any fuch thing.' But can any fubftantial reafon be affigned, why the ancient oracles fhould not foretel the coming of Mahomet, who deftroyed idolatry in the moft confiderable part of the world; when they foretold the appearance of a man who has been the idol of the Chriftians for fo many ages? Of a man who, by his own doctrine, and that of his apoftles, gave occafion to this dreadful idolatry, to the difhonour of God and the ruin of millions? Were the coming and miniftry of a mere man, that would equal himfelf with the eternal Sovereign, a proper fubject of prophetic eloquence and transporting joy? Had Ifaiah, for inftance, any reafon to lift up his voice and fay to Zion; "Arise, shine, for "thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord "is rifen upon thee ?" The morals, however, of Jefus Chrift, greatly excel thofe of Mahomet.' But what real excellence can there be in thofe morals, which do not prevent Chriftians from being guilty of blafphemy and idolatry; which leave Mahomet the honour of being more zealous for the glory of God, and more careful of the interefts of inen, than Jefus Chrift?Mahomet, it is well known, propagated his religion by craft and force; but Christ by upright and gentle methods.' Granted: it yet I beg leave to ask, In whom are the marks of a proud and worldly fpirit moft evident? in one that is a man, like ourselves, who attributes to himself the titles, perfections, and honours of God; or in a man who, in the establishment of his religion, endeavoured to exalt God, by fhewing that no creature ought to be affociated with him? Mahomet flatters the fordid appetites of men, by promifing them a fenfual paradife, replenished with carnal delights.' Not now to inquire, whether his difciples do not fpiritualize

c 3

tualize their Koran, and take the grofs expreffions in a myftieal fenfe; it may be fufficient here to obferve; That thofe vices which arise from the fenfual appetites are not fo dangerous, as thofe which proceed from the pride and impiety of the mind. The morals of Mahomet, therefore, are lefs dangerous, in this refpect, than the doctrine of Jefus Chrift.

To conclude, so long as it is fuppofed that Jefus has given occafion to Chriftian idolatry, and while the Arabian prophet is confidered as having turned fo many millions from it; the advantages of the former will be very few and fmall, and thofe of the latter many and great: because there is nothing fo effential to religion, as the glorifying of God; nor any thing fo contrary to it, as the practice of idolatry. Thus it appears, that the TRUTH of the Chriftian religion, and the DIVINITY of Jefus Christ, are fo united, that we cannot establish the one, without maintaining the other; nor give up the latter, without renouncing the former. But this will· appear with ftill greater evidence, in the further profecution of my subject.

SECTION

SECTION II.

IF JESUS CHRIST BE NOT THE TRUE GOD, OF THE SAME ESSENCE WITH HIS FATHER, THE SANHEDRIM DID AN ACT OF JUSTICE IN CAUSING HIM TO BE PUT TO DEATH; AND THE JEWS HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO REJECT THE PREACHING OF HIS APOSTLES, WHEN THEY CALLED THEM TO BELIEVE ON HIM.

CHAP. I.

JESUS CHRIST is called GOD,

As the opinion of those who believe Jefus

Chrift to be a mere man, confecrates the Mahometan religion; fo it alfo juftifies the Jews in the moft execrable naricide that ever was committed; that is, the MURDER OF JESUS CHRIST.

Fully to vindicate the conduct of the Jews in this refpect, on the principles of our oppofers, we need only to fhew; That the Sanhedrim had authority to judge Jefus Chrift-That they had fufficient caufe to condemn him-That they had a right to put him to death-And, that the common people had reafon to adhere to the fentence of their Sanhedrim, and to reject the preaching of the apoftles, when they called them to believe in the crucified Jefus.

The authority of the Sanhedrim to judge Jefus Chrift, is inconteftible; it being the proper bufinefs of that grand court of judicature, to take cognizance of all capital affairs, which regarded the tranquillity of the ftate, and the prefervation of religion. It is equally clear that they had a right to put him to death, on a convic

C 4

tion

tion of blafphemy; and to reject the preaching of the apoftles, if he was juftly put to death. So

that the whole difficulty lies in this; Whether they could convict him of blafphemy. He is no longer on earth. The Jews, therefore, cannot bring him again to the bar, and proceed to a new trial; but they may eafily know his doctrine, by those writings which his difciples have left; for all agree, that they spake and wrote by his order and infpiration.

Now it appears, from the writings of the apoftles, that Jefus Chrift was called GODThat the perfections of God were attributed to him-That he received Divine adoration-That he was equalled with God-And, that the oracles of the Old Teftament, which exprefs the glory of God, were applied to him. But can all this honour be given to a mere man; can all these glories be afcribed to the most exalted of mere creatures, without the guilt of blafphemy ?-Let us, for a moment, put ourselves in the place of the modern Jews; and fee whether, fuppofing the principles we oppose be true, we are not obliged to perfevere in our infidelity. To induce us to renounce it, we must be perfuaded, either, that Chrift was not called God-that he did not receive Divine adoration-that he did not pretend to be equal with his Father-and, that he did not apply, nor fuffer to be applied to him, thofe oracles of the Old Teftament which exprefs the glory of God:-Or else we must believe, that a mere creature may take upon him the name, GOD, with thofe ideas which that auguft name conveys, without being guilty of blafphemy.

The former is not poffible. For Chrift is called GOD, and the TRUE GOD, in the apoftolic writings. Thomas, after the refurrection of Jefus, faid to him; "My Lord, and my God!"

John

John begins his gofpel thus; "In the beginning 86 was the Word-and the Word was God." Paul calls him, "God manifeft in the flesh."It is of no importance whether this name was given to him in Greek, or in Hebrew: for, in all languages, the term fignifies an effence greatly fuperior to ours. Befides, Befides, as the apostles apply to Chrift so many of the ancient oracles, which fpeak of the Supreme Being; they must have given to him the names of God in generalthofe names which were of known, established ufe in the facred language.

Here it is worthy to be remarked, that the feveral heads of accufation, which the Jews may form against Chrift, mutually fupport each other.

We cannot doubt, they might fay, that he 'took on him the name, GOD, fince he received Divine worship: nor can we queftion but he ⚫ was worshipped in a proper fenfe, being adored under a Divine character. We have not the least reason to doubt, but the fublime character 6 was attributed to him, as it expreffes the glory of God; feeing it was applied with the idea of those perfections which are naturally fignified by it for he is faid to be equal with God, after having divine perfections afcribed to him. We cannot but conclude that he is really < equalled with God; because those oracles which fpeak of God only, are applied to him.'-But these things deferve a more particular confideration.

Every one knows, that we all naturally fcruple to take upon us the name, GOD. This backwardness muft arife, either from the reverence we have for the Deity, or from fome other principle. If the latter, what is it? If the former, it must be either from the regard we have for the Supreme Being, or from the respect we have for

C 5

fome