THIS is a long digression.  I was going to tell you, that an intimate daily conversation with the effendi Achmet-beg, gave me an opportunity of knowing their religion and morals in a more particular manner than perhaps any Christian ever did.  I explained to him the difference between the religion of England and Rome; and he Was pleased to hear there were Christians that did not worship images, or adore the Virgin Mary.  The ridicule of transubstantiation appeared very strong to him.—­Upon comparing our creeds together, I am convinced that if our friend Dr ——­ had free liberty of preaching here, it would be very easy to persuade the generality to Christianity, whose notions are very little different from his.  Mr Whiston would make a very good apostle here.  I don’t doubt but his zeal will be much fired, if you communicate this account to him; but tell him, he must first have the gift of tongues, before he can possibly be of any use.—­Mahometism (sic) is divided into as many sects as Christianity; and the first institution as much neglected and obscured by interpretations.  I cannot here forbear reflecting on the natural inclination of mankind, to make mysteries and novelties.—­The Zeidi, Kudi, Jabari, &c. put me in mind of the Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, and are equally zealous against one another.  But the most prevailing opinion, if you search into the secret of the effendis, is, plain deism.  This is indeed kept from the people, who are amused with a thousand different notions, according to the different interest of their preachers.—­There are very few amongst them (Achmet-beg denied there were any) so absurd, as to set up for wit, by declaring they believe no God at all.  And Sir Paul Rycaut is mistaken (as he commonly is) in calling the sect muterin, (i. e. the secret with us) atheists, they being deists, whose impiety consists in making a jest of their prophet.  Achmet-beg did not own to me that he was of this opinion; but made no scruple of deviating from some part of Mahomet’s law, by drinking wine with the same freedom we did.  When I asked him how he came to allow himself that liberty?  He made answer, that all the creatures of God are good, and designed for the use of man; however, that the prohibition of wine was a very wise maxim, and meant for the common people, being the source of all disorders amongst them; but, that the prophet never designed to confine those that knew how to use it with moderation; nevertheless, he said, that scandal ought to be avoided, and that he never drank it in public.  This is the general way of thinking amongst them, and very few forbear drinking wine that are able to afford it.  He assured me, that if I understood Arabic, I should be very well pleased with reading the alcoran, which is so far from the nonsense we charge it with, that it is the purest morality, delivered in the very best language.  I have since heard impartial Christians speak of it in the same manner; and I don’t doubt but