitting of the moon. Perhaps so, but we must wait till then to know whether this is a true prophecy or not. This seems to be the clear meaning of the verse, and so 'Abbasi understands that the splitting in two of the moon and the appearance of Dajjal will be signs that the Resurrection is at hand. If so, you can hardly assert that the Qur'an here attributes a miracle to Muhammad. If the moon had thus been split,

1 Vide the opinions of Muslim commentators and the Tradi tions quoted on this point in my Yandbiu'l Islam.

2 On the question whether the first verse of Surah LIV., Al Qamar, is borrowed from a Qafidah of Imrau'l Qais, see Appendix to Ch. II of my Original Sources of the Quran. The Rev. Dr. Zwemer says that learned Muslims in Arabia are much perplexed about the matter.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 139

doubtless some record of it would have been kept by astronomers, and the moon would still bear marks of it. But such is not the case. Again, had the moon been split, that would have been no proof of Muhammad's being an apostle. For (i) it would not be evident that tie had done the deed (which even the Qur'an does not ascribe to him) ; and (2) injuring part of God's creation would not of itself suffice to prove a Divine commission. How different would such a deed have been from the miracles of mercy wrought by Christ and testified to in the Qur'an itself: raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, healing the lepers, &c. (Sarahs V., Al Maidah, no; III., Al 'Imran, 43).

Nor again can the Qur'an itself be considered a miracle. All Arabic scholars are not agreed that its style is superior to that of the Mu'allaqat or to that of the Maqainat of Al Hariri, although the fact that Muhammadans have for ages regarded it as of Divine composition has, by many people, caused it to be deemed the model of the best Arabic style1. But even if we acknowledge its style to

1 But in one or two places it contains grammatical errors : e.g. in Surah XIII., Ar Ra'd, 28, wo have al qululm 'llculh'nm ; in Surah XX., Ta Ha, 66, we find in Iniillnini instead of inna hadhaini. Vide also Mandru'l Haqq, Arabic Ed., pp. 14-16 ; also iV.M.-ke's Geschichte d«s Qurans', also the Appendix on the slyl.- of the Qur'an in the Maqdlahfi'l Mam (an Arabic revision .-'s "Introduction"). It also contains not a lV\v f-m-iu'ii wordt ;is K.mi;m, Taghut, Tabut, and others), so that its lan-uage is not pure Arabic. (Vide Yatidbl'u'l IsW»u.)

140 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

be unrivalled in Arabic, that does not prove it a miracle. In Sanskrit the Rig-Veda is a work which cannot be imitated successfully ; in English no dramatist equals Shakespeare ; in Persian Hafiz is unique in one form of composition, Firdausi in another. Yet no one supposes that these authors were prophets on this account. In a book which claims to be inspired we look not for elegance of style but for true doctrinal teaching l, as we do even in the case of ordinary theological works in our own time. When we test the Qur'an in this way, we find no reason for accepting it as a revelation (J^jjj) from God. Nay rather [as is shown in The Original Sources of the Qur'an], we come to a contrary conclusion.

128. M. How can you say that the Qur'an denies that Muhammad had power to work miracles, when the Traditions relate so many ?

C. The Qur'an informs us that the unbelievers challenged Muhammad to work miracles, and that he evaded the demand by saying that miracles were in the power of God alone, and that he was not sent with miracles but with verses from the

1 The teaching of the Qur'an ought— as is well shown in the late Rev. Dr. Koelle's Food for Reflection— to be as far deeper than, and superior to, that of the New Testament as that of the latter is to the Old Testament, if the Qur'an were a later and more perfect revelation from God. This is not the case. On the contrary, while the Bible deals with the great facts of sin and salvation most fully, the Qur'an almost ignores them, and its teaching is distinctly on a far lower level than that of the Law of Moses.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 14!

Qur'an, lest the Arabs should see miracles and still disbelieve, and therefore be destroyed as other unbelieving peoples had been. This is what we learn from the following passages: Surahs XXIX., Al 'Ankabut, 49, 5° ; XIII., Ar Ra'd, 8, 30 ; VI, Al An'am, 37, 57, 109 ; IL, Al Baqarah, 112; X., Yunus, 21 ; XVIL, Al Asra' ', 93, 95, 96; VII., Al A'raf, 202. But the statement in Surah XVII., Al Asra', 6 1 is the clearest of all : " Nothing hindered Us from sending (thee) with miracles, except that the peoples of old treated them as lies2." It is quite clear from this that Muhammad did not work miracles, for the Qur'an represents God as explaining why that power had not been given to him.

129. M. The Qur'an itself is a sufficient miracle, as we see in the same Surah, verse 91 : " Say thou : Assuredly if mankind and the Jinn should con spire to produce the like 3 of this Qur'an, they could

1 Also called Surah Bani Isrdil.

2 In his commentary on this passage Bai?awi thus para phrases it : "That is to say: 'We have abstained from sending thee with miracles,' as the Quraish demand, 'only because the former peoples'— those of like temper with tlnni, as tlu> tribes of 'Ad and Thamud — 'gave them the lie :' and so like wise would these men of Mecca: 'and they would ..1hrr\\ !-• have been destroyed according to our wont' (i. e. if they had rejected the miracles) ; so ' We determined not to destroy tin m.' seeing that there are amongst them those that believe, or will have believing seed." (Quoted in Sir W. Muir's English renion of Sweet Firstfruits, p. 141.) 'ALhuM adopts virtually the same explanation.

8 The Qur'an does not tell us in what the likeness is to consist, \vhfth«T in eloquence or in something else. Hence the

142 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

not produce its like, though the one should help the other." The miracles granted to the prophets varied with the requirements of each separate age. In Moses' time the power of the magicians was greatly feared, therefore the miracles of Moses resembled theirs, but were more wonderful. In Jesus' time the healing art had reached its acme', hence Jesus came with miracles of healing, which at that time impressed people more than anything else would have done. So in Muhammad's time eloquence among the Arabs had reached perfection, and he was sent with the Qur'an, a marvel of eloquence, which no one could equal. Even if he wrought no other miracle, this was quite enough for the " illiterate prophet " to do.

C. We have already seen that the Qur'an is not a miracle. Many other books, in other languages, far surpass it in eloquence : for example, the Book of Isaiah the prophet, the Psalms of David, the Book of Deuteronomy, to say nothing of the works of the Arabic, European, Indian, and Persian writers already mentioned. Eloquence cannot be considered as sufficient proof of a prophet's calling. We now know from what erroneous sources1 the Qur'an was derived, and this alone suffices to prove that the book is not from the all- wise God.

difficulty in " bringing a verse like " one of those in the Qur'an. (Dr. H. M. Clark.)

1 See this proved in my Yanabl'u'l Islam, and Original Sources of the Qur'an.

AS ALLEGED TO BE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. 143

From this whole investigation we see that the Qur'an itself ascribes a higher power, dignity, and nature to Christ than to Muhammad or to any of the prophets, since Christ is represented as alone sinless, miraculously born, and the worker of miracles, and is called " God's Word " and " A spirit from Him." Moreover, the ability to create, which is peculiar to God the Creator, is ascribed to Christ. Should not, therefore, believers in the Qur'an give due weight to these statements regarding Christ ? The Gospels give us His own statements about

' Himself, which agree with these assertions of the Qur'an, though other verses in the Qur'an may conflict with these. It follows therefore that our

' statements about the deity of Christ should not be rejected without careful study of the Bible, to which your own Qur'an bears such high testimony. In fJie Jlihle you will see that His deity is repeatedly asserted in the clearest terms '. And 'surely, if you believe what your own Qur'&n says of Christ, it is

1 It is not necessary here to quote passages to prove this to a Christian missionary. He will know where to find them in both the Old and the New TY-taim-nt. Vide Liddon's Bampton' Lectures on the Divinity of Christ, Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, &c. &c. Rev. Dr. Rouse, in a tract on The Nature of God, well and simply shows that the attributes of God are displayed and , claimed by Christ as His own, and assigned to Him in Scripture, BO that very many of the "ninety-nine" special names or titles which Muslim thr"l«»»ijms uiv«» to God suit what tin- Bibl'- t-lU us of Jt'sus Christ. Hi- indicates th«- -aim- lin«- «-f argument in reference to the II«>ly Spirit. (Vide Up. Harold Browne on Art. I. of the Thirty-Nine Articles.)

144 OBJECTIONS TO SOME CHRISTIAN DOCTRIN1

unreasonable to disbelieve His own statements at Himself, for He who is " the Word of God " cann lie, since God is Truth (JU1 Al Haqq)^ and Christ is Himself spoken of in the Qur'an as " The Speech of the Truth " (jJJ Jy Qaulu'l Hagq) \

1 Surah XIX., Maryam, 35. (Rev. W. Goldsack.)

CHAPTER V.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING CHRISTIAN

DOCTRINES (continued).

THE TRINITY1.

130. M. FROM your belief in the Deity of Christ rings the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. ;s is one of the greatest faults in Christianity, e Muslims are Monotheists, whereas you Chris- ens believe in three Gods. This is contrary to ie Qur'an and to Reason 2 itself. How can you sk us to abandon Monotheism for such an impious nd irrational doctrine ?

1 Vide §§ 102, 114, 135. "The Christian doctrine of the 'rinity is this: There is but one God ; but in this Godhead the dost High God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, these »ree, are present in a way which man cannot comprehend, he Word of God became man, was conceived by the power of he Spirit of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became evealed as Jesus Christ." (Rev. Dr. Rouse in preface to the Jengali edition of Siceet Firstfruits.}

3 A correspondent well says that the very fact that the octrine of the Trinity presents difficulties at first, and seems • many at first sight to be illogical, tends rather to prove that is not the product of hiun:in imagination. It is noteworthy o that the doctrine of the Triune nature of the Godhead • 1 the Deity of Jesus Christ originated, hi-t'-rirally speaking, Palestine and among the Jews, who wn-r thru as ardent sellers of the Unity of God as Muhananadaus now are. K

146 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

(?. We do not ask you to abandon Monotheism. Belief in the Unity of God is the very foundation of Christianity in general, and of the doctrine of the Trinity in particular. Any one who abandons it and believes in three Gods is a Polytheist and not a Christian. Both in the Old Testament and in the New the Unity of God was taught ages before Muhammad's time. In the Taurat, for ex ample, Moses thus lays down the Kalimak or Creed of the Jews : " Hear, 0 Israel : the LORD our God is one LORD " (Deut. vi. 4). In the Injil, Jesus repeats the very same words : t{ Hear, O Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord " (Mark xii. 29). The doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the Bible and held by Christians in all ages since the Resur rection of Christ,. is not contrary to this. Reason could not reveal to us the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is not contrary thereto ; nay, we shall see that Reason demands our acceptance of the doctrine. Let us, however, leave the question of Reason for the present and confine ourselves to the Qur'an. What proofs have you that the Qur'an is opposed to belief in the Trinity ?

131. M. The Qur'an in many places denies the doctrine of the Trinity : for instance in Surah V., Al Maidah, 77 : " They surely are Infidels who say, ' God is a third of three ' : for there is no God but one God."

C. This verse is not contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity, for we all acknowledge that eve .

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES —THE TRINITY. 147

word in this extract is true. The doctrine opposed in this verse was never held by Christians at all. Certain heretics, followers of Marcion1, said that there were three Gods — the God of Justice, the God of Mercy, the God of Evil. Perhaps Muhammad had heard of this most blasphemous doctrine and here rejects it in God's name.

132. 3[. It is to Christians that this verse refers, for in the same Surah we read : —

" Surely now are they Infidels who say, ' God is the Messiah, Son of Mary ' : for the Messiah said , ' 0 children of Israel ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord' ..." (v. 76). "The Messiah, Son of Mary, is but an Apostle ; other Apostles have nourished before Him; and His mother was a just person : they both ate food ..." (v. 79). « Say thou ; ' 0 people of the Book ! outstep not bounds of truth in your religion' ..." (v. 81). "And when God shall say : ' O Jesus, Son of Mary ! hast thou said unto mankind, ' Take Me and My mother as two Gods, beside God?' He shall say: ' Glory be unto Thee ! it is not for Me to say that which I know to be not the truth. ... I spake not unto them aught but that which Thou <H<lst bid Me — Worship God, My Lord and your Lord'. . ." (vv. 116,

117).

C. The Qur'an here denounces the idea of a

1 Atharmsius, Orationes contra Arianos, III. 15 (whore he attributes the same doctrine to Mani also). Vi<I«' also Mosheim, Read's ed., Cent. II, pt. II, cap. V, § 7.

K 2

148 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

Triad of Gods, consisting of 1 God, Jesus and Mary. Christians have never believed in this Triad. It is only too true that many ignorant " Christians " in Muhammad's time worshipped Mary (as some still do), asking her to intercede with her Son for them, and the early Muhammadans may hence have fancied that belief in three separate Gods, of which Mary was one, was what was meant by the doctrine of the Trinity. But such an idea was wrong and of heathen origin. The Gospels show that Christ did not bid men worship His mother, and He did use words very similar to those here imputed to Him, for in John viii. 28, He says, "I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things" ; and in xx. 17, He says, c; I ascend unto My Father, and your Father ; and to My God, and your God." But in both passages He asserts His own Divine Sonship. If therefore the Qur'an is correct in representing Him as saying, <c I spake not unto them aught but that which Thou didst bid Me," we cannot be blamed for accepting this and every other part of His teaching.

133. M. The Qur'an refutes this as part of the doctrine of the Trinity, for in Surah IV., An Nisa', i 69, we read : " O people of the Book ! overstep not bounds in your religion ; and of God speak

1 Vide Jalalu'ddin's commentary on Surah V., 77, and also his and Baizawi's and Yahya's comments on Surah IV., 156. These commentators show that their opinion was that the Christian Trinity consisted of Father, Mother, and Son.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES — THE TRINITY. 149

only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, is only an Apostle of God, and His Word which He conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit from Him. Believe therefore in God and His Apostles, and say not ' A Triad.' Forbear! it will be better for you. God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a Son." And so we read in vv. 51, 1 1 6 : " God truly will not forgive the join ing other Gods with Himself."

C. Here again what is denounced is belief in three Gods — the sin of joining other gods with God. The Old Testament shows how severely the Israelites were punished for this sin, and the New Testament includes idolaters among those who <; shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone " (Rev. xxi. 8 ; cf. xxii. 15). We have already seen that it is the carnal idea of the generation of Christ which the Qur'an rightly rejects, as do all Christians. The acknowledgement that Christ is the Word of God (4! 1 i-JiS) implies in philosophical language what we mean by calling Christ God's Son, for the same title is used in John i. i, 14. Here again therefore we see that what the Qur'an repudiates is what we Christians too repudiate, and not the true doctrine of the Trinity (vide §§ 114, 135, and chapter V).

134. M. In Surah IX., At Taubah, 30, 31, we read : " The Christians say, ' The Messiah is a Son of God.' . . . God do battle with them! How ;iro they misguided! They take their teachers and

150 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

their monks and the Messiah, Son of Mary, for Lords, besides God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He ! "

C. We have already seen why and in what sense the Qur'an refuses to Christ the title of Son of God. The habit of giving religious teachers the title of Rabbi (to which v. 31 refers) is condemned by Christ Himself in Matt, xxiii. 8. But the title did not mean in Hebrew what it does in Arabic.

135. M. If you say that you do not believe in three Gods but in one God, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is not what the Qur'an condemns, what is your doctrine of the Trinity ?

C. It is given in the Nicene Creed (A. D. 325), in the Creed known as that of St. Athanasius, and more simply still in the following Article : — " There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness ; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this God head there be three Persons " /Hypostases, Subsist ences), " of one substance, power, and, eternity ; the [Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 7 (Art. i of the 39 Articles). These statements are merely attempts to summarize what the Bible l teaches ; that there is but One God in three Hypostases ( ~ate\ ). These Hypostases cannot be separated from one another ; but, if they could, no one of them alone would be

1 The Bible proofs are given by Boultbee and by Bishop Harold Browne on Art. i.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 15!

God, while each with the other two is God l. This is what we understand to be taught in the Bible. It is not taught in the Quran, but it can hardly be said to be contrary to the latter. It is above Rea^n. not contrary to Reason. Of God's Nature ice can know only what lie has Himself revealed : hence the saying, " Disputation about the Nature of God is blasphemy" (JiS 4ill cylj ^ o»~J1) 2.

136. 3L It is contrary to both Reason and the Quran : for God is One, and the idea of Unity is the very contrary of that of plurality. Contraries cannot be both true.

C. The idea of Unity does not exclude all idea of plurality. You rightly acknowledge the Unity of Essence in God as well as plurality in His attributes, such as mercy, justice, power, wisdom, eternity. These two ideas do not contradict one another. You rightly call God the " Union of (good) Attributes :' (cyUUl ft**** Mqjmiiiix Sifaf), and His many Names or Titles express these, as " the Merciful, the Just,

1 This is, in effect, what Dr. Cook says (Boston Monday Lecture*).

8 "The New Testament clearly expresses, and (in most of tl.. places where a plurality within tho Godhead is referred to) strongly insists on, the novapxia of the Father. He is th. original Divim- IVr.-.n original, <>f «-,,urso, not in time but in cou«a«on) ; the Son and tl.- Spirit isMio (in diffon-nt ways from Him. It lias always seemed to me that tin- Scriptural insistence on the suburdiim'i'in ••!' tin* Second and Third Persons to the First within th.- (J..dh.-:id ought to be helpful t-. an open- iiiiinli-d ami intelligent Mu>lim."— Ii»-v. Dr. II".. j., r. V.di- ii"t» to § loa.)

152 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

the Almighty, the All- Wise, the Eternal." So too the belief in the existence of three Hypostases in the Divine Unity is not contradictory. No perfect

•» ^

illustration (J-i^ mathal} can be found, but the meaning will in some slight degree be clearer from considering your own nature, according to the traditional saying of cAli, " Whoso knoweth him self knoweth his Lord " (<-^-£ II* »-~Jo v_3j!c ^ wj)1, for the Bible tells us that God created man "in His own image" (Gen. i. 27). You speak of your Spirit (^ rfih) as " I " (the Ego, U1 ana), of your Mind (Jic- *aql) as " I," of your Soul (J*&> nafs) as " I " : these are distinct in some measure, and yet your personality is one 2. There is no contra diction in this. In the Divine Nature we are told of three Hypostases, but of only one God.

137. M. Spirit, Soul and Mind are parts of the man ; but God has no parts.

C. True, as I have already said. Yet, though the example is imperfect, we may learn something from it. If you had no Spirit but only Soul and

1 This is, of course, a later form of the old Greek saying, TvwOi aavrov. It is taken from a poem in a collection attributed to 'Ali.

2 I have found this argument most useful with Persians. A correspondent suggests instead the comparison of body, soul, and spirit. But Muslims rightly retort, " God has no body." Nor can we here appeal, as has been suggested, to their belief in the resurrection of the body, since their idea of this is so very materialistic that it needs to be corrected, not confirmed. The Bahais explain away the resurrection of the body, under standing thereby a change of heart.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 153

Mind, or no Mind, but only Spirit and Soul, you would not be a man. These three differ from one another, though we cannot fully explain in what : yet all three together form what you call your Ego, and each may be spoken of separately as your Ego. Somewhat similarly "the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and yet they are not three Gods but one God." The three are one in will, nature, power, eternity.

138. M. The "Holy Ghost" (y-jJLN ^ MM I Qudus) is only another name for the archangel Gabriel. (Surah XVI., 104.)

C. So Muslims use the words, but the Bible clearly distinguishes between them. Gabriel is a creature of God.

139. J/. There is nothing in the Qur'an to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

C. We accept it on ihe authority of the llihh- alone. Yet there are two facts in the Qur'an which cannot be properly explained or understood except by accepting the doctrine. The first is, that God is spoken of as One, He is called God (411! ,-///<///), Lord (u^Jl Ar Rahb) in the singular, and addressed as Thou. The other is, that He is represented as speaking of Himself in the plural as We, Us. Examples are found in almost every Surah : for example, in Surah XCVI., Al 'Alaq, supposed to be the first Surah revealed to Muhammad, God is called " the Lord " (v. 8), and " God " (v. 13) in the singular, and yet in v. 17, He says, " We f«o will stunt man the guards

154 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

of hell," using the plural. Does not this imply the existence of some kind of plurality, other than that of attributes, in the Divine Unity ?

140. M. Certainly not. The " We " is used, as kings use the word, to imply majesty.

C. On what authority do you say this so positively ? If the Qur'an is from God, nothing in it can be unmeaning. Whatever God says is true : and this expression, so often repeated in the Qur'an, may contain deep teaching. We observe that, in the use of the plural, the Qur'an agrees with the Bible, since we find, for instance, in Gen. i. 26 ; iii. 22 ; xi. 7, the very same expression used. Those parts of the Bible which teach the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity may possibly explain the reason of this, as far as the Bible is concerned. If the Qur'an was revealed to confirm the Taurat and the Injil, perhaps this is one of the points in which it does so.

141. M. The Jews explain these passages by saying that God was addressing the angels.

C. That is because the Jews reject the Gospel, which the Qur'an "confirms." But whether their explanation be right or wrong, will it explain the use of the plural in the Qur'an ?

142. M. No, it will not : but the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the Qur'an.

C. We have seen that what the Qur'an denounces is a doctrine which taught the existence of three Gods. This is not the Christian doctrine of the

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 155

Trinity. To worship Mary as God is blasphemy ; to call Jesus another God besides God is also heretical. But to say that there is only one God and that in the Divine Unity there are three Hypostases of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is quite a different thing. This latter doctrine gives a pos sible explanation of and justifies the use of the " We " in the Bible, and may explain and justify it in the Qur'an. It cannot therefore be proved that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the Qur'an.

143. M. At any rate it is contrary to Reason. How can three be one and one three ?

C. How can you be Spirit, Soul, and Mind, and yet one individual ? It is so, and yet we know not how. If then we cannot understand our own nature, how can we understand that of the infinite God 1 Our Reason is finite as well as created: it cannot comprehend to the full the nature of its infinite Creator. The doctrine of the Trinity is above Reason, not contrary to it. But we can go further and truly assert that Reason demands some such doctrine.

144. M. It will be strange indeed if you can prove that !

C. You will supply the proof if you will kindly answer my questions. Do your theologians believe that God is the " Union of all good Attributes "

156 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

145. M. Yes : and these Attributes exist in Him to the degree of Perfection.

C. What are the good Attributes ?

146. M. Those implied by the ninety-nine most Excellent Names 1 of God, such as Almighty Power, Goodness, Wisdom, Eternity, Mercy, &c.

C. Is not one of these Divine Titles " the Causer of Causes " (vW-5\ u.4— MusalUlu'l Asbdb) ?

147. M. Yes ; we Muslims acknowledge God to be that.

C. "Well then, let us consider the meaning of the term, for it has a very deep and true meaning. Philosophers have discovered that there is a law of causality, and that cause underlies all created things. The final cause of anything lies quite beyond our cognizance, though Reason demonstrates its exist ence. We know the Law of Gravity, the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and so on ; but the only conceivable origin of these, the cause of them, must be sought in the Will of the Creator, which is the origin of all Force. But these laws act upon Matter which is cognizable to the senses, and thus produce certain results. The results may be known to us. Behind each result or effect lies some mani festation or Form, and behind that again lies the invisible cause. For example, we see the Form which we call Fire. Its effects are heat (burning, &c.). Behind the Form of Fire lies its invisible

1 As given, e. g. in Mishkatu'l Masabih, Book On fhe Names of God, §§ i and ii, quoted in my Religion of the Crescent, pp. 15, 16.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 157

cause (Combustion). There is therefore a group of three things, Cause, Form, Effect. If, as you rightly say, God is the Causer of Causes, may we not in all reverence see some manifestation of His nature in this as in a metaphor? God the Father may be regarded as the Cause ; God the Son as the Form ; God the Holy Ghost as the Effect, proceeding from both. Fire cannot exist without Heat, or Heat without Combustion, and so we have an indivisible Trinity. This is only an illustration of the way in which God who is the Causer of Causes has grouped Causes, Forms and Effects together in groups of threes l. When we learn the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity from the Bible, we think that we can see illustrations of it in God's works 2, as if the Invisible Causer of Causes had chosen thus as it were to mirror forth something of the secret mystery of His Divine Nature a.

Once more, among other titles of God is He not called "The Lover" (1^1 Al J/W«V) 4 ?

1 Again, the rays of the spectrum are of three kinds, the luminous, the heating, and the chemical, yet all three exist in and form one single ray of white light. (Rev. J. W. L:il.)

3 Rev. Dr. Wherry prefers the old illustration of the Sun with its light and heat: "The Sun reveals itself only by its light : so ' No man hath seen the Father' (John i. 18). Christ is the Light of God, revealing the Father ; and the heat or energy of the Sun may be likened to the Holy Spirit, by whom the power of God is manifested."

3 Suggested by the Rev. P. M. Zenker. Such philosophical considerations have a great value to the Oriental mind, especi ally with Sufis. Vide Dr. Pfander's Miftnhul Atrir.

4 This is in substance Anselm's argument.

158 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

148. M. He is.

C. Does not that imply the existence in the Divine Nature of the attribute of Love (^UjJl al ivicldd), pure unselfish love, such as that of a father towards his children * ?

149. M. It does.

C. Do you not also say that the Nature of God cannot change ?

150. M. We do.

C. Has then the attribute of Love always be longed to God, or has He after a time acquired it ?

151. M. It must always have existed in His nature.

C. Love must have an object. Before the creation of the worlds, whom did God love 2 ?

152. M. He loved Himself.

1 The Christian doctrine gives a far nobler and worthier reason for calling God "The Lover" than does the Muhammadan. For, according to the Christian view, He loved from all eternity, having in Himself an object of love : but, according to the Muhammadan view, He did not exercise the power of loving until after Creation. The Christian doctrine also represents God as possessing the highest form or degree of love, self- sacrificing love ; whereas the Muslim view practically represents man as possessing a higher form of love than God, because man c;in exercise self-sacrifice. (Rev. Dr. Rouse, Nature of God, p. 24.)

2 A possible objection to the argument here given has been pointed out by one or two correspondents. It is partly removed in the note to § 148. The doctrine that God had from all eternity within His own Being an object for the exercise of the attribute of Love exalts our conception of the loftiness and sufficiency of the Divine Nature. It must therefore be true, as we cannot possibly think too highly of God, since He must excel our loftiest conceptions of Him.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES — THE TRINITY. 159

C. Is self-love a virtue or a vice, a good attribute or a bad ? If a man loves himself and himself only, do we consider him a good or a bad, selfish man? Can God be such ?

153. M. He loved the angels.

C. But they had not yet been created. If love is a good attribute and is most so when unselfish ; if it has always (like all other good attributes) existed in the Divine nature, and must have had an object, is it not clear that from all eternity there must have existed some kind of plurality of existences (Hypostases, ~*J^) in the Unity of God, one loving the other ? The doctrine of the Trinity shows how this was possible.

154. M. Can you explain how there can be three Hypostases in the Unity of the Godhead1? Can you even understand it? If not, how can you expect me to accept the doctrine 1 What is the good of professing to believe what you cannot understand ?

C. You believe that you have a spirit and an intellect. Can you explain what these really are in their essence, or where they reside, or how they affect and rule the body, or how the senses affect the mind ? You believe in the resurrection of the dead ; can you explain how it is possible 1 Yet you rightly condemn a man who disbelieves in it. You see therefore that there is good in believing what you cannot understand or explain. You know that ignorant people cannot explain how it

l6o OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

is that the food they eat does them good, or why man cannot live long without food. But if a man were to decline to eat until he knew all about the use of food, you would consider him mad. The benefit of the food does not at all depend upon ability to understand its effects. So with the knowledge of the truth.

155. M. But what is the good of believing in the doctrine of the Trinity l ?

C. It enables us to believe in the truth of Christ's claims to be the Word of God or the Son of God, and to accept the salvation which He offers. If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then Christ was not what He professed to be. He was not even a true prophet if His teaching was untrue. Thus disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity over throws both Christianity and Islam. Again

1 Here may be entered the following Muhammadan objec tions : —

M, If God is One, how can there be three Persons in the Godhead ?

Ans. Your difficulty probably arises from your not under standing the technical use of the word "Person." [In Arabic, Urdu, and Persian we use the Syriac word (Aqnum") |*^-*^> Ar. pi. Aqdnim ^^\Js\} to express "Person" or "Hypostasis" in its

theological sense in reference to the Godhead, explaining it by the Persian word ^JL* (hasti} existence.]

M. To say that three " Persons" are necessary to do the work of One God is to represent God as weak and incomplete. Which is greater, God the Father or God the Son ?

The answers to this will be found given in different parts of this chapter.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. l6l

Muslims often ask such questions as this : "If Christ was God, who ruled the world when Christ was in the grave ? " No one who believed the doctrine of the Trinity would ask such a silly question.

156. 3/. We want logical J proof, and what you say falls short of that.

C. Different2 subjects require different kinds of proof. Were I to demand from you chemical proof of Alexander the Great's existence, or historical proof of the composition of water, or mathematical proof of the resurrection of the dead, you would justly declare the demand absurd. What kind of proof convinces you of the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, of life after death, of rewards and punishments in the next world ? .

1 As such, the Rev. A. E. Johnston suggests the following argument : —

Is God possessed of Attributes ? Are they active or dormant ? Or is there change in Him, so that they would be sometimes one and sometimes the other ? Was He ever devoid of any of His Attributes? Is God dependent on anything outside of Himself? Does He need anything, without which He would not have or could not exercise His Attributes? Does not the . pith, t As Samadu (Surah CXIL, Al Ikhlas, 2) denote His >» If-sufficiency ? Is not God 'alim? Does not the very existent.' of 'ilm ' knowh-.l-c imply throe things, an 'dlim (knower), a ina'lum (tiling known' and a nisbat i 'ilmiyyah (bond of con nexion between the two)? Since God is independent of any tliin^ outside of His own Nature, and is Omniscient ('alhu , must He not have within Him-. It all three, and be therefore a Trinity in Unity? Rev. Dr. Hooper founds much the same argument on the words Allah Kdfi inscribed in a Lahore mosque.

" Cf. Iblathu'l Mujtahidin, pp. 73, 74. I.

1 62 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

157. M. The proof of these doctrines is that they have been revealed by God to us ; therefore we believe in them.

C. The proof of the doctrine of the Trinity too is found in the Bible, therefore we believe it to be true. God has revealed it through the prophets and apostles, and especially through Jesus Christ. His character, His fulfilled prophecies. His noble teaching, His miracles, and the fulfilment of His promises to every one who comes to Him in faith — as we know from personal experience — all these prove the truth of His claims. These claims involve the doctrine of the Trinity.

158. M, What the Qur'an says about Him is sufficient for us, and involves no such doctrine.

• C. In Surah IV., An Nisa', 169, Christ is called " His Word," that is, God's Word (CiU/ Kalimatuhu, that is, 41 \ Lji^ Kalimaluttdk). The Arabic shows that it means " the Word of God," not " a Word of God" (£\ LjS^not AT^Uir^ ^LUT). Now what does that imply ?

159. M. It is a mere title, nothing more. So Abraham is called "the friend of God" (S\ J-J^ KhalUu'lldk] in the Qur'an, and we call Moses " He that talked with God" (AT '^ Kattmn'lldh).

C. A title is either rightly or wrongly given. The title " Shah of Persia," if given to you, does not express the truth; but if given to Muzaffar- u'ddin Shah it does state a fact. Who gives to

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES — THE TRINITY. 163

Jesus in the Qur'an the title of ': the Word of God"?

160. M. God Himself.

C. You call God "the Truth" (Jll Al 7%y). and rightly. Is He speaking the truth when He calls Christ " the Word of God," as He does not only in the Qur'an but in the Bible (John i. i, 14 ; Rev. xix. 13)?

161. J/. Of course : God cannot speak falsely. C. Then we conclude that Christ is really " ///>

Word of God." Now what does Word (Lj&KaKmaA l = Aoyos) mean, — your word, or any one's word ? What is its office and object ?

162. M. It expresses what is in the mind of the speaker, if he be truthful. It may be spoken, written, or expressed by signs, or in other ways.

C. A word is thus an expression of the mind or thought. If Christ were a Word of God (^ lj ill u^UA5), He would be merely one expression of

1 The Arabic term iju expresses \6yos or "Sermo" fairly well, ns it means a word not as to its oral utterance but as i<> its meaning — an expression, a speech, and so on. Arabic scholars

will notice that, while ill e^L»-L$ (^ i-^.15 would mean "a

Word of God," the term i]l L+JS means v \6yos rov 0«of<. In the following argument this diiVeieiice is dwelt upon. The Arabic for ''Word of God" as applied to the Bible

(Surah II., 70) is not the same : it is 4JT ^^ 110t 4Vil i^JS- Some nii.ssi-iii.iri. -, ar^'iie similarly from the title " Spirit "1

God" (ill _^) jriv«-ii by Mul.aimiia.lans to Christ. But in tft>- V"-'''n He is not so called, but <>nly "a spirit from Him" Surah IV., 169 ..

L 2

164 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

God's will. What is the force of calling Him " the

163. M. By the rules of Arabic grammar it should mean that He is the one expression of God's will. But this cannot be, as the other prophets also expressed God's will.

C. Your argument would convict the Qur'an of error. We understand that the prophets spoke through the Word of God, to whom they bore witness. Thus the difficulty vanishes. Is the title of " the Word of God " given to any other prophet in the Qur'an ?

164. M. No.

C. Well then, is it not clear from the Qur'an that Christ alone is the one expression of God's mind and will (Luke x. 22) 1 If so, how can He be a mere man, like the other prophets ? Can any one but yourself and God know your mind and thoughts, unless they are expressed ?

165. M. No one.

C. Are they not expressed by your word ?

166. M. Yes.

C. Then Christ is the expression of God's mind and will. Only through Him can these be revealed. Can He reveal them without knowing them ? If not, can He be less than or different from God, the expression of whose will He is ? Hence He says, '- 1 am the Way, the Truth, and the Life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" (John xiv. 6). You see here again the doctrine of the Trinity comes

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 165

in to explain not only the Gospel's but even the Qu- r'an's teaching about Christ. You Muslims often call Jeans "the Spirit of God" (<5T -^ Euhulldlt], which we do not. If you are right, then this is another proof of His deity. The Bible gives this title to the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, which proves l that all the three Hypostases are included in the Unity of the Divine nature 2.

1 The Bishop of Lahore says: " There is a slightly diflVn-nt line of thought which I have often found extremely helpful. I begin, much as in this chapter, by asking the Muhammadan to define the nature of the Unity of God. In many respects one accepts his definition arid lays stress on the Unity — in tin- sense of entire distinction from all created Being. Then I say, ' Now here we have the Divine Nature on one side, by itself (so to speak), and all else on the other : we see how wholly distim-t and unique it is. But we have not yet touched the question of what mysteries it may contain in itself.' I go on to point out how inevitable it is that there should be some great myster\ in that Supreme Nature when there is so much in the world of which we are parts. I then lay stress on the fact that, what ever answer we may give to this, — whether \v<- h<>M a stn-il.- Monotheism or a Plurality of hypostases in one Essence — in either case it does not conflict with the Unity, for we an- iN-aliim simply with the inner Nature of that Essence \\hi< h \ve have already, in accepting the Unity, separated <.fl' and jm-itf.! wholly by itself. This kind of line of argument I ha\« ..inn found to win assent. I should also lay more stress on what I consider the immensely weighty argument as to the fact that tin nature of Lore involves subject and object."

2 Dr. II. Martyn Clark says that he has f. -mid the fiill«»win- illustration helpful to Muslims: —

The figure i by itself is a mere straight line : its value is determined by its position with reference to the iinj»li.«l • Itriinal point. It is usually taken to mean <>/ , I'.-.MUSO it is supposed to repn-ent i . Lut if written -x its meaning would 1.

l66 OBJECTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN LEADING

167. 1\J. Belief in the Trinity seems to us to be common to you with the Hindus, who speak of the Trimurtt), Brahma, Vishnu , and Siva.

C These are three l separate false gods, while we believe in the One True God 2. Between belief in a Triad on the one hand, and belief in the Trinity in Unity on the other, there is the greatest possible difference. Have you ever considered how the world is divided into two parts regarding the deity of Jesus, which involves the doctrine of the Trinity?

168 M. Only Christians believe it.

C. From the Bible we learn that (i) the prophets (as, for instance, David, Isaiah, and John the Baptist) declared Christ's deity ; (2) the apostles believed in it ; (3) so do all Christians ; and (4) so do the angels. Even the devils were compelled to confess it. Those who disbelieve are (i) the Mus lims, (2) the heathen, (3) infidels. A time is coming

very different. Hence the very idea of unity implies three dimen sions.

1 The doctrine of Triads in India, Egypt, and elsewhere may possibly be a corruption of the doctrine of the Ti'inity, if the latter doctrine was part of an early Revelation. At any rate, it shows that men have felt that barren Monotheism or Uni- tarianism is not sufficient for either reason or faith.

2 a Though the three Hindu deities referred to are philoso phically conceived of as three in one, yet that One, being impersonal, and the three being the chief personal manifestations of It, there is really nothing whatever in common between this Hindu belief and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity." (Rev. Dr. Hooper )

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES THE TRINITY. 167

when all shall believe and every tongue shall con fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. ii. 10, 11). How much better it will be for you, my brother, to confess Him who died for you, and believe in Him now, ere it is too late to be saved.

CHAPTER VI.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTKINE OF ATONEMENT1.

169. M. YOUR whole doctrine of the Atonement, which you say was made by Christ, is quite con trary to Reason and to the Qur'an. There is no need of an Atonement 2 or of a Plan of Salvation. To speak of these things is to declare that God is not Almighty. He can do exactly what He wills, and He can and does forgive penitent sinners without any Atonement whatever, for He is free and is not answerable to any one for what He does.

C. By saying this you show that you do not realize the guilt of sin and how hateful it is in the sight of God, who is the Holy One (^llll Al Quddits). Yet Sin and Holiness are the antitheses of each other. It is because you do not realize the hatred of God

1 In this chapter I have made no attempt to deal fully with the great doctrine of the Atonement, being prevented from doing so by the limits of the present Manual. The reader should consult Dr. Dale's and other works on the Atonement. (Vide Preface, para. 8.)

3 Muslims entirely fail to understand our doctrine of the Atonement, while fancying that they know all about it. (Rev. J. P. Ellwood.)

AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 169

for sin and how opposite it is to His holy Nature and Will that you do not feel the need of an Atonement. This is one of the evil results of your religion. It has in large measure obliterated from your minds the truth which even the very heathen once knew, as shown by the sacrifices offered ever since Adam's time in all nations, until the perfect sacrifice of Christ, of which they were types and prophecies, removed all reason for their continu ance among Christians. Yet the conscience of HHIH, which accuses him of sin and insists on tfie need of a propitiation, is too strong for you. Hence sacri fices of camels and other animals are still offered by Muhammadans on certain occasions : [and the Shi'ites believe that the deaths of Hasan and Husain were an atonement for the sins of Muslims.] Here we see human nature asserting its conscious need of an Atonement, but taking a stone for bread. You do not believe that an Atonement is necessary, because you do not realize the guilt of sin, and how impossible it is for impenitent sinners to be reconciled to God and happy in His holy presence. Hence the fearful pictures of the nature of the pleasures which your traditions [and even the Qur'an] describe as appointed by God for Muslims in Paradise1. What you

1 The attempt •< m;nl< \>\ Muliiy\ uM<lin mid otlior mystic an<i rationalistic commentator* to explain these descriptions as merely figurative do not agree with the belief of Muslim^ in the early ages, nor are they even now generally accepted l>y Muslims.

170 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

say as to the possibility of God's forgiving a sinner on his repentance without an Atonement is contrary to our innate feeling of Justice. If a human judge were to do so, it would be said that he was unjust, for justice must be satisfied : but God does not do what is unjust, for He is Just (J-iUJI Al*Adil\ and does not therefore forgive with out an Atonement. Nor can a sinner truly repent if he does not realize the guilt he has incurred. Christ's Atonement was needed to make us realize the guilt of sin.

170. M. How can one man's death atone for the sin of many ?

C. One diamond may pay a debt of many thousands of rupees x. But the true reason why Christ's death has atoned for the sins of the whole world (i John ii. 2) is that He died as the Head of the human race and as its representative (i Cor. xv. 22,

45-49) 2-

171. M. Where is the justice of the innocent suffering for the guilty ?

C. The substitution3 of the innocent for the guilty in the case of human justice could not be admitted. But much of the difficulty which is often found in accepting the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement of Christ arises from the fact

1 Kev. Dr. Bouse.

2 A man's back may pay the penalty for the sin of his hand, because both are parts of one body. (Rev. J. A. Wood.)

3 Vide Dr. Dale on the Atonement : 5th Edition, ch ix. p. 358.

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 171

that so many people mistake an illustration fur a full explanation or statement of the doctrine. We have again and again seen (§§ 39, 114, &c.) that no human language is adequate (because of its imperfection) to express Divine realities. Almost all the objections are based upon a misunderstand ing of this fact. I hesitate therefore to use any illustration, lest it should be misunderstood. But if you remember that what I am about to say is intended only as a (necessarily imperfect) illustra tion, it may perhaps be helpful to you. Remember too that, if you find defects in the illustration*, that does not disprove the truth of the doctrine. In one sense we frequently see that the innocent suffers for the guilty. A mother's pangs usher the child into the world ]. On the other hand, a drunkard's or a spendthrift's children suffer in consequence of their father's sins. Or again, a child's prosperity may be due to his father's toil and suffering. So our salvation depends on Christ's sufferings for us. Christ, the sinless One who suffered, the Just for the unjust, is Himself also the Judge of living and dead. If a judge is compelled by a just law to sentence a man to pay a heavy fine, and if the judge is kind and generous enough to pay the fine himself \vhen the other cannot 2, is not justice satis-

1 Rev. T. P. Ellwood.

8 A man may pay another's dt-W, his money is his own pro perty. He could not pay it honestly with another man'-* money. So a man cannot give his life for another's ..n'.-n.-r.

172 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

fied as well as mercy shown ? None but the sinless can be a substitute for the guilty, for a debtor cannot pay another's debt, a criminal cannot pay the penalty for another criminal. Hence the Bible represents the sinless Christ as making atonement for us (Isa. liii. 5 ; i Pet. ii. 21-24).

172. M. Would the substitution of the innocent for the guilty be accepted in a secular court of justice ? Man sinned, and you say the sinless Christ suffered for him. This is contrary to Ezek. xviii. 20.

C. The latter verse does condemn us and all men except Christ. Unless therefore there be some way of escape, the result is and must be what is said in the Qur'an about hell-fire (Surah XIX., Mary am, 72), " There is none of you but descends into it." Hence you see that a religion without an Atonement can give men no well- grounded hope of salvation. But the Gospel brings good news of the way of escape which God's love and mercy has devised, without violating Justice. If the Gospel is not true, then you see that you and I and all men are condemned and have no hope. It is therefore to your great advantage that the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ should be proved true.

Now there are certain conditions of affairs which,

for that is a Divine trust (amdnat i, ildhi) entrusted to him. But Christ could, for He alone could truly say of His life, " I have power to lay it down" (John x. 17, i8X (Dr. H. M. Clark.)

OF CHRIST S ATONEMENT. 173

it must be admitted, would have rendered the death of Christ useless and our belief in His Atone ment unreasonable, //' those coiuliUmix had exix/,',1. (i) If Christ had been a sinner : or (2) if He had been put to death against His will : or (3) if He were a mere man, though the best of men : or (4) if His death did not really take place but only in appearance : or (5) if He were an angel, or (6) one of three Gods, as certain heretics held : then our belief in His Atonement would be in vain. But we Christians do not hold any of these ideas. The true doctrine is that Christ, being perfect God and perfect Man in one person, the two natures united as in man are body and soul, freely gave His life for us and for all men (ire pi, Matt. xxvi. 28 ; vvtp Luke xxii. 20; wit, Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45). Being free from sin, He did not deserve death, but freely took it on Him for us. He "bore our sins in His own body up to (or on) the tree " (i Pet. ii. 24), and there died as our representative. Those who realize His love and who truly believe in Him are so united with Him that His death is a propitiation for their sins (i John ii. 2). But this cannot be understood unless we recollect that He who died on the Cross for us was one with God, and that thus our Creator and our Judge voluntarily satisfied the demands of justice, by dying for the guilty in the human nature which He had assumed.

One or two considerations make the matter clean i .

174 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

(a) By one man's sin : it was that condemnation, sin, and death came upon all men through their federal union with him2. Hence it was just that by " the righteousness of One " all men should be offered salvation. As all men are not compelled to perish through Adam's sin (for salvation is offered through Christ), so all men are not compelled to be saved through Christ (since they who will may refuse the salvation which He offers).

(b) The sight of Christ's sufferings and the fearful cruelty, hardheartedness, and wickedness of those who crucified Him, shows us, as nothing else could do, the awful nature and heinous guilt of sin, since it is hostile to God and to everything good in man. This helps us to hate and shun sin and to repent of our past iniquity.

(c) Since Christ tells us that He is one with His Father (John x. 30), and that whosoever sees Him beholds His Father (John xiv. 7, 9), and also informs us that the Father's love for men was manifested in the gift of His Son (John iii. 16), therefore Christ's love reveals His Father's and " we love

1 Cf. Mishkat (Bab IF., fasl ii.), where a tradition states that Adam's children have inherited sin from him.

2 In accordance with this is the Muhammadan tradition which states that God extracted all men from Adam's loins in the form of " existent motes" (adh-dharrdtu''l Kdindf), in order to make them parties to the Covenant. (Mr. H. G. Harding.) This refers to what is called the AkhdlwCl Mifhdq ^jlt-J.1 J-J>-1, and the various traditions on the subject are given in the Turkish Mir'dtu'l Kdindt, vol. i. p. 106).

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 175

because He first loved us" (i John iv. 19). Thus the believer's heart is drawn to God, his will submits with perfect trust to God's will, not as a slave but as a son. Thus man is reconciled to God, and the Atonement is accomplished.

Although much else is shrouded in mystery, yet enough is here revealed to enable every one who wills it to obtain salvation through Christ (cf. Deut. xxix. 29).

173. J/. We know from the Qur'an (Surah IV., An Nisa', 156) that Jesus was not killed, but ascended up to heaven without dying1. It is a mere Jewish legend that represents Him as put to death.

C. If so, there is no hope of salvation for you, for me, or for any man. But we know from God's Word that He died and rose again before He ascended into heaven. [Vide §§ 94, 95.]

174. 37. If the forgiveness of sins is dependent on the death of Christ, how was it that He forgave sins before Ho died ? and how were men saved in the ages before His birth \

C. Through the Atonement which He was about to accomplish (Heb. ix. 13, 14, 24-28). [There is no time with God, though we speak of past, present, and future.]

175. M. If Christ paid our debts, to whom did He pay them ?

1 For varinix Muhammadan accounts of this vide The of the Crescent, App. A, and authorities there cit« •<!.

176 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

C. This is a metaphor and may be pressed too far. By His death for us He satisfied the claims of Divine Justice, ultimately, though not proximately, for Divine Justice still demands the death of our bodies (Ezek. xviii. 20: vide §§ 193-195).

176. M. Did He make atonement for all men, or only for His own disciples ?

C. Potentially for all (i John ii. 2), though practically (as far as we know) His death benefits only those who believe in Him.

177. M. If He died for all, then all are thereby freed from guilt and punishment 1.

C. Only potentially. If a rope be thrown to a drowning man, it is safety to him only if he catches it and clings to it until he is drawn ashore. Salva tion means deliverance from the power of sin and the guilt of past sin (Matt. i. 21), and only con sequently from the future punishment of sin. It does not denote escape from temporal punishment (2 Sam.xii. 10-1 8, and subsequent history of David).

1 Somewhat the same objection is occasionally put thus : — M. If Christ paid all men's debt (i John ii. 2 : Heb. ii. 9) and if God nevertheless punishes some men, then He is unjust. Or if you say that God only wishes to save all men through Christ's death and yet punishes some for not being saved, He is still unjust. But this is impossible. Hence the doctrine of the Atonement is false.

(7. Christ paid the debt and opened the prison doors and now offers all men both the will and the power to come out, but does not force them to do so. If they refuse to come out, they are doubly guilty, both as sinful rebels and for despising God's mercy. (Rev. W. A. Rice, from Leupolt.)

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 177

178. M. If Christ paid the penalty, all men may sin as they like without fear.

C. Certainly not (Rom. vi. I sqq. ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Titus i. 15 and ii, esp. ii. 11-14; Heb. x. 26-31; i John ii. 1-6, &c., &c.).

179. M. How could He make atonement for the world, since we are told in the Old Testament that no man may make atonement for his brother (Ps. xlix. 7)?

C. That means atonement to save a man from death. The next verse says, " For the redemption of their soul is costly" (Ps. xlix. 8). Hence Chrisf s death was necessary to atone for sin. Christ was not a mere man, though Ho was truly man. " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. v. 19). [See above, §§ 171, 172.]

180. M. It was unjust for the innocent to have to suffer for the guilty.

C. Christ gave Himself for us, voluntarily dying for our salvation (John x. 17, 18).

181. H. How can that be, when the Gospel tells us that He was seized by a band of soldiers (Murk xiv. 46; John xviii. 12), and that with 'strong crying and tears" He prayed to escape death (Heb. v. 7)?

C. Scripture explains itself. If you read Mutt. xxvi. 36-46 ; Mark xiv. 32-42 ; Luke xxii. 39-46 ; John xvii, you will understand Heb. v. 7 ; while John xviii. 6 shows that He had power to resist,

M

178 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

had He pleased. The Gospel narrative is so clear on this point that no one can fail to under stand it.

182. M. When you say that Christ's death saves Christians from their sins, this must mean (i) from ability to sin, or (2) from the punishment of their sins. According to your Scriptures, the prophets (who, as you say, believed in Him) were not saved from either the one or the other. It did not save from sin Judas the betrayer of Jesus, or Peter who denied Him, or Thomas who doubted Him, or the other disciples who " forsook Him and fled." Nor does it save modern Christians from sin. (We see a good many of them in India, in Egypt, in Palestine, in Turkey, and even in Persia!) Some may be good, but good men are found in all religions. Christ's death does not exempt Chris tians from punishment here: it is difficult to believe therefore that it will do so hereafter. Nor do they even escape from the curse on Eve, for even Christian mothers suffer in childbirth.

C. Faith in Christ crucified saves true Christians (John iii. 3, 5) from the love of sin, and through the grace of God's Holy Spirit overcomes sinful desires and temptations in them, and makes them long, pray, and strive to rise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. If they fall into sin, they are punished here ; but change of heart does produce change of life. They are conscious of reconciliation with God, and obtain that peace which

OF CHRIST S ATONEMENT. 179

the world can neither give nor take away. No other religion produces such good fruit. Islam certainly does not. We find the Bible bearing witness to the change which faith in Christ crucified wrought in Peter, in Paul : we see the like change in many among our own countrymen, and you see it too in those of your people who have become true Christians. You must not confound nominal Christians with true ones. The tree is known by its fruit, and St. James tells us that faith which does not produce good fruit is dead and not living faith (Jas. ii. 26).

183. J/. If it is true that " in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him" (Acts x. 35), that is to God, what possible need can there be for an Atonement ?

C. St. Peter, in the very chapter from which you quote, answers your question by preaching remission of sins through belief in Christ crucified (Acts x. 36-43). He shows us that verse 35 means that, when God sees that any man is trying to do right through fear of God, He guides that man to believe in Christ who died for him, as He guided Cornelius to believe and be baptized (Acts x. 48).

184. M. At least we Muslims need no atone ment, for all Muslims are ultimately saved.

C. It would be hard to prove that on any better

authority than your Traditions. Yet Surah XII.,

HAd, 120 (cf. Sarah XXXIL, As Sujdah, 13, &c.)

tells us that God "will fill hell with jinns and men

M 2

l8o OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

all together " ; and the Qur'an, addressing Muslims, says, " There is none of you but descends into it," that is, hell-fire (Surah XIX., Maryam, 72). That is a terrible prospect, in spite of the attempts which commentators make to console you with promises.

[185. J7. The name of God's prophet on the seal which will be stamped upon our foreheads will prevent the flames from hurting us \

C. If you are wise men, you will write the name of Muhammad on your foreheads and make the experiment with fire now, before it is too late to change your opinion should it be wrong !]

186. M. Ours is the broad, easy way (Surah LXXXVIL, Al A'la, 8), while yours is narrow and difficult.

C. You say well, but Christ has told us whither the broad way leads (Matt. vii. 13). Does not the Qur'an agree with this in telling you that none of you shall fail to arrive at hell-fire (Surah XIX., Maryam, 72)?

187. M. Isaiah's words, " He was wounded for our transgressions " (Isa. liii. 5), cannot refer to Jesus, but must have reference to some prophet who pre ceded Isaiah 2.

1 This view is not now entertained by educated Indian Muslims. But it is sometimes brought forward by Muhammadans in Persia, and is in accordance with the well-known tradition that the nineteen angels who preside over hell are thus pre served from the fire.

2 How little weight this argument has with Muslims who know Arabic is seen from the fact that such (vide § 213) men

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 181

C. Even if we suppose that, and apply the same supposition to Ps. xxii, where also the ^ast tense is used, we see that the Old Testament agrees with the New in declaring man's need of an atonement, for "without shedding of blood there is no re mission" (Heb. ix. 22). But what you say cannot be correct, since neither the Taurat, the Zabur, the Injil, nor the Qur'an tells us of any such prophet, and reason proves that no mere man could atone for the sins of all men. A very slight knowledge of Hebrew or even of Arabic grammar would show you that the past tense is often used for the future, when the future event is so firmly fixed and certain to come to paps that it may be regarded as already past. An example of this from the Qur'an itself (according to many commentators) is found in the first verse of Surah LIV., Al Qamar, where the Day of Judgment is said to have approached, and the moon to have been split, the meaning being that these things will take place. With God there is neither past nor future, all is present. The Hebrew past tense is called the }H'nnansive, because it denotes a permanent state of things. The older1 Jewish

sometimes state that Isa. liii is a prophecy of Muhammad's coming and work.

1 The Targum explains "My servant " in Isa. hi. 13 as "The M« —iali." Solomon Yar i says " Our fathers assigned it to tlio M«-^-iah,"and adds, " For they say that the Messiah is stricken, as it is written, l He took our infirmities and bare our griefs.' " R. Moses Alshekh also says that many said this was spoken " of the King Messiah." In his comment on Zech. iv. 7, also, Solomon Yarhi quotes Isa. Hi. 13, and refers it to the Messiah.

182 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

commentators understood Isa. liii as a Messianic prophecy, and the New Testament shows its ful filment in Christ.

188. M. Since God is Almighty, He can make people good, and thus reconcile their wills with His own, without the death of Jesus or any other atone ment.

C. But God has chosen to do everything by means which He has appointed. This is a fact of experience T. We are not now discussing the power of God or His ability to do what He chooses. We are discussing the fact, revealed to us in the Bible, that Christ gave " His life a ransom for many " (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45). But experience shows us that God has given us freedom of will to choose good or evil. To destroy this and force us to choose good would (i) be unworthy of His wisdom, for it would prove that He had made a mistake in giving us freedom of will in the first instance. (2) If there was no freedom, there would be no possibility of virtue, which implies choice.' (3) To deprive us of freedom of will would not be to undo our past transgres sions. This plan, instead of making all men good, would prevent any from being good.

189. M. All that happens is fated 2 to happen. God has firmly fastened every man's fate to his

1 Rev. W. A. Rice.

2 Vide Surahs VI. 123, 125; VII. 177, 185 ; X. 99 ; XI. 120 ; XIII. 27, 30 ; XVI. 39, 95 ; XVIII. 16 ; XXXII. 17 ; LXXVI. 29, 30 ; LXXXI. 28, 29, &c.

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 183

neck (Surah XVII., Al Asra', 14), He " misleadeth whom He willeth and guideth aright whom He willeth" (Surah LXXIV., Al Muddaththir, 34). Hence He is the real author of our sins l (Surah VI., Al An am, 39 ; Surah XCI., Ash Shams, 8). No atonement therefore is necessary.

C. This fatalism of yours is contrary to both reason and experience. You call God "the Just One " ( J^UJl), and such He is. Hence He does not commit the fearful injustice of forcing us to do evil and then punishing us for doing it. Such a doctrine represents God as evil : it places Satan on the throne of God. You would define sin as what God has forbidden and does not wish us to do. It is illogical therefore to hold that He does wish and compel us to commit it. Our own experience shows us that we are generally free with regard to actions and always free in reference to intention* (ili niyyaJi). You forget this and make sin consist (principally at least) in act, whereas Christ shows that God judges the heart (Matt. v. 27, 2« : cf. Exod. xx. 17 ; Ps. vii. 9). In reality fatalism is a pagan doctrine, and is found in every form of paganism. It everywhere shows that those who hold it do not really believe that their God or Gods are the true rulers of the universe 2, but that it is ruled by fate.

1 Some of the Shi'ites, how. vr, hold that God withdraws His -jrace when a man has made up his mind to sin. (Rev. W. A. Rice.)

3 This latter point is urged by Prof. \Vutt k«, lli^ry of Paganism. I OW€ tli«- i- !'• rano< t" tin- Rev. P. M.

184 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

190. M. If, as you hold, God is the Author of all good and Satan of all evil, we are still not respon sible for our actions1.

C. We hold that God enables us " both to will and to work" (Phil. ii. 13, 13) what is good, but we do not hold that He compels us to do so or deprives us of freedom of will. He gives us grace to withstand the temptations of the devil, if we wish. The very existence of conscience proves our responsibility, for wefeel2 our guilt when we have done wrong even in thought.

191. M. Christ's atonement is needless : Mu hammad's intercession is sufficient for us. He is God's chosen, greater than Christ. His name was written on the Preserved Tablet, on the base of God's throne (o^jJl Al 'Arsfy, before the creation of the world. All things were made for him, and his light (jjj nnr) was the first of all created things 3.

C. In saying this you say what cannot be proved. It is mere assertion 4. Moreover, we have already proved from the Qur'an Christ's superiority to Muhammad (§§ 116, 117; cf. §§ 85-90). Muham-

1 Note the latent Dualism in this assertion. (Mr.H. G.Harding.) 3 A good Pagan proof is given in the isth Satire of Juvenal.

3 Vide the 'Ardisu't Tijdn, Story of Adam (p. 36 of Indian Edition), and traditions there recorded.

4 Moreover, Muhammad is dead, Christ is alive in Heaven, as you confess. Hence Muhammad cannot now intercede for men. You say he will do so at the Judgment Day, but that Tradition is not confirmed by the Qur'an. Besides, it witt be too late then. (Rev. Dr. Wherry. Vide § 196.)

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 185

mad was a mere man, born in the ordinary way, while even the Qur'an acknowledges Christ's super human generation (vide §§117, n8),and gives Him higher titles than it does to Muhammad. This theory about the light of Muhammad is taken from what the Gospel (John i. 4, 5) says about Christ, and it is of Christ and not Muhammad that we are told that " In Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible ; ... all things have been created through Him, and unto Him" (Col. i. 16). These things are true of the Word of God (ifi-JLfj, but of no mere man, of no creature, can they be true.

192. M. Jesus' great work was to bear witness to Muhammad [vide chapter VII, §§ 196, sqq.], and He will come again to slay the swine, to break the cross, and to bring all men to Islam. He will marry, and ultimately die, and be buried in Medina, where His empty tomb is ready for Him, since "Every soul shall taste of death" (Surah XXI., Al Anbiya', 36). [See commentators on Surahs XIX., Mary am, 34, and IV., An Nisa', 156-157.]

C. Christ did not bear witness to Muhammad, [unless possibly Matt. vii. 15, 16 ; xxiv. n, and similar passages include a reference to him], nor will He do so when He comes again. But He will certainly come again to judge the world (Matt. xxv. 31 sqq.), and receive His own unto Himself (John xiv. 3). This is what is meant by the reference to His metaphorical " marriage " with His Church

1 86 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE

(Rev. xxi. 2, 9, 10). But He will never die again (Rom. vi. 10 ; Rev. i. 18). Christ's tomb, whether at Jerusalem or at Medina, is empty now and for ever ; and by His Atonement and His Resurrection He hath "abolished death, and brought life and incorruption to light through the Gospel " (2 Tim. i. 10).

193. M. Your Bible says that death is the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23) — death of the body and death of the spirit, that is to say eternity in hell (Rev. xx. 14). Did Christ undergo for men both parts of the penalty, eternity in hell as well as death of the body1?

C. No. He does not endure eternal existence in hell.

M. How then can you say that He bore the punishment of your sins?

C. We do not say so, for it is of the nature of punishment that it cannot be borne except by the guilty, and Christ was without sin. If an innocent man suffers instead of a guilty one, it is incorrect to say that the innocent man was punished, though he endured suffering for, on behalf of, or even instead of, the criminal. The Bible says, therefore, " Christ suffered for us/' . . . and He " bore our sins in His own body on (or up to) the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes ye were healed" (i Pet. ii. 21-24). Notice that the word punMment is not used.

194. M. Does Christ deliver those who believe

OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 187

in Him from both parts of the penalty, from the death of the body as well as from eternity in hell ? C. (vide § 182). He saves from the death of the body those who are alive in Him and are found living at His Second Coming (i Cor. xv. 51), and He then raises to an eternal life of purity and happiness those who have died in the true faith, thus overcoming death and giving them deliver ance from and victory over it (i Cor. xv. 54~57)- Moreover, He delivers His faithful followers even now in one sense from the death of the body, for death to them is devoid of terror and is therefore called sleep in the New Testament. In this sense " Jesus Christ . . . abolished (annulled) death " (2 Tim. i. 10), since He has delivered from its fear and sting those who, before believing and receiving the new life which He gives (John iii. 3, 5 ; vi. 50, 58 ; xi. 25, 26), " through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. ii. 14, ij).

195. M. Does it not seem to you, then, a strange thing that the part of the penalty that Christ underwent is the part from which He does not deliver you, since you must die in the body, and the part which He does not undergo is the part from which He does deliver you, that is from hell- fire?

C. Hell-fire is the doom of the/w«% impenitent, of those, that is, whose hearts are hardened against the love of Christ, who died to save them from their sins (Matt. i. 21). Tnte believers in Him are not

l88 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT.

family impenitent, therefore it was not fitting that He should "undergo that part of the penalty" which faith in Him and the change of heart which He thereby produces in His people prevents them from incurring. It is by saving them from the power and guilt of sin that He delivers them from final separation from God and being cast out into the outer darkness. The force of your objection rests upon the wrong idea that Christ was punished instead of us, and it has weight only against a form of the doctrine of Atonement which arises from a loose use of words and from a misunderstanding of the Bible1.

1 The questions in §§ 194 and 195 are suggested by the Rev. A. E. Johnston from his own experience as a missionary,,

CHAPTER VII.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY ox THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S DIVINE MISSION AS THE LAST OF THE PROPHETS.

196. M. Christ was a great Prophet, but His - time is past. Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets and the Messenger of God, has succeeded Him, and is now the Prophet and the last l of them. So when one king dies, another succeeds him and is obeyed. Hence the Book which Muhammad was commis sioned to give us is enough for us, and we need nothing else.

C. Let us for the moment adopt your illustra tion. You all, in accordance with the Qur'an (and the Gospel), acknowledge that Jesus is alive and that Muhammad is dead and buried. If you are a Ilaji, you have doubtless seen Muhammad's grave at Medina and noticed that the grave pre pared beside it for Jesus i* ewpfy. Hence the

1 Muhammad cannot be "the last of the Prophets and their because, unlike Christ, he did not fulfil and cany < n previous revelations. He really went back to a level below Judaism. The difference is not one of n->n-< -^. nt i;ils only but of essentials. The Bible deals with the /«" ,,f sin. I.Ydrinption, &c. : theQur'an aliu«»>t iu'ii"iv- th«-m. l,v\. T. F. Walters.)

IQO OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD S

living Prophet and not the dead one should be obeyed, more especially as Christ Himself asserts that He is alive for evermore (Rev. i. 18). His " time " has no end, for He says : " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away " (Matt. xxiv. 35). You cannot any longer argue that the Bible has been corrupted (chapter II), or that it has been annulled (chapter III), so that these words of Him, whom you confess to be a true prophet, must have weight with you. Remember, too, that the Qur'an itself bears witness to the Bible and bids you profess belief in it (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 130). What does this mean, if you no longer need the Bible ?

197. M. We believe in Jesus and in all the prophets, but Muhammad is the last and greatest of them all, and he is our prophet and enough for us.

C. Prove his claim.

198. M. We have many proofs, among the prin cipal of which are: (i) His miracles, (2) the style of the Qur'an, (3) the spread of Islam, (4) the pro phecies regarding Muhammad still contained in the Bible, and (5) many others which have doubtless been erased by the Jews and Christians

C. We have already considered points i and 2 (§§ 126-165), and the question whether any pro phecies concerning Muhammad have ever been erased from the Bible (§ 14). Let us now deal with the two which remain.

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. IQI

199. M. The faith of Islam could never have " spread so quickly over so many lands as it did, if it were not the true faith and Muhammad a true prophet.

C. If that argument is correct, then Buddhism must be the true faith, for it spread over more countries than Islam, it spread very quickly, and it spread peaceably ; whereas Islam was spread prin cipally by the sword, certainly a very trenchant argument! Now Buddhism was originally an ^^ Atheistic philosophy1, and is now a system of demon-worship. It cannot therefore be true. Again, while Muhammad merely preacJied his faith, comparatively few embraced it ; but when he drew the sword and handed it on to his successors to wield after him, then land after land was quickly 2 won. In this we see no proof of the truth of his claims. Both before and after Muhammad there have been great conquerors.

200. M. God would not permit such vast num bers of men to remain century after century in error, therefore Islam must be true.

C. In spite of your own belief that " He mis- leadeth whomsoever He willeth " (Surah LXXI\7.,

1 "The Noble Eightfold Path," passim.

2 The slowness of the progress of Christianity, since it was made generally by peaceful means, in contrast with the rapidity of that of Islam, made by the sword for the most part, is a proof of the superiority of the Christian faith. Bee I>ean Church's arguments on Christian civilization. (Rev. J. P. PUlwood.)

IQ2 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMADS

Al Muddaththir, 34) ! Your argument would prove Hinduism and every other false faith true, if the contention were to be granted. There are perhaps more Hindus in the world than Muhainmadans, and their religion is older far. There are more Christians than either. Of course we gladly acknowledge that Islam contains certain great truths, as for example the doctrine of the Unity of God. But this does not make the religion true as a whole.

201. M. Well, at least the prophecies regarding Muhammad still to be found in the Bible are quite enough to prove that he was a true prophet.

C. You must really take one line of argument or the other. If you rely upon the Bible, as we now have it, as containing prophecies regarding Muham mad, and deem those prophecies the best, if not the only, proof of the truth of his claims, then you must confess that the Bible exists free from corrup tion, as indeed has been proved (chapter II). Other wise you 'are building upon the sand 1. On the other hand, if you reject the Bible, you have no other proof of Muhammad's claims. [If you accept the Bible, it confutes many of the most cherished tenets of Islam, and thereby disproves the truth of the Qur'an and Muhammad's claims; but you

1 A Muslim may retort that by referring to the testimony of the Qur'an we are placing ourselves in the same position. But it should be pointed out that we appeal to the Qur'an not as if it had any real authority, but solely to show him that, from his own standpoint, many of his arguments against Christianity are untenable.

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 193

may draw from it what you believe to be prophe cies regarding Muhammad. If you reject the Bible, these latter fail you and you are none the better off; for your Qur'an testifies to the truth and authenticity of the Bible, and, if the latter be not worthy of credence, there must be something radi cally wrong with the Qur'an.]

202. M. Surah ILL, Al 'Irmin, 75 leads us to expect to find prophecies of Muhammad in the Old Testament, and Surah LXL, As Saff, 6 assures us of a very distinct prophecy which Jesus, in the Gospel, uttered regarding him. I proceed therefore to adduce first the Old Testament and then the New Testament predictions concerning Muhammad. First of all comes the wonderful prophecy in Deut. xviii. 18, where God said to Moses, "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth ; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This prophecy evidently refers to Muhammad. For (i) the promised prophet was not to be from among the Israelites but from among their, brethren, the Ishmaelites (compare Gen. xxv. 9, 18); and (2) no such prophet ever did arise among the Israelites (Deut. xxxiv. 10).

C. This last verse refers only to the time when the final chapter of Deuteronomy was written, as is evident from the word "yet." [On the other hand Deut. xviii. 15 shows that the prophet fore-

194 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD S

told was to come "from the midst of tkee" thus explaining " of thy brethren."] Ishmael was Isaac's brother, or rather his half-brother : and if the Ish- maelites can be called in one sense the brethren of the Israelites, in a far stricter sense can the Israelites themselves be called one another's brethren. (Of. Surah VII., Al A'raf, 83, « their brother Shu'aib.") They are so called in Deut. iii. 18 ; xv. 7 ; xvii. 15 1 ; xxiv. 14; i Kings xii. 24, &c., &c. Moreover, the Taurat shows most clearly that no prophet was to be expected from Ishmael, for God had made His covenant not with him but with Isaac, to the rejection of Ishmael and his posterity (Gen. xvii. 18-21; xxi. 10-13). This is confirmed by the Qur'an, which represents the prophetic office as given to Isaacs seed. (Surah XXIX., Al 'Ankabut, 27, and Surah XLV., Al Jathiyyah, 15: "Also to the children of Israel gave We of old the Book and Wisdom and Prophecy, and We supplied them with good things, and privileged them above all peoples.")

203. M. But the words "from the midst of thee,"

1 "I always found a reference to this passage effective. No one questions to what race Saul and David belonged, and therefore we see unmistakably what ' from among thy brethren ' means. Refer also to the universal Eastern use of brother. For instance, in the sentence ' Apne bhaion men se kisi ko bulao ' (e. g. to receive an appointment), what Muhammadan so ad dressed would think that members of his own family were excluded ? " (Bp. of Lahore.) " Did the Israelites ever choose a foreigner to be their king, or did God ever appoint in Israel a foreign king? " (Rev. Dr. Hooper.)

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 195

in Deut. xviii. 15, must be an interpolation, for they do not occur in the oldest Greek translation (the Septuagint) 1, nor do they occur when the verse is quoted in Acts iii. 22.

C. That by no means proves that they did not stand in the original text, though we acknowledge that this is one of the passages in which a marginal note may have been incorporated into the text. Yet our argument by no means depends upon these words, but upon the whole tenor of Scripture. The Prophet spoken of is the Messiah, promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. xii. 3 ; xxvi. 4; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxviii. 14, &c.). This is clear even from the passage you quote from the Acts. where, although "from the midst of thee" (as you have pointed out) does not occur, nevertheless Peter (Acts iii. 25, 26) explains that the reference is to Jesus Christ. [Some hold that the meaning of "a prophet," in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, is not only one man but the whole body of prophets; just as "a king" in Deut. xvii. 14, means the kings of Israel and Judah in general, and "the priest" in Deut. xviii. 3, means the priests in general. But even so the passage refers to Christ, who is the Prophet, the Priest, and the King2.] Jeaus ex i* tain* f/iis and

1 Nor in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Heb. text contains just two letters more than the latter, thus making the difference. The argument as given above is one a Muhammadan adduced in discussion with me.

3 But from John i. 21, we see that the Jews then understood the passage as referring to an individual. (Rev. Dr. Hooper.)

N 2

196 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S

other passages in the Law as referring to Himself. John v. 46. Thus in the New Testament we have the in spired explanation of the prophecy.

Again, the promised prophet was to be sent " unto thee," that is unto Israel. Christ arose among Israel and spent almost His whole time among them. He sent His Apostles also in the first place to Israel (Matt. x. 6), and only second arily to the Gentiles (Luke xxiv. 47). Muhammad, on the other hand, professed to be sent to the Arabs, among whom he was born. He did not do much for the Jews [except in the way of slaughter ing them fl

204. M. Muhammad is evidently the prophet "like unto Moses." For (i) both of them were brought up in their enemies' houses ; (2) appeared among idolaters ; (3) were at first rejected by their own people and afterwards accepted by them ; (4) were married and had children ; (5) each gave a Law (which Christ did not : John i. 17) ; (6) fled from their enemies, one to Midian and the other to Medina — which words are of similar meaning ; (7) marched to battle against the unbelievers ; (8) wrought similar miracles; and (9) enabled their followers after their own death to enter on the possession of Palestine.

C. Almost the same things could probably be said of Musailamah or of Manes (Mani). Surely these points of resemblance are not those intended. We might proceed with the comparison by adding

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 197

that [both committed murder, that both married wives, Muhammad a largo number, that the names of both begin with M *., that] both died natural deaths, and so on. But all this is in vain, because the very foundation for the comparison is cut away by the verses which we have quoted from Genesis, proving that God dcfuulcli/ ilirfm-n! that His convenant was to descend not in IshmaeFs family but in Isaac's.

Let us now appeal to the Qur'an for a proof that, in at least one very important point indeed, Muhammad was not in the least like Moses. In Surah VIL, Al A'raf, 156, 158 we are told that Moses prophesied of Muhammad, calling him " the unlettered2 prophet," by God's command. Now in this Muhammad was not very like Moses, who " was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians " (Acts vii. 22). Hence either you are wrong or the Qur'an is. Again we are told that Moses was the meekest ;J of men (Num. xii. 3), which can hardly be truly said of Muhammad. There is no likeness 1 .1 -twcen Moses' matrimonial arrangements and those of Muhammad. Moreover Muhammad was not even of the Jewish nation as Moses was. The words

1 Dr. H. M. Clark.

2 I think that this title (JS&\ ) means rather "tho Gentile" prophet, as K. Abraham iJ.-igrr lias pointed out. But Sir \V. Muir thinks th»r above explanation correct.* It is that a<l<- ]>!«•'! by all Muslims.

' The Hebrew word so rendered is capable, however, of other meanings. (Hev. P. M. Zt-nker.)

in John i. 17 do not imply that Jesus gave no law, for elsewhere we are told that He did, but a spiritual and not a carnal one (Rom. viii. 2 ; Gal. vi. 2 ; Jas. i. 25 ; ii. 8 ; cf. Heb. viii. 10 ; x. 1 6). Moses wrought many miracles (Surah VII.. Al A'raf, 101-116, 1 60), but we have seen that, according to the Qur'an (Surah XVII., Al Asra', 61), God did not send Muhammad with miracles. (See above §§ 126-129.)

This last is a very important matter indeed : for, if you read in Deut. xxxiv, 10-12, the points in which the Israelites expected the promised prophet to be like Moses, you will find that they were not those you mention but only two : ( i ) personal knowledge of God, and (2) mighty works l. Now the Gospels prove that Christ resembled Moses in both matters, though excelling him immensely. If you compare what the Qur'an says about Moses (whom you style &\ ~^} with what it says about Jesus (whom the Qur'an teaches you to call <5l I-Jo ), you will see that here both the Gospel and the Qur'an agree.

Finally, observe that God Himself has shown that Deut. xviii. 15-18, refers to Christ. Compare the words (verse 15) " Unto him }7e shall hearken "

1 Perhaps the most important element in the "likeness" lies in the mediatorship />f Moses and Christ. Moses interceded for his people, and when about to be taken away he foretold the coming of the one true and effectual Mediator, of whom he was the type in interceding with God. (Dr. H. M. Clark.)

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 199

(see also verse 19) with Matt. xvii. 5, "Hear ye Him " (cf. Mark ix. 2 ; Luke ix. 35).

In fact, what you have to do isjir&t of all to prove Muhammad to be a prophet. It will then be time enough to proceed to prove, if you can, that he is the prophet referred to in Deut. xviii. 15, 18.

205. M. There are many other prophecies re garding Muhammad l in the Old Testament.

For example Gen. xlix. 10. Here " Shiloh " is a title of Muhammad, whose very name may be said to occur in verse 8 ; " Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise " : for Muhammad means " he who is much praised."

C. The Taurat was not written in Arabic but in Hebrew, and the word in the original which is rendered " shall praise " is not in the slightest degree like "Muhammad," but is the verb from which "Judah" is derived. Verse 8 refers the praise to Judah. Muhammad was not a Jew. Shiloh means "he to whom it belongs," and the old Jewish commentators rightly explained it as a title of the Messiah 2. [Onk., Targ. of Jonathan, Targum of Jerusalem, " until the coming of king Messiah." The Tract Sanhedrin of the Talmud says it is the

1 Many of those here mentioned are brought forward in tho IzhdruCl Haqq, and well refuted at considerable length by Naqula Ya'qub Ghabril in his Ibhtitlm'l Mnjtahidin (Cairo, 1901).

a Some commentators think that Shiloh here is the name of tho place so often mentioned in later books (e.g. Judges xxi. 19, 21), and render "until he come to Shiloh." But this is unlikely. In any case it has no possible reference to Muhammad.

2OO OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S

Messiah's name ; the Samaritan Targum implies the same. LXX. TO. aTro/cetjue^a avr<j>.] Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, and the Gentiles have in large measure already been gathered to Him.

206. M. Deut. xxxii. 21 "I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people," &c. This refers to the Arabs. It cannot refer to the Greeks to whom Paul and other Apostles preached, for they were celebrated for their learning and philosophy, and were not " a foolish nation."

C. But i( The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (i Cor. iii. 19). Mention is made not of a person^ Muhammad or any one else, but of a nation. If we grant that it refers to the Arabs, many of their tribes were Christian before they were compelled to embrace Islam (Himyar, Ghassan, Kabi'ah, Najran, Hirah, &e.). But such verses as Eph. ii. 11-13, i Pet. ii. 10, give a sufficient explanation.

207. M. In Deut. xxxiii. 2 the words "The Lord came from Sinai" refer to the giving of the Taurat to Moses. "And rose up from Seir unto them " speaks of the descent of the Gospel : while " He shined forth from Mount Paran * " clearly

1 The same argument (as the Eev. C. H. Stileman points out) is often founded on the words, " The Holy One from Mount Paran," in Hab. iii. 3. (Vide Ghabril's full answer in Ibhdthu'l Mujtahidin, pp. 84 sqq.) The Bishop of Lahore says : "I have answered by pointing out that the passage (Hab. iii. 3) goes on in the singular (' His glory covered,' &c.), from which it is plain that only one 'coming' is denoted by the dual expression."

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 2OI

denotes the bestowal of the Qur'an, for Paran is one of the mountains near Mecca.

C. This verse speaks of the extent of country over which the glory of God's manifestation was visible to the Israelites when they were encamped in the desert near Mount Sinai. A glance at the map will show you that Sinai, Seir, and Paran arc three mountains quite close to one another. Mount Paran is many hundreds of miles from Mecca. If you read the verses in which Mount Paran and the desert of Paran are mentioned1, you will see that it was in the Sinaitic Peninsula, not far from the borders of Egypt. The verse has nothing to do with either the Gospel or the Qur'an.

208. J/. Ps. xlv is a clear prophecy of Mu hammad, " the prophet with the sword," compare verses 3-5.

C. Verse 6 shows that this explanation is im possible, for Muhammadans never apply to Mu hammad the title of '• God." The Psalm was there fore evidently fulfilled in Christ (cf. Pss. ii, Ixxii, ex). The " king's daughter " of verse 13 is the bride of Christ, that is the Christian Church (cf. Rev. xxi. 2), and the conquest is primarily that of Satan and all his hosts (cf. Rev. xix. 11-21). In Heb. i. 8, 9 it is clearly stated that verse 6 refers to 67/m/ -.

1 Gen. xiv. 6; Num. x. xa ; xii. 15 ; xiii. 3 ; Dout. i. i, &c. ; also i Kings xi. 18.

8 Rev. Dr. Hooper calls attention to Bp. Wostcott's comment on Ps. xlv. 6.

232 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD S

209. M. Ps. cxlix is another manifest prophecy of Muhammad. Notice the " new song " (verse i), i. e. the Qur'an, and the mention of the two-edged sword in verse 6. This last refers especially to 'Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, for he had such a sword and made good use of it. The " king " in verse 2 is Muhammad.

C. If you read verse 2, you will see that " Israel/' "the children of Zion," are called upon to rejoice " in their king." The title of " king of the Jews " is a strange one to give to Muhammad ! Why they should rejoice in him is rather a difficult thing to explain, if you remember how he treated the Banu Qainuqa* and other Jewish tribes. The " two- edged sword " is said in the Psalm to be " in their hands," i.e. in that of the Israelites, not in the hand of 'Ali. " The king " of verse 2 is explained in verse 4 to be " the Lord," who is often styled King of Israel.

210. M. In the Song of Solomon (v. 16) Muham mad's name actually occurs in the Hebrew, in the form Maliamaddim. This plural form is used to denote his greatness as a prophet 1.

C. The idea that Muhammad's name is contained in this word is due to ignorance of Hebrew. A Hindu might just as well fancy that the names of some of his deities were mentioned in the Qur'an because of the accidental likeness between them

1 The Rev. Ahmed Shah mentions this objection. I have met with it in India but not elsewhere.

IH VINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 203

and certain Arabic words ; or an ignorant Muslim might as correctly assert that in the verse Al Jiatiulo l'ili<ihi Tlii'jlj'il 'dlamm, Muhammad's name occured. The translation of the word malnnnadilun in Cant. v. 16, is simply " delightfulnesses." It is a common and not a proper noun, and it occurs as frequently in Hebrew as do some of the derivatives of the root _u^ in Arabic. If you carefully consult the other passages in which the same word occurs, either in

A o

the singular or in the plural, you will see that the word cannot be taken as Muhammad's name. Cf. Hosea ix. 6, 16 ; i Kings xx. 6 ; Lam. i. 10, IT; ii. 4; Joel iv. 5; Is. Ixiv. 10 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19; Ezek. xxiv. 16, 21, 25. In the last passage it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (v. 1 6, " the desire of thine eyes," cf. v. 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (v. 25).

211. M. In Isa. xxi. 7 the " chariot of asses " refers to the coming of Christ, who entered Jeru salem riding upon an ass, and whose ass is one of the animals admitted into Paradise. In the same way "a chariot of camels" refers to Muhammad, who always rode a camel.

C. Verse 9 explains that the watchman saw people fleeing to escape from Babylon when it was captured by the enemy, some on asses, some on horses, some on camels. There is no reference to Christ or to Muhammad either.

212. M. Isa. xlii. 10, n. Here the " m-\\ sons: " is an evident reference to the new method of

204 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD S

worship adopted by the Muslims ; and the mention of "Kedar" distinctly indicates the Arabian prophet.

C. [Those of us who know what Muhammadan worship is will recognize that the word " song " does not describe it, since they exclude music from their worship.] "The villages that Kedar doth inhabit" — this phrase denotes certain Arabian tribes, such as those that were- Christian in Muhammad's time and doubtless will be so again. But " my servant " in verse i is explained in chapter xlix. 3 as meaning " Israel," doubtless the spiritual Israel, those who believed in Christ from among the Jews, and in lii. 13 the old Jewish commentators explain the same word as referring to the Messiah. Christ came from Israel and re presented it, which Muhammad did not. Chapter xlii. 1-4 evidently suits Christ and not Muhammad, and in our own days we see the fulfilment of the prophecy in verse 4, though it was partly fulfilled when the islands and coast-lands of Europe were converted to Christ. That verses 1-4 refer to Christ is taught in Matt. xii. 17-21.

213. M. Isa. liii is a prophecy not about Jesus but about Muhammad. The latter was "a root out of a dry ground," for he arose in Arabia (verse 2). He " made his grave with the wicked," for he was buried in Medina (verse 9). The words "he shall see his seed" (verse 10) are true of Muhammad and not of Christ, as is the promise

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 205

that he should " divide the spoil with the strong " (verse 12), i. e. with the Ansars, as Muhammad did in all his attacks on his enemies and the enemies of God. The words " he hath poured out his soul unto death" may be metaphorical (verse 12), but they may also be literal, for Muhammad did die and Jesus ascended to heaven without dying. [But see §§ 93-951-]

C. The whole of the New Testament shows how this chapter was fulfilled in Christ. See also Ps. xxii. The old Jewish commentators also under stood it of the Messiah. Verses 5, 6, 7, 8, and a large part of verse 1 2 are evidently inapplicable to Muhammad 1.

214. M. Isa. liv. i : " Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear." This is a prophecy of the birth of Muhammad from the family of Ishmael, and predicts that more will be brought to God as his followers than were converted by all the prophets who came from Israel.

C. The words of comfort are addressed to Israel in captivity at Babylon, and predict (verses 7-15) their return. St. Paul (Gal. iv. 27) explains their

1 It is hardly worth while to answer this argument here at any length, as the answer so readily suggests itself. The argument has great weight with Muslims, especially about ••dividing the spoil." I have met it in Persia, and Rev. H. D. Goldsmith mentions the whole argument as above as met with in India (C.M.S. Annual Report for 1902, p. 286). Vide § 187.. The spoil was to be divided by the Messiah after his <lmth. Muhammad did not do this : he did it during his life. (Rev. Dr. Wherry.)

206

spiritual fulfilment in the conversion of the Gentiles to Christ x.

215. M. Another similar prophecy of the conver sion of the Arabians and others through Muhammad is contained in Isa. Ixv. 1-6 : "I am sought of them that asked not for me," &c. Verses 2 sqq. tell how wicked were the Jews and Christians, whom God therefore rejected.

C. Verse i is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles to Christ. Verses 2-6 mention the sins of some of the Jews, but verses 8-10 declare that God will not reject the whole Jewish nation (cf. Rom. xi). Nothing is said of the Christians, and not one word about Muhammad.

216. M. In Dan. ii. 45 there is a clear prophecy of Muhammad, the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and of the Empire of Islam which he founded. In that chapter we are told of four kingdoms which were to precede Muhammad's coming. The first is that of the Chaldaeans, the second the Median, the third the Kayanian (or Persian), and the fourth that of Alexander the Great. Alexander shattered the Persian power,

1 Muslims sometimes quote Isa. Ixiii. 1-6, as a prophecy of Muhammad, " the prophet with the sword." But from com paring v. 5 with Isa. lix. 15, 16, it will be seen that the person who" cometh from Edom, . . . from Bozrah," is Jehovah Himself, who has punished Edom for its sins. Cf. the spiritual develop ment of the passage in Eev. xix. 1 1, sqq. (Bozrah is Al Busairah, a little south of the Dead Sea, and is nowhere near Mecca or Basrah.)

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 207

but it recovered under the Sasanians. After that it lasted, at one time weak and at another strong, until Muhammad was born, in the time of Anu- shiravan, the great King of Persia. After that the might of Islam arose, broke for ever the Persian power, subdued Persia, Mesopotamia, Macedonia, Palestine, and " filled the whole land " (verses

44, 45)-

C. It is unfortunate for your argument that history is against it. The Book of Daniel itself explains the meaning of the prophecy. The first of the four kingdoms was the Chaldaean or Baby lonian under Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii. 37, 38), ^as you say rightly. Then came the Medo-Persian kingdom under Cyrus and his successors (viii. 3, 4, 20), which was not two but one k'tn<j<loni, as the last quoted verse (with many others) proves. This was overthrown by the Macedonian (viii. 5, 7, 21) under Alexander, after whose death his kingdom was divided into four (viii. 8, 22), and thus gradually faded into insignificance, as we know from history. To this third kingdom suc ceeded the fourth, the Roman Empire, which is described in ii. 40. It was in the time of the Roman Empire !, while Rome still ruled nearly the whole known world, that Christ was born and set

1 A Muslim may argue that Muhammad also was born in the time of the Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire. But we have already seen that there are no proofs in support of Muh.miin;i«r^ claims, and that the Qur'an itself gives to Christ higher titles than it does to Muhammad. (§§ 116, sqq.)

208 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S

up His kingdom, which was "not of this world" (John xviii. 36; Luke i. 31-33; Dan. vii. 13, 14, 37). He called Himself the Son of Man, in accor dance with Dan. vii. 1 3 ; and His is the kingdom described as the stone that filled the whole earth (ii. 45). You yourself know how widely extended that kingdom now is. When Christ returns, every knee shall bow to Him (Phil. ii. 9-11).

217. M\ The words "The Desire of all nations shall come" (Hag. ii. 7), are a prophecy of Muham mad's advent, for the word " desire " is in Hebrew Hemdatfi, from the same root as Muhammad's name.

C. (Vide § 210.) The verb in this passage is in the plural, and this shows that Tiemdatli must be used in a collective sense, so that the words mean that the "choice of all the Gentiles" shall come to Jerusalem, doubtless referring to the "election of grace " or the Christian church. This common noun (hemddh) is of not infrequent occurrence. E. g. in Dan. xi. 37 " the desire of women " is by some thought to be the title of some false god or goddess worshipped by the heathen.

[218. The Shi'ites assert that "Twelve princes shall he (Ishmael) beget " (Gen. xvii. 20), is a prophecy of the Twelve Imams, who with them take the place of the Khalifahs as Muhammad's successors. In answer, it is enough to refer to Gen. xxv. 13, 16, where there is found an account of the accomplishment of the promise.

1 An objection mentioned by the Rev. Ahmed Shah.

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 209

219. The following is also a Shi'ite argument :— J/. The words in Jer. xlvi. 10, "The Lord GOD

of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the River Euphrates," are a prophecy of the martyr dom of Husain at Karl -alii. They also teach that his death was a sacrifice or atonement for sin.

C. If you read the *r<vW verse of that chapter you will see that it explains the passage you quote as referring to the great </>fntf <>j P/turno// .Y/r//"'.v army at CanJieiiiixh on the Euphrates. It can hardly be supposed that tin; slavy/tler of these Iu-al/«''n* was an atonement for sin. Nor can Karbala be said to be " in the north country." The word rendered '•sacrifice" also means "slaughter," as is evident from the parallel passages (cf. Isa. xxxiv. 6-8 ; Ezek. xxxix. 17-21 ; Zeph. i. 7, 8).]

220. J/. In the New Testament also we find numerous prophecies of Muhammad. We find one of these quoted in the Quran, where God says (Surah LXL, As gaff, 6) : " When Jesus the son of Mary said, ' O children of Israel ! of a truth I am God's Apostle to you, to confirm the Law which \\ as "iveii before me, and to announce an apostle that shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.' " In St. John's G<>sj «-l ixiv. xv, xvi) we find Jesus again and again telling His disciples that the Paraclete (Ar. c^J^LJl At JiafaMit, Peris.1 kOijU Fdraqlit), would come after Him. Now this word has the same meaning as Muhammad or Ahmad.

1 Tin \N(.nl l.as '-(.m, into IVrsinn through theSyriac. O

210 OBJECTIONS ON THE GEOUND OF MUHAMMAD S

Nothing can be clearer than that here we have a prophecy of his coming.

C. The word Paraclete [UapaKX^ros] does not mean " the Praised," as Muhammad or Ahmad does, nor has it any such signification. It has two meanings: (i) the Comforter or Sustainer, and (2) the Advocate ( J^ WaUl}. The first of these titles is clearly inapplicable to Muhammad, and the second is denied to him and to all else but God Himself in the Qur'an (Surahs XVIL, Al Asra' or Banu Israil, 56 ; IV., An Nisa', 83), since it is said that "God is sufficient as an Advocate." In the New Testament it is applied only (T) to the Holy Spirit, as in these chapters of St John's Gospel, and (2) to Christ Himself (here by implication, xi v. 1 6 ; also i John ii. i). Thus the Qur'an (Surah IV., An Nisa', 83), by asserting that God is sufficient as an Advocate (J-^j), supports the Biblical statement of the deity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Muhammad was doubtless told by some one that he was described and foretold by Christ under the title of the Paraclete: hence the verse you quote on the subject. But his informant evidently con founded the word HapdK\r]To$ with another word rie/H/cAin-os, which latter, if it had been used, might have been translated " very renowned " — nearly the same meaning as "Ahmad."

221. M. Doubtless the word used by Christ was ITepiKAvro'?, and this has been altered.

C. This latter word, though Greek, does not

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 211

occur at all in the whole of the New YV.v A/ /„,///. It occurs neither in various readings nor in the old versions of John xiv-xvi, made long before Muhammad's time. Hence it is absolutely certain that Christ did not use it here. The Arabic and Persian Bdrakltt and Fdraqttt could not come from UfpLK\vr6s. If you read the verses in these chapters where Hapa/cA^ro? is used, you will see that they do not apply to Muhammad (xiv. 16, 17, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7-15) or to any other man. For

(1) the promised Comforter is a spirit, the Spirit of Truth, invisible, who was then dwelling with the disciples of Christ, and was to be in their hearts ;

(2) He was sent £// Christ (xv. 26, xvi. 7); (3) His work was to convict of sin, the essence of which was disbelief in Christ (xvi. 9); (4) His teaching was to consist in glorifying Christ, and was not to be His own but what Christ gave Him (xvi. 14).

222. M. Muhammad was given the Qur'an by the Holy Spirit, the angel Gabriel1. The Qur'an came to confirm the true Gospel, which was so called because it bore witness to Muhammad. He did glorify Christ (John xvi. 14), because he taught that Christ was a great prophet, born of a virgin, and that Christ ascended to heaven without being crucified, and was not God and did not claim to be. Muhammad does dwell in the hearts of all true Muslims through their faith in him (John xiv. 17).

1 ThU is what the Muslims understand by the Holy Spirit : cf. Surah XVI., 104. O 2

212 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD S

C. Yes, but you will hardly assert that he dwells in the hearts of Christians and abides with them for ever (John xiv. 16); yet it was to Christians that Christ was speaking. The angel Gabriel is not the Holy Spirit. It was a strange way of glorifying Christ to teach men that His doctrine was false, and that when He claimed to be God's Son He was blas pheming. The rest of your argument is assertion, and you have not fully answered mine. Besides, in Acts i. 4, 5, 8, Christ commanded His disciples, before doing the work of evangelizing the world which He had enjoined on them (Acts i. 8 ; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) to "tarry in Jerusalem" until the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, came, assuring them that He would come " not many days hence " (Acts i. 5). Did this mean that these specially chosen apostles were to wait nearly 600 years in Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 49) until Muhammad's coming 1 Long ages before that they were all dead. Moreover, the promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on them (Acts ii).

223. M. The early Christians understood that Christ foretold the coming of "another prophet, hence many of them believed on Manes (Mani) when he claimed to be the Paraclete. This proves your explanation wrong and ours right. After all, the Bible is an Eastern book, and you are from the West. We understand it better than you do.

C. It is to prove your understanding of the Bible that you accept the erroneous explanation of Mani

I I VINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 213

in this matter, though you acknowledge him to have been a false prophet? He did make very much the same claim as Muhammad did in this respect. But remember that it is you and not / who compare Muhammad to Mani. [The only prophets of whose coming Christ informed His disciples are those mentioned in Matt. xxiv. 1 1 and similar passages.] No real Christians ever thought that the Paraclete was a future prophet l.

224:. N. In John xiv. 30 Muhammad is styled " the prince of this world," a well-known title of his, and his coming is foretold.

C. It would offend you were I to tell you who is really spoken of by that title, and elsewhere called "the god of this world." If you consult Luke x. 18; John xii. 31, xvi. n; a Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2 and vi. 1 1, 12, you will discover for your self who the awful being is of whom Christ speaks 2.

225. M. The " kingdom of heaven " prophesied of by John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 2) and by Jesus (Matt. iv. 17) was that established by Muhammad when he gave the new Law contained in the Qur'an. So also Matt. xiii. 31, 32.

C. More assertion, contrary to fact. The Gospels show that this was the kingdom which Christ founded,

1 This is shown by the fact that, when Montanus and Mani (Manes) claimed to be the Paraclete, they were accused of blasphemy. (Rev. W. Goldsack.)

a Perhaps the only distinct prophecy of Muhammad and of the Arab conquest of many Eastern lands is that contained in Rev. ix. i-ia.

214 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD^S

226. M. The "Elias" mentioned in Matt. xvii. ii as yet to come was Muhammad.

C. See Matt. xvii. 12, 13.

227. M. In Matt. xx. 1-16 the '•' morning" de notes the Jewish, the "noon" the Christian, and the "evening" the Muhammadan dispensation.

(?. Perhaps because the light given in Islam is so faint as compared with that given by Christ, the true Light1 (John i. 9, viii. 13, &C.)1? [It is only too true that the night has followed the evening in Muhammadan lands.]

228. M. In Matt. xxi. 33-45, and especially in verses 42, 45, we have a prophecy of Muhammad. He is c: the stone which the builders rejected " (that is, the Jews and Christians), hence the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to another nation, the Arabs who believed in Muhammad.

C. More assertion, contrary to the whole context. Christ explains the prophecy as fulfilled in Himself. Strange fruits are those produced by Islam, and visible in Muslim lands.

229. M. In this Parable, the "son" (Matt. xxi. 37) is Christ, while the "Lord of the Vineyard" (verse 40) who was to come is Muhammad himself.

C. Do you then hold that Jesus was the son of Muhammad ? Is that not something like the state ment in the Qur'an, that the Virgin Mary was sister of Aaron the brother of the prophet Moses (Surah

1 The only light that the " Crescent " has is the reflexion of the sun's rays. Christ is the "Sun of Righteousness." (Rev Dr. Wherry.)

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS. 215

XIX., Maryam, 29 ; Surah III., Al 'Imran, 30 sqq.)? The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans some forty years after this parable was uttered showed its meaning very clearly.

230. J/. The Gospel contains the words of Jesus, and there we read the prophecy, " There cometh one mightier than I after me " (Mark i. 7). This refers to Muhammad.

C. Verse 6 shows that John the baptist spoke these words about Christ. Cf. John i. 26, 29, 30.

231. M. Who l is <; the prophet " mentioned in John i. 21 ? It is evidently not the Messiah, nor is it Elijah, for John has already denied that he is either the one or the other. It is evidently a prophet who was to come after the Messiah, i. e. the prophet mentioned in Deut. xviii. 18, that is to say, Muhammad.

C. We have already seen (§§ 202-205) that the latter passage cannot refer to Muhammad. From Matt. xvi. 14, it is evident that some of the Jews ex pected Jeremiah or some other one of the old prophets to reappear before the coming of the Messiah, and this explains the question. The order of the words shows that "the prophet" in John i. 21, was some one who was looked for Itfore even Elijah, and still more before the Messiah whose forerunner Elijah was to be (Mai. iv. 5). The Jews spoke of him as " the prophet," because they were not certain which of the prophets was to come before Elijah. Some

1 ComnHiiii'-:iti-il by Rev. A. E. Johnston.

21 6 OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S

thought that ': the prophet " (Dent, xviii. 18) was the Messiah (cf. John vi. 14) ; others did not (cf. John vii. 40-41), thinking him to be one of the Messiah's forerunners. The whole passage (John i. 19-28), shows that what the questioners wanted to find out was whether John was the Messiah or one of his forerunners. There would have been no sense in asking whether he was a supposed prophet who was to come after the Messiah, since the Messiah had not yet manifested Himself as such. (Vide Godet on John i. 21.)

232. M. John iv. 21 is a prophecy that Jeru salem would no longer be the Holy City and the Qiblah, but that when Muhammad came Mecca should take its place.

C. In verses 23, 24 Christ Himself explains verse 2 r .

[233. M. In i John iv. 2, 3 Muhammad is spoken of as the Spirit of God, because he taught that Jesus Christ had " come in the flesh," i. e. that He was man and not God.

C. The title " Spirit of God " is neither in the Qur'an nor in the Traditions given to Muhammad, nor do any true Muslims give him such a blas phemous title now. These verses are in refutation of the Docetic heresy. Your views about Jesus are refuted in very plain language in i John v. 5, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 20, ii. 22, 23.]

[234. M. In Jude 14, 15 "the Lord" who was to come is Muhammad, the apostle with the sword.

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS 217

('. This title belongs to God, and is given to Him only in the Qur'an, and not to Muhammad (cf. Surah IX., At Taubah, 31). This is not a true Muhammadan argument.]

235. J7. In Rev. ii. 26-29 Muhammad is spoken of as coming to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

C. By saying this you imply that Muhammad kept CJiritt'g wvrkx (i. e. obeyed His commands) unto the end, and that therefore he received from Christ this power, which Christ had received from His Fatter I You who deny Christ's Divine Sonship, and deem Muhammad a greater prophet than Jesus, cannot really believe that these verses refer to Muhammad.

We are therefore absolutely unable to find any proof whatever, from miracle, prophecy, or anything else, that Muhammad was from God1.

1 A learned Maulavi from Swat, now a Christian convert, was first brought to doubt Muhammad's claims by reflecting upon the durud (darud) or petition in which, at the close of the fixed prayers (^ulawdt , a Muslim says, "0 Lord, have mercy upon and give peace to Muhammad," &c. The thought arose in his mind, "In no other religion is it thought necessary to pray for God's mercy on its founder. Why ihen is Muhammad prayed for?" He next noticed that in the kalinidli or Muham madan creed the title given to Muhammad is merely r«*i'i! : he is not even called a nabi or " prophet," whereas far higher titles are given to Christ in the Qur'an itself (§§ 116-122, 129). In argument it would be well to put these objections to Muham mad's claims either in the form of the tale told h<-re, or as questions, asking, e. g., " Why is it necessary for Muslims to pray for Muhammad?" This leads the inquirer to form his own conclusions. (Dr. H. M. Clark.)

CHAPTER VIII.

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.

236. M. In John x. 8 Christ calls all the pre ceding prophets " thieves and robbers." How can the verse which represents Him as doing so be from God, or be anything but an interpolation ?

C. He does not do so. Again and again He speaks of Moses and the other prophets as divinely commissioned. The persons to whom He refers in this verse are probably the Theudas and the Judas of Galilee mentioned in Acts v. 36, 37, who were deceivers of the people, falsely claiming to be the Messiah 1. [Another explanation is that Christ spoke of the Pharisees, as they " came before " Him, claiming to be the " door of the sheep," mediators between God and man. But they had stolen the " key of knowledge " (Luke xi. 52), and had " shut the kingdom of Heaven against men " (Matt, xxiii. 13).]

237. M. The present Gospels contain no direc-

1 The Bishop of Lahore refers to Bishop Westcott's note, which makes Christ's words condemn every one who came before Christ with the claim to be u epx<->pevos. This was not the case with any of the true prophets.

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 219

tions (as the Law and the Qur'an do) regarding fasting, almsgiving, the times and modes of wor ship, the correct way to slaughter animals, &c. This shows that they have been tampered with by interested persons.

C. The objection shows a failure to understand the spirit of the Gospels and the " perfect law of liberty" which Christ gave. He did give what directions He deemed needful about almsgiving, fasting, prayer, &c. (John iv. 24 ; Matt. vi. 1-23, &c.).

238. I/. Christians themselves admit that the Bible did not " descend " word for word and letter for letter as did the Qur'an, which is a transcript of the ' ' Mother of the Book " preserved in Heaven (Surah XLIIL, Az Zukhruf, 3). It is therefore worthless as compared with the Qur'an.

C. We know the origin of the Qur'an, that it was composed by Muhammad1 [whose prophetic claims are devoid of proof]. We know the sources from which he drew his teaching, and know that they are unreliable 2. No book has come down from Heaven in the way you imagine, yet we have proof of the inspiration of the Bible in the fulfilment

1 Care must be taken not to hurt a Muslim's feelings \vh.-n .-.;iyin^ this, for he fancies that tin- (Jur'an is of Divine author ship.

3 Vide the Yandbi'ul Islam, and also my Original Sources of the Qur'an. It may be well to point out the Redaction which the Qur'an underwent under the Khalifah 'Uthman. (Vidu Mishkatu'l Masai. ih. H.. 185, 186.)

220 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.

of the prophecies it contains, and in many other ways. (See § 79.)

239. M. Christ ascended to Heaven through fear of His persecutors.

C. Indeed ! Does it not seem to you remarkable that He could ascend to Heaven if He were unable to protect Himself, had He wished to do so ? Your assertion is contrary not only to the Bible (Acts ii. 33, v. 31 ; Phil. ii. 9-11) but also to the Qur'an, which says that God took Him up unto Himself (Surah IV., An Nisa', 156), and is unworthy of a true Muslim.

240. M. Why is it said that God "rested the seventh day " (Exod. xx. n)1

C. His work of creation was finished. The words mean that after the creation of man, God has brought no other creature of any new kind into existence on the earth. Human language must be used to convey thoughts to human beings. (See § 39.)

241. M. By destroying the herd of swine, Christ maintained the unclean nature of the animal (Matt, viii. 30-32).

C. But the Gospel says it was the devils who destroyed them.

242. M. You Christians eat pork !

C. Not much in hot countries, since it is un healthy to do so, and this was doubtless one reason why the flesh of the pig was forbidden to the Jews. It is not forbidden to «*, for Christ says (Matt. xv.

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 221

ii ; Mark vii. 15-19) that all meats are clean (vide Revised Version and best reading).

243. M. How could Christ commend the unjust steward, as the Gospel says He did (Luke xvi. 8) ?

C. The Gospel does not say He did. It repre sents Him as saying that the master of the house did so, probably by saying, " What a clever trick that rogue has devised ! "

244. M. But in Luke xvi. 9 we are told that Christ said to His disciples, " Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness." Surely Christ never said that l.

C. He did, but not in the sense in which you understand the words. What they mean is, " Make good use of your money and other property : do good with it, and people whom you have helped here will welcome you in Paradise. Your money is not yours : it is God's, and you are His stewards. Without dishonesty you may imitate the steward in the parable, and by doing good with it get a reward hereafter."

245. 37. "God is not mocked" (Gal. vi. 7), but Jesus was (Luke xxii. 63). Therefore Jesus is not God.

C. The verbs used in these two verses are quite different and have different meanings, as a reference to any version other than the English would show you. The context also shows the difference of sense. It is well for us all to remember that " God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that

1 Mentioned by Rev. A. R. Blackett.

222 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.

shall he also reap." Men may, in one sense, mock God here, that is, they may scoff and blaspheme : but finally their folly will be manifested (Ps. ii. 4)*.

246. M. In Matt. i. 1 1 , we are told that Josiah was the father of Jeconiah. Now in i Chron. iii. 15-17 it is stated that Jeconiah's father was not Josiah but Jehoiakim. This is a contradiction.

C. Some MSS. read in Matt. LIT, " Josias begat Joakim, and Joakim begat Jechonias," &c., in accordance with i Chron. But this has not been admitted into the text, because we are not quite sure that the additional words stood in the original MS. In any case the supposition of a contra diction arises from ignorance of the fact that it was the habit of the Jews to contract genealogies by passing over certain intermediate generations when considered advisable. There can be no reason assigned to account for any one deliberately corrupt ing the text, nor is a contradiction conceivable when i Chron. was readily accessible.

247. M. How can you bring an accusation of cruelty against Muhammad for his treatment of the Jews, when the Emperor Heraclius acted so ruthlessly towards them when he recaptured Jeru salem from the Persians, and that too with the approval of the leading Christian teachers of the time?

C. As one of our Church historians well says, such conduct on Heraclius's part "resulted2 from

1 Rev. Dr. Hooper. 2 Mosheim, Cent. VII. Pt. I, cap. I.

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 223

the barbarism of the age and from ignorance of the true principles of Christianity." We condemn it very severely. But Heraclius did not claim to be a prophet, as Muhammad did. The SunnaJi records Muhammad's deeds for the most part as examples to be followed, as far as circumstances permit, by all true Muslims: hence evil conduct on his part produces like deeds on that of his disciples. This renders him doubly guilty.

248. M. How can the Gospels be inspired when they do not always agree in actual details'? For example, Matthew (xxvii. 51) says that the veil of the Temple was rent at the Crucifixion, while John does not mention the fact.

C. How does your objection apply to the various Surahs of the Qur'an? For example, portions of the story of Abraham are told in many different Surahs, but many incidents mentioned in one Surah are omitted in another when dealing with the same narrative. But you must see that it would be absurd to found an objection upon this fact. The answer to what you urge is really this, that our doctrine of Inspiration does not coincide with yours (vide § 79). According to our view, there was no need whatever that the Gospels should each relate every single detail of an occurrence. If they did, there would be much useless repetition. Moreover, we should thus lose the important evidence in support of the truth of the fact* upon which our faith is based which we now have in

224 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.

the independent testimony of several different witnesses. The circumstance that they agree in the main though sometimes differing in details is a proof that there was no collusion between them (vide § 47).

249. M. How can Jesus be " the Prince of Peace " (Isa. ix. 6) when He acted as mentioned in Matt, xxi. 12 (Mark xi. 15 : John ii. 15), and spoke as in Luke xii. 51 (Matt. x. 34) and Luke xxii. 36?

C. He is the Prince of Peace because He reconciles men to God and gives spiritual peace to His people (John xiv. 27 : Phil. iv. 7 : Col. iii. 15). He was supporting God's law in putting an end to the desecration of the Temple (Matt. xxi. 13 : cf. Isa. Ivi. 7). He warned His disciples that they would be persecuted by their enemies, but even then assured them of the spiritual peace which He would give them (John xvi. 33). That He did not wish them to take up the sword in their own defence is clear from Matt. xxvi. 52 (cf. Luke ix. 54-6).

250. M. If Jesus had been divine, He would have known that but few would believe in Him, and then He would not have died for so few.

C. He did know, for He said, " Many are called, but few chosen" (Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14: cf. vii. 14). Moreover, your argument answers itself, if we apply it in another way. God must have known when He created the world that many would be idolaters. Do you therefore deny creation, or God's omniscience ?

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 225

251. J/. Idolatry is practised in the Greek, Roman, Armenian, Syrian, and other Churches, and even in some parts of the Church of England. How can we Muslims be expected to become Christians when Christians are idolaters ? We deem the association (d^) of partners with God to be the unpardonable sin (Surah IV., An Nisa', 51, 1 1 6).

[The subjoined answer is suggested in addition to any further answer which might be given by individual Missionaries by way of a challenge to the facts alleged by the Muhammadans1.]

C. Even if what you say is quite true, yet this sin is condemned in both the Old and the New Testament (e.g. Rev. »xxi. 8; xxii. 15) in very terrible language. Many Muslims in Bengal and elsewhere worship2 certain Hindi! deities, and in other places the honour paid to saints is just what the Qur'an condemned in Muhammad's day among the heathen Arabs, who, along with God Most High, worshipped certain inferior deities. But neither Islam nor Christianity is responsible for this heathenism, which is equally opposed to tin MM

1 This sentence is inserted by desire of the C.M.S. Secrt'tari. -, at the request of the S.P.C.K. Committee. The introductory word-, oHlm following answer have al.-o ln-ni modified for tin-

.

2 " In the Hazara district I have seen a grave called Klmi, Qabr, and have been told tb;it it K a^ it-, nanir su^csts, tin- grave of an ass, and that it is In Id in \.TV -n at ruvorence by Musalmans." Kov. T. Grahamo Bailey.)

P

226 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.

both. It would not be fair to say that when you invite us to become Muslims you wish to make us idolaters. Neither is it fair of you to bring the same accusation against us. In whatever else they differ, Islam and true Christianity are agreed in opposition to idolatry.

227

APPENDIX A.

SOME USEFUL BOOKS ON ISLAM: IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.

'Abd 'fsd' (vide Koelle, Rev. Dr.).

Ahmad, Sir Sayyid, Essays on tJie Life of Mohammed-.

London, Triibner, 1890. 'Ali, Mir Hasan, Observations on the Musalmdns of India.

London, Allen, 1832. £i is. Al Kindi, The Apology of. Translated from the Arabic

by Sir W. Muir. Loncfon, S. P. C. K. is. 6d. Arnold, J. M., Ishmael. London, Rivington, 1859.

105. 6d. Arnold, Dr. M., The Natural History of Isldm.

Isldm and Christianity.

Barth, The Religions of India. London, Triibner, 1891. 2nd ed. i6s.

Muhammad, /ht</<l/«r, and Christ.

Barthelemy de St-Hilaire, Mahomet et le Coran.

Beacon of Truth. Translated from the Arabic by Sir

W. Muir. London, K. T. S. 28. 6d.

Bosworth-Smith, Mohammed and MoJiammedanism. Lon don, Smith & Elder, 1889. 7*. 6d.

Daumer, Mohammed und sein Werk. Hamburg, 1848.

Derenbourg, H., La Science des Religions et I' Islamisme. Paris, 1886. 2-60 fr.

P 2

228 APPENDIX A.

Deutsch, E. 0. M., Isldm (Literary Remains). London,

Murray, 1874. 125. Dods, Marcus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ. London,

Hodder & Stoughton, 1886. 28. 6d. Easton, Rev. P. Z., Article on "Persia" in Schaff-Herzoy

Encyclopaedia. Garcin de Tassy, L'Islamisme d'apres le Goran. Paris,

1874. Geiger, A. (Rabbi), Was hat Mohammed aus dem Juden-

thume auftjenommen ? Bonn, 1833. (Translated by

Lady Young under the title Judaism and Isldm.

London, Simpkin, Marshall & Co.) Haines, C. R., Isldm as a Missionary Religion. London,

S. P. C. K. (Non-Christian Religious Systems Series),

1889. 2s. Hardwick, Rev. C., Christ anal other Masters. London

and New York, Macmillan, 1873. $3.00. Hauri, J., Der Islam in seinem Einjluss. Leiden, 1882.

6 inks. Hooper, Rev. Dr., The Doctrine of Salvation in Christianity,

Hinduism, and Islam (English original, Urdu transla tion). Hughes, Rev. T. P., Notes on Muhammedanism. London,

Allen, 1878. 65.

— Dictionary of Isldm. London, Allen, 1885. £225. Hunter, W. W., Sir, Indian Musalmdns. London, Triibner,

1876. I2S.

Isldm and Christianity. American Tract Society. Kcelle, Rev. Dr., Food for Refaction (English original ;

French version, Etudes Critiques ; also Turkish version).

C. M. S.

APPENDIX A. 229

Kulle, Rev. Dr., Tlie Death of Christ upon the Cross (Turkish original ; English version). C. M. S.

MoJiammed and Mohammedanism. London, Riving-

ton, 1889. 15*.

Kivhl, L., Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed. Leipzig, 1884. 6-50 mks.

Kremer, A. von, Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams. Leipzig, 1868. i th. 15 sgr.

Lake, J. J., Isldm : its Origin , Genius, and Mission. London, 1878. 53.

Lee, Rev. Dr. S., Controversial Tracts, C. M. S.

Lees, J. C., MoJuimmadanism (St. Giles' Lectures). Edinburgh, 1882.

Lees, W. N., Indian Mussulmans. London, Williams & Norgate, 1872. 28.

Macdonald, Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory. New York, Chas. Scribner & Sons, 1903.

Monro, J., Teaching of the Maulavts as to the Sinlessness of Muhammad; The Teaching of the Christian Scriptures on Sin and Salvation ; How does the Qurdn confirm and guard the Christian Scriptures ? (English original, Bengali version.) London, Christian Literature for India Society. (Some of Mr. Monro's Tracts are also published in Urdu and Arabic.)

Muhammad, Lives of, by:

Green, S. London, Tegg, 1877. 3$. 6c/.

Jiving, Washington. London, Murray, 1850. 2 vols.

Xi is. Lamairisse et Dujarrac. Paris, 1897, Luzac (vol. i,

5 fr.)- M( Trick. London, Chapman, 1850. ics. <>'/.

230 APPENDIX A.

Muhammad, Lives of, by :

Muir, Sir William. London, Smith & Elder. 3rd ed. 165. — (Abridged), 1877. 143.

Mahomet and Islam. New York, Nelsons,

1884. $1.75. 3rd ed.; London, R. T. S., 1895. 2s. 6d. Noldeke, Das Leben Muhammads. Hanover, 1863.

2 mks.

Prideaux, H. London, 1798. Sprenger. Berlin, 1861-5. 3 vols. 12 mks. Summers, J. 0. Nashville, 1875. 50 cts. Weil, Muhammad der Prophet.

Muir, Sir W., The Rise and Decline of Isldm. London, R. T. S. 4d.

The Caliphate. London, "Smith & Elder, 3rd ed.,

1898. i6s.

Annals of the Early Caliphate. Do., do., 1883.

- The Mameluke Dynasty of Egypt. Do., do., 1896.

The Mohammedan Controversy. Edinburgh, T. & T.

Clark, 1897. 75. 6d.

The Goran : Its Composition and Teaching. S.P.C.K.

2s. 6d.

The Sources of Isldm (epitomized translation of

Yandbiu'l Isldm). Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1901. i*. 6d.

Sweet Firstfruils (translated from Arabic). * London,

R.T.S, 28. 6d.

Beacon of Truth (translated from Arabic). Do., do.

2s. 6d.

APPENDIX A. 231

Muir, Sir W., Apology of A I Kindi (translated from Arabic).

S.P.C. K., 2nd ed., 1887. Muller, A., Der Isldm im Morgtn- und Abendland. Berlin,

1885. Murray-Mitchell, liev., Letters to Indian Youth (English

and Urdu).

Noldeke, Geschichte des Qorans. Gottingeu, 1860. Osboru, Major 11. D., Isldm under the Arabs. London, Longmans, 1876. 12s.

Isldm under the Khali/8 of Baghdad. London,

Seeley, 1880. los. 6d. Pfander, ilev. Dr., Balance of Truth, \ English, Persian,

Key of Mysteries, j Urdu, Arabic: C.M.S.

Remarks on the Mature of Muhammadan Traditions.

London, C.M.S., 1858. Pischon, C. N., Der Eivjluss des Islam. Leipzig, 1881.

3 mks. Qur'an, Translations of: —

English: Lane, E. W. (Selections from). London,

Trubner, 1879. gs. Palmer (Sacred Books of East, vols. vi and ix).

Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1882. £i is. Rod well, J. M. London, Quai itch, 1876. 125. Sale, G. (Dr. Wherry's ed.). London, Trubnur, 1882. I )r. Murdoch (Selections from). Madras, Ch.Lit. Soc. French: Fd(imah Z<n<l«h. Lisbon, 1861.

Kasimirski. Paris, 1884. Danish: Tornberg, Lund, 1874.

[An Urdu version by Rev. Dr. 'Iinadu'ddin : a Koman- Urdu edition with Preface by Kev. J. P. Hughes, Mission Prefcs, Ludhiaua.]

232 APPENDIX A.

[The best Arabic Text of the Qur'an is by Fluegel,

Leipzig : his Concordantiae in Coranum Arabice

is invaluable : the Dictionary of the Koran by

Penrice is also very useful.]

Robinson, Rev. C. H., Mohammedanism : Has it any

Futurel London, Gardner, 1897. is. Rouse, Rev. Dr., Tracts on Muhammadanism (Bengali Original : Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Arabic, and English versions).

Sell, Rev. Canon, The Faith of Isldm. London, Triibner (Oriental Series), 2nd ed., 1897. I2S. 6d.

The Historical Development of the Qur'dn. Madras,

Rs. 2. 25. 6d.

s— The New Isldm. Contemporary Review, Aug. 1893.

Essays on Isldm. London, Simpkin, 1901. 45. 6d.

Stobart, J. W. H., Isldm and*' its Founder. London,

S.P.C.K. (Non-Christian Religious Systems), 1877.

2s. 6d. Sweet First fruits. Translated from the Arabic by Sir

W. Muir, R.T.S., 1893. 28. 6d. Tisdall, Rev. Dr. W. St. Clair, The Religion of the

Crescent. London, S. P. C. K. (Non-Christian Religious

Systems), 1895. 43.

India : its History, Darkness, and Dawn. Stud.

Vol. Miss. Un., 1901. 15.

The Original Sources of the Qur'dn.

YandbTul Isldm (Persian original : Urdu and

Arabic versions; English epitome by Sir W. Muir). S.P.C.K., 1900.

Vambery, H., Der Islam im igten Jahrhundert. Leipzig, 1875. 6 mks.

APPENDIX A.

233

Vaughau, Rev. Jas., The Trident, the Crescent, and tlw

Cross. London, Longmans, 1876. gs. 6d. Weil, Biblische Legenden der Musal/nanner. Wellhausen, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Berlin, 1889.

4 vols. 32 mks. Wherry, Kev. Dr., Comprehensive Commentary to th<>

Qurdn. London, Trubner. 4 vols. £2 Ss. Xwemer, Kev. Dr., Arabia, the Cradle of Isldm. London,

Oliphant, 1900. 75. 6d. Muhammadan Monotlieisni.

234

APPENDIX B.

SOME IMPOKTANT CHEISTIAN WOEKS IN OEIENTAL LAN GUAGES ON THE MUHAMMADAN CONTEOVEKSY.

Kashful Qurdn (Urdu version of Rev. Canon Sell's

Historical Development of the Qurdn). Dawatul Muslimin (Urdu, Arabic, and Persian versions

of Sir W. Muir's Muslims invited to read the Bible). Misbdhu'l Hudd\ Arabic, Cairo : anonymous (trans lated into English by Sir W. Muir, The Torch of

Guidance], Mizdnu'l ffaqq, Rev. Dr. Pfander (Persian, Urdu, Arabic,

Turkish, Bengali, English. Needs revision). Tariqu'l Haydt (do. do.). Miftdhu'l Asrdr (do. do.). Ibhdthul Mujtahidin, Arabic, Ghabril ; Cairo. Al Hiddyah, Arabic ; Cairo ; 4 vols. (A reply to

Muhammadan attacks, especially to Tzhdrul Haqq.) Maqdlah fi'l Isldm, Arabic ; Cairo. Ithbdtu Salbi'l Masih, Arabic, Rev. Dr. Koelle; Cairo

(also in English : C. M. S., London). Burhdnu'l JaUl, Arabic ; Cairo. Saldmatu'l Injil, Arabic ; Cairo. Yandbiul Isldm, Rev. Dr. Tisdall (Persian original,

APPENDIX B. 235

Urdu and Arabic versions, English epitome by Sir W.

Muir).

Shud'/td-yi Tdbandeh, do. (Friendly Dialogues, Persian). Murdsildt-i Dint, do. (Letters on Babi controversy,

Persian).

Hikmatud Diydnati'l Haqiqiyyah, do. (Christian Philo sophy).

Burhdn-i Btttldn, do., Persian. Niydzndmeh-yi 'Abdul Afasih, do., Persian. Al Bdktiratu'sh SJtahiyyah, Arabic (Sweet Fir st fruits :

Urdu and Persian versions, English epitome). Mandrul Haqq, Arabic (Urdu and Persian versions,

English epitome). tihahddatu'l Qurdn, Persian version of Sir W. Muir's

Testimony borne by the Qurdn. Revised. Rasdlatul Kindt, AraWc (Al Kindt's Apology: Urdu,

Persian, and English versions). Isbdt-i Ndtiq, Urdu version of Dr. Piersou's Many

Infallible Proofs. Maslh Ibnu'Udh, Urdu version of What Think ye of

Christ ? by Vaughan.

AmMlu'l Mu'minin, Urdu, Rev. Ahmed Sh.ih. .1 / Ilaqq, Urdu, 3 vols., do. Fjdzu'l Qurdn, Urdu, Prof. Ram Chandra Panjal.

Hiddyatal Muslinun, Urdu Rev. Dr. 'Imadu'ddin

Ta'Um-i Muhammadl „ „ „

Tawdrikh-i Muhammadl ,, „ „

Tanqidu'l Qurdn ,, ,, „

Tanqldu'l Khiydldt, 4 parts „ „

Tahqlqu'l Imdn „ „

Version of the Qurdn into Urdu ,, „

ReL

Book

Anar- kali, La hore.

236 APPENDIX B.

Islam, Bengali, Philip Biswas. Muhammad, Bengali, P. Biswas. Isldm Darshan, Bengali, Jacob Biswas. Sachchd Diner Rdhd, Bengali, Sir W. Muir. Muhammadi Diner Imtihdn, Bengali and English (Rev.

Dr. Rouse's Tracts on Islam). The Claims of Muhammad, Bengali.

237

APPENDIX C.

A FEW LEADING MUHAMMADAN WOHK> AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.

Mizdnu'l Mawdzin, Persian. (An answer to the Mizdnu'l

Haqq : published at Constantinople.) Tuhfatul Arlbfi'r raddi \ila Ahli s JSaltb, Arabic, A. H.

1290. (Work of a R. C. apostate.) Anlsu'l A'ldmfinusratil Isldm, Persian (bv Fukhru'ddin,

a Syrian apostate at Tehran). Burhdnu'l Aluslimin, do. Izhdrul Haqq, Arabic ; Cairo. Kashful Astdr, Urdu. Kitdbul Istifsdr, Urdu. Radd-i Khristiydn, 1 !« • 1 1 ^ ;il i . Khristiydn Dharmer Asdratd, Bengali. Dharma-Yuddha, Bengali.

238

APPENDIX D.

THE RECEIVED COLLECTIONS OF ARABIC TRADITIONS (AHADITH).

(a) Acknowledged by the Sunnis.

1. The Muwattd of Malik ibn Ans.

2. The Sahih (Al Jdmius Sahih) of Bukhari.

3. The Sahih of Muslim.

4. The Sunan of Abu Baud Sulaiman.

5. The Jdmi of Tirmidhi.

6. The Kitdbus Sunan of Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Majahi'l Qazwinl.

(The most important are collected in the MisTikAtul Masdbih.)

(b) Acknowledged by the Shi ties.

1. The Kdfi of Abu Ja'far Muhammad.

2. The Man la yastahzirahul Faqih of Shaikh €Ali.

3. The Talidhib of Shaikh Abu Ja'far Muhammad.

4. The Istibsdr of „ „ „

5. The Nahjul Baldghah of Sayyid Razi.

239

APPENDIX E.

SOME LEADING MUHAMMADAN COMMENTATORS.

Baizdwi (ed. Fleischer, Leipzig, 2 vols., also Cairo edition).

Bukhdrl (Imdtn Muhammad Ismd'U).

Rdzi (Imdm FakTiru'ddin).

Jaldlain ( = the two Jaldls).

'Abbdsi. (This and the preceding Commentary are often printed in the margin of Qur'ans published in India.)

ZamaJcshari. (His Commentary is entitled KasJislidfu'l Haqdiqi't Tanzil: ed. by Lees with Qur'an, 2 vols., royal 4to, Calcutta, 1856-61. It is held to belong to the Ttizdl school and therefore to be unorthodox.)

Muhiyyu 'ddtn. (Gives the mystical explanation of the Qur'jin.)

Xisdl] Yahya' ; Jaldluddin.

Shdh Wallulldh (Urdu commentator).

OXFORD : HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

EVIDENTIAL PUBLICATIONS

of the

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,

AB INFERIS.

Notes on Science and Religion. By M. E. DowsON. With a Preface by the Rev. J. R. ILLINGWORTH, M.A. Imp. 32010, cloth boards, 6</.

AGNOSTICISM.

By the Rev. I. GREGORY SMITH. Small post 8vo, paper cover, id. [// discusses this question from a point of view which Agnostics wight overlook.}

AGNOSTICISM, ON.

Replies to the late Professor Huxley, F.R.S., by the Very Rev. II. WACE, D.D., DearijOf Canterbury. Medium 8vo, paper cover, 6</.

AGNOSTICISM, ON.

By the Very Rev. II. \V,\CK, D.D. Fcap. 8vo, paper cover, 2d. ANALOGY OF RELIGION,

Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature : to which are added, Two Brief Dissertations. I. Of Personal Identity. II. Of the Nature of Virtue. By BISHOP BUTI.KR. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. (yd.

ANALOGY OF RELIGION, THE.

By the Rev. II. R. HI.TKIN, M.A. Post 8vo, cloth boards, 3.5-. [Butler re-cast in the form of Dialogues : for Ordinary

J\, adcrs. ]

ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY, THE.

By the late Rev. BROWN i.o\v MAITLAND, M.A. Post 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. [Deals in a lucid inann, >• and from a somewhat novel standpoint with the Evidential I'ti/itt' of Prophecy.]

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF St. LUKE, THE.

Its bearing upon the Evidences of the Truth of Christianity. Five Lectures, by the late Lord A. C. HKKVKY, D.I)., Hishop of Bath and Wells. Small post Svo, cloth boards, is. 6</.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE S.P.C.K.

BABYLONIAN EXCAVATIONS (THE) AND EARLY BIBLE HISTORY.

By PROFESSOR KITTEL, of Leipzig. Translated from the German by EDMUND McCLURE, M.A. Edited, with Preface, by H. WAGE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. Small post 8vo, paper cover, 6d.

BATTLE OF BELIEF, THE.

A Review of the present aspects of the Conflict, by the Rev. NEVISON LORAINE. Introduction by the BISHOP OF LONDON. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d.

BEING OF GOD, SIX ADDRESSES ON THE.

By C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester. Small post 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. [for the Clergy and Candidates for Holy Orders.}

BIBLE AND MODERN INVESTIGATION, THE.

Three Lectures delivered to Clergy at Norwich, at the request of the Bishop, with an Address on The Authority of Holy Scripture. By H. WAGE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. Small post 8vo, cloth, is. 6d.

BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY, THE.

By the Rev. C. CROSLEGH, D.D.' DemySvo, cloth boards, 6s.

BUTLER'S ANALOGY AND MODERN THOUGHT.

By Rev. A. R. EAGAR, D.D. Small post 8vo, cloth, 3.5-. 6d. [This is a thought/id endeavour to bring Butler rip to date. It re-states most of the positions in the light thrown by Darwin and Weissmann and other recent investigators. ]

CHRISTIAN FAITH, HELPS TOWARD BELIEF IN THE.

By the Rev. C. G. GRIFFINHOOFE, M.A. With a Preface by the most Rev. the LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, 3^. \_Deals with some current difficulties in a convincing manner .]

CHRISTIANITY JUDGED BY ITS FRUITS.

By the Rev. C. CROSLEGH, D.D. Post 8vo, cloth boards,

is. 6d. [An Appeal to the Evidence of History : for Intelligent Readers.}

CHRISTUS COMPROBATOR ; or, The Testimony of

Christ to the Old Testament.

By C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester. Small post Svo, cloth boards, 2s.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE S.P.C.K.

CHRONICLES (THE BOOKS OF) in Relation to the Pentateuch and the " Higher Criticism."

By the late LORD A. (\ HKRVI'Y, D.I>. l'"-t Svo, cloth. J .

CREATION, THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF,

With reference to Religious Nihilism and Modern Theories of Development. By Rev. T. R. BIKKS. Post Svo, cloth, I*. 6d.

CREATION, THE STORY OF,

As told by Theology and Science. By the Rev. T. S. ACKLAND. I'ost Svo, clotli boards, 15-. 6</,

DOUBT AND ITS REMEDY.

Being a Charge delivered to the Archdcanery of Gloucester in October, 1903, by C. J. ELUCOTT, 1 >. I;. , Bishop of Glow- Demy Svo, paper cover, ^d. [7/'v ripe experience of a father in dod who Jus >ccn many vicissitudes in the Church and the world, and whs finds in Cod's revelation of Himself the irre fragable foundation of faith.}

ECCE HOMO, ECCE REX.

s from the story of the Moral Conquests of Christianity.

" H' hold the Man." " Behold your King." By the late Mrs.

RI-NDI.K CHAKI.KS. Small post Svo, cloth boards, 3.5-. 6</. ;

buckram boards, red edges, 4.?. {Supplies in Christian

a/i/n' tfic i/tflsf practical ii'iiicucc of Christianity.}

EVOLUTION AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Ilcing Addresses delivered by the Ven. JA.MKS M. \\';i.snx, !).!)., Archdeacon of Manchester. Medium Svo, paper cover, C)ii. [A reprint sf papers on this and kindred subjects. It has a special i»iporta>ice at the present time.}

FAITH, REASONS FOR.

L'Ttures to M.-n by A. V . WlNNINOTON-lNCKAM, Bishop of London. Small post Svo, cloth, 6d.

GENESIS, THE BOOK.

A True History. The Book Genesis shown by comparison \\iththeotherBooksofthe Old Testament and early ancient reo ' true history and the first, book of the Hebrew

Revelation. By Rev. F. WATSON, I >. I ). l'<^t Svo, cloth, 3^.

HEBREW TRADITION (THE ANCIENT), as Illus trated by the Monuments.

A protr • in SeliDi.l of Did Testament

Criticism. I'.-. ' Ib>MMl.!,, ProfeSSOF of the Semitic

Laognaget. in the University of Munich. Transl:tte«l from the

. :nan by I-'.DM < LDRB, M.A., and I.i:< ..\,\KI>

CROs.ii. "With Maji. : I Svo, buckram i

[Deals from an entirely new point of view with the C,raf- hanscn p >;ition, and shows that it is utterly -untenable.]

PUBLICATIONS OF THE S.P.C.K.

" HIGHER CRITICISM" (THE), and The Verdict of

the Monuments.

By the Rev. A. H. SAYCE, Professor of Assyriology, Oxford. Fifth Edition. Demy 8vo, buckram, bevelled boards, JS. 6d. [Applies to the so-called ' ' Higher Criticism " of the Bible the results of recent archceological research : for the General Reader. ,]

HOLY EUCHARIST, THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE.

By the late Rev. G. F. MACLEAR, D.D. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, qs. [The Eticharist in its historical aspect, and our Lord's predictions of His own death, are made to yield, without any forcing, strong testimony in favour of the truth of Christian ity. ]

HOUSE OF WISDOM AND LOVE, THE.

Notes on Man and Nature. By M. E. DOWSON, with an Introductory Essay by Rev. P. N. WAGGETT. Cloth, 6d. [A thoughtful little book, suited to put into the hands of those who have difficulty in accepting Christianity,'}

MIRACLES? CAN WE BELIEVE IN.

By G. WARINGTON, Esq. Post 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. [An Exam ination and Refutation of certain^ Objections to Miracles. Well adapted for Distribution to Sceptics, and no less useful to those who may come in contact with them.~\

MODERN UNBELIEF: Its Principles and Charac teristics.

By the LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER. Post 8vo, cloth boards, is. 6d. [A series of Addresses on the phases of Modern Unbelief, and the best Mode of meeting them : for the Clergy and Intelligent Readers.]

MYSTERY OF MIRACLES, THE.

A scientific and philosophical investigation, by the late Rev. Prebendary J. W. REYNOLDS, M.A. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, 4$. [This is a cheap edition of the late Prebendary J. W. Reynolds' work on miracles, ,]

NATURAL THEOLOGY OF NATURAL BEAUTY, THE.

By the late Rev. R. ST. JOHN TYRWHITT, M.A. Post 8vo, cloth boards, is. 6d. [An Argument in favour of Religion, drawn from Natural Beauty* Original in conception and execution.}

PUBLICATIONS OF THE S.P.C.K.

NEW TESTAMENT, THE MORAL TEACHING OF

THE ; Viewed as Evidential to its Historical Truth. By the Rev. C. A. Row. Post 8vo, cloth boards, is. 6d.

NEW TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.

By A. F. WiXMNdToN-lNCKAM. Series I. and II. Small post 8vo, cloth, each 6</. [Deals with the alleged objections of ordinary " Frcct /tinkers."]

OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.

By A. F. \\ iNMNirroN-lNGRAM, Bishop of London. Small post 8vo, cloth, 6d. [Deals with those difficulties which Infidel Lecturers are continually bringing up : for Working Men.]

OLD TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE HIS TORICAL RECORDS AND LEGENDS OF ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA, THE.

By TiiF.oi'iui.r.s (',. I'INVMKS, LI,. I)., M.K.A.S. Second Edition, Revised, with Appendices and Notes. With several Illustrations Lar^e post 8vo, cloth boards, "js. 6V/. [Allies to the criticisms of the Old Testament the most recent disco: in the field of archeology. ]

OUR LORD'S VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE CRITI CISM OF TO-DAY.

By the Rev. K. J. K.\O\VI.INI;, D.I)., Trofessor of New Testa ment Exegesis in King's College and Boyle Lecturer. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, is. 6d. [A timely and able contribution on this subject. ]

PALEY'S CHRISTIANITY: A VIEW OF THE

EVIDENCES OF.

\Vith Notes, Appendix, and Preface by the Rev. E. A. LITTON, M. A. Post 8vo, cloth boards, 4^.

PALEY'S HOR^E PAULINA; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul evinced bv a Comparison of the Epistles which r^itr his name with the Acts of the Apostlea, and with one another.

:,dix, and Preface by J. S. EiOWSON, I >.!>., I' ,111 of Clatter. 1'o.^t Svo, clotli boards, Ji.

PALEY'S NATURAL THEOLOGY.

Revised to lianir>i)iM- \\ilh Modem Science 1-y 1 . l.i (JROS Cl.AKK, F.K.S. With Illustrations. 1'cjst Svo, cloth, j;

PUBLICATIONS OF THE S.P.C.K.

PATRIARCHAL PALESTINE.

By the Rev. A. H. SAYCE, Professor of Assyriology, Oxford. Crown Svo, with Map, buckram boards, 45-. {Gives the result of recent research as to the condition of Palestine in the time of the Patriarchs.]

POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.

By A. F. WiNNiNGTON-lNGRAM, Bishop of London. Small post Svo, cloth, 6d. {Deals in a bright and convincing way with current popular objections.]

RELIGION AND MORALITY.

By the Rev. R. T. SMITH, B.D., Canon of St. Patrick's, Dublin. Post Svo, cloth boards, is. 6d. {Dismisses the views on this subject of Professor Clifford, the late Mr. Herbert Spencer, and the late J. Stuart Mill : for Intelligent Readers.]

SCEPTICISM AND FAITH ; Papers on the Grounds of Belief.

By the late Rev. BROWNLOW MAITLAND. Post Svo, cloth boards, is. 6d. {These Papers treat in a short and simple, yet not superficial, manner the chief points at issue in the present conflict between Faith and Scepticism : for Unlearned Readers, Sceptics, and those exposed to their influence.]

SUPERNATURAL IN NATURE, THE.

A verification by free use of science, by the late Rev. Prebendary J. W. REYNOLDS, M.A. Second Edition. Demy Svo, cloth boards, 6s. {This is a cheap edition of a thoughtful work by the late Prebendary J. W. Reynolds]

THEISM OR AGNOSTICISM: An Essay on the Grounds of Belief in God.

By the late Rev. BROWNLOW MAITLAND, M.A. Post Svo, cloth boards, 15-. 6d.

TO WHOM SHALL WE GO ?

An Examination of some difficulties presented by unbelief. By the Rev. C. T. OVENDEN, D.D. Small post Svo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d. {A thoughtful and suggestive work, well calculated to inii,rc*t Sceptics. ]

WHAT IS NATURAL THEOLOGY? An Attempt to Estimate the Cumulative Evidence of many Witnesses to God.

By the Right Rev. ALFRED BARRY, D.D. Post Svo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d. {These Lectures treat of the Cumulative Evidence in favour of Christianity to be derived from the several branches of Natural Theology.]

298

CO

55

LO

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY