all mankind, nor yet for all time. As a reformer (which Mahomet originally was, and desired to be), he is entitled to our unqualified recognition and admiration. An Arab who could lay bare the defects of the prevailing Judaism and Christianity, and, not without risk to his life, sought to destroy Polytheism, and implant among his people the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, deserves not merely a place by the side of the greatest men in history;—more than that, he merits the name of Prophet. But so soon as he ceased to be tolerant, so soon as he sought to gain victory for the truth by means of secret assassination and open war, and put forth in the name of the Almighty a new code of political, ceremonial, civil, police, and criminal law, he impressed on himself and on his utterances the stamp of human weakness and decay."1

These conclusions are based upon a profound review of the facts connected with the rise of Islâm; and, had it been possible to distinguish the Reformer from the Prophet, they contain much in which we might have concurred without reserve. But it is not so. As a Reformer, Mahomet did, indeed advance his people to a certain point; but as a Prophet, he left them immovably fixed at that point for all time to come. As there can be no return, so neither can there be any progress. The tree is of artificial planting; instead of containing within itself the germ of growth, and adaptation to the various requirements of time and clime and circumstance, expanding with the genial sunshine and the rain from heaven, it remains the same forced and stunted thing as when first planted twelve centuries ago.

Dr. Weil, it is true, sees a possible future for Islâm by following in the wake of a "reformed

1 Dr. Weil's "Einleitung," p. 125.

Judaism"; by abandoning those portions of the system which, though suited for a bygone age, are now obsolete; and by retaining only the eternal verities which form the Catholic basis of the faiths.1 But with Islâm, how can this be possible? The whole stands upon the same ground of divine Authority; pilgrimage, lustration, and fasting are as binding as the creed itself, and the Moslem may in vain seek to free himself from the obligation of the veil, to abolish the licence of polygamy, divorce, and slavery, or to abate the command which reduces Jews and Christians to a position of inferiority and humiliation. In deference to the opinion of Christian nations, some amelioration and improvement in these things may be attempted, but it will be against the grain and contrary to the law that binds the Moslem conscience.

The same learned author would have the Missionary to the Mussulmans put by his "Bible and his Catechism," and trust to education. Not thus "can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots." The evil lies deeper than that. We, on the contrary, hold the saving part of the Corân to be that which (as we have seen) so fully recognizes the authority of the Bible, and which warrants us therefore in pressing the acceptance of the Gospel upon the votaries of Islâm.

The second part of this treatise will accordingly be devoted to a review of the testimony contained in the Corân to the genuineness and authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

1 Dr. Weil's "Einleitung," p. 125.