which they address themselves to the senses. But the control of sense is in nothing more conspicuous than in the great concern of religion. Of every form of natural religion, in every age and country, the assertion will hold true, that its interest and popularity have uniformly kept proportion with the measure of its appeal to the senses with the degree, that is, in which it presented sensible and tangible objects to the view of its votaries. The philosophy, then, of the reasoning, which would attribute the success of Mahomet to his adoption and enforcement of an abstract and inflexible theism, (which, however it may suit the fancy of the speculative, never can be brought near to the capacity of the vulgar,) will not, for a moment, stand the test of analogy, in this case the only proper and sure touchstone of truth. Some force, it may be allowed, is given to the use of this argument in the present case, by an important qualification. Notwithstanding the long prevalence among them of a gross idolatry, we possess satisfactory proofs that the Arabians, before the time of Mahomet, generally knew and owned the doctrine of the divine unity 42; to which doctrine, Mahomet himself professed only to recall them.* But even this historical fact is wholly insufficient * Koran, passim. to bear out the argument, as the total corruption of religion in Arabia abundantly demonstrates.* The admission, it may here be noticed in passing, is highly interesting and important in another view; as, in the progress of this work, I shall have occasion to show.t His doctrine of the unity, then, is one plain instance of a cause assigned for the success of Mahomet, which has no real, or at least, no demonstrable, connection with it. Another example of this error, almost equally striking, may be found, in the facilities alleged to be afforded for the progress of Mahometanism, by the political state of Arabia. "The condition of Arabia," according to an eminent authority already cited," occupied by small independent tribes, exposed it to the progress of a firm and resolute army." Whence, then, its famed and perpetual independence? Whence the triumphant resistance which the Arabian peninsula opposed, to the most formidable efforts of Rome and Persia, in the height of their power ? 43 Why was Arabia never subdued before the time of Mahomet? Why never since? Questions such as these crowd upon the mind, * Pocock, Spec. p. 90, & c.; Sale, Prelim. Discourse, p. 18, &c. + Appendix, Nos. I. II., where this fact comes in to support the proof of the Abrahamic origin, and patriarchal belief of the Arabians. Paley, Evidences, p. 550. Compare White, B. L. pp. 59, 60. at the bare mention of so utterly untenable an argument. At the same time, the occurrence of the argument to the clear and candid mind of Paley, serves to demonstrate the dangers to which even the best and most unbiassed judgments are liable, where the overthrow of a prevailing system is taken up as a set task. It would be easy to multiply instances of similar errors of judgment: but thus much, under the present head, may suffice to show, that causes have too frequently been assigned for the success of Mahomet, which have absolutely no connection with it. * Another line of argument has been unguardedly taken up to account for the success of Mahomet, in its nature highly hazardous and questionable; and in the adoption of which, the Christian advocate makes common cause, in the conduct of his reasoning, with the infidel. I allude to the assignment of causes merely human for the resolution of the phenomena, as contradistinguished from the operation of the special providence of God. In a celebrated argument, aimed against the received origin of Christianity, and the esta * The reader, if desirous to examine authorities, may consult the elaborate argument of Hottinger, (Hist. Orient. pp. 274-339.) " De Causis Muhammedanismum conservantibus." It abounds with specimens of selfdestructive reasoning. blished belief respecting the success of the Gospel, a series of secondary causes has been assigned, which purports to instruct the reader how far he may rationally dispense with the PRIMARY.* The doctrine of a future life; the weakness of polytheism; the scepticism of the pagan world; and the peace and union of the Roman empire; are collectively urged, together with several circumstances more, in an artful recapitulation †, as fully sufficient to account for the astonishing success which attended the original promulgation of the Gospel. By an unexpected, and not certainly a judicious concurrence, the success of Mahomet has been investigated by a Christian controversialist, precisely on the same ground, and in nearly the same terms. The doctrine of a future life; the weak and corrupted condition of Christianity in the seventh century; the religious divisions and polytheism of Arabia; the scepticism of the Arabs respecting the soul's immortality; and the distracted and divided state of the Roman and Persian empires; are successively advanced, as furnishing the full and final solution of the original triumphant propagation of Mahometanism. ‡ Nay, so perfect is the coincidence of the argu * Decline and Fall, chap. xv. † Ib. vol. ii. pp. 353-358. ments, that, in some of the topics, the parallel statements read as if they had emanated from the same mind. "The ignorance, the errors, and the uncertainty of the ancient philosophers, with regard to the immortality of the soul," Mr. Gibbon points out as one principal cause, "that Christianity spread itself with so much success in the Roman empire."-" The ignorance, the doubts, and the uncertainty, which universally prevailed among the Arabians, with regard to the immortality of the soul," Professor White argues," was also a circumstance which had no inconsiderable influence in the establishment of Mahometanism." The Christian champion thus condescends to assail the pretensions of the Koran, with the identical missiles, which had been just before unsuccessfully launched by infidelity, against the claims of the Gospel. It must be added, too, with hardly better success. will this be thought singular, if it shall be made to appear, that the principle of the argument from secondary, or merely human causes, as applied finally to solve any of those great revolutions which have changed the face and history of the world, is unsound and unphilosophical. Nor Qualify it as men may, the foundation of this argument is unavoidably laid in the exclusion of the superintendence of a special, and even of an |