Mu

point, equally necessary to the proof, although irreconcilable with the excluded step. The desire also of establishing an exact parallelism between the founders of Christianity and Muhammadanism, often misleads us by overstraining facts. These two religions can be assimilated only in the grand leading points-in having a definite founder, and in having, from small beginnings, overspread most parts of the world. They certainly possess no similarity; but are, rather, contrasted in their details. Thus Muhammad can hardly be said to have been rejected by his brethren in the sense that Christ was rejected. hammad, on the contrary, was in the end accepted by his brethren, and in his own lifetime was raised to the chieftainship and sovereignty of his countrymen. Upon the whole, it is to be lamented that so learned and ingenious a writer should have selected a line of argument which, however well treated, still leaves us room to desire some clear, popular, and conclusive work on the subject. 'It is not the promulgation (asserts Gibbon), but the permanence of Muhammadanism, that may excite our wonder. Although this be a position to which Forster adheres, it is one which we may justly question: it is beset with contradictions. If the causes which produced existing circumstances continue in operation, it is plain that antiquity,

custom, and education, will add to them a tenfold intensity. Even if the original causes cease, the effects will long remain; for it is not so easy a matter, as some writers have supposed, to change suddenly the habits and sentiments of masses. But is not the opinion of permanence applied inconsistently to Muhammadanism by an author who himself asserts that it is hastening to decay? Is it wonderful that men should follow the habits and opinions of their ancestors and countrymen? What process of thought is more natural than that which instructs us to look for the original causes of things with the confident expectation that we shall thence trace the causes of their continuance ? Who wonders at the permanency of Hindooism, entrenched by a barrier of ancient prejudice? But who does not wonder how so debasing and tyrannical a system first obtained an ascendency? The promulgation of Muhammadanism, after it had acquired power, is by no means so surprising, although not destitute of difficulties. Could a system of Paganism have been so promulgated among the Christians of Asia and Africa? Did Arianism long maintain its triumphs and supremacy? But the questions to be resolved are: How did Muhammadanism acquire that power at first, which it subsequently so successfully wielded? How did the illiterate prophet find means

to defy, to engage, to overwhelm the power of interest, envy, and pride, which he was compelled to encounter?

There must assuredly have been some predisposing cause, some preparatory feeling or opinion or prejudice, that facilitated, in the first instance, the prophet's success. To suppose the contrary, is to suppose a state of things repugnant to the usual course of men's motions and actions. An Arab (certainly of noble birth, although by no means the chief of his family) calls upon his countrymen to obey his commands, and accept his doctrines, as emanating directly from the Deity. He assumes the title, and demands the due veneration, of the Elect of all created beings-the Last of the Prophets and this he does, not only without producing miraculous attestations of his mission, but absolutely disclaiming any miraculous powers whatever. He produces no fact which appeals to the senses, no sensible evidence whatever, although constantly importuned to do so. Those, therefore, who believed in him with any sincerity, must have believed upon grounds abstracted from, and antecedent to, his own personal asseveration. It is impossible to imagine that the mere assertion of the son of Abdullah, taken singly, could have influenced and swayed them in so remarkable a manner. Some

of these predisposing grounds of belief may be thus briefly stated:

There is a peculiar principle, which, from the remotest antiquity, has prevailed among the various nations of Asia. It is a principle which, although one of the most influential and deeprooted that ever governed the mind, is very difficult to conceive clearly, or define. It may be called the principle of division, distinction, or separation. It led the mind, in a very forcible manner, to affix ideas of approbation and horror, delight and detestation, in an arbitrary manner, to matters in their nature and essence indifferent. Among the many ways in which this principle displayed itself, is the distinction of classes, and the distinction of meats. It appears to have prevailed among the ancient Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, &c. We have no proof that it was universal: the tribes of the Grecian peninsula and continent seem to have lost it, if they ever possessed it. It appears to have been observable among the Mexicans, &c., and among the inhabitants of the islands of the Pacific. can be modified, or weakened, or destroyed, as among the Cingalese, the Siamese, and the Chinese. Its origin and extent it would be almost impossible to explain. Whether originally inculcated by the Patriarchs, and connected in some

It

inexplicable manner with the moral principles of right and wrong, is equally uncertain. It seems to have always been allied with notions of sacredness and reverence. No sentiment or rule of action was ever more real in effect, or more shadowy in description. Whatever this feeling be, it probably existed long before the birth of Abraham (Genesis vii. 2, 8; also Genesis iv. 4, 5, et seq. :) but under the Patriarchs the principle to which we allude received a new and especial sanction; was consecrated by being connected with the promise of the Messiah; and was embodied in a new (or then renewed) observance that of Circumcision. This rite was enjoined not only on the child of promise, but upon Ishmaël also-upon all, indeed, who were born in the Patriarch's family. It was evidently designed as a work of distinction, even more than of honour, except only as applied to the chosen seed for Abraham's collateral family appear to have been held in higher honour than his own offspring by Hagar and Keturah; and from the former an alliance was sought both for Isaac and Jacob, although there seems no reason to believe that circumcision was adopted by any of Terah's descendants, in addition to Abraham. These last observing, in all probability, the principle of distinction of which we speak, did not think any rule designed