judgment and philosophy, requisite for closing hand to hand with Moslem adversaries.

But now we can boldly take our stand with the best of our opponents. We have free access to their most authentic sources, —Ibn Ishac, Wâckidi, Hishamí, Tabari. And we can, without fear, confront them with an array of hostile weapons drawn from their own armouries.

How then, it may be asked, are we bringing these new advantages to bear upon their Prophet's life and doctrine? The answer is one of shame and humiliation. Besides a few tracts, generally of a questionable composition, the only vernacular treatises likely to affect the Mohammedan mind, are the admirable works of the Missionary Pfander, which we have in a former Number passed under examination: but even these have little reference to the historical deductions of modern research, and deal more with the deep principles of reason and of faith.

The first treatise at the head of this Article, professes to be a direct step towards the object we have in view. It is a Life of Mohammed intended by the Bombay Tract Society for translation into "the vernacular tongues." The preface, after dwelling on the inapplicability of European biographies to the "Asiatic public," thus states the object of the treatise: "It was, therefore, thought advisable to prepare another Life of Mohammed, with special reference to the state of mind and circumstances of the people of this country. This is now presented." We looked to see advantage taken in this Biography of the investigations regarding the rise of Islam which have been prosecuted with such success in France, Germany, Austria, as well as here in India. But our expectation was speedily disappointed by the following statement: "Many works have been consulted, "but the following, and especially the first three, are those which "have been most copiously used, viz:—

Bush's Life of Mohammed.
Washington Irving's Life of Mohammed.
Religious Tract Society's Life of Mohammed. London.
Sale's Coran and Preliminary Treatises.
Gibbon's History."