* Amulette de Pascal, p. 145.

In presence of this doctrine, so humiliating and so distressing to humanity, have we not reason to ask, in the words of a late writer: "What, then, is that sorrowful side of the mind which delights in the denial of immemorial possessions, which reduces to nothing the most sacred legitimacies, which causes what was adored to be despised, which converts facts and changes countenances as if by enchantment? Should the scholar reduce everything to his classifications? Can he make no allowance for epochs and beliefs? And in thus seeing him trample on all that we worshipped, have we not a right to say: Have you well understood those great undertakings that you have blackened, disparaged, and weakened; those great men whose littlenesses and weak points you have divulged; whom you have brought into disrepute by falsehood, or ignorance of their motives? Have you not been led into error by the microscope, through which you have examined them? Every epoch has in itself the reason for its being, in its actions and its thoughts; and those men, to whom you impute madness, are, perhaps, but the natural result of the times in which they lived !"

A member of the Royal Academy of Medicine, Dr. Renaul-din, in a well-written treatise on Mohammed, viewed as a madman, thus expresses himself: -

"No, he was no madman, who succeeded, by so many sacrifices and self-denials, in producing such a revolution in the religious system and in the morals of an entire nation. He was no madman, who overthrew superstition and idolatry to substitute the worship of one only God; and who, by this means, extricated his country from the darkness of barbarism, made the Arab name so long feared and respected, and opened to his successors the road to so many glorious conquests. He was no madman, who endowed his country with a code of laws, of which they were before entirely devoid - a code, which, after twelve hundred years, is still recognized in the countries professing Islamism.

"Doubtless, in the outset of his wonderful enterprise, he was not exempt from imprudence, audacity, and temerity, whose consequences, more than once, compromised the success of his mission; but, taught by experience and by his profound knowledge of mankind, trusting in God and in his fortune, pursuing the work of his life through a thousand obstacles, and a thousand dangers, Mohammed never gave way; on the contrary, he exhibited a genius full of ingenuity, firmness, and courage - a genius, fertile in resources, superior to all reverses, and remarkable for its expansion, flexibility, and perseverance.

"As to his visions, they may have been imaginary; but, why should they not receive the same explanation as that we have given to those of the great philosophers of antiquity, and of men powerfully preoccupied with one idea in an epoch of profound convictions and mysterious faith, and placed in circumstances which must react upon themselves?"

To the four examples just given, we could add that of Socrates, the greatest man of antiquity. But if our arguments, which but feebly express our conviction, have found favor with our readers, they will themselves make the application to the Grecian philosopher, who, notwithstanding medical theories, will no less be an eternal honor to human reason, and the master of Plato. Common sense could never look on a man whose conduct was so wise, so pure, and in some sort so providential, as a madman. His familiar spirit was only a personification of self, the material form of which belonged to the age. His belief in dreams he held in common with all antiquity; as to the influence which he is reproached with exercising at a distance, on his pupils, we only see in it the admiration which his talents excited in them, their devotion to his person, and the high reverence with which they viewed his mission. Besides, what matters it, if Socrates had hallucinations? The truths which he taught did not result from them; they existed no less before than after him. Finally, can we, as we have elsewhere remarked, employ this word in connection with pure conceptions, and ideas properly expressed?

Thus, in our opinion, the celebrated men whom we have named, and many others, may have had hallucinations, without their designs, acts, or conduct being in any degree influenced by them, or without the existence of any plausible pretext for accusing them of insanity, in which respect they differ enormously from the hallucinated of our day; whose conversations, actions, and gestures have always a stamp of madness; who are the expression of no need, fulfil no mission, and, in a word, appear quite useless to their fellow-creatures.

This appears to be the proper place for us to examine hallucinations in a religious point of view; for it is contrary to reason, and degrading to human nature, to pretend that much of what has been achieved of great, good, and sublime in philosophy and morality, has been the work of madmen. To maintain that the prophets, apostles, and saints were hallucinated madmen, were to undermine the faith of thousands, and to blame even the Omnipotent Creator himself. Although the plan of this work and its limits does not permit of our treating this question to the extent it merits, we nevertheless propose briefly to state our ideas on the subject. Were we living at a period when a profession of faith would be a profitable title to temporal prosperity, we would abstain, but ours is an age of tolerance; perhaps, we may say, of indifference; every one freely expresses his opinions; we, therefore, will say that which we believe to be the truth.

There is no nation without a religion. Ancient or modern, great or little, powerful or weak, all have leaned on that foundation.*

Their duration has been in proportion to the depth of conviction. But if religion be intimately connected with the history of a people, its influence must above all depend on the purity of its origin and the sanctity of its mission; this twofold character, all must admit the Christian religion to possess.