hue over the aspect, not merely of her present condition, but even of her past history, who will deny but that such alteration in the mental vision of men, arises from a noble sentiment, which may occasionally need to be checked and moderated, but seldom or never to be repressed? We too often behold, on the part of men in power and authority, a reversal of that grand old Roman

rule

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.

Let us rejoice at any proofs that it still abides in the hearts of Englishmen, for it is one which used to be deeply enshrined in their better nature, and has frequently shone forth amidst the fermentation caused by great events. Let anyone, to take a modern example, look at the judgments passed by our countrymen upon Napoleon, at the time when he stood forth as the conqueror at Austerlitz or Wagram, and Napoleon as the exile of Saint Helena; it will hardly seem that the same person is being spoken of. Moreover, in such cases, there is apt to be a reaction, inasmuch as it is probable that enmity and alarm have unduly exaggerated the faults of a foe. And thus, too, the somewhat excessive anti-Mahometan zeal of a Prideaux, a Maracci, and in later times a Frederick Schlegel, was of itself calculated to provoke a counter-demonstration of feeling from tolerably unbiassed by-standers.

And here we would gladly close our list of causes for the phenomena in question. We wish that we could think that such motives had in all cases been the leading ones. But there is that about some writings of the day which forbids us

so to think; suspicions of the existence of a very different element from those above-named will occasionally force themselves upon the mind, and it were no true charity to conceal them. We fear that, in some cases, the panegyrists of Islamism are, with more or less consciousness of purpose, again trying to employ it as a weapon against Christianity, or, at any rate, in support of the worst species of latitudinarianism. They fancy, and possibly not without reason, that infidelity has not yet availed itself to the utmost of the specious arguments deducible from the origin and progress of the Arabian religion; that it may yet be made to perplex the evidence for the divinity of the Christian faith just in the point where Christianity appeared most strong, namely, its extension and adaptation to the different races of mankind; and that thus, if Mahometanism can no longer hope to subdue Christendom by force of arms, it may yet become an "intellectual cause of its decay and ultimate overthrow.

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 de

tect some traces of such mischief even in quarters where deliberate hostility to revelation was certainly not intended by the writer.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; furnace-light 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 for 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.

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 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.

B

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.

6

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.1

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

1 Shortly after the publication of this article, the kindness of some unknown friend, which is hereby gratefully acknowledged, sent us a copy of this excellent translation.