The fact that Christ did not punish the woman taken in adultery, is assumed as
conclusive evidence that Christianity abrogated the Mosaical law. The following
will serve as a specimen of Ahmed's reasoning: —"Moses was no prophet,
because he opposed the law as given by Jacob. In the law of Jacob it was
allowable to marry two sisters, for he married both Leah and Rachel; which is
contrary to the law of Moses . . . . You Christians are reduced, therefore, to
this alternative, either you must deny the mission of Jesus; or must allow that
he opposed Moses" (p. lxv.). This is much the same style of reasoning as we
have at the present day. The greater part of the remaining arguments consist of
attacks upon the credibility of the Scriptures, by showing that they contain
discrepancies and unworthy sentiments, and that the apostles and evangelists
were men of doubtful character. Ahmed also gives the Catholics a sly hit about
the Reformation: —"It appears that you Christians oppose all the prophets.
You need not, therefore, reproach and reprobate the English as you do . . . .
You say that when some cursed persons came who endeavoured to corrupt the Holy
Scriptures, they were unable to succeed; but corrupted only those books, which
their own, reprobate doctors had written out; and these are the English, some of
whom are now at Isfahán (p. xciv.). What were our English ancestors then about;
were the Reformers silent at Isfahán? There is a curious account of the mode in
which Gospels are said to have been fabricated, and which is ably replied to at
p. cii. Having devoted a few more pages to the refutation of Ahmed's objections,
Lee proceeds to describe a Latin work by Philip Guadagnoli, of the College de
Propag. Fide, in defence of Xavier, and refutation of Ahmed. Lee's silence
confirms the opinion one forms of its poverty from the frequent references it
contains to the authority of Fathers,
