and it may do no harm to young America to learn that there is some intellect in the world besides the Anglo-Saxon.

The writer of the following treatise, Mikhael (Michael), son of Joorjis (George), son of Ibrahim (Abraham), Meshakah the Lebanonite, or, more briefly, Mikhael Meshakah, was born in Damascus in the year 1800, and by birth and baptism was a member of the Greek Catholic church, which is the name of that portion of the ancient Eastern church that has given in its adhesion to the pope of Rome. He was descended from a noble family, and his father held an honorable office under the government of Mount Lebanon. At the age of fourteen, under the tuition of a relative who had been taught by the French, in Egypt, under Bonaparte, he made considerable proficiency in algebra, geometry, astronomy, and the natural sciences.

This education, while it elevated his views of the Creator, led him to despise the unscriptural practices and traditionary errors of his sect; and, as he knew nothing of a spiritual Christianity, he learned to look upon all religion as a contrivance of the more intelligent to secure the control of the ignorant masses. The result of an examination of the books of the various sects around him, was the conviction that all were alike corrupt, and that nothing more was required of him than that, rising above the empty show got up to impress the vulgar, he should be upright and benevolent according to the light of nature. Still, to avoid offence, he attended church and conformed externally to ecclesiastical require

ments.

In 1821 Jonas King, D. D. was the guest of his father, in Deir el komr, the capital of Mount Lebanon; but though the missionary conversed much with others, he seems to have overlooked our author, who did not dare to bring forward his own difficulties lest he should be shunned as an infidel by the bigots of the town. While the arguments addressed to them wholly failed to meet his case, still the intelligence and kind forbearance of the missionary with their ignorance and rudeness, as compared with the spirit of the native priests, did not fail to be observed and to leave a good impression.

It was some time after this, and when he had again returned to Damascus, where he has since been engaged in the practice of medicine with great success, that among other issues of the mission presses at Malta, a translation of Keith on the Prophecies fell into his hands. At first he was disposed to laugh at the idea of any one soberly undertaking to defend a system so full of falsehood and folly as that which he had hitherto known as the Christian religion. The preface, however, disposed him to read the book with candor; and, with his Bible lying open before him, constantly turning to every passage referred to, he studied the book through three times in the course of a single month. Nor did he leave it till he was fully satisfied that the Bible was an inspired revelation from God. He now saw the danger of the path in which he had been straying, and thanked God that, instead of cutting him off in his unbelief, he had, by means of this book, rescued him forever from its power. He longed also to see the author, that he might tell him in person how much he owed him. This last wish was gratified when, in a subsequent visit to Syria, Dr. Keith became his guest in Damascus.

But, though satisfied that the Christian religion was from God, he was still at a loss to know precisely what that religion was. Like many others, he was much perplexed by the multiplicity of sects, though the difficulty presented itself to him in a different light from that in which it usually appears with us. He saw one part of the papal church selecting a saint to be its special intercessor with God, who was counted a son of perdition by another portion of the same church. Different sects, too, claimed the authority of the same Fathers of the church, for opinions and practices very far apart, if not directly opposed to one another.

In this state of mind, desiring light from all quarters, he providentially became acquainted with some of our missionaries; and, having collected the publications of our mission press, that had been removed from Malta to Beirût, he carefully compared them with papal works written on the other side. The result was, that he found everything which had for

merly led him to despise and renounce Christianity, was not Christianity itself, but the unauthorized additions that had been made to it by men; while the religion of the Bible, apart from these human additions, was every way worthy of its author. Still desirous to know the truth, and fearful of being led astray, he made known some of his difficulties to the most learned dignitaries of his own church, and their replies were so manifestly contradictory to Scripture, that af ter much internal conflict he felt constrained to leave them; and, notwithstanding the odium of such a step in traditionloving Damascus, took firm and decided ground in favor of the religion of the Bible. Accordingly, Dec. 14, 1848, we find him writing to his dear friend, the late Eli Smith, D. D., "that his mental distress continually increased, and he studied the Bible day and night, yet could find no peace except in resolving openly to profess his attachment to the truth, which he soon did without the least reserve. His letters, at this time, to Dr. Smith, breathe the spirit of a little child, humble and self-distrustful, yet firm and decided in his adherence to what he felt was the cause of God and truth. Of course his enemies were not idle. Such a man could not be allowed to stand up for evangelical religion, if any effort could put him down; and no means were left untried. He was constantly harassed by the visits of ecclesiastics, singly and often by whole companies at once, of the members of his former church, to argue, or to beseech him to return to the fold. At one time he asked them why they did not devote some of the labor they bestowed upon him to recover those who had apostatized to Mohammedanism, and was told that, if he had become a Moslem, that would have been a lighter affair; for then he would not have injured their church so much as now. This, with the controversy into which he was drawn with his patriarch Maximus, brought on a brain fever, which for a time drove reason from her throne. But, to quote his own words in a letter to Dr. Smith, written on his sick-bed, " by the prescriptions of one of my medical scholars, God saw fit to give me relief, and I became convalescent. To-day there remains only weakness, which

prevents me from rising. May God, in answer to your prayers, restore me to health, that I may finish the work which I have begun, lest it should come to nought and the enemies of the gospel triumph."

Jan. 27, 1849, Dr. Smith writes to America: "Dr. M. has openly declared himself a Protestant; this has brought on a controversy between him and his former patriarch; and, as he is probably the most intelligent native layman in the country, and the patriarch the most learned ecclesiastic, intense attention is directed from all quarters to the discussion. In the mean time our correspondence is frequent and full; and, as my letters to him require investigation, not of the Bible only but of the Fathers also, are long and written in Arabic, they take up no little time; but I have never had more delightful work, nor any from which I hoped for more important results. He favors me with a copy of all the correspondence between him and his antagonist, and also of his journal. The whole is deeply interesting, both from the ability displayed and the deep Christian sincerity that animates him. Every word of the documents in my hand deserves to be translated and printed at home."

Dr. Meshakah, as soon as possible, prepared a treatise, addressed to his countrymen, explaining the reasons of his secession from Rome, and setting forth the corruption of her doctrines and practices, which was published at the mission press in Beirût, 1849. pp. 324.

In this work, after an account of his own religious history and the correspondence already referred to quoted in full, he goes on to disprove the supremacy of the pope, the existence of any other priesthood or sacrifice but that of Christ; shows that the early church had only two officers, viz. presbyters and deacons; overturns the foundations of transubstantiation, the worship of images, prayers to saints and angels, the confessional, purgatory, the claim of the pope to be the only authorized interpreter of Scripture, prayers in an unknown tongue, and the doctrine of justification by works. He then expounds the doctrine of regeneration, sets forth the antiquity of the Protestant church as compared with the more recent

origin of the papacy; exposes the interference of the popes with secular governments, vindicates the right of all men to read the Scriptures, and closes the whole with an earnest practical appeal to his brethren and friends.

Dr. Smith says of the book: "It is well and thoroughly argued; sometimes most impressively solemn; at others, keenly sarcastic; and throughout, both spirited and fearless. It is a remarkable production. I am strongly tempted to undertake its translation, had I only the time and strength.

The lamented Whiting, in writing an account of several members of the mission church, June 10, 1852, says: "The next is Dr. M. of Damascus, whose conversion was certainly one of the most important that has occurred here since the mission was established; for general intelligence and weight of character, he has no superior among the native population; he is by far the best native physician and the ablest writer in Syria. His work on the errors of the Roman and Greek churches, for force and attractiveness of style, will compare with the Letters of Kirwan; and his writings will be read in spite of the anathemas of all the hierarchies in the land."

In 1852 he published a reply to animadversions on his former work, under the title of "the Answer of the Gospelers to the Vanities of the Traditionists." pp. 115.

The work here translated is a tract of fifty-eight pages, originally written as a letter to his brother at Deir el komr, but subsequently rewritten and enlarged at the suggestion of Dr. Smith. It might very properly be called "Meshakah on Scepticism;" and though more time has been spent on the translation than the translator would like to own, yet let no one think that it does justice to the original work. The author still lives to do good in his native city, and long may he remain a light kindled by the Spirit of God to enlighten the darkness round about him.