promise respecting Ishmael, that he should dwell in the presence of all his brethren"; the former, it is contended, was fulfilled in Christianity, the latter, in Mohammedanism. There is no "responding feature" here; Mohammedanism may be the accomplishment of a prophecy, but that is a very different thing from the fulfilment of a promise. Forster would make circumcision to "be equally at the root of both parts of the original covenant, and to be the common bond of a certain spiritual relation, —'to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee'; —and we can only tell of the force of this application to Ishmael by an investigation of RESULTS." This argument, however, proves a great deal too much, as it would extend to the whole of Abraham's seed, including the children of Ketura, —to whom no special spiritual blessing was accorded. "Isaac becomes the father of the true faith; Ishmael, —of a spurious imitation of it." But a "spurious imitation" is no fulfilment; and if Islam is actually the fulfilment of the promise, it cannot be spurious, but must be acknowledged a divine faith. The fabric is based upon a contradiction.

It frequently falls in with Forster's views to prove Islam a blessing, and then it is curious to observe how he avoids comparing it with the Gospel. Thus he says that when we "submit Mohammedanism to a comparison with Christianity, exclusively of Judaism, we are not trying it by the proper and equitable standard; . . . for it is no more than the barest justice, that the parts of it derived from the law of Moses should be tried by that law, instead of being condemned without reserve or discrimination, by another rule, —the infinitely perfect law of Christ." But surely there can be no reason why his creed should not be tried and condemned by that faith which its founder supplanted, and in room of which he substituted his own. Again, "some of the most objectionable features of his moral law, instead of being, as heretofore; tried and condemned by the perfect rule of the Gospel, would seem entitled to be judged by reference to the source whence, it is derived, and the standard to which it appeals." The source from whence he professes to derive his law is God Himself: why then adopt a lower standard than His word?