is God, are infidels.' And avers, • That Chrift, the Son of Mary, is no more than 'God's envoy.' That the Chriftians are in'fidels, by making three gods, when there is but one. Nay, he thus reprefents God as complaining to Jefus Chrift; O, Jefus, Son of Mary, doft thou perfuade mankind to put thy Mother and Thee in the place of God, and to worship you, as if ye were Gods?' To which he represents Jefus as anfwering; God forbid, that I fhould fay any thing contrary to the truth! Thou knoweft whether. I have taught that doctrine, or no. Thou knoweft the fecrets of all hearts.'-He requires that men fhould worship God, the Creator of heaven and earth; who made the light and the darkness.' And he calls thofe fet up Chrift, as equal to God.'

infidels, who

Hence it appears, on the principles of our adverfaries, that Mahomet was more true, more wife, more concerned for the good of mankind, and more zealous for the glory of God, than Jefus Chrift. This conclufion we abhor, as full of blafphemy; and yet we cannot but confider it as unavoidable, if the fentiments we oppofe be

true.

If Chrift be not of the same effence with his Father, Mahomet was more true than he; at leaft, in those things which regard the fundamentals of religion and the glory of God. This will appear if you recollect the manner in which our Lord fpeaks of himfelf, and how, by the direction of his own Spirit, his apoftles represent him, in the Scripture-teftimonies adduced in the preceding Chapter; and compare them with the declarations of Mahomet, which are directly contrary, as is manifeft from the quotations juft now produced from his Koran. In the former, Jefus

Jefus is defcribed as bearing Divine characters and poffeffing Divine perfections; as performing Divine works and as being the true God; but in the latter, as a mere creature, and infinitely inferior to Jehovah. The language of the Bible, therefore, and the language of the Koran, cannot be both true, because they are contradictory. But that of the Koran, which exprefsly afferts that Chrift is a mere creature, and ought not to be confidered as the Supreme Being, is not falfe, if he be indeed a mere creature. The inference, then, is plain and unavoidable, though fhocking and horrid; it is the language of the Bible, the language of Jefus Chrift, that is void of truth.

It will be faid; The expreffions of Mahomet ⚫ are proper and literal, but thofe of Chrift figurative and hyperbolical; fo that, though contrary in appearance, yet not in reality.' But what proof is there, that the language of Chrift is figurative? Befides, it is unlawful, it is highly criminal, to make ufe of fuch figures as are injurious to the glory of God. We could not, without profanenefs, fay; Such a man is equal to God, in wifdom and power, in greatnefs and grandeur. And it would be but a poor apology for the ufe of fuch expreffions, were we to endeavour to defend them by faying; They were applied, and are to be understood, in a hyperbolical, and not a literal fenfe. For we fhould foon be told, that fome figures are impious; and that fuch hyperboles as equal the creature with the Creator, are to be detested, as absolutely unlawful.-If in the ftyle of the world, mortal beauties be called adorable; if they be spoken of as fo many divinities; the language, though figu rative, is manifeftly profane; though nobody can be fo far deceived by it, as to mistake a beautiful woman for a divinity. For if thefe

figures,

figures, either directly, or indirectly, imply a want of reverence for God, it is enough to denominate them impious. If, then, in human language, we ought not to fuffer fuch figures as indicate a want of refpect for the Deity; much lefs ought fuch expreffions to be used in a language facred and divine, as is that of the Bible. And if fuch hyperboles be infufferable, when doing honour to mortal beauties, whom we cannot poffibly mistake for the true God; how much more dangerous and iniquitous would they be, when used concerning a fubject who might, as the event has fhewn, in refpect of Chrift, be eafily taken for the Supreme Being!

Again: If Jefus Chrift be not of the fame effence with his Father, Mahomet was much wifer than he. As wifdom confifts in choofing the best means for obtaining a propofed end; we need only examine, What was the end of each, in establishing his religion; and then inquire, What method the one and the other took, to fucceed in their defigns.-Mahomet's defign was, as he declares, to make known the true God, as exalted far above all creatures-to make him known, as the only object of religious worship; who ought to be diftinguished from all other beings, even from Chrift himself: maintaining, that Jefus is far from partaking with his Father in the glories of the Deity. Of these things Mahomet endeavours to perfuade mankind. And for this purpose he makes use of plain, and strong, and proper expreffions. He loudly and vehemently declares, that they who treat Jefus Chrift as God, are idolaters; which is the direct way to accomplish his defign.-It is fuppofed alfo, that the great end of Jefus Chrift is to glorify God. To glorify God, is, according to the language of infpiration, to exalt him far above

all

all other beings. The ancient prophets foretelling that God fhould be glorified, in an extraordinary manner, in the latter times, express their ideas in the following words; "The lofty looks "of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness "of men fhall be bowed down, and the LORD "AL NE SHALL BE EXALTED in that day." But Chrift debafes God, at the very time he profeffes to exalt him; for, by his expreffions, he puts himself in the place of God. This he does, when he calls himself God; when he claims Divine perfections; when he attributes to himfelf the work of creation; and when he applies to himself those oracles of the prophets, which difplay the effential characters of the Supreme Being.

If it be faid,It is fufficient that Chrift declares, his Father is greater than he' I anfwer, It would be a haughty kind of modefty for a mere creature to say, The Former of all things is greater than I. Neither Mofes, nor Ifaiah, nor any of the prophets, ever ufed fuch language. A loyal fubject never affects to fay, The king is greater than I. That is taken for granted. Nor will a holy creature make ufe of fuch language, concerning his Creator; because it would be, in fome fenfe, to compare himself with the infinite God.-Befides, what would it avail for Jefus, once in the courfe of his converfe on earth, to fay, "My Father is greater than I;" when, in the general tenour of his conduct and language, and in the language he taught his difciples, he fpeaks and acts as if he were the true God?

It may, perhaps, be replied, Here you beg "the question for thofe expreffions, from which ⚫ your conclufion is drawn, require a very different interpretation.' When, for inftance, Jefus is called God, our adverfaries will have

the

the name to fignify, that he was sent from God, and represents God. When he is faid to have "made the worlds;" the meaning is, that he made the happiness of the age to come, or the kingdom of the Meffiah, which was fo eagerly expected by the ancient Jews. When it is faid, "He was in the beginning," and "all things "were made by him;" the expreffions mean, that he was from the time of John the Baptist, is the author of the gofpel, and of all that is done under that difpenfation. When he is called, "GOD manifeft in the Aefh;" the character fignifies a creature that represents God. And when it is faid, that "he laid the foundation of the "earth, and the heavens are the works of his "hands;" the expreffions are used and the works afcribed to him, by way of accommodation, and not in a literal and proper fenfe.-A fmall fhare of common fenfe is quite fufficient to fhew, how unnatural and violent these interpretations are. But, fuppofing they were to the purpose, it could not be denied, that thefe expreffions of Scripture, if they must be taken according to thefe explanations, are very obfcure and equivocal. It could not, I fay, be denied; fince the far greater part of the Chriftian world has been ignorant of their meaning for fo many ages; and fince the first impreffion they naturally form on our minds, fuggefts the propriety of a very different interpretation. This evinces, if I may fay it without blafphemy, that Chrift was not fo prudent in the choice of his language, as Mahomet. For that pretended prophet always fpeaks in a clear, ftrong, peremptory manner, in order to fhew, that it is not lawful, on any confideration, to reprefent a creature as poffeffed of the characters and properties of God. Whereas Christ and his apostles have used many expreffions

that