infidelity, as asserters of two eternal beings.4 This point was controverted with so much heat that it occasioned 1 Abu Hashem Hebatallah, apud Marracc. de Alc. p. 42. 2 Apud Poc. Spec. 220. 3 See after, in Sect. VIII. 4 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 219, &c. many calamities under some of the Khalîfs of the family of Abbâs, al Mamûn5 making a public edict declaring the Korân to be created, which was confirmed by his successors Al Mótasem6 and Al Wâthek,7 who whipped, imprisoned, and put to death those of the contrary opinion. But at length Al Motawakkel,1 who succeeded Al Wâthek, put an end to these persecutions, by revoking the former edicts, releasing those that were imprisoned on that account, and leaving every man at liberty as to his belief in this point.2 Al Ghazâli seems to have tolerably reconciled both opinions, saying, that the Korân is read and pronounced with the tongue, written in books, and kept in memory; and is yet eternal, subsisting in GOD'S essence, and not possible to be separated thence by any transmission into men's memories or the leaves of books;3 by which he seems to mean no more than that the original idea of the Korân only is really in GOD, and consequently co-essential and co-eternal with him, but that the copies are created and the work of man. The opinion of Al Jahedh, chief of a sect bearing his name, touching the Korân, is too remarkable to be omitted: he used to say it was a body, which might sometimes be turned into a man,4 and sometimes into a beast;5 which seems to agree with the notion of those who assert the Korân to have two faces, one of a man, the other of a beast;6 thereby, as I conceive, intimating the double interpretation it will admit of, according to the letter or the spirit. As some have held the Korân to be created, so there have not been wanting those who have asserted that there is nothing miraculous in that book in respect to style or composition, excepting only the prophetical relations of things past, and predictions of things to come; and that had GOD left men to their natural liberty, and not restrained them in that particular, the Arabians could have composed something not only equal, but superior to the Korân in eloquence, method, and purity of language. This was another opinion of the Mótazalites, and in particular of al Mozdâr, above mentioned, and al Nodhâm.7 The Korân being the Mohammedans' rule of faith and practice, it is no wonder its expositors and commentators are so very numerous. And it may not be amiss to take notice of the rules they observe in expounding it. One of the most learned commentators1 distinguishes the contents of the Korân into allegorical and literal. The former comprehends the more obscure, parabolical, and enigmatical passages, and such as