villiers, I observe, is quoted in the Apology, and Mr. Higgins, I regret to say, has followed in the steps of the French Count with an intrepid consistency. The first head,—a statement of what I conceive to have been the real character of Mohamed, shall be introduced by an extract, which, besides its being a fair specimen of Mr. Higgins's style, will enable the reader to form a judgment of his views upon that controverted point. 66 "In estimating the character of Mohamed, we have no 66 more right to assume that he was a most consummate rogue, hypocrite, liar, and villain, totally destitute of all principle, than we have to assume that he was a Socrates. "And when I hear him accused of being the former, I "immediately have recourse to the general character and "conduct which both parties agree he maintained in the "early and middle part of his life. I find this to have been "irreproachable." [Mohamed himself admits that, to his fortieth year, he was an idolater, and had lived wickedly. In Surat 47. he says, "ask pardon for thy sin." Again, Surat 48. we have," that God may forgive thee thy preceding and subsequent sin." Here and elsewhere, remarks Mr. Sale, Mohamed acknowledges himself a sinner.] "Then am I to "believe at once that this was mere hypocrisy ? Fourteen or "fifteen years together, I am told to believe, that he carried "this farce on-from twenty-five years old to forty. That "until he was twenty-five years of age his life was that of "meritorious industry: his integrity unsuspected. That at "that time great affluence became his lot as the reward of his "honesty and industry; and that this good fortune at once 1722. A rather interesting life is given of him in the Biographie Universelle. He is there said, on no sufficient authority I suspect, to have died penitent,—“ dans des sentiments de piété." C First Head. Mohamed an General Observations. 3. A REFUTATION OF THROUGH THE POSITION URGED THE APOLOGY, THAT CHRISTIANITY AND MOHAMEDANISM ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IN PRINCIPLE, THOUGH CHANGED BY TIME. 4. AN EXAMINATION INTO THE SOUNDNESS OF MR. HIGGINS'S PRETENSIONS TO THE CHARACTER OF A BIBLICAL CRITIC, AS ASSUMED IN THOSE PAGES OF HIS WORK IN WHICH HE ATTEMPTS TO PROVE THAT THE COMING OF MOHAMED WAS FORETOLD IN THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. Under one or other of these heads, taken in the order in which they lie, I shall dispose the observations which have occurred to me on the perusal of Mr. Higgins's book. In expressing my sentiments, I shall abstain from passion and ill language. In what I have to say I shall be decided, but not violent; zealous against error, without being abusive; I shall arraign misrepresentation, without imputing motives, or giving in to a spirit of bigotry. Mr. Higgins well reminds us, "bigots never reason." In this sentiment I entirely concur. Nothing, I am convinced, so prevents men from seeing their own errors as bigotry: it fills them with self-sufficient ideas, and not unfrequently hurries them into personal and uncandid reflections, all which must greatly disqualify for correct and just reasoning. Before I revert to the first head, I beg the attention of the reader to the following remarks. At the time, or a little prior to it, when Mr. Sale* published his • Sale, one of the writers in the Universal History, author of the principal articles on oriental subjects in the General DICTIONARY, was born about 1680, translation of the Koran, (1734,) many eminent oriental scholars, at the head of whom was Gagnier,* cultivated Arabian literature with ardour and success. The life and character of Mohamed,—his tenets and principles, -were subjected to a strict, yet candid examination. Previously, the subject had been so mixed up with fable, that though much was written upon it, little in truth was correctly known. Opinions were ascribed to the Prophet of Arabia which he never taught: though he disclaimed superhuman powers, it was affirmed that he had wrought the most preposterous miracles: learned men combated with warmth the fancies of their own imaginations, and believed they were refuting the absurdities of Islamism.† A better acquaintance with and died in London A. D. 1736, "laissant la reputation d'un homme savant et "paradoxal." (Biog. Univ.) His translation of the Koran is highly esteemed both in England and on the continent, though by some it is thought to exhibit Islamism in somewhat too favourable a light. It is thus described in Walchius: "Altera "(versio scilicet) est Anglica, quam Georgius Sale ita ordinavit, ut non solum "animadversiones ad Alcoranum explicandum illustrandumque adjecerit; verùm "etiam de rebus, quæ ad historiam Alcorani ac religionis Mohammedicæ spectant copiosè atque eruditè præfatus sit."-Bibliotheca Theolog. tom. I. p. 891. * Gagnier was second only to his predecessor, Dr. Pocock, in oriental learning. He was born at Paris about the year 1670. While yet a boy he was shown by his father Walton's Polyglott: the sight of which made such an impression on his youthful mind, that from that moment he commenced the study of Hebrew and Arabic, in which he afterwards attained distinguished eminence. He took orders in the Roman communion, but afterwards quitted it, came over to England, and joined the reformed church. His patrons here, were Archbishop Sharp and Lord Chancellor Macclesfield to the latter he dedicated his celebrated work so generally referred to, as elucidating the nature and history of Islamism: the title of which is Abul Feda de vitâ et rebus gestis Mohamedis: published in Arabic and Latin at Oxford, 1723. He occupied the chair for some time as the locum tenens of Dr. Wallis, Arabic professor in that University, to which he afterwards succeeded. He died in 1740, while publishing another of Abul Feda's works. + Whoever wishes to see a specimen of such misrepresentations, he need only consult the CRIBratio Alcorani, by Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa, published in the work of Bibliander, entitled, "Machumetis ejusque successorum Vitæ, ac Doctrina, "ipseque Alcoranus, &c. His adjunctæ sunt Confutationes multorum, et quidem Arabian authors discovered the mistake. Arguments, till then considered as conclusive against it, were abandoned as no longer tenable, from the mixture they were found to contain of passion and prejudice, folly and credulity. Even Prideaux himself, in his life and character of Mohamed, was discovered to have reasoned upon an erroneous hypothesis; and his work was regarded by able judges, both in England and on the continent, in the light of a failure.* Some of those, who, about the time of Sale, embarked in the investigation, on perceiving the weakness of the arguments brought against it, began to look upon Mohamedanism with a more favourable attention. Extravagant praises were heaped upon its founder, and the Koran was extolled as the standard of truth, and a model of eloquence. These commendations were not unfrequently accompanied with irrelevant insinuations against Christianity. Under the mask of zeal for Mohamedanism was concealed an indifference for revealed religion. Among those who acquired a discreditable notoriety for adopting this insidious manner of vindicating Mohamed, was Boulainvilliers,† whose misrepresentations received merited castigation from the pen of Gagnier. Boulain "probatissimorum auctorum, Arabum, Græcorum, et Latinorum, unà cum Martini "Lutheri præmonitione."-Basil, 1543. In three thin folios. It is now become an extremely scarce book. * Prideaux's work is entitled, "The true Nature of Imposture fully displayed in "the Life of Mahomet, with a Discourse annexed for vindicating Christianity from "this Charge, offered to the Consideration of the Deists of the present Age.” -Lond. 1697. This work was soon translated into French, Dutch, and German. + Boulainvilliers. The character of his "La Vie de Mahomet," published at London in 1730, will be seen from the following notice of it by Walchius: "Constat "illud (opus scilicet) tribus libris, quorum duorum priorum Boulainvilliers auctor "est: tertium autem eumque brevem ignotus scriptor addidit. Compositum id "fuit tam nefario impioque consilio ut religio Mohammedana contra Christianos "defenderetur."-Tom. III. 822. It was a posthumous work, as its author died in villiers, I observe, is quoted in the Apology, and Mr. Higgins, I regret to say, has followed in the steps of the French Count with an intrepid consistency. The first head,—a statement of what I conceive to have been the real character of Mohamed,-shall be introduced by an extract, which, besides its being a fair specimen of Mr. Higgins's style, will enable the reader to form a judgment of his views upon that controverted point. "In estimating the character of Mohamed, we have no "more right to assume that he was a most consummate rogue, hypocrite, liar, and villain, totally destitute of all 'principle, than we have to assume that he was a Socrates. "And when I hear him accused of being the former, I "immediately have recourse to the general character and "conduct which both parties agree he maintained in the early and middle part of his life. I find this to have been "irreproachable." [Mohamed himself admits that, to his fortieth year, he was an idolater, and had lived wickedly. In Surat 47. he says, "ask pardon for thy sin." Again, Surat 48. we have," that God may forgive thee thy preceding and subsequent sin." Here and elsewhere, remarks Mr. Sale, Mohamed acknowledges himself a sinner.] "Then am I to "believe at once that this was mere hypocrisy? Fourteen or "fifteen years together, I am told to believe, that he carried "this farce on-from twenty-five years old to forty. That "until he was twenty-five years of age his life was that of "meritorious industry: his integrity unsuspected. That at "that time great affluence became his lot as the reward of his "honesty and industry; and that this good fortune at once 1722. A rather interesting life is given of him in the Biographie Universelle. He is there said, on no sufficient authority I suspect, to have died penitent,—“ dans des sentiments de piété." C First Head. Mohamed an |