translating this work was very similar to what I apprehend was the design of TOPHAIL, to raise his countrymen from sensual indulgences and pursuits to those of a higher nature. The translation was printed "Jan. 27, 1685-6," just about the close of the voluptuous reign of Charles II; a period perhaps of the highest excess of profligacy which this nation ever experienced; and respecting which the translator employs these expressions. In his epistle dedicatory he speaks of “the men of this licentious generation, whereof some are too loose in their principles and others in their practices." In his preface he says respecting his English translation,-it "may, I hope, prove not altogether unuseful unto many in this idle, worldly, and voluptuous age;" and again, some pages further on, (the preface is not paged,) he speaks "of the ensuing History; which possibly (being thus Englished) may do some good (as I even now said) in this profane and fanatical, as well as lewd and luxurious age.”

Whether the idea excited in my mind, on first reading the titlepage of the edition before me, is correct or not, viz., that the translator's meaning was to lead "from nature up to nature's God," I leave the reader to decide after perusing the following observations and quotations.

After the conclusion of the original work, which is very decidedly marked, follows a distinct addition with this Title, given in the manner of an Addenda, being without date or printer's name; with the paging continued from the close of the original, viz., from pages 191 to 217. This half-title runs thus:

"THEOLOGIA RURIS

SIVE

SCHOLA ET SCALA NATURÆ :

OR THE

BOOK OF NATURE,

Leading us, by certain degrees, to the knowledge and worship

of the GOD of NATURE."

The author of this piece is not described; but as no mention is made of it in the preface, I conceive it very probably was attached to the Latin translation by E. Pococke; and from the very great difference between the style of it, and the style either of the preface or original work, I should conjecture that E. Pococke himself or his father, who lived some years after the time this translation was published; might be the translator, as well as the author, of this "Theologia Ruris;" for it would be very extraordinary indeed, if this is a part of the original Arabic work.

The following extracts are taken from this "Theologia Ruris," in page 196. After an apostrophe to Him who is the origin and end of nature, to make all its pleasures, advantageous and saving to himself, the author resumes his observations on "the Book of Nature," in the course of which, in page 198, he says of man: "Thou beholdest this ample furniture of nature, the variety of utensils and ornaments in this house of the world, which is the palace and temple of the great God; and thou judgest that it is all thine, because it serves to thy use. Be it so. But then consider too, whose thyself art; and learn what thou owest unto Him, by what thou has received from Him."

Again, page 200. "Neither doth Nature lead thee towards God, by a far-fetched and winding compass, but in a short and straight line. The sun waits upon the rain and dew; the rain and dew upon the grass; the grass serves the cattle; and the cattle serve thee; and if thou serve GOD then thou makest good the highest link in that golden chain, whereby heaven is joined unto earth.”

Again, page 205, after stating that it is not sufficient for man to view his flocks and his herds, in order to contemplate the profits he may derive from them, the author adds: "It is far more worthy of thee, and proper for thee, thus to reckon and reason with thyself: "All these I am richly supplied with,

by the liberal hand of GoD; and they all perform that use and service for my advantage, which they owe not to me. Shall I then either deny or neglect that service which is due unto my GOD, who hath so freely and undeservedly bestowed them all upon me? Shall I cause that chain of God's works whereby they are so orderly linked to Him, the Maker and Sovereign Disposer of all, to be broken off through my default? Shall I who am a debtor to God for all these, repay nothing to Him?-But what shall I return unto God?-My duties and services reach not Him; neither can anything properly be repayed to Him, who is the owner of all things. But though thou canst give back nothing to Him by way of repaiment; yet thou maist humbly and dutifully receive his gifts, return hearty and constant thanks to Him for the receipt; use them soberly and chearfully, and so approve thyself a meet receiver, a candid accepter, and a prudent manager of the Divine Bounty."

Here we have the author's sense of our dependance on God for the things of this life; let us now see the sentiments contained in this "Theologia Ruris" on the way in which the things of this life lead to that to come. Page 216, the author says: "To conclude, if we mind heaven whilst we live here upon earth, this earth will seem to conduct us unto heaven, THROUGH the merits and MEDIATION of the SON OF GOD; who was made the 'Son of Man;' and came thence on purpose, into this lower world, to convey us up thither."

From what has been stated in this postscript, the reader may see that R. Barclay, however he derived his information respecting the History of Hai Ebn Yokdan, was not alone in attaching "good credit," at least to the design of the work; and that he had companions amongst Arabians, Jews, and those who are esteemed learned Christian divines. As to J. W.'s allusion to the short notice of Yokdan by R. B., “that such absurdity was current in the Society for a century;" I

have no recollection of hearing the incident noticed but once in the course of a pretty long life; and then as not having any weight in the scale, for this plain reason; such a narrative was not in the least wanting to establish Barclay's irrefragable arguments, which rested on the authority of SCRIPTURE, the touchstone and test which R. B. and the

early Friends" ever maintained to be the ONLY criterion by which to form our judgment of doctrine; though, as the Scriptures and perpetually recurring facts abundantly testify, man requires a Divine illumination to enable him to decide aright; even as―" no man can say that Jesus is the Lord; but by the Holy Ghost."

Could J. W. even demonstrate, (assertion is not proof,) that what Barclay says of Yokdan is an absurd inference to be drawn from Tophail's work, yet I think it is evident the absurdity would rest only with R. B.; and that as the Society had no knowledge of the work itself, the absurdity of alluding to it could not apply to them as a body; and therefore, J. W.'s charge against them could relate only to their ignorance respecting the work, in which J. W. himself was equally involved; and as he states page 82, even continued in ignorance respecting it, after some of the Society had removed the notice of Hai Ebn Yokdan.

That this brief notice should be allowed to remain in a work which was not considered to need revision, was a matter of course, until some doubt arose as to its originating in fact. And as already stated in this Glance," the omission of this single paragraph, takes no more from the force of R. B.'s arguments, than a drop from a bucket, or than a particle of sand from the sea shore.

To revert to the " express purpose" of Tophail, I conceive the statements of facts already made in this postscript, may at least warrant the assumption that none of the respectable individuals mentioned, whether Arabians, or Jews, or Christians,

E

in reference to the Arabic and Latin edition, or to the English translation of 1686, took such a view of the author's design as J. W. assigns to it. But it is not necessary to rest this idea on assumption, the translator into English, of the edition before me, in his preface, after describing the effect of Hai Ebn Yokdan's system to be, to set before us the whole book of nature," the rules of MORALITY which he set to himself, and whereby he governed his whole life," says: "But the utmost height and perfection of his learning, whereunto all the rest tended as so many steps or degrees, consisted in that Natural Theology' which he arrived to, from the serious and attentive consideration of God's works, and more particularly of himself; from whence he concluded that God was the supereminent, the sole, and independent Being; of infinite greatness and goodness, wisdom and power, majesty and glory; whose all-seeing eye, and over-ruling hand of Providence, extend themselves to all his creatures; who is also most just and righteous in all his dealings with and towards mankind.". "" Whereupon he discourseth of the resurrection and the last judgment, with the felicities and miseries that attend men after the judgment is past, answerably to the condition and quality of their lives which they led here on earth.”— Compare those felicities with the sensual and lascivious pleasures of a Mahomedan paradise !!

After stating the distinction of the two classes in their rewards, &c., the translator adds: "This is the summ and MAIN DESIGN of the ensuing History; which possibly (being thus Englished) may do some good, (as I even now said,) in this profane and fanatical, as well as lewd and luxurious age."

The quotations hitherto given from the copy before me, have tended principally to show the sentiments of others respecting Tophail's History. It now remains, as briefly as possible, to discuss the merits of the work, under its vail of absurdity. And as it would be scarcely possible to give a