fying to meet with. The spirit of reform has penetrated even into Turkey. At Constantinople it is visible in open day, and may be traced, though in a less palpable form, in some of the remoter provinces. Its movements, as might have been expected, are somewhat capricious and erratic, yet its presence is an omen of good at which every friend of humanity must rejoice. Our author's incidental allusions to this subject are distinguished by good sense and discrimination. We should be glad to transcribe some of them did our space permit, but prefer to extract the following passage as bearing more directly on the missionary character of his tour.

Even now, the Bible is by no means a stranger in the hands of Mussulmans, for though those possessed by Christians are supposed to be corrupt, they are, on the whole, respected as the Word of God. Their connexion with Mohammedanism, and the frequent allusions to them in the Koran, render them an object of curiosity, especially to the learned Mussulmans. They are frequently sought after from no other motive than to learn the nature of the doctrines which they teach. Several instances have come to my knowledge in which men in authority have sent requests for copies to Christians whom they knew to possess them. The parts which they choose and read with the greatest pleasure, are the narrative portions, in which they often become intensely interested.

About nine miles distant from Broussa, the first capital of the Turkish Empire, is a village inhabited by a mixed population of Greeks and Turks. On a certain occasion, the latter requested the priest of the village to read the gospel to them. He consented, and sat down with most of the Mussulmans in the village around him, and a copy of the New Testament, procured from an American missionary in Broussa, in his hand. He began and read on amidst almost breathless silence, until the hour of meals had come. His hearers, however, had become so deeply interested in the narrative, that they would not permit him to suspend the reading. He continued, therefore, uninterrupted, until he came to the closing scenes of the life of Christ. Here they stopped, for it is a doctrine of the Mohammedans that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but some one in his appearance aad likeness.

The lives of the patriarchs and prophets are also a favorite portion of the Scriptures to the Mussulmans. Their own books are full of stories concerning them. They speak of them with the deepest reverence. They regard them all as veritable Mussulmans, as, in the literal sense of the word, they indeed were. They adopt their names. They respect the places of their birth, and perform pilgrimages to their sepulchres.

The other portions of the sacred writings which Mussulmans read with the highest admiration, are those which abound in moral sentiments and precepts. Such are the Psalms of David and the Proverbs of Solomon. The former are replete with those expressions of adora

tion and trust in God which are most congenial to a devout Mussulman, and with allusions and resemblances most familiar to the mind of an Oriental. The latter is, throughout, an eastern book. Its apothegmatical and sententious style is that to which the minds of Mussulmans are most accustomed in their own books on moral truth and duty. Not to particularize farther, I may mention the Sermon on the Mount as another portion of Scripture which I have heard Mussulmans read and expatiate upon with evident delight. The only parts of the sacred volume which Mohammed expressly recognized as canonical, were the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Gospel. The other parts, however, were not rejected, but rather, under the general appellation of the Scriptures, acknowledged. They are sometimes read, and are even used to prove the divine authority of the apostleship of Mohammed, for, corrupt as our Scriptures are alleged to be, Mussulman controversialists pretend to find in them predictions concerning their own prophet. It is curious, indeed, to observe how much attention has been given to them by Mohammedan divines. They have been searched not only for the purpose just mentioned, but to detect the corruptions which are supposed to exist in them; and it is not a little singular that the very passages which infidels have adduced as instances of contradictions and inconsistencies, the followers of Mohammed have preferred in proof of a less presumptuous position. Books have also been written to show that it is prohibited to Mussulmans to translate or cite from the Bible, as it now exists, and, in accordance with its supposed character, as being neither entirely pure nor wholly spurious; tradition reports a saying of Mohammed which forbids his followers either to believe in or reject it.

Such prohibitions, however do not prevent it from being received and read. It is preserved with great care, and is called, in common with the Koran, Kitabi Scherif, or Noble Book. It is impossible to say how far it has gone into circulation among the Mohammedans. It is certain that, at different times, a multitude of copies have been distributed in Turkey. I have sufficient reason to believe that in private it is attentively perused by many individuals, and that it is sometimes read and commented upon in companies of friends. It has been sent into different parts of the kingdom, where, besides those intended for Mussulmans, numerous copies have been distributed among those Christians to whom the Turkish is the vernacular tongue. It has been openly offered for sale and read to Mussulmans at fairs, and presents of copies have been made to governors of towns and other men in authority. In Constantinople from ten to fifteen copies are annually sold to Mussulmans from the depository of the British and Foreign Bible Society. On one occasion, a copy of the New Testament ir each of the three great languages of the Mussulmans-Arabic, Turkish, and Persian-wa was purchased by officers from the mehkemeh, for the purpose of examining whether the duties required of witnesses were enjoined in the Scriptures of Christians.'-Ib. pp. 137–140.

In addition to innumerable villages through which he passed, his rout to Persia lay through several cities of considerable mag

nitude, in each of which he tarried sufficiently long to collect much valuable information respecting the habits, prepossessions, and capabilities of the people. His estimate of the Turkish character is on the whole favorable: not so that of the Armenian

villagers, whose condition as described in the following passage is mournfully characteristic of Turkish misrule.

Their villages may be described in nearly the same words which Xenophon used respecting them 2200 years ago. Their houses were under ground. In them were goats, sheep, cows, and fowls with their young; and, if it had not been summer, I might have added as he does,All the cattle were maintained within doors with fodder.' The houses, however, are not properly subterranean, in the common sense of the term. They are generally made by excavating the earth and raising a wall of loose stones to the required height. Trunks of trees are then laid across for rafters and covered with branches. Then the earth is piled on until the whole is covered, and the fabric attains a semiglobular shape. Sometimes the whole is built upon the surface, but, in both cases, the external appearance is that of a bare mound of earth. As the traveller approaches one of these villages, he discerns nothing at first but an apparent unevenness in the ground. Soon the rounded tops become distinguished. These in summer are covered with cakes of manure formed by the hand and drying for the winter fire, a feature which gives the whole at a distance the appearance of a magnificent collection of dung-heaps.

The houses have generally two apartments, one for the family, and another more interior for the cattle. These are almost entirely without furniture, and are not remarkable for cleanliness. Sometimes there is a rude fire-place, or a hole in the ground which answers the same purpose, the smoke being of too little importance to have special provision made for its egress, excepting a small aperture through the centre of the roof, where, at the same time, a few rays of light seize the opportunity to struggle in. On the plain of Moush many of the houses have a pole on the top, which supports the nest of a stork.

'The villagers are mostly herdsmen. They have the buffalo, but of a species unknown in America, the cow, horse, ass, and goat. They subject the cow to burdens. A man's property is estimated by his herds. The produce, yoghourt, cheese, and milk, furnish the chief articles of food. The villagers are poorly clad, timid and servile in demeanor, and their faces are unintelligent and spiritless. They do not appear the same race with the same people in Constantinople, or even in the cities of the interior. In some of the villages which suffer most from the Kurds they wear the aspect of deep misery, and one often wonders at the degradation which can endure such a position without an effort to change it. They are extremely ignorant, and unclean in their persons and their houses. The women are especially ugly and filthy, and their domestic condition is as evil as can well be imagined. They are servilely treated, brutish, idealess, of peevish, complaining tempers, and doing no service without a murmur. They have in many of the villages the care of the herds besides their domes

tic labors. Both men and women are generally unwilling to give lodging or food, or do it in so slow and sullen a manner as to render their hospitality hardly endurable. There are some exceptions to this picture, especially in the large villages. In some I have been cheered by the sight of domestic industry, cleanliness, and thrift; in some I have been cordially received. But such exceptions are rare.'

-Ib. pp. 203-205.

Much interesting information is furnished respecting the inhabitants of Kurdistan. Those of the mountains are ferocious and predatory, but those of the plains appear to be a thrifty and well disposed people. The following observations on the best mode of introducing Christianity among them are well worthy of attention.

'As, on leaving Broushoran, we leave, altogether, the Kurdish popu lation, until we enter among them again on the south western border of Persia, it may not be amiss to state here, in few words, my impression with regard to the practicability of missionary effort among them. Were there any to go to them with the spirit of the apostles, abandoning, for Christ's sake, every thing on earth, and unrestrained by family ties, they might be instrumental in planting among those wild mountains the standard of the cross. Multitudes of this people, residing in villages, might also be reached by missionaries in the large cities. There is no part of Kurdistan where they can be approached so nearly as on this route, none, at least, where they also retain, as here, their distinctive character and habits. In the case of a mission established in the cities, the best means of approaching them would be through the Christians; the work would, in that case, naturally extend itself to the settled Kurds, dwelling, in many instances, in the same villages with the Armenians. A missionary family could reside in Moush, or in Van. The numerous villages in the vicinity of the former place would render it a very important centre.

The chief benefits of these missions, however, would be confined to the Christians, and doubtless there are not three other places in the whole of ancient Armenia, which present such advantages for missionary labor among the Armenians, as Moush, Bitlis, and Van. The effect of such a mission upon the Kurds would be slower and later. If they are to be reached immediately and effectually, it must be by a more simple, indeed, but a more self-denying kind of labor. They must be visited as heathen men were visited in the times of the apostles, by devoted soldiers of the cross throwing themselves among them at such hazards as only a primitive faith can endure to contemplate. If the idea of encountering these dangers appears chimerical, is it not because the standard of our faith has fallen far below the elevation which it held among the early followers of Christ?

However this may be, we know that the grand scope of the commission given to the ministry of the church must, if the church itself is unchanged, of necessity embrace now the same design which it embraced at first- all the world and every creature.' We know too

that the first ministers of Christ, whose example, in this respect, must be regarded as a practical avowal of the understanding which they put upon the commission under which they acted,-we know, I say, that they carried the tidings of salvation through Christ, to men as barbarous as now inhabit the fastnesses of Kurdistan, and at the cost of as great sufferings as the bearers of the same tidings to the Kurds would be called to endure. Why is it, then, that we contemplate such an enterprise with terror, or reject the idea of it as the product of a visionary zeal? Is it not because we have lost the true, original idea of the ministerial commission; because we distrust the faithfulness of the promise conjoined with it; because, in a word, the church of Christ has left her first love ?'-Ib. pp. 283-285.

From Kurdistan our author passed into Persia, where the American Episcopal church had already established a mission. His meeting with his brethren at Ourmiah was highly gratifying to both parties, and an interesting account is given of their unostentatious labors. The Nestorian Christians appear to regard the missionaries with entire confidence, and some of their clergy, together with one of their bishops, are represented as having placed themselves under their instruction. Mr. Southgate's observations on the course that should be pursued towards these oriental Christians, though indicative of an Episcopalian bias, are characterized by good sense and candor. But we must hasten on to other matters contained in his narrative. Tehran, the present capital of Persia, is represented as a wretched place, presenting none of those points of interest which distinguish many other eastern cities. Its site is unhealthy, and its buildings poor and abject. The place presents, in outward appearance, none of the 'features of a royal city. Its bazars are extensive and are roofed 'with tile, so as to present a succession of small domes. They are filthy, however, and less attractive in every respect than those of Tebriz. They are thronged with beasts as well as men, 'which makes a walk through them no easy nor pleasant matter. The streets are peculiarly bad, for the most part destitute of 'pavements, narrow, irregular, encumbered with filth, and full of 'dangerous holes. The houses are extraordinarily mean, even 'for an eastern town, and unsightly ruins, covering, in some in'stances, extensive areas, frequently meet the eye.' The Shah was absent from the city during the period of Mr. Southgate's visit. The following sketch of his history and character will be read with interest in the present state of our eastern relations.

The present Shah owes his elevation to the throne to the intervention of foreigners. The old king had appointed his son, Abbas Mirza, his successor, but the death of this prince occurring before his own, he declared in favor of his grandson, the reigning monarch, who was himself a son of Abbas Mirza. In so doing he set aside the claims