*

bishop Kidder has prescribed for the conversion of the Jews, and which may, mutatis mutandis, be equally applied to the former, notwithstanding the despicable opinion that writer, for want of being better acquainted with them, entertained of those people, judging them scarce fit to be argued with. The first of these rules is, To avoid compulsion; which though it be not in our power to employ at present, I hope will not be made use of when it is. The second is, To avoid teaching doctrines against common sense; the Mohammedans not being such fools (whatever we may think of them) as to be gained over in this case. The worshipping of images and the doctrine of transubstantiation are great stumbling-blocks to the Mohammedans, and the church which teacheth them is very unfit to bring those people over. The third is, To avoid weak arguments: for the Mohammedans are not to be converted with these, or hard words. We must use them with humanity, and dispute against them with arguments that are proper and cogent. It is certain that many Christians, who have written against them, have been very defective this way: many have used arguments that have no force, and advanced propositions that are void of truth. This method is so far from convincing that it rather serves to harden them. The Mohammedans will be apt to conclude we have ittle to say, when we urge them with arguments that are trifling or antrue. We do but lose ground when we do this; and instead of gaining them, we expose ourselves and our cause also. We must not give them ill words neither; but must avoid all reproachful language, all that is sarcastical and biting: this never did good from pulpit or press. The softest words will make the deepest impression; and if we think it a fault in them to give ill language, we cannot be excused when we mitate them. The fourth rule is, Not to quit any article of the Christian faith to gain the Mohammedans. It is a fond conceit of the Socinians, that we shall upon their principles be most like to prevail upon the Mohammedans: it is not true in matter of fact. We must not give up any article to gain them: but then the church of Rome ought to part with many practices and some doctrines. We are not to design to gain the Mohammedans over to a system of dogmas, but to the ancient and primitive faith. I believe nobody will deny but that the rules here laid down are just: the latter part of the third, which alone my design has given me occasion to practise, I think so reasonable, that I have not, in speaking of Mohammed or his Korân, allowed myself to use those opprobrious appellations, and unmannerly expressions, which seem to be the strongest arguments of several who have written against them. On the contrary, I have thought myself obliged to treat both with common decency, and even to approve such particulars as seemed to me to deserve approbation: for how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind, the praises due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him; nor can I do otherwise

In his Demonstr. of the Messias, part 3, chap. 2.

than applaud the candour of the pious and learned Spanhemius, who. though he owned him to have been a wicked impostor, yet acknowledgea him to have been richly furnished with natural endowments, beautiful in his person, of a subtle wit, agreeable behaviour, showing liberality to the poor, courtesy to every one, fortitude against his enemies, and above all a high reverence for the name of God; severe against the perjured, adulterers, murderers, slanderers, prodigals, covetous, false witnesses, &c. a great preacher of patience, charity, mercy, beneficence, gratitude, honouring of parents and superiors, and a frequent celebrator of the divine praises.*

Of the several translations of the Korân now extant, there is but one which tolerably represents the sense of the original; and that being in Latin, a new version became necessary, at least to an English reader. What Bibliander published for a Latin translation of that book deserves not the name of a translation; the unaccountable liberties therein taken, and the numberless faults, both of omission and commission, leaving scarce any resemblance of the original. It was made near six hundred years ago, being finished in 1143, by Robertus Retenensis, an Englishman, with the assistance of Hermannus Dalmata, at the request of Peter, abbot of Clugny, who paid them well for their pains.

From this Latin version was taken the Italian of Andrea Arrivabene notwithstanding the pretences in his dedication of its being done immediately from the Arabic;† wherefore it is no wonder if the transcript be yet more faulty and absurd than the copy.‡

About the end of the fifteenth century, Johannes Andreas, a native of Xativa in the kingdom of Valencia, who from a Mohammedan doctor became a Christian priest, translated not only the Korân, but also its glosses, and the seven books of the Sonna, out of Arabic into the Arragonian tongue, at the command of Martin Garcia, bishop of Barcelona, and inquisitor of Arragon. Whether this translation were ever published or not I am wholly ignorant; but it may be presumed to have been the better done for being the work of one bred up in the Mohammedan religion and learning; though his refutation of that religion, which has had several editions, gives no great idea of his abilities.

Some years within the last century, Andrew du Ryer, who had been consul of the French nation in Egypt, and was tolerably skilled in the

* Id certum, naturalibus egregiè dotibus instructum Muhammedem, forma præstanti, ingenio callido, moribus facetis, ac præ se ferentem liberalitatem in egenos, comitatem in singulos, fortitudinem in hostes, ac præ cæteris reverentiam divini nominis.-Severus fuit in perjuros, adulteros, homicidas, obtrectatores, prodigos, avaros, falsos testes, &c. Magnus idem patientiæ, charitatis, misericordiæ, beneficientiæ, gratitudinis, honoris in parentes ac superiores præco, ut et divinarum laudum.-Hist. Eccles. sec. 7, c. 7, lem. 5, et 7. + His words are: "Questo libro, che già havevo à commune utilità di molti fatto dal proprio testo Arabo tradurre nella nostra volgar lingua Italiana," &c. And afterwards: "Questo è l'Alcorano di Macometto, il quale, come ho già detto, ho fatto dal suo idioma tradurre," &c.

* Vide Joseph. Scalig. Epist. 361 et 362; et Selden. de Success. ad Leges Ebræor. p. 9. ♦J, Andreas, in præf. ad Tractat. suum de Confusione Sectæ Mahometanæ.

Turkish and Arabic languages, took the pains to translate the Korân into nis own tongue: but his performance, though it be beyond comparison preferable to that of Retenensis, is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions, and additions,* faults unpardonable in a work of this nature. And what renders it still more incomplete, is the want of notes to explain a vast number of passages, some of which are difficult, and others impossible to be understood without proper explications, were they translated ever so exactly; which the author is so sensible of, that he often refers his readers to the Arabic commentators.† The English version is no other than a translation of du Ryer's, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of du Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous.

In 1698, a Latin translation of the Korân, made by Father Lewis Marracci, who had been confessor to Pope Innocent XI., was published at Padua, together with the original text, accompanied by explanatory notes and a refutation. This translation of Marracci's, generally speaking, is very exact; but adheres to the Arabic idiom too literally to be easily understood, unless I am much deceived, by those who are not versed in the Mohammedan learning. The notes he has added are indeed of great use; but his refutations, which swell the work to a large volume, are of little or none at all, being often unsatisfactory, and sometimes impertinent. The work, however, with all its faults, is very valuable, and I should be guilty of ingratitude, did I not acknowledge myself much obliged thereto; but still, being in Latin, it can be of no use to those who understand not that tongue.

* Vide Windet. de Vita Functorem statu, sect. 9.

"If," says Savary, "the Korân, which is extolled throughout the East for the perfec tion of its style, and the magnificence of its imagery, seems, under the pen of du Ryer, to be only a dull and tiresome rhapsody, the blame must be laid on his manner of translating. This book is divided into verses, like the Psalms of David. This kind of writing, which was adopted by the prophets, enables prose to make use of the bold terms and the figurative expressions of poetry. Du Ryer, paying no respect whatever to the text, has connected the verses together, and made of them a continuous discourse. To accomplish this misshapen assemblage, he has had recourse to frigid conjunctions, and to trivia! phrases, which, destroying the dignity of the ideas, and the charm of the diction, render it impossible to recognize the original. While reading his translation, no one could ever imagine that the Korân is the masterpiece of the Arabic language, which is fertile in fine writers; yet this is the judgment which antiquity has passed on it."

+ Of Marracci's translation Savary says: "Marracci, that learned monk, who spent forty years in translating and refuting the Korân, proceeded on the right system. He divided it into verses, according to the text; but, neglecting the precepts of a great master, 'Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus Interpres,' &c.

he translated it literally. He has not expressed the ideas of the Korân, but travestied the words of it into barbarous Latin. Yet, though all the beauties of the original are ost in this translation, it is preferable to that by du Ryer."

Having therefore undertaken a new translation, I have endeavoured to do the original impartial justice, not having, to the best of my knowledge represented it in any one instance, either better or worse than it really is. I have thought myself obliged, indeed, in a piece which pretends to be the Word of GOD, to keep somewhat scrupulously close to the text; by which means the language may, in some places, seem to express the Arabic a little too literally to be elegant English: but this, I hope, has not happened often; and I flatter myself that the style I have made use of will not only give a more genuine idea of the original than if I had taken more liberty (which would have been much more for my ease), but will soon become familiar; for we must not expect to read a version of so extraordinary a book with the same ease and pleasure as a modern composition.

In the notes my view has been briefly to explain the text, and especially the difficult and obscure passages, from the most approved commentators, and that generally in their own words, for whose opinions or expressions, where liable to censure, I am not answerable; my province being only fairly to represent their expositions, and the little I have added of my own, or from European writers, being easily discernible. Where I met with any circumstance which I imagined might be curious or entertaining, I have not failed to produce it.

The Preliminary Discourse will acquaint the reader with the most material particulars proper to be known previously to entering on the Korân itself, and which could not so conveniently have been thrown into the.notes. And I have taken care both in the Preliminary Discourse and the notes, constantly to quote my authorities and the writers to whom I have been beholden; but to none have I been more so than to the learned Dr. Pocock, whose Specimen Historiæ Arabum is the most useful and accurate work that has been hitherto published concerning the antiquities of that nation, and ought to be read by every curious inquirer into them.

As I have had no opportunity of consulting public libraries, the manuscripts of which I have made use throughout the whole work have been such as I had in my own study, except only the Commentary of al Beidâwi, and the gospel of St. Barnabas. The first belongs to the library of the Dutch church in Austin Friars, and for the use of it I have been chiefly indebted to the Rev. Dr. Bolton, one of the ministers of that church: the other was very obligingly lent me by the Rev. Dr. Holme, rector of Hedly in Hampshire; and I take this opportunity of returning both those gentlemen my thanks for their favours. The merit of al Beidâwi's Commentary will appear from the frequent quotations I have made thence; but of the gospel of St. Barnabas (which I had not seen when the little I have said of it in the Preliminary Discourse, and the extract I had borrowed from M. de la Monnoye and Mr. Toland,† were printed off), I must beg leave to give some further account.

The book is a moderate quarto, in Spanish, written in a very legible hand, but a little damaged towards the latter end. It contains two hundred and twenty-two chapters of unequal length, and four hundred and twenty pages; and is said, in the front, to be translated from the Italian, by an Arragonian Moslem, named Mostafa de Aranda. There is a preface prefixed to it, wherein the discoverer of the original MS., who was a Christian monk, called Fra Marino, tells us, that having accidentally met with a writing of Irenæus (among others), wherein he speaks against St. Paul, alleging, for his authority, the gospel of St. Barnabas, he became exceedingly desirous to find this gospel; and that GOD, of his mercy, having made him very intimate with Pope Sixtus V., one day, as they were together in that Pope's library, his holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved to be the very gospel he wanted; overjoyed at the discovery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve, and on the Pope's awaking took leave of him, carrying with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Mohammedism.

This gospel of Barnabas contains a complete history of Jesus Christ from his birth to his ascension; and most of the circumstances of the four real gospels are to be found therein, but many of them turned, and some artfully enough, to favour the Mohammedan system. From the design of the whole, and the frequent interpolations of stories and passages wherein Mohammed is spoken of and foretold by name, as the messenger of GOD, and the great prophet who was to perfect the dispensation of Jesus, it appears to be a most barefaced forgery. One particular I observe therein. induces me to believe it to have been dressed up by a renegade Christian, slightly instructed in his new religion, and not educated a Mohammedan (unless the fault be imputed to the Spanish, or perhaps the Italian translator, and not to the original compiler), I mean the giving to Mohammed the title of Messiah, and that not once or twice only, but in several places; whereas the title of the Messiah, or, as the Arabs write it, al Masîh, i. e. Christ, is appropriated to Jesus in the Korân, and is constantly applied by the Mohammedans to him, and never to their own prophet. The passages produced from the Italian MS. by M. de la Monnoye are to be seen in this Spanish version almost word for word.

But to return to the following work. Though I have freely censured the former translation of the Korân, I would not therefore be suspected of a design to make my own pass as free from faults: I am very sensible it is not; and I make no doubt but the few who are able to discern them, and know the difficulty of the undertaking, will give me fair quarter. I likewise flatter myself that they, and all considerate persons, will excuse the delay which has happened in the publication of this work, when they are informed that it was carried out at leisure times only, and amidst the necessary avocations of a troublesome profession.