the Heathens, as before observed, might, on the fame principle, juftify the worship which they addreffed to Jupiter.-Were we to plead, We ( are not to be blamed for worshipping him as God, because, though he be not fo, he deferves our adoration;' we fhould only change the ftate of the question. For the queftion here, is not, whether he deserves adoration: but, whether we may adore him AS GOD, though he be not God. Were we to affert,That nothing is abfolutely neceffary to be believed, performed, or avoided, in order to our falvation, but what is moft evidently commanded, or prohibited in the Scripture;' it would only ferve to condemn us. For what is more exprefsly contained in the Bible, than thofe precepts which require, that we fhould ascribe the glory of God to none but God? Or, what is prohibited on more dreadful pains than idolatry, which puts the creature in the place of God? Were we to imagine, That God would not condemn our worship, because he affumes to himself all the honours that are paid to his Son,' a little reflection would convince us of a great mistake. For if Christ be a mere creature, he cannot be called the Son of God, but in an improper and very > remote fenfe.. Confequently, however highly exalted he may be above other creatures, yet the difproportion between him and God is greater, immenfely greater, than that which fubfifts between Gabriel and a worm. If, then, a very excellent creature would take it defervedly ill, to have the honours which are due to himself transferred to one that is mean and vile; with much greater reafon will God be offended, that. the worship which is due to himself only, is ad-dreffed to Jefus Christ. B 5 But · But it is faid, Jefus Chrift represents God.' True: It is, however, certain, that to represent God, is one thing; to be God, is another. But he is the Son of God.' Granted: Notwithftanding, on the Socinian principles, he bears that character only in a figurative sense; confequently, there is a greater distance between him and God, than there is between the meanest infect and the most glorious angel. So that though it were proper to invest the vileft creature, with the titles and glories of the most exalted; it would not be lawful to pay to Jefus Chrift those honours which are due to none but God. CHA P. II. If JESUS CHRIST be not of the fame effence with his Father, Mahomet was a teacher raised up of God to inftruct mankind. IT appears, then, that the Mahometan reli gion is, in fome refpects, the re-eftablishment of Chriftianity, if Chrift be not the true God. But I fhall here be told, That the religion of the Arabian prophet, is replete with fiction and impofture. Granted: Yet I beg leave to inquire, How it came to pass that truth and error made fo ftrict an alliance in it? That Mahomet was an impoftor, is acknowledged : that he abolished idolatry, must also be allowed; and thus two oppofite characters are united in him. If he turned a great part of the world from the Chriftian idolatry;-for so I call that worship which Chriftians pay to Jefus Chrift, if he be not God;-by what fpirit performed he fo great a work? by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the devil? If by the latter, how came he he to abolish idolatry? If by the former, how could he be an impoftor? It may be objected, Mahomet condemned the • worship of the Pagan idols, and fo the dilemma · may be retorted.' But there is a difference between the principles which he fuppofed, and those which he established. The knowledge of the true God had been introduced among the Heathen, and Pagan idolatry was deftroyed, before he appeared in the world. It was not Mahomet, but JESUS CHRIST, by the preaching of his apoftles, who produced thefe great effects: and Mahomet, by what spirit foever he is fupposed to have been infpired, neither durft have attempted to introduce, nor could have eftablished, a religion in the world, contrary to them. But the cafe is not the fame, in regard to the true knowledge of Chrift and the destruction of Chriftian idolatry. It was Mahomet who taught mankind, that Chriftians, in worshipping Jefus Chrift as God, were guilty of idolatry. It was his chief defign to rectify the mistakes of thofe, who, as he thought, worshipped feveral gods under the name of a TRINITY; for fo he speaks in his Koran. As, therefore, Chrift and his apostles were the reformers of the Heathen world, by destroying Pagan idolatry; fo Mahomet ought to have the honour of reforming the Chriftian world, if it be true that he really deftroyed the Chriftian idolatry.-But, as we should have had abundant caufe of attonishment, if the apoftles had destroyed the Pagan idolatry and converted the Heathen world, by preaching fables; fo we fhould have equal reafon to be furprised, if Mahomet abolished the Chriftian idolatry by imposture. Befides, Jefus Chrift declares, that teachers are known by their fruits." This maxim must be be true, because it was fpoken by truth itself. If, then, we apply this principle to the cafe before us, we cannot but conceive an high opinion of Mahomet, and acknowledge him to have been a great prophet. It is no more than juftice to his character, if he was the person who taught mankind the iniquity and the danger of confounding God with a creature. For he has enlightened many nations and many ages. Like a wife and fincere worshipper of his Maker, and the friend of mankind, he has placed God on the throne of God, and the creature in the rank of a creature. What more lawful, what more holy, than fuch a defign? What could be nobler, what greater, than fuch a work? If Mahomet have indeed enlightened the world,. by afferting the rights of the Deity, and overturning the Chriftian idolatry, he deferves thofe titles of honour which the Muflulmen give him; and we may boldly affirm, that he ought to be confidered, as a teacher of truth and a prophet of God— a prophet, greater than any that were under the law, greater than Jefus Christ. These are strange and fhocking paradoxes, yet certain and unavoidable truths, if Chrift be not the true God. I faid, he is a teacher of truth. This cannot be denied, while he teaches mankind fuch effential truths. This first principle of facred truth, A mere creature ought not to be worshipped as GOD; is the foundation of natural religion, as diftin-: guifhed from fuperftition-of the Jewish religion, as oppofed to Pagan idolatry-and of the Chriftian religion, confidered in its purity. Mahomet, then, who eftablifhed his religion on this grand principle, is a teacher of truth, of divine truth; even of that truth which, of all others, is most important and effential to religion. But 6 • But Mahomet aims at the gratification of fordid paffions, and is rather a teacher of the flesh than of the fpirit.' If fo, we have reason to wonder that so much truth is attended with fo much impurity and vice; for light and darknefs have no communion. If, then, he did not act by the Spirit of God, it must have been by the spirit of the world; and if by the latter, then not by the former. We muft, therefore, inquire after the characters of these two fpirits in him.— We are told, that He is impure in his maxims ' and morals.' This is a character of the fpirit of the world; but the fact must be admitted with fome reftriction. For Mahomet reformed religion, by overturning the Chriftian idolatry, and caufing God only to be worshipped, through a great part of the world. This is, undoubtedly, a character of the Spirit of God, and a strong prefumption in his favour. For how fhould an impoftor promote the good-pleasure and the honour of God, by enlightening mankind and destroying idolatry? What, has God invefted an impoftor with the highest character of his own prophets, and with that of his own Son! For the prophets, who predicted the coming of the Meffiah, foretold alfo, as a character of his appearance, that he fhould destroy idolatry. What, has the most Holy made an impoftor the inftrument of his mercy and the minifter of his glory! What should we have thought of the Divine conduct, if God had chosen devils incarnate to be his meffengers to mankind and preachers of his gospel? We fhould certainly have concluded, either that he intended to render the gospel deteftable, by putting it into the mouths of devils; or, that he defigned to confecrate thofe apoftate fpirits, by making them the depofitaries of his truth, and minifters |