6

honoured founder of those annual London lectures,1 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 we 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

'The Boyle Lectures, founded by the Hon. Robert Boyle, A. D. 1691.

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 judi-
cious use of some hitherto unexplored manuscripts
preserved in the noble library of the French capi-
tal; 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 en-
deavours to extract some grains of truth from
ancient Arabian legends, M. Caussin seems to us
to follow in the wake of Niebuhr. His subject,
however, gives him one advantage over the histo-
rian of Rome. Niebuhr had to deal with stories
which most of us had been brought up from child-
hood to believe implicitly. His scepticism 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
Of history, stript naked as a rock

'Mid a dry desert? What is it we hear!
The glory of infant Rome must disappear,
Her morning splendours vanish, and their place
Know them no more.'

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 somewhat rationalistic 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 good authorities as being at present the book upon all that relates to the statistics of that country.

The History of Arabia' by Dr. Chrichton,

1 Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol, ii, p. 286, (Eng. Tr.)

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 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 farsightedness 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 not total silence have been preferable to such extraordinary euphemisms? An

6