Vain hope! vain as ever the expectation of the Mussulman forces on the eve of their meeting with Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Don John of Austria at Lepanto, or Sobieski under the walls of Vienna! He who hath promised to His Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, can, whensoever it pleases Him, raise up champions in the arena of discussion as bold, as true, as victorious as those who erst contended for His kingdom upon earth with sword and spear, and jeoparded their lives unto the death. Vain hope! yet not, therefore, to be contemned and disregarded by such as desire the glory of God and the highest welfare of their brethren. For even as the power of the Crescent, though doomed to wane and fade before the Cross, has yet been proved a source of sore trial and perplexity, and caused torrents of human blood to flow: so too the reasoners on its behalf, though never fated to enjoy any real and lasting triumph, may yet win for a season some mental realm of Spain, some moral Constantinople, and help to injure, if not slay, the souls of many, as their prototypes maimed and destroyed their bodies. We seem to detect some traces of such mischief even in quarters where deliberate hostility to revelation was certainly not intended by the writer.' These considerations are, of course, open to controversy. As, however, we cannot afford to dwell upon them, for the present, at any greater length, they must be left to the judgment of the reader; but, whatever be the reason, it is at least plain matter of fact, that the theme of Mahometanism has received much illustration since the time of Gibbon. Those who, like that distinguished historian, must profess their total ignorance of the Oriental tongues,' may not only enjoy the advantage of 1 The following illustration of our meaning is one of the least offensive that we could select. A living biographer, speaking of the commencement of Mahomet's career, remarks: The good old Christian writers, on treating of the advent of one whom they denounce as the Arab enemy of the Church, make superstitious record of divers prodigies which occurred about this time, awful forerunners of the troubles about to agitate the world. In Constantinople, at that time the seat of Christian empire, were several monstrous births and prodigious apparitions, which struck dismay into the hearts of all beholders.' [The italics are ours.] Some details are given; as moving crosses, hideous figures rising from the Nile; the sun diminished in appearance, and shedding pale and baleful rays; furnacelight on a moonless night, and bloody lances glittering in the sky. Now, we do not pretend to have examined the evidence for the appearance of these prodigies, and are quite ready to admit, that very possibly it might not bear a searching examination. But, for his own sake, and the sake of others whom he may influence, a Christian writer should be careful how he indulges in anything like sneers at assertions so closely resembling the promises made by our Lord with reference to events of which Mahomet's coming may be fairly considered partly typical. (S. Matt. xxiv. 11, 21-24, 29.) As for the words, 'whom they denounce,' &c., they are almost ridiculous. Mahomet's hostility to the Church (whatever be thought of his degree of consciousness or guilt in the matter) is a simple historic fact, quite independent of any one's denunciation, or any one's denial. referring to the works which he consulted, and to the graphic pages of his own narrative, but may likewise have recourse to many valuable and important publications which add greatly to our stock of knowledge upon the subject. The field of inquiry has been surveyed from points of view the most remote, and even opposite, and there now exists an ample collection of essays and treatises, biographies and histories, in which Mahometanism is successively portrayed as it appeared to spectators who have gazed upon it with the glance of a philosopher, a sceptic, a latitudinarian, an ultra-Protestant, or a Roman Catholic divine. Et nos ergo manum; we too have looked, in our humble way, at questions so intimately connected with some of the deepest problems which can occupy the human mind, some of the most weighty events which can affect the fortunes of the human race. We too have attempted to weigh in the balance the lucubrations of some authors of learning and of genius; and to form opinions upon Mahomet, and the antecedents of his country before his birth, upon the nature of his creed and its relation to Paganism and to Christianity. Crude and undigested as our notions may probably prove, they may yet be not ill-founded in the main; they may present from the works of the distinguished authors, before us some aspects of the case which will be new to a portion of our readers, and suggest to the happy few, who can extract gold as it were from sand, far more perhaps than was thought of by the writer. But before commencing our self-imposed task, it will naturally be expected that we render some account of our authorities. This reasonable expectation we proceed at once (briefly, but not, we trust, presumptuously) to gratify. The essay of Möhler, so well-known as the author of the 'Symbolik,' was originally published in a review. Since his death it has been reprinted, in company with other minor writings of its author, by Dr. Döllinger, and it may be easily procured in this form at a very reasonable price. It is now some years since our Quarterly Reviewers called attention to its merits, and expressed a desire that it should be translated. The hint has not been lost: in the catalogue of books recommended to their students by the authorities at S. Augustine's College, Canterbury, appears a translation of this essay by an English Clergyman, the Rev. J. P. Menge, of the Church Mission, Guruckpore. This version, however, we have not had an opportunity of procuring. It is indeed a dignified and masterly paper, full of information, still fuller of thought. Truly Catholic in its tone, it would have delighted the honoured founder of those annual London lectures, which are directed to be launched against notorious unbelievers, not descending lower to any controversies that are among Christians themselves.' In accordance with his title, Möhler has taken into consideration, 1. the external, 2. the internal, Relation of Islamism to the Gospel;' adding thereto a third part, upon the probable future of Mahometanism. Admirable as is the discussion of the main problems considered in the treatise, this third part must, we fear, be pronounced to be somewhat unduly sanguine in its expectations. The interest which Möhler felt in these questions was aroused, if not created, by the events of 1829. And here, en passant, we would beg the thoughtful student, who would fain estimate at its just worth the excessive eulogy at present lavished on the Turks, to cast his eye backward for one instant on the history of the formation of the Greek kingdom. Let him compare, if possible, the language of the English press, or at least of a large portion of it, at that epoch, with the tone adopted by it now. If those fervid denunciations of Turkish cruelty and oppression are, for the moment, forgotten or explained away, it is no hazardous prophecy to foretel, that a day will surely come, when these far less merited praises will be likewise buried in oblivion, or if remembered, remembered only with regret. The second work upon our list, which sets forth the results of the researches of M. Caussin de Perceval, Professor of Arabic, at Paris, is beyond doubt one of the most important contributions to a right understanding of the historic part of the question which has for some years issued from the press. M. Caussin has made diligent and judicious use of some hitherto unexplored manuscripts preserved in the noble library of the French capital; more especially of one by the Arabian author, Ibn Khaldoun. The arrangement of his materials is good; his style admirably transparent; and if, at times, the scantiness of information reduces his narrative to little more than a bare catalogue of names, the consequent aridity must in fairness be ascribed to a conscientious desire of imparting to us the whole of the discoveries he has made. Even those portions which are most in danger of appearing tedious, are frequently relieved by the point of some Arab proverb, or the sparkle of their native poetry. The critical parts of the work display much judgment and good sense; whatever can be won from the field of Holy Writ is gleaned with care and reverence. In his endeavours to extract some grains of truth from ancient Arabian legends, M. Caussin seems to us to follow in the wake of Niebuhr. His The Boyle Lectures, founded by the Hon. Robert Boyle, A.D. 1691. subject, however, gives him one advantage over the historian of Rome. Niebuhr had to deal with stories which most of us had been brought up from childhood to believe implicitly. His scepticism (against which there now seems to be some degree of reaction) was a great shock to all the classically educated. Wordsworth expressed the general sentiment : 'Those old credulities, to nature dear, Shall they no longer bloom upon the stock 'Mid a dry desert? What is it we hear? Her morning splendours vanish, and their place But, in the case of Arab legends, there is no such early partiality and implicit credence to be encountered in many instances the tale investigated will prove new to the great majority of readers; and even those which may be previously known, are generally such as we are glad to find capable of yielding so much as a hint of truth and fact to the inquirer. And here again, M. Caussin reminds us of one of the best features of Niebuhr's great work, inasmuch as he might fairly adopt that historian's words, and say that he has written on the principle of asserting nothing, however slight, with any other than the 'precise shade of conviction which it has in his own mind.'1 The paper of M. Renan in the Revue des deux Mondes is not unworthy of that most ably conducted periodical. We are not sure that we can thoroughly, and in all respects, approve its tone; but it certainly seems to display a large amount of industry and acuteness. M. Renan has earned the right of criticising Orientalists, from having long made such subjects his especial study. Two of the qualities which we have praised in M. Caussin, good arrangement and clearness of expression, may be almost said to be national excellences of French authors. They are again exhibited, though in a different way, in M. Ubicini's 'Letters upon Turkey.' This seems to be recognised by very high authorities as being at present the book upon all that relates to the statistics of that country. The History of Arabia' by Dr. Chrichton, although not to be classed for originality or importance with the writings of Möhler, Caussin or Ubicini, yet contains much compressed information, and deserves praise for the evident care and candour with which it is composed. These qualities induce us to select it from among the many similar productions of the day. We cannot give Mr. Washington Irving's book a very high 1 Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 286. (Eng. Tr.) place among the efforts of his pen. The story is (with some slight exceptions) written in a good spirit and pleasantly told; but we agree with M. Renan in thinking that there is no great exhibition of critical power on the part of the biographer. It remains to say a few words upon the Lectures, by the author of 'Loss and Gain.' That the lecturer should thus designate himself would naturally lead the reader to expect a controversial treatment of the subject, and such a treatment he will indeed discover throughout a considerable portion of the work. One leading idea, perhaps the leading idea, intended to be impressed upon the minds of the hearers, was the energy, perseverance, and virtual success of the Roman See in resisting the progress of the Crescent. To an audience of co-religionists, the task of proving this point must have been as easy as it was grateful. Nor, we imagine, will the candid Protestant of any school, who is well versed in history, deny to the Popes of Rome the just praise of their far-sightedness and noble zeal in such a cause; nor complain that a Roman Catholic writer should remind us on this head of much that we might be disposed to forget. It may be true, that if the voice of the Church of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had been listened to by warriors and statesmen, there would have been no Turks in Europe for the Russians to turn out of it.' It is lamentable to reflect that the internal wars and jealousies of Christian states prevented such an effort to resist their entry being made. But the entire case seems to us, we must own, to be presented by Dr. Newman in a partisan-like way, which makes the ordinary reader who is not of the same communion somewhat suspicious and distrustful of his guide. Thus, for instance, it looks as if the historical sketch came to an end with the battle of Lepanto, in A.D. 1571, rather than with the victory of John Sobieski nearly a century later, because a Pope was more immediately concerned with the naval triumph than that gained by the Polish king before Vienna. Of the Popes who reigned just before the Reformation, he speaks as follows:-'As to the Pontiffs who filled the Holy See during that period, I will say 'no more than this, that it did not please the good Providence of 'God to raise up for His Church such heroic men as S. Leo of 'the fifth, and S. Gregory of the eleventh century.' Now, this is language which may possibly be excused, we suppose, in a zealous Roman Catholic, who shrinks from proclaiming the sins of a Pope, as any of us, in private life, might naturally hold back from publishing the errors of a parent. For ourselves, we should consider the employment of such terms a step towards depravation of the moral sense, towards obliterating the broad distinction between right and wrong, virtue and iniquity. Would |