“The rare and interesting tract on twelve religions,” says Sir W. Jones, “entitled the Dabistan, and composed by a Mohammedan traveller, a native of Cashmere, named Moshan, but distinguished by the assumed surname of Fani, or Perishable, begins with a wonderfully curious chapter on the religion of Hushang, which was _long anterior to Zeradust_ (_Zoroaster_), but had continued to be _secretly professed_ by many learned Persians, even to the author’s time; and several of the most eminent of these dissenting, in many points, from the Ghabres, and persecuted by the ruling powers of their country, had retired to India, where they compiled a number of books, now extremely scarce, which Moshan had perused, and with the writers of which, or with many of them, he had contracted an intimate friendship. From them he learned that a _powerful monarchy had been established for ages in Iran for the accession of Cayemurs_; that it was called the Mahabadean dynasty, for a reason which will soon be mentioned; and that many princes, of whom seven or eight only are named in the Dabistan, and among them Mahbul, or Maha Beli, had raised the empire to the zenith of human glory. If we can rely on this evidence,--_which to me appears unexceptionable_,--the Iranian monarchy must have been the oldest in the world.” Sir John Malcolm had some scruples as to the authenticity of this production, and entered upon a very severe analysis of its contents; merely because the _idols_ which the ancient Persians are therein stated to have adored, and the _mode_ of their adoration, were dissimilar to those of India! Was it necessary that they should be alike? It is true, that from Persia everything Indian flowed; but there, on its importation, it partook of the peculiarities of the soil and climate; while, even in Persia itself, a great degeneracy occurred; and the deterioration and moral laxity, thus superinduced, was what the virtuous Zeradust so deplored, and what _kindled_ his _fervour_ to new model the system. But “the introduction of the angel _Gabriel_,” he says, “appears of itself enough to discredit the whole work.” Was Sir John sure that this rendering was literal? He himself admits that he was “following a Mohammedan author, who has certainly made a _free_ translation of the Pahlavi text.” And, if so in one case, why not in another? But even admitting that there was no _freedom_ at all used in the matter; and that _Gabriel_ is the rigid version of the name of the messenger employed, this should not, _in the least_, affect our reliance upon the Dabistan, as I shall adduce a greater _coincidence_ than this, nay, a downright _identity_, not only of _name_ but of _essence_, between the divine dispensation in all previous ages, and the spiritual form of it with which we are at present blessed.