MAHOMETANISM.

(Extent of.)

The religion of Mahomet soon had, and still has, a vast extent. We must not believe those who say, that it possesses one half of the world or more, it is sufficient to say, “That, if we divide the known countries of the earth into thirty equal parts, five of them are Christian, six Mahometan, and nineteen Pagan.” Thus the Mahometan religion is of much larger extent than the Christian; for it exceeds it by one thirtieth part of the known world, which is a very considerable part.

Mahometan Miracles,

Mahomet says himself, that he wrought no miracles, and yet his followers attribute many to him. Grotius makes use of this confession, to refute Mahometanism, after having observed, that Mahomet does not deny the miracles of Jesus Christ. “Jesus visum cœcis, claudis gressum, ægrotis sanitatem dedit, imo fatente Mahumete, etiam vitam mortal's. Mahumetes Azoara, 3,14,17, 30, 71. ⁷⁶ se missum ait non cum miraculis, sed cum armis. Secuti tamen sunt, qui ei et miracula attribuerent, at qualia? Nempe quæ aut arte humana facilè possunt effects reddi, ut de columba ad

aurem advolante: aut quorum nulli sunt testes, ut de camelo noctu ei locuto: aut quæ sua absurditate refelluntur, Azoara 64. Vide latius hanc fabulem ex capite Ceramur, apud Cantacuzenum Oratione in Mabumetem, num. 23. ⁷⁷ ut de magna Lunæ parte in manicam ipsius delapsa, et ab ipso remissa ad reddendam sideri rotunditatem Grotius de veritate Religionis Christianæ, lib. vi. p. m. 202. He cites Azoara. 5, 13. ⁷⁸. Jesus, by the confession of Mahomet himself, gave sight to the blind, feet to the lame, health to the sick, and even life to the dead. Mahomet says, he was sent, not with miracles, but with arms. Yet some, in after times, ascribed miracles, to him, but of what sort? Either such as could easily be effected by human art, as that of a pigeon flying to his ear; or such, as there are no witnesses of, as that of a camel which spoke to him by night; or such, as are refuted by their own absurdity, as that of a great part of the moon dropping into his sleeve, and sent back again by him, in order to restore to that planet its rotundity.”

We must not leave this subject, before we set down the remark of a learned German, who says, that some Christians, prompted by a false zeal against Mahomet, accuse him of boasting of certain miracles, which the Arabian writers never attributed to him. “There are some Arabian authors, who attribute miracles to Mahomet; but others deny them. For instance, the former say, that the moon drawing near to Mahomet, he clave it asunder. Mr Pfeiffer observes, after Beidavi, that Mahomet never said this, but only that, before the last day, that prodigy will be seen in heaven. They make him say, that, at the taking of the city of Chaibar, a Jewish woman having presented him with a poisoned lamb, the lamb, though quite roasted, warned him not to eat it. But Abulfeda, relating the story, only says, that Mahomet, having tasted it, and perceiving that it was

poisoned, spat it out upon the ground, and said, this lamb tells me, that it is poisoned; meaning, I find that it is poisoned. In effect, he confesses often in the Koran, that he could not work miracles. Wherefore I consider as a fable, what some tell us of a pigeon, that came to eat from his ear, and of a bull, that would eat nothing but what he gave him with his own hand. Mr Pfeiffer acknowledges, that these stories are the effects of the distempered zeal of some Christians against this impostor.”

Might we not represent to Mr Pfeiffer, that the Christians have used the Mahometans in this respect as the reformed have used the Catholics. For there are in legendary writers, many miracles, which are not mentioned by grave authors of the Romish communion, and which they even laugh at. Does it follow therefore, that the Protestant writers are calumniators, or transported with too much zeal, because they object to Catholics such kind of miracles? And why may we not say, that the Christians, who have ridiculed the Mahometans for such miracles, as are not now to be found in Arabian authors, had read them in some obscure writers, who took the liberty to tell them, in honour of that false prophet, as the legendary writers have done in honour of the saints.

In some respects, therefore, the 2eal of our disputants is unjust; for if they make use of the extravagances of a Mahometan legendary, to make Mahomet himself odious, or to ridicule him, they violate the equity, which is due to all the world, to wicked, as well as good men. We must not impute to any body what they never did, and consequently we must not argue against Mahomet from these idle fancies, which some of his followers have fabled of him, if he himself never published them. We have sufficient matter against him, though we charge him only with his own faults, and do not make him answerable for the follies, which the indiscreet and

romantic zeal of some of his disciples has prompted them to write.

Mahomet no Enthusiast.

Some imagine, that Mahomet might believe what he said. They reason after this manner: all Christians are agreed, that the devil is the true author of Mahometism, and that he only made use of Mahomet as an instrument to establish in the world a false religion. We must therefore say, that Mahomet was delivered up to the devil, by the providence of God; and that the power God gave the devil over this wretch, was much less limited, than that he had over Job; for God did not permit the devil to pervert the soul of Job, as he permitted him to make use of the soul of Mahomet to deceive mankind. The devil having so great a power over him, by the confession of all Christians, as to instigate him to spread his new opinions; could he not persuade him, that God had established him a prophet? Could he not inspire him with that vast design, of planting a new religion? Could he not make him willing to undergo a thousand troubles, in order to deceive the world: and could he not seduce him? What reason can any one have to admit the one, and deny the other? is it more difficult to move the will to great designs, in spite of all the light of reason, that opposes them, than to deceive the understanding, by a false persuasion, or to incline the will to embrace a false light, so as to acquiesce in it as a true revelation? I must confess, that one of these things appears not to me more difficult than the other; for if the devil could seduce Mahomet, is it not very probable, that he did in effect seduce him? This man would be the fitter to execute the devil’s designs, if he were so persuaded, than if he were not. This cannot be denied me; for all things being otherwise equal, it is plain, that a man, who believes he does well, will

always be more active and in earnest, than he who believes he does ill. We must therefore say, that the devil managing very dexterously the execution of his projects, did not forget the wheel that was most necessary to his engine, and which would best increase the motion of it: that is to say, he seduced this false prophet. If he could, he would; and if he would, he did it; and we have already proved, that he could do it. Moreover, say these gentlemen, the Koran is the work of a fanatic: every thing in it savours of disorder and confusion; it is a chaos of disjointed thoughts. A deceiver would have ranged his doctrines better; a comedian would have been more polite. And let none say, that the devil would never have persuaded him to oppose idolatry, nor to have recommended so much the love of the true God, and of virtue; for this proves too much; since thence we might conclude, that Mahomet was not his instrument.

How specious soever these reasons may appear, I chuse rather to concur with the common opinion, that Mahomet was an impostor: elsewhere his insinuating behaviour, and dexterous address, in procuring friends, very plainly shew, that he made use of religion only as an expedient to aggrandize himself.

" Facetus moribus, voce suavi, visitandi et excipiendi vices talionis lege suis reddens, pauperes munerans, magnates honorans, con versans cum junioribus, petentem à se aliquid repulsa nunquam abigens, aut sermone facili non excipiens. Elmacin. apud Hotting. Hist. Oriental, pag. 241. ⁷⁹—He was of a pleasant disposition, a sweet voice, receiving, and paying visits regularly, bestowing gifts on the poor, honouring the great, conversing with young men, never sending away a petitioner repulsed, but always receiving him courteously.” Had a true fanatic ever such a character? Did he ever understand

his business so well? Though a man should, for some time, fancy that God has sent an angel to reveal to him the true religion, yet, might not he perceive the delusion, when he found, that he could not confirm his mission by any miracle? Now this was the case of Mahomet: the Koreishites offered to embrace his new religion, provided he wrought miracles; but he never had the boldness to promise them any: he cunningly evaded their proposal, sometimes telling them, that miracles were not necessary, and sometimes by referring them to the excellency of the Koran. Was not this sufficient to convince him, that he was not extraordinarily called by God to found a new religion?

Again: to colour his incontinence, which moved him to marry several wives, he forged a revelation from God, that this was allowed. He must therefore insert this article in his Koran; but because he liked his servant-maids, and lay with them, therefore he stood in need of a new revelation in favour of adultery; and so it was necessary he should make a distinct article of the concubinage of husbands. He had but two wives, when Marina, his servant-maid, a very pretty lass, pleased him so well, that he lay with her, before she came to a marriageable age. His wives surprised him in the very fact, and were transported with rage against him. He swore to them, that he would never return to her any more if they would keep it secret; but, because he broke his oath, they made a great noise, and went away from his house. To remove this great scandal, he feigned a voice from heaven, which informed him that it was lawful for him to have to do with his servant-maids. Thus this impostor began with committing a crime, and finished with converting it into a general law. This does not at all favour of Fanaticism. A good touch-stone to discover whether those who boast of inspiration, either to give out

new prophecies, or to explain the old, such as the Apocalypse, act sincerely, is, to examine whether their doctrine changes proportionably as the times change, and as their own peculiar interest becomes different from what it was before. With an impudence, that cannot be sufficiently admired, Mahomet forged, that God forbade incest to other men, but allowed it him by a peculiar grace.

“He forbids others,” says Hoornbeek, “under severe penalties, in his chapter of women, to marry within the degree of consanguinity: mix not with women, which have been known by your father, because it is base, evil, and unjust: your mothers, your daughters, your aunts, and cousins, are forbidden you, &c. But he indulges himself in the enjoyment of any one, as it were by authority from heaven. In his chapter of heresies or sects; O prophet, says God, to him, we give thee power over all thy wives, to whom thou shalt pay their hire, and whomsoever thou shalt take unto thee, whether they be the daughters of thy uncle, or the daughters of thy mother’s brother, or the daughters of thy mother-in-law, which have journied with thee, and every woman, that is a believer, and is willing to prostitute herself to thee a prophet: and this privilege is granted to thee in a special and peculiar manner; but not to other men.”

He durst not, however, always exercise his prerogative, for he said, he was forbidden for the future, to take away his neighbour’s wife. He was contented to tell the world, that God approved what was past, provided he did not relapse into it again. For the better understanding of this, we must know, that Mahomet had already married nine wives, and then espoused a tenth, which he took from his servant, who murmured at it. The false prophet, to put a stop to the scandal, made a shew of desiring to restore what he had taken; but, because he had not

really a mind to do so, he quickly found out a way to dispense with it. He feigned, that God had censured this resolution, and had ordered him to keep his tenth wife, without paying any deference to human scandal, to the prejudice of a celestial approbation. He was very sensible however, that this would alarm all husbands against him; and therefore, to satisfy every body, he published, that, for the future, by the order of God, he would let husbands enjoy their own wives, even though he should fall in love with them.

The variations of his prophetic spirit were in fact always suited to the change of his private interest. We shall keep to the words of Dr. Prideaux Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, pag.155 ⁸⁰. “Almost all his Koran was framed after this manner, to answer some private design he had, according as occasion required. If he had any new thing to set on foot, or some objection against himself or his religion to answer, some difficulty to resolve, or some discontent among the people to pacify, some scandal to remove, or something else to be done for carrying on his designs, he had commonly recourse to the angel Gabriel for some new revelation; and presently he inserted in the Koran some addition, proper to answer the ends he then proposed to himself. So that the whole almost was composed upon occasions of this nature, to produce in his own party the effect which he proposed to himself; and all his commentators plainly enough confess it, by shewing exactly the reasons, for which each chapter had been sent them from heaven. But this was the cause of the many contradictions, that are to be found in this book; for as this impostor’s affairs and designs varied, he was obliged to vary his pretended revelations; which is so well known among those of his sect, that they all confess this to be true; upon which account, when these contradictions are such, that they cannot be reconciled, they revoke one of the contradictory places; and they reckon in the whole

Koran more than one hundred and fifty verses thus revoked, which is the best expedient they can take for saving the contradiction and inconsistencies that are in it.” This proof of imposture is of great force; I have mentioned it already; but here I ought to add, that it would be too far extended, if it should be made use of without exception against all the expounders of the Apocalypse, who change their hypotheses as the general affairs take a different turn. It may sometimes happen, that there is nothing but fanaticism in the inconstancy of those men, and that not being sensible of the disorder of their brain, they are no less sincere, when they vary, than when they do not. Let us therefore make use of a distinction, and say only, that the conduct of those, who change their apocalyptic system, according to the news in the Gazette, and always agreeably to the general design of their writings, is very often an imposture, but not always.

Morals of Mahometanism.

It is pretended that Mahomet gained proselytes by accommodating his morals to the corruption of men’s hearts; but as to that point, I do not see that this false prophet has derogated from the morality of the gospel. On the contrary, I perceive, that as to ceremonies, he has considerably increased the yoke of Christians. He ordains circumcision, which is a thing very harsh to adult persons; he requires them to abstain from certain meats, which is a slavery that does not well agree with worldly men; he forbids the use of wine, which is a precept indeed that is not so very harsh to the Asiatic people as to the northern nations, and which had certainly made Willibrod and Bonifacius miscarry in their design; but yet it is inconvenient in all countries where wine grows; and we know by ancient and modern history, that this liquor does not displease the Oriental people. Besides, Mahomet imposed fastings and ablutions,

which are very troublesome, and so frequent a use of prayers as is tedious and uneasy. He enjoins also pilgrimages; and, in a word, you need only consider the forty aphorisms of his morals, and there you will find every thing opposite to the corruption of man’s heart, the precept of patience in adversity, of not speaking evil of our neighbours, of being charitable, of renouncing vanity, of doing no injury to any man; and lastly, that which is the epitome of the law and the prophets, ‘ Do to your neighbour, whatever you would that he should do unto you.’

It is therefore an illusion to pretend that the only reason why the law of Mahomet was propagated so readily, and spread to so great an extent, was, because it eased men of the yoke of good works, and troublesome observances, and allowed them freedom in evil courses. If I mistake not, the only things wherein it opened the gap which the gospel had shut, are marriage and revenge; for it permits polygamy, and to return evil for evil; but the Jews and Pagans scarcely gained any thing by this, for they were already in possession of a custom which did not much trouble them in this respect. Hottinger has given us a long catalogue of the moral aphorisms or apophthegms of the Mahometans. We may say, without flattering this religion, that the most excellent precepts that can be given to man for the practice of virtue, and avoiding of vice, are contained in these aphorisms. Hottinger makes no scruple to exalt this morality above that of many monks. Mr Simon has spoken no less advantageously of the Mahometan religion, with respect to morality: “It consists,” says he, “in doing good, and shunning evil, and therefore they examine carefully virtues and vices; and their casuists are no less subtle in these points than ours.” After he has related some of their principles concerning the necessity of faith, and trust in God, and humility and repentance, &c. he adds, “I pass over in silence the

rest of their morals, because what has been said is sufficient to show what they are; and I can assure you, that they are not so loose as those of some casuists in our age. I shall only add, that they have many good precepts about the duties of private persons to their neighbour, wherein they do also give rules of' civility. They have also written of the behaviour that is due to a prince; and one of their maxims is, ‘ That it is never lawful to kill him, nor even to speak evil of him under pretence that he is a tyrant.'

With respect to a sensual paradise, it must be granted that this promise might be a bait to allure the Pagans, who had but confused notions of the happiness of another life, but I do not know whether it was proper to entice the Jews, neither do I think that it could have any force upon Christians, and yet how many Christians have been drawn into apostacy by this false prophet? Suppose what he says of the pleasures of his paradise ought to be literally understood, “that each person there shall have the strength of one hundred men, to enjoy a full satisfaction with women, as well as to drink and eat —this would not balance the idea the scripture has given us of the happiness of another life; for it speaks of it as a state which surpasses all that “eyes have seen or ears heard, or hath entered into the heart of man to conceive.” So that, if we believe the scripture, the happiness of paradise is something that surpasses imagination, and has no bounds set to it. Endeavour to have a fixed idea of it, you can never compass it, but your hopes still carry you higher, and launch out farther beyond all bounds. Mahomet did not allow you this liberty, but confined you within certain limits; he multiplied a hundred times the pleasures you have already tried, and there he left you; but what is a hundred times in comparison with a number indefinite? Some, indeed, may say, “the scripture speaks only of pleasure in general and if it make use of corporeal images, as

when it promises “that we shall be satisfied with the fatness of the house of God, and that we shall drink of the rivers of his pleasures,” you are presently warned that these are metaphors, under which spiritual pleasures are veiled: but that this does not move worldly souls like sensible pleasures. I answer, that the souls which are most immersed in matter, will always prefer the paradise of the Gospel before that of Mahomet, provided they give an historical faith to the description of the beatific vision, though they should give the same faith to the Koran. I shall explain my meaning by this supposition: let us represent to ourselves two preachers, the one a Christian, and the other a Mahometan, preaching before Pagans, each of them endeavouring to allure them to his party, by laying open the joys of paradise. The Mahometan promises feasts and fine women; and, the better to move his auditors, he tells them that, in the other world, the pleasures of sense will be a hundred times more delicious than in this. The Christian declares that the pleasures of paradise will neither consist in eating nor drinking, nor in the conjunction of the two sexes, but that they shall be so substantial, that no man’s imagination is able to reach them; and that all that can be conceived, by multiplying the pleasures of this world a hundred times, a thousand times, a hundred thousand thousand times, &c. is nothing, in comparison of the happiness which God imparts to the soul, by “seeing him face to face,” &c. Is it not certain that the most unchaste and gluttonous hearers would rather follow the Christian preacher than the other, though we should suppose that they give as much credit to the promises of the Mahometan as to those of the Christian? They would doubtless do the same thing which a soldier would do to two captains, who would hire him for a price; for, though he was persuaded that they were both of them sincere, and would give all that they had promised, he would certainly list himself with him that offered most. So, likewise, these Pagans would prefer the paradise of the gospel before that of Mahomet, though they should be persuaded that both of these preachers would make good to their disciples the reward which they had promised. For it must not be imagined that a voluptuous man loves the pleasures of sense merely because they flow from that source; he would equally love them, if they came from any other: make him feel more pleasure by sucking in the air in a cave, than by eating the best ragouts, he will quit with all his heart the best meals, to go into the cave. Make him feel more pleasure in examining a geometrical problem than in enjoying a fine woman, he will readily quit the fine woman for this problem; and consequently it would be unreasonable to suppose that a Mahometan should draw after him all the hearers that are lovers of pleasure: for, since they love the pleasures of sense only because they can find none better, it is plain that they would renounce them with ease, to enjoy a greater happiness.

Not of a nature to court female influence.

The permission Mahomet granted to men to have many wives, and to whip them when they were not obedient, and to divorce them upon any displeasure, was a law very prejudicial to the female sex. He took care to deny women the liberty of having many men, neither would be allow them to part from their husbands, though they were troublesome, at least unless they consented. He ordained, “that a woman divorced could not marry more than twice; and that if she were divorced from the third husband, and the first would not take her again, she should never marry all her life time.” He was so far from permitting them to show their bosoms, or at least their necks, that he would not suffer their feet to be seen, except by their husbands. It is true, that in this he only retained

the custom observed in Arabia; for we learn from. TertuIlian, that the women of that country did thus cover their face, so that they could make use but of one eye. “Judicabunt vos Arabiœ fœminæ Ethnicæ, quæ non caput, sed faciem quoque ita totam tegunt, ut ano oculo liberato contentæ sint dimidiam frui lucem, quàm totam faciem prostituere.” I believe it is a mistake to say, that Mahomet permitted men to marry as many women as they would; for he does so moderate and limit his proposal, that it plainly appears he had no mind that they should marry above four, and that he allowed them so many, provided they thought themselves capable of keeping them peaceably. But it is no mistake to affirm that he set no bounds to the number of their concubines; and indeed the Turks may have as many as they are capable of maintaining. Is not the condition of the four wives deplorable, under a law which gives the husband power to divert what is their due to as many handsome slaves as he can purchase? Does not this diversion of the matrimonial stock reduce them to the greatest want, and to an extreme indigence? Let none tell me of the provision the law has made for them, by appointing the four wives to lie once every week with their husband. “So that, if any one be found that has not enjoyed this privilege for a whole week, she has a right to demand it on Thursday night in the following week, and she may prosecute her husband in case of a refusal, in the courts of justice;”—for notwithstanding this privilege, the law is very harsh. What pleasure can any one take in a matter of this nature, when it is obtained only in the execution of a sentence from a magistrate? This ought not to be a work that is commanded; when it is done only by way of duty, there can be no great satisfaction in it. We must therefore confess that Mahomet did not use the sex well.

But as to women, he taught many other strange

things: for he not only made them miserable in this world, but deprived them of the joys of paradise. He not only excluded them from that place, but he turned its joy into an occasion of sorrow; for it is pretended that he taught, that the pleasures of marriage which men shall enjoy after this life, shall be furnished them by virgins of a ravishing beauty, whom God creates in Heaven, and who are destined for them from all eternity; and as to women, that they shall not enter into paradise, nor approach nearer to it than is necessary to discover across the pallisadoes what shall be done there. Thus their eyes shall be witnesses of the happiness of men, and of the pleasure they shall take with these celestial maids. What can be imagined more grievous? Is not this to be ingenious in mortifying our neighbours? Lucretius tells us, that it is pleasant to see a shipwreck when it is not feared; but all things are quite contrary in Mahomet’s system for women; the sight of a happiness of which they are deprived must needs afflict them, and it will be so much the more grievous to them, as well because it will discover the pleasures which another enjoys, as because they will see the happiness which they want; for the torment of jealousy proceeds not so much from the want of a thing, as from knowing that others enjoy it. I have heard many people say, and I think I have read it, that the damned shall have a very exact idea of the happiness of paradise, that so the knowledge of the great joys which they have missed, may augment their despair; and that the devil shall make use of this artifice to render them more miserable. This is to understand very well the way of heightening the pains of the miserable: and therefore we may say in a word, that Mahomet could not have discovered his cruelty more maliciously; for he would have women see at a distance, that which can only create unprofitable temptation, and insupportable grief.

However to declare the matter as it is indeed, I must acquaint you, that neither the Koran, nor learned Mahometans say, that the women are excluded from paradise; yet I thought I might relate what so many authors have asserted on the subject.

There is some occasion to wonder why the Mahommetan religion should be so unkind to the female sex, since it was founded by a man so excessively lascivious, and since his laws were deposited in the hands of a woman, and another was to give the interpretation of them as she pleased. We have already shown that Ayesha was looked upon as a prophetess and an oracle; and that she was indeed a pope among the Mahometans. Mr Herbelot relates, “that she had among them a very great authority, even in matters of doctrine and religion, and that they often had recourse to her to learn some tradition of Mahomet, and that she undertook to condemn the Caliph Othman for impiety.” She might then have settled matters upon a footing very suitable to women. Whence then came it to pass, that she did not do it? Was she of the humour of certain women, who are the first and most fierce in defaming their own sex? May this be looked upon as a proof of that which is sometimes said, “that the authority of men is never greater than when a woman is seated on the throne, and that the authority of women is never greater than when the sceptre is in the hands of a man?” For my part, I know nothing of the matter; let speculative men exercise their wit as much as they please upon this question; but consider, I pray you, the influence of the fair sex upon the foundation of Mahomet, and how the passions of a woman very quickly spread in it the seeds of discord. Follow the tracks of Ali’s schism, and you will find the lewdness of Ayesha whom he accused, to be the source of it; this woman never forgave him: she hindered him three times successively from arriving at the dignity of caliph, and after he had obtained it,

she made a league against him, and put herself at the head of 30,000 men. She lost the battle, and was taken, and sent back to Medina, where she died, and was buried near to Mahomet; but the league she had made to revenge the death of Othman, died not with her. Ali was at last killed upon this pretence, and thence arose a great schism, which still continues.

( Curious predictions of the fall of )

There are several predictions extant, which have threatened Mahometanism a long while. Bibliander affirms, “that there is a famous prophecy among the Mahometans, which strikes a great terror both into men and women, and which says, ' that the empire shall be destroyed by the sword of the Christians.’ The prophecy is expressed in the following words, which are translated out of Persian into Latin by Georgievitz: ‘ our emperor shall come, shall take the kingdom of the Gentiles, shall take the red apple, shall subdue it even unto seven years; if the sword of the Gentiles shall not rise again, he shall reign over them twelve years, shall build a house, shall plant a vineyard, shall enclose gardens with a hedge, shall have a son and a daughter; after twelve years, the sword of the Christians shall rise up, which shall beat back the Turk.’” Sansovin published a book in 1570, wherein he affirms, “that there is a prediction, ' that the laws of Mahomet shall last no longer than a thousand years, and that the empire of the Turks shall fall under the fifteenth sultan.’ " He adds, “that Leo the philosopher, emperor of Constantinople, has said, in one of his books, ‘ that a light-haired family, with its competitors, shall put all Mahometanism to flight, and shall seize him who is possessed of the seven mountains.’” The same emperor makes mention of a column which was at Constantinople, whose inscriptions the patriarch of the place explained, and said that they signified, “that the Venetians and

Muscovites shall take the city of Constantinople; and, after some disputes, they shall chuse with one consent, and crown a Christian emperor.

This light-haired family, so fatal to the Mussulmen, puts me in mind of a passage of Dr Spon, which I shall set down. “Of all the Christian princes, there is none, whom the Turk fears so much as the great Czar of Muscovy;—and I have heard some Greeks say, and among the rest, the Sieur Manno-Mannea, a merchant of the city of Arta, a man of wit and learning for that country, that there was a prophecy among them, which imported, ‘ that the empire of the Turks was to be destroyed by a nation chrysogenos, that is, light-haired which cannot be attributed to any but the Muscovites, who are almost all light-haired," There is mention made of this in the “Miscellaneous Thoughts upon Comets,” on occasion of I know not what tradition which is current, “that the fates have promised the French the glory of destroying the Turks.” The prophecy of the Abyssinians mentions only a Christian king, who shall be born in the north. “Mecca, Medina, and the other cities of Arabia Felix shall hereafter be destroyed, and the ashes of Mahomet and his priests be dissipated; and that some Christian prince, born in the northern regions, shall perform all this, who shall also seize on Egypt and Palestine.” It is pretended, that a book was written in Arabic concerning this prophecy, before the taking of Damietta, and that this book was found by the Christians. Willichius relates, “that the Turks find in their annals, that the reign of Mahomet shall continue until the arrival of the light-haired boys;‘ donec veniant figliuoli biondi, flavi et albi filii, vel filii ex Septentrione flavis et albis capillis.’ ” Some think that this denotes the Swedes; but Antony Torquato, a famous astrologer, applies it to the king of Hungary.

If we should ascribe all these prophetical

threatnings to one cause only, we should be mistaken. The desire some have to comfort themselves with the hopes of the destruction of a furious persecutor, makes them easily find this destruction in the predictions of Scripture, or in some other things. Thus, there are some who foretel through credulity and illusion. The desire of comforting people, and dissipating their fears, obliges some to suppose that the scripture, prodigies, and many other prognostics, promise the approaching ruin of the power which they now fear. Thus there are some who foretel things out of policy. Those who do it in order to render their troops more courageous, are prophets of the same kind. There are others who prophecy, in order to stir up insurrection in an enemy’s country; for instance, to encourage the Greeks, who acknowledge the Grand Seignor for their prince, to take arms against their master. These remarks, in reference to the Muscovites and the Greeks, are curious, looking to the present state of things in the same quarter of Europe.—Ed. ⁸¹.—Art. Mahomet.