apostacy, idolatry, and polytheism: and the Koran is but a system of the old Arianism, ill digested, and worse put together, with a mixture of some Heathenism and Judaism; for Mahomet's father was a Heathen, his mother a Jewess, and his tutor was Sergius the Monk, a Nestorian; which sect was a branch of Arianism these, crudely mixed, made up the farrago of the Koran; but the prevailing part was Arianism; and where that spread itself in the East, there Mahometanism succeeded, and sprung out of it, to let all Christians see the horror of that heresy ! And our Socinians, now among us, who call themselves Unitarians, are much more Mahometans than Christians.

For except some personal things as to Mahomet, they agree almost wholly in his doctrine; and as such addressed themselves to the Morocco ambassador here, in the reign of King Charles II. as you may see in the preface to my Dialogues against the Socinians, printed in the year 1708. Nor do they speak more honourably of Christ and the Holy Scriptures than the Koran does: and there is no error concerning Christ in the Koran, but what was broached before by the heretics of Christianity; as that Christ did not suffer really, but in appearance only, or that some other was crucified in his stead, but he taken up into heaven as the Koran speaks.

So that in strictness, I should not have reckoned Mahometanism as one of the four religions in the world, but as one of the heresies of Christianity. But because of its great name, and its having spread so far in the world, by the conquests of Mahomet and his followers, and that it is vulgarly understood to be a distinct religion by itself, therefore I have

considered it as such.

And as to your concern in

the matter, you see plainly, that the Koran comes in attestation and confirmation of the facts of Christ, and of the Holy Scriptures.

D. I am not come yet so far as to enter into the disputes of the several sects of Christianity, but as to the fact of Christ and of the Scriptures in general, Mahometanism, I see, does rather confirm than oppose it.

C. What then do you think of Judaism, as it now stands, in opposition to Christianity?

D. Not only as without any evidence, the time prophesied of for the coming of the Messiah being long since past; but all their former evidences turn directly against them, and against any Messiah who ever hereafter should come. As that the sceptre should not depart from Judah; that he should come into the second temple; that the sacrifices should cease soon after his death; that David should never want a son to sit upon his throne; that they should be many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, &c. which they do not suppose ever will be the case after their Messiah is come. So that they are witnesses against themselves.

C. And what do you think of the stories of the Heathen gods?

D. I believe them no more than all the stories in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Nor did the wiser Heathens believe them, only such silly people as suck in all the popish legends without examining. And, to tell you the truth, I thought the same of all your stories in the Bible; but I will take time to examine those proofs you have given me. For we Deists

do not dispute against Christianity, in behalf of any other religion of the Jews, or Heathens, or Mahometans, all which pretend to revelation; but we are against all revelation; and go only upon bare nature, and what our own reason dictates to us.

C. What nature dictates, it dictates to all, at least to the most and the generality of mankind; and if we measure by this, then it will appear a natural notion, that there is a necessity of a revelation in religion and herein you have all the world against you from the very beginning. And will you plead

:

nature against all these?

D. The notion came down from one to another, from the beginning, we know not how.

C. Then it was either nature from the beginning, or else it was from revelation at the beginning; whence the notion has descended through all posterities to this day. And there wants no reason for this: for when man had fallen, and his reason was corrupted, (as we feel it upon us to this day, as sensibly as the diseases and infirmities of the body,) was it not highly reasonable, that God should give us a law and directions how to serve and worship him? Sacrifices do not seem to be any natural invention for why should taking away the life of fellow-creature be acceptable to God, or a worship of him? It would rather seem an offence against him. But as types of the great and only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ to come, and to keep up our faith in that, the institution given with the revelation of it, appears most rational. And that it was necessary, the great defection shows, not only of the Heathens, but of the Jews themselves, who, though

my

they retained the institution, yet, in a great measure, lost the true meaning and signification of it; and are now to be brought back to it, by reminding them of the institution, and the reason of it.

Plato, in his Alcibiad. ii. de Precat. has the same reasoning, and concludes, that we cannot know of ourselves what petitions will be pleasing to God, or what worship to give him: but that it is necessary a lawgiver should be sent from heaven to instruct us; and such a one he did expect; and "O how greatly do I desire to see that man," says he, " and who he is !" The primitive tradition of the expected Messiah had, no doubt, come to him, as to many others of the Heathens, from the Jews, and likely from the perusal of their Scriptures. For Plato goes further, and says, (de Leg. 1. 4.) that this lawgiver must be more than man; for he observes, that every nature is governed by another nature that is superior to it, as birds and beasts by man, who is of a distinct and superior nature. So he infers, that this lawgiver, who was to teach man what man could not know by his own nature, must be of a nature that is superior to man, that is, of a divine nature. Nay, he gives as lively a description of the person, qualifications, life, and death of this divine man, as if he had copied the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah: for he says, (de Repub. 1, 2.) that this just person must be poor, and void of all recommendations but that of virtue alone; that a wicked world, would not bear his instructions and reproof, and therefore, within three or four years after he began to preach, he should be persecuted, imprisoned, scourged, and at last put to death; his word is, "cut in pieces," as they cut their sacrifices.

- D. These are remarkable passages, as you apply them; and Plato was three hundred years before Christ. But I incline to think that these notions came rather from such tradition as you speak of, than from nature; and I can see nothing of nature in sacrifices they look more like institution, come that how it will.

C. It is strange that all the nations in the world should be carried away from what you call nature; unless you will take refuge among the Hottentots at the Cape of Good Hope, hardly distinguishable from beasts, to show us what nature, left to itself, would do! and leave us all the wise and polite world on the side of revelation, either real or pretended, and of opinion that mankind could not be without it: and my business now with you has been to distinguish the real from the pretended.

D. By the account you have given, there is but one religion in the world, and ever was: for the Jewish was but Christianity in type, though in time greatly corrupted; and the Heathen was a greater corruption, and founded the fables of their gods upon the facts of Scripture; and the Mahometan, you say, is but a heresy of Christianity. So that all is Christianity still.

C. It is true, God gave but one revelation to the world, which was that of Christ; and as that was corrupted, new revelations were pretended. But God has guarded his revelations with such evidences, as it was not in the power of men or devils to counterfeit or contrive any thing like them. Some bear resemblance, in one or two features, in the first two or three evidences that I have produced; but as