nate desires, he was too wise to attempt that in which he would inevitably fail. When, however, he perceived (as a man of his quick perception would) that the time to extend his power had arrived, he was too politic to lose the opportunity, and so we find him taking up the sword. Referring to this act, T. U. remarks that "his using the sword to propagate his faith has little or no bearing on the question of imposture." We think it has much; for on the day it was unsheathed, Mahomet laid bare to the gaze of the world one of his dominant passions. Only let us mark his course from that moment, and we shall find that the two master passions we have named form the secret spring of almost every action. T. U.'s remark, that "the love of dominion gained on him as the adjunct of each new success," is most true. "It involved him," he adds, however, "till the end in the toil of self-sacrifice." But, we would ask, is avarice less the miser's master passion, because it involves him "in the toil of self-sacrifice?" Does not it stand to the miser in the same relation as ambition did to Mahomet? As men are constituted, it is impossible for them to gratify their ruling passions without some sacrifice; and Mahomet was no exception to the general rule. With respect to his sensuality, "Threlkeld" speaks very flippantly when he asks, "How can the idea that he was an impostor be reconciled with his blameless life (if we except his inordinate affection for the fair sex)?" But why, we demand, are we to except this? T. U. is more serious when he refers to the subject, but also treats it lightly. Now, we know not how any one can do this. "After all the excuses and palliations which have been made, whether by Mohammedans or by infidels, for this feature in the character of the pretended prophet, it remains a black spot which no ingenuity can wash away. The restraints or concealment of his early years can never excuse the unbridled sensuality, even as compared with other men of the same age and of the same nation, in which Mohammed indulged, when his acknowledged authority seemed to raise him above the need of caution. And we can apply no softer term than deliberate wickedness to the shameless craft with which he imposed upon the people, by pretending that what was in others a degradation and a sin, was granted to him as a special privilege by God!"* We wonder not, however, at his producing pretended revelations to excuse this crime, for he who had the heartlessness to perpetrate it, would not lack impudence to attempt to make it appear that a holy God sanctioned it. "Whilst the wretched victims of his power were sacrificed to his cruelty or policy, a still severer fate awaited the female captive, who was compelled to submit to the base and inordinate desires of a barbarian conqueror, and was forced into those arms which were stained with the recent slaughter of a friend, a brother, or a parent."† But certain fair traits in Mahomet's character are urged as a reason why sentence should not be pronounced. Let it be remembered, however, that these were the exceptions. We see not how the exhibition of some excellences by a bad man can prove him to be aught else than he really is. Observation and information ever present to us bad men with something good in them. This may seem strange, but it is true; and facts prove the justness of the remark that ": nothing is so natural in a man as contradictions." We believe that contradictions did exist in the character of Mahomet, and that though he did occasionally act uprightly, yet these bright spots no more change his character as a whole, than the few oases in the desert alter the surface of surrounding regions. In our opinion, his few excellences more fully expose, by contrast, the enormity of his general conduct. They show that, when he wished, he could act uprightly, and they condemn him for so frequently choosing the evil before the good. It has been said that Mahomet did much for Arabia: "He found his land a host of warring tribes; he left it a nation." Well, if it was so, did the end justify the means? We think not. But did the founder of Islamism effect as much good for his country as some give him credit for? While he formed a nation, did he not also invent a system of religion which, though superior to the idolatry which preceded it, was at the same time debasing and untrue. Further, it was for selfish ends that Mahomet worked; and "Life of Mohammed," Tract Society, p. 89. White's "Bampton Lectures." "The Successful Merchant," by the Rev. Wm. Arthur. though it had been possible only to attain his object by the ruin of his people, it would have been gained, for "what will deter an ambitious man from prosecuting his designs?" To conclude. We have stigmatized Mahomet an impostor, but we have done so advisedly. The term is a harsh one, but we refrain not from using it, because it has been earned, and is his due. The word impostor awakens within us a feeling bordering upon indignation. If there be an impostor, there must be those imposed upon; the one implies the other. Now, it is bad enough to be deceived with regard to anything, but to be deluded in the matter of religion is far worse. What, then, must we think of that man who was ready to sacrifice the dearest interests of others to serve his ambitious designs? Such a man was Mahomet at the conclusion of his career. P. D. NEGATIVE REPLY. THE question under discussion is one which, like questions of a similar kind, requires very considerable exercise of judgment, or, in other words, it requires philosophical habits of thought to enable a correct conclusion to be formed on it. It affects character, a matter which, in regard to men recently living, and belonging to our own circle of civilization, and much more as to one who lived so long ago, and was surrounded by influences so different from those which affect us, depends for its proper determination on a number of delicate considerations, on an enlarged view of the position and motives of the individual, his life as a whole, and on the different methods of solving the difficulties of the case. It is very easy to select a few instances of cruelty or deception in the life of Mahomet, instances wrested from connection with the circumstances, and to cry aloud, Here is an impostor! But this will not do. We must begin with the influences by which he was surrounded, trace him from his childhood, watch his conduct in varying positions, and inquire whether he was in general sincere, or was an impostor. It may indeed be that Mahomet was an impostor, but the preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea, and the stains upon his character find an explanation on other grounds than that of imposture. If we divest our minds of prejudice in reference to his promulgating a religious system inferior to Christianity, and allow ourselves to entertain the notion that such claims as Mahomet put forth are not necessarily evidences of imposture, we think there can be no doubt of the impression on the mind being against the imposture theory. We commend, then, our previous article, and those of our allies in this debate, which treat the question historically, to the careful attention of our readers, and still better, the perusal of the various works on Mahomet, and in particular the Koran, satisfied that the most profound consideration of these can lead but to one conclusion, namely, that Mahomet was an enthusiast, fanatic, visionary, partially lunatic, if you will, but one who was so in the direction of religion; that his life was a unity, marked by religious principle throughout, though, in a few instances, like David, he deviated from the ideal he had set up, his character gradually deteriorating under the influence of success; but that his religious professions were not assumed merely to gain some unworthy object, or that he did not suddenly exhibit a change from religious enthusiasm to systematic imposture. A candid consideration of the subject in the way pointed out will do far more for us than a statement of Mahomet's faults or errors, and an attempt to reply to it. It is true, it is not easy to get most people to do otherwise than merely to prejudge the question, as "horrid impostor "- -"guilty of acts of cruelty "-"system borrowed from Christianity"—" he must have been an impostor, his stories are absurd," &c. We believe, however, that this traditional method of dealing with the matter will find no favour with our readers; that they, accustomed to calm reflection on all the difficulties connected with such a subject-accustomed to generalization of thought-can adopt no other view than that of those men who lead the literature of our day, and who unanimously disbelieve the imposture theory in the case of Mahomet; it being, indeed, true, as Mr. Gilfillan observes, that the notion of Mahomet being an impostor seems scarcely to find a place in our literature at the present time. The article of P. D. does not assume a very decided tone. It admits a great deal of what we advocate, but falls back on two or three circumstances to show that, though not a man simply allowing his imagination Mahomet may at first have believed himself to have full play, with the hope of having a prophet, he soon afterwards began a career spectral illusions, which he might consider of imposture. P. D. calls in question how as divine messengers; but these instances Mahomet's acute mind could believe that have reference to an unusual and abnormal Gabriel actually held communication with habit of mind and body, making the workhim "Could such a mind receive as true ings of the imagination much more complithe follies which he required his followers cated and difficult, and leading to more implicitly to believe?" He goes on to men- singular results than in ordinary circumtion other instances in which he thinks stances. Mahomet's sincerity incredible. Amongst these he refers to the night journey to Mecca; but there is no authentic evidence that Mahomet actually asserted that he had undertaken such a journey, or that it was anything more than a vision. We have very many illustrations, even in our northern climate, of the delusions under which other wise intelligent men have laboured on the subject of religion; a brooding imagination having in such matters a powerful influence. We have cases where persons far less likely than Mahomet believed themselves divine persons, and cases where individuals of blameless life believed themselves inspired. Swedenborg, for instance, had an excellent character, and a powerful understanding, yet he has given forth revelations of a very minute and circumstantial kind. It is by no means incredible, then, that a man should be wise in general, and yet be subject to several particular hallucinations. We know, in fact, many shrewd and far-seeing men, who yet are blinded by some particular hobby, chimerical or absurd to every one but themselves, or which, at all events, is justly regarded as such, in occupying the chief place in the mind. These remarks may be sufficient in reply to the question put by P. D., and reiterated by " Onward "-" How a man, wise in many respects, was a fool only when his worldly interests were likely to be furthered by being such?" But it may be added, that it is not obvious that the worldly interest of Mahomet was promoted by the course he took, and he did not even ulti-ing him as an impostor, and therefore mately promote it—he who suffered so much, lived so plainly, and died so poor. P. D. seems to doubt the creative power of the imagination in producing forms or appearances visible to the individual. But surely we have enough in the history of mankind to render this far from incredible in certain peculiar circumstances. In the case of Swedenborg, and in that of Mahomet, it is P. D. would have us believe that it is incumbent on us to prove that Mahomet really saw some appearance which he might naturally suppose was that of the angel Gabriel. We submit that no such onus lies upon us, and that even P.D. is more naturally required to show that such illusions, in Mahomet's position, were impossible. We have Mahomet's own declarations, and the question occurs, Did his conduct indicate that he laboured under a delusion, or wanted to palm off what he knew to be untruth? We have evidence to show that he was subject to an abnormal state of body, which gradually increased; that he had frequent fits or attacks, which affected him at the time of his supposed revelations. There is no appearance of all this being feigned. Long prior to his alleged divine call he was afflicted in this way. All this must be believed, unless testimony can be adduced to the contrary. Mahomet had a powerful mind; he was possessed by religious ideas; his life. with the exception of a few acts, partook of the character of enthusiasm. This, combined with the attacks to which he was subject, and the revelations he laid claim to, render it unreasonable to fix on the imposture theory. We find, indeed, all these circumstances leading us in an opposite direction. We grant that his character somewhat sank during the latter part of his life, but this might be expected as a consequence of power. The circumstances appear very naturally to arise, and go no length in brand scoundrel. This line of argument appears to us all that is necessary, either on the one side of the question or the other, in place of the evidence which P. D. demands. Mahomet was not perfect; several of his acts wear an unjustifiable aspect; but all this does not show him to have been an impostor, but is only a deduction from the moral weight of his character. His belief in his own inspiration would naturally lead him to shield himself in doing wrong. For the reasons stated by "Threlkeld," we do not think any importance is due to the coincidence of Mahomet's revelations with the occasions which called them forth, or to his propagation of the faith by the sword. It may be mentioned that it was a peculiarity of his disorder, that it added its influence to the general features of his character, previously determined. It is ridiculous, at this time of day, living, as we do, in a Protestant country, to set down Mahomet as an impostor because he began to use physical force. The circumstances are very different. Even Christianity has been often propagated by similar means, and this generally from fanaticism, and not a determination to spread an untruth. So far as the article of G. F. takes the same ground as that now noticed, we need say nothing. He enters a good deal into the question of the sensual rewards offered to the faithful. He sees clearly, however, that Mahometanism was a benefit to many millions of the human race, and was much preferable to the idolatry which previously prevailed. "We are," says he, "inclined to believe that he (Mahomet) has prepared the way for the easier and wider diffusion of Christianity." In fact, G. F. argues the question as between Christianity and Mahometanism, showing, from the contrast between the respective authors and systems, that Christianity has about it more of the signs of divinity than the religion of Mahomet. We do not dispute this. The question is not, however, whether Mahomet had really a divine call, but simply whether he was an impostor, or believed he had a divine commission. As to the question of imposture, G. F. maintains that any one who, labouring under mental hallucination, as sumes the dignity of a prophet, is an impostor. "He is an impostor, whatever the motives which actuated him!" With this definition, G. F. truly considers an impostor may be an excellent character. G. F.'s article proceeds wholly on this assumption. But surely no one can consider the assumption as other than a begging of the question. We take, as the other parties in this debate, both our coadjutors and opponents, with the exception of G. F., the term "impostor" as alluding to one who intends to deceive. Stript of the ridiculous assumption referred to,―ridiculous unless there are reasons for it which the writer has not stated,-the article might be claimed as one on the negative side of the question. The article of "Onward" chiefly refers to matters we have already touched on. There are, in addition, only two points which we may notice. It is maintained that if Mahomet, when in a state of trance, had considered bimself to have received a divine commission, he would be undeceived when the trance was over. This is by no means evident. He brooded for years over the religious condition of his countrymen. There was nothing more natural than that, in reference to his abnormal condition, and his frequent attacks, his thoughts should have been embodied in visible forms, and sometimes even mere sounds, or in having once got the idea of his having received a divine call, in anything he might regard as a continuation of the same means of communication. He does not appear to have been attacked violently on all, or on most of the occasions of his alleged revelations, or that he more than simply swooned, or lost sensibility to outward objects. There was nothing to lead him to believe that these attacks were not simply the appointed instrumentality by which the revelations were made; and it does not appear at all improbable, unless we adopt the notion that he immediately forgot everything he supposed had passed, that he would be daily strengthened in the belief of his divine commission. It is surely more natural to think that he would believe rather than discredit the phenomena alluded to. Swedenborg, too, did not disbelieve those which occurred in his case. Dreams or visions were once considered media of divine communications,—but it did not follow they were disbelieved by the parties. The second matter is the case of Joseph Smith. It will not be denied that in general the persecutions a man may suffer, which he could have avoided, in an ostensibly good cause, are evidence in his favour. There may be exceptional cases, where men allow themselves to be persecuted to gain some distant ambitious end. Joseph Smith may have been an impostor, but each case must depend on its own particular circumstances. The question is not limited to the matter of persecution, but involves a number of other points, gathered by philosophical | render the probabilities on which such quesinquiry, which will occur to the reader, and tions depend overwhelmingly against the which, whatever Smith may have been, affirmative in this debate. T. U. Politics. WAS THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED IN ENTERING UPON THE PRESENT WAR WITH RUSSIA? NEGATIVE REPLY. DISCUSSION on the point involved in the present controversy being now closed, it becomes necessary for me to reply to such objections as have been taken to the arguments which I or my coadjutors have advanced while maintaining the unjustifiableness of the war. I The first objection to which I would advert occurs in the article by "Rolla." After specifying certain objects, to which I shall afterwards refer, for the maintenance of which he considers the war requisite, he proceeds to charge me with the inconsistency of stating that all war is unjustifiable, and at the same time of affirming that the conduct of the Czar, in arming in behalf of those who profess the same faith, was commendable. deny the charge. What was the nature of my reasoning? After showing that the Emperor of Russia had done no more in Turkey than Lord John Russell had in Tuscany, I quoted the declaration in which Lord John says, when writing officially to the Tuscan authorities, "As this is a matter affecting the Tuscan subject, it may be said that Her Majesty's government has no right to interfere. If this mean," he continues, "that interference by force of arms would not be justifiable, I confess that nothing but the most extreme case would justify such interference." To this I appended the inevitable corollary, that, in the eyes of Lord John Russell and those who acted with him, if the demand was rejected, it would be for them to employ armed intervention to enforce it. "Admit this" mode of arguing the question, I go on to say, as we must, if Lord John's opinion be worth anything, and the right of the Czar to interfere as he did becomes incontrovertible." Observe, I do not say whether Lord John was right or wrong in addressing such language to a foreign potentate-with that we have at present nothing to do-all I contend for is, that those who ac cept the reasoning as valid in the one case, are bound, if logic is worth a straw, to admit it in the other. It will not do to shuffle out of the difficulty by saying that there is no comparison between the cases, as B. S. does, when he sneeringly remarks that I should excise without mercy all such analogies from my argumentative compositions. It would be difficult to find a more perfect parallel, even taking it as B. S. puts it, when he says that Lord John took up the cause of the Madiai, because they were thrown into prison, and there left to expire, merely for perusing their Bible; while the only ground on which the Czar rested his claim of interposition in behalf of those professing their adherence to the Greek communion, was to obtain for them possession of a leaden dome, the vaults of Calvary, and the hills near Bethlehem. While admitting, as every British subject surely will do, that the sentence on the Madiai was most severe, we are to remember at the same time that the offence was, according to the law of Tuscany, one of a most serious character, and could not be overlooked without danger to institutions which the mass of the people regarded as strictly sacred. Any interference in the matter by a foreign power was, consequently, equivalent to declaring that the laws should be superseded by those of a nation whose religion and general mode of discussing political questions, were wholly antagonistic to the great body of the people in the country interfered with. Yet, in spite of all this, our government, supported by public opinion, presumed to remonstrate with and threaten the Tuscan government. But it will be said, Look at the importance of the |