losophy is plainly without value: its importance, at the same time, is considerable in another aspect; namely, as it marks the tendency of Mahometanism to improve; and to improve, by approximation to the lights of Christianity.

Before we pass to another head of the doctrinal parallel, it may be well to submit a specimen or two of the literal agreement of the Mahometan, with the Scriptural representations, of the splendours of paradise.

SCRIPTURAL.

PARADISE.

And the building of the wall of it was of jasper, and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones.

In the midst of the street of it, was there the tree of life; which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month.

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. Rev. xxi. 18, 19. xxii. 1, 2.

MAHOMETAN.

Its stones were pearls and jacinths, the wall of its buildings enriched with gold and silver, and the trunks of its trees are of gold:

Among which, the most remarkable is the tree called Tûba, or the tree of happiness. Concerning this they fable, that it will be loaded with pomegranates, grapes, dates, and other fruits, &c. '

The Koran often speaks of the rivers of paradise as a principal ornament thereof: but of two especially, Al Cawthar (or the river of happiness), and the river of life.

It is observable of Judaism and Christianity, that the principal doctrines contained in the Old Testament and in the New, came only gradually, and after long time and discussion, to be developed into the doctrinal systems maintained respectively within the two churches. The observation holds true of Mahometanism also: on comparison with Christianity, especially, the doctrinal parallel stands very strikingly illustrated, by the similarity, or rather sameness, of the great doctrinal questions successively agitated by the opposed religions.

The Jewish church, in our Lord's day, was divided into conflicting parties on the important question, whether the law of Moses was to be received as the sole authority and standard of

*See "Sacred Literature," p. 250.

the Jews' religion, and as, in consequence, its own sole interpreter; or whether the disciples of the law were bound to receive, as of co-ordinate authority with it, the tradition handed down, from ancient times, through the fathers of the Hebrew church. Under Christianity, in the Western church especially, the controversy has raged, through successive ages to the present, between the adherents of the Bible alone, as the exclusive standard of Christian faith and practice, and the advocates of the tradition of the church Catholic, as of supreme, or of subordinate authority, and as the true and authoritative interpreter of Scripture. On a fair comparison of Mahometanism with both branches of the true religion, the doctrinal analogy, so far as the question of tradition is concerned, certainly has nothing wanting to its completeness. After the precedents of the Jewish and Christian churches, the Mahometan world became early divided on the question, whether the Koran comprehended the sum of the confession of true believers, and constituted their only standard of appeal, - or, whether the Koran itself was to receive its authoritative interpretation from the Sonna, or reputed traditions of Mahomet. Nor are the corresponding features of this analogy distinguished simply by a general air of resemblance: on the con

trary, the whole triple controversy respecting the authority of tradition, in its origin, its conduct, and its ascertained results; in the parallel sects and schisms to which it gave birth; and in the lasting and implacable enmities to which it ministered fuel, — when viewed even in an insulated light, may well be regarded as no ordinary indication of the providential analogy, assumed to subsist, between the three religious systems.

Upon the doctrinal history of the Christian religion, it must, in this place, be observed generally, that, while the sum of all Catholic doctrine is built on the one sure foundation, -the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, wherein are to be found the announcement, and the proofs, of every verity maintained, from the apostolic age inclusive, by the church,— the rise, on the other hand, of those doctrinal debates, which successively sprang up to disturb the unity of Christendom, has been historically traced, by ecclesiastical writers, to one or other of two sources, the Oriental, or the Greek, philosophy: the former, by its monstrous opposition to the truth, serving only more fully to elicit the sense of Scripture, on that mysterious question of philosophy, the origin of evil; the latter, by its abstract subtleties of speculation, rendering a similar service, on matters equally abstruse and

important, -the nature of the Godhead; the doctrines of liberty and necessity; of grace and human merit; of faith and good works,

·with other controversies, which, while they necessarily led to divisions in the church, have still advanced, in their discussion, the great providential aim of clearing and confirming the Catholic verities.

The doctrinal history of Mahometanism presents a striking correspondence with that of Christianity, in the rise and management of its controversies: a correspondence, springing also from the self-same cause, the introduction, into the schools of the Saracens, of the Greek philosophy, engrafted on the Oriental. From the period of this innovation, accordingly, we meet, among the sectaries of Mahomet, similar philosophical disputations, respecting the origin of evil; the nature and attributes of the Godhead; fate and free-will; and several more questions, akin to those which successively prevailed in the Christian world, from the close of the first century inclusive. On each of the mysterious subjects specified, there unquestionably obtains a doctrinal parallel; only with this marked contradistinction between the legitimate revelation and its spurious counterpart, that the doctrines, reputed orthodox in the Mahometan religion, are

с с