The further works of defence produced in this cen- tury arose, as it were, accidentally. The lengthy sum- mary of the Mohammedan controversy in Hoornbeek's Summa Controversiarum (1653, p. 75 sq.) was either introduced merelj' to give completeness to the work as a treatise on polemics, or was called forth by considera- tions connected with missions, as is made probable by his work De Conversione Gentilium et Indoi-um. Le Moyne's publication on the subject in the Varia Sacra (1685, vol. i) arose from the accidental discovery of an old treatise, Bartholomcei Edess. Confutatio Hagareni. A third work of this kind, Blaraccio's Criticism on the Koran (1698), arose from the circumstance that the pope would not allow the publication of an edition of the Koran without an accompanying refutation of each part of it. This effort remains to our day the chef- d'oeuvre in Christian polemics against the Koran. The work of Hottinger {Hist. Orient, bk. i), Pfeiffer's Theol. Judaica et j\fahom., and Kortholt's De Relig. Mahom. (1663), form the transition into an independent literary investigation ; which is seen in the literary inquiries concerning the life of Mohammed, as well as his doc- trine, in Pocock, Prideaux (1697), Keland (1707), Bou- lainvilliers (1730), and the translation of the Koran by Sale (1734). A slightly controversial tone pervades some of them. The materials collected by them were occasionally used by deist and infidel writers (e. g. by Chubb) for instituting an unfavorable comparison be- tween Christ and jMohammed. The great literary his- torians of that period give lists of the previous writers connected with the investigation. (See J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graca, ed. 1715, vii, 136 ; Walch, Biblioth. Theol. Sel. vol. i, chap, v, § 9.) A summary of the ar- guments used in the controversy is given in J. Fabricius, Delectus A ryumentorum, p. 41 sq. ; and Stapfer's Inst. Theol. Polem. iii, 289 sq.
3. In the present century the literature in reference to Mohammedanism is, as in the former instances, two- fold in kind. Part of it has been called forth by mis- sionary contests in the East ; part by literary or historic
moham^iedanis:m
422
MOHAJ^OIEDANISM
tastes, and the modern love of carrying the comparative method of study into every part of liistory.
The first class is illustrated by the discussions at Shi- raz, in 1811, between the saintly Henry Jlartyn (q.v.) ami some Persian mollahs. The controversy was open- ed by a tract, sophistical but acute, written by Mirza Ibrahim (Lee, p. 1-39), the object of which was to show the superiority of the standing miracle seen in the ex- cellence of the Koran over the ancient miracles of Christianity. Jlartyn replied to this in a series of tracts (Lee, p. 80 sq.), and was again met by Moham- med lln/.a. of Hamadan in a much more elaborate work, in wliicii, among other arguments, the writer attemjits to sliow predictions of Mohammed in the Old Testament and in the New, applying to him the promise of the Paraclete (Lee, p. 101-450). These tracts were trans- lated in 1824, with an elaborate preface containing an account of the preceding controversy of Guadagnoli, by Professor S. Lee, of Cambridge {Controvi-rsial 7 rails on Christianity and Mohammedanism, which is the work so frecjuently cited above). To complete the history, it is necessary to add that a discussion was held a few years ago between an accomplished M(>hamme<lan and Mr. Frencli, a learned missionary at Agra. Since then a very able defence of Cliristianity and an attack on Mo- hammedanism was published by Dr. I'fander, " a highly respected missionary of the English Church Missionary' Society" (1864), which, though forbidden, found its way to Constantinople and to ^Mohammedan families, and was replied to by several Moslems. In 1805 a jNIoslem doc- tor of India, Syud Ahmed Khan, and P. Scudder Amin, actually brought out a bilingual commentary on the Holy Hible in English and Urdu, placing the Bible and Koran upon the same footing, and equally binding on the Moslems. The Kev. J. T. Gracey, in a review of this work, sent from Bareilly, India, September 26, 1860, and published in the Methodist, says : '"A resume of the relative bearings of this book might be interesting ; but, as nothing is more baffling than the study of contempo- raneous history, I dislike to venture my speculations about what is indicated in such a publication, or the probable influence it will exert. 1. Its bearings on the Mohammedan controversy with Christianity are important. The IMohammedan mind is thoroughly im- pregnated with the belief that the Jewish and Chris- tian Scriptures have been corrupted, and hence are un- worthy of credit. Accordingly, when we have urged that, since Mohammed based his claims on the Jewish and Cliristian Scriptures, Mohammedans were under ob- ligation to regard these, and reconcile with them the Koran, they have always assented to the proposition abstractly, but have charged that interpolations of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were the cause of the discrepancies m doctrine which appear. Mohammedan- ism has, however, it is claimed, always had a philosoph- ical school, which ignored many popular hilhj's. Syud Ahmed is of this class, and, after examining the Co- lenso controversy, asserts essential integrity for the rec- ord. His book is among the first attempts to popularize this belief, however esoterically it may have been held by a school ; anil as the book lias had considerable cir- culation among the most intluential persons in the va- rious communities, it can scarcely fail in time to mate- rially modify the popular notion of the lack of authen- ticity of the Scriptures. 2. In comparison with the IIiudA,the Mohammedan mind of India has been roused but little from its wonted apatJiy by its contact with Western civilization. A heavy prize offered in Calcutta recently for the best essay on a suhject familiar to the Mohammedan mind called forlli less than half a dozen moiiogra]dis, none of which merited tlie jirize. A like offer to llindCls would have met a very different fate. But this book is, I hope, a harbinger of a better state of affairs, and may do much to induce it, notwithstand- ing the fact, which tlie author assures me in personal correspondence, that the limited sale of this second vol- ume does not justify his completing the scries, though