interpretation of this paffage; some explaining it to be a mention of the splitting of the moon, as one of the future figns of the approach of the day of judgement; others referring it to a miraculous appearance which had then taken place*. It seems to me not improbable, that Mahomet may have taken advantage of fome extraordinary halo, or other unusual appearance of the moon, which had happened about this time; and which supplied a foundation both for this paffage, and for the story which in after times had been raised out of it. After this more than filence; after these authentic confeffions of the Koran, we are not to be moved with miraculous ftories related of Mahomet by Abulfeda, who wrote his life about fix hundred years after his death; or which are found in the legend of Al Jannabi, who came two hundred years later. On * Vide Sale in loc. + It does not, I think, appear, that these historians had any written accounts to appeal to more ancient than the Sonnah, which was a collection of traditions made : On the contrary, from comparing what Mahomet himself wrote and faid, with what was afterwards reported of him by his followers, the plain and fair conclufion is, that, when the religion was established by conqueft, then, and not till then, came out the ftories of his miracles. Now this difference alone conftitutes, in my opinion, a bar to all reasoning from one cafe to the other. The fuccefs of a religion founded upon a miraculous history, shews the credit which was given to the history; and this credit, under the circumstances in which it was given, i. e. by persons capable of knowing the truth, and interested to enquire after it, is evidence of the reality of the history, and, by confequence, of the truth of the religion. Where a miraculous history is not alledged, no part of this argu made by order of the Caliphs two hundred years after Mahomet's death. Mahomet died A. D. 632; AlBochari, one of the fix doctors who compiled the Sonnah, was born A. D. 8c9, died 869. Prideaux's Life of Mahomet, p. 192, ed. 7th. グ ment ment can be applied. We admit that mul titudes acknowledged the pretenfions of Mahomet; but these pretenfions being deftitute of miraculous evidence, we know that the grounds upon which they were acknowledged, could not be secure grounds of perfuafion to his followers, nor their example any authority to us. Admit the whole of Mahomet's authentic hiftory, fo far as it was of a nature capable of being known or witneffed by others, to be true (which is certainly to admit all that the reception of the religion can be brought to prove), and Mahomet might fill be an impoftor, or enthufiaft, or an union of both. Admit to be true almost any part of Chrift's history, of that, I mean, which was public, and within the cognisance of his followers, and he muft have come from God. Where matter of fact is not in queftion, where miracles are not alledged, I do not fee that the progrefs of a religion is a better argument of its truth, than the prevalency of any fyftem of opinions in natural religion, morality, or phyfics, is a proof of the truth of those opi nions nions. And we know that this fort of argument is inadmiffible in any branch of philofophy whatever. But it will be faid, If one religion could make its way without miracles, why might not another? To which I reply, first, that this is not the queftion: the proper queftion is not, whether a religious inftitution could be fet up without miracles, but whether a religion, or a change of religion, founding itself in miracles, could fucceed without any reality to reft upon? I apprehend these two cafes to be very different; and I apprehend Mahomet's not taking this courfe to be one proof, amongst others, that the thing is dif ficult, if not impoffible, to be accomplished: certainly it was not from an unconscioufnefs of the value and importance of miraculous evidence; for it is very obfervable, that in the fame volume, and fometimes in the fame chapters, in which Mahomet fo repeatedly disclaims the power of working miracles himself, he is inceffantly referring to the miracles of preceding prophets. One would would imagine, to hear fome men talk, or to read fome books, that the fetting up of a religion by dint of miraculous pretences was a thing of every day's experience; whereas I believe, that, except the Jewish and Chriftian religion, there is no tolerably well authenticated account of any fuch thing have ing been accomplished. II. Secondly, the establishment of Mahomet's religion was effected by causes which in no degree appertained to the origin of Christianity. During the first twelve years of his miffion, Mahomet had recourfe only to perfuafion. This is allowed. And there is fufficient reafon from the effect to believe, that if he had confined himself to this mode of propagating his religion, we of the present day should never have heard either of him or it."Three years were filently employed in the converfion of fourteen profelytes. For ten years the religion advanced with a flow and painful progrefs within the walls of |