that oppose the truth, and of reclaiming those who have` wandered from the path of duty. But it is far from being my defign to ufe hyperbolical expreffions and declamatory language, in order to give an hideous defcription of a difguised doctrine. My intention is, to adduce fuch arguments from the Scripture as are pertinent and conclufive, and to propose them in a plain manner; having recourse to the Divine teftimony and right reafon, for the establishment of truth and the confutation of error.-May the wONDERFUL COUNSELLOR enlighten the mind and guide the pen of the writer! that this work may redound to the glory of Gon MY SAVIOUR and prove a bleffing to all its readers. Amen.

17

SECTION I.

If JESUS CHRIST be not the true God, of the fame effence with his Father, the Mahometan religion is preferable to the Chriftian religion, and JESUS CHRIST inferior to Mahomet.

CHAPTER I.

JESUS CHRIST be not of the fame effence with his Father, the Chriftianity we profefs is a corruption of the Christian religion, and Mahometanism the re-establishment of it.

THAT

HAT there is an infinite diftance between the Creator and the creature, is a principle of natural religion. God cannot, therefore, without the most hateful impiety, be treated as a creature; nor can a creature, without damnable idolatry, be treated as a God. If, then, Jefus Chrift be the Creator, he cannot be faid, without impiety, to be a mere creature: and, if he be a mere creature, be cannot, without idolatry, be acknowledged as God. Confequently, if we who confider him, as of one effence with the Father, and the eternal God, be under a mistake, we cannot be cleared from a charge of idolatry, fince it is as such that we worship him.

4

We could not juftify our conduct, by faying; we fincerely believe him to be God; fo that though there is an error in our judgment, yet there is no 4 infidelity in our hearts, our worship being directed to

• God only. For the fame reafon might ferve to excufe all idolaters paft, prefent, and future. The Heathens, who worshipped their Jupiter, really believed him to be God, and their acts of worship were intentionally referred to the Supreme Being; yet they were not the lefs idolatrous on that account.

Nor ought we to imagine that a creature, on account of its fuperior excellence, may become the object of worship, which it would not be lawful to give to one of an inferior order. For they who worship the stars, are as really idolaters, as those that worship wood and stone and they who worship angels, as thofe that worship the ftars: because idolatry does not confift, in rendering divine honours to a creature that is comparatively low in the fcale of dependant exiftence; but in addrefling them

to a mere creature.

;

Here it will be faid, It may be lawful to worship a creature, whom God is pleafed to inveft with his glory; as it is lawful to pay extraordinary honours to a fubject, to whom the king orders they should be 'paid.'-But then it must be granted, that it is never lawful to worship a creature, as the true God; any more than it is to honour a fubject, by treating him as the real fovereign. I may venture to affert, that God neither would, nor could part with this character of his glory, in favour of another. He could not: For it is impoffible that he only fhould be the true God, and that another, who has not his effence, fhould be fo too. He would not: For how could he will a thing, which, being. contrary to the truth, is contrary to his nature?-Suppofe, then, that Chrift is God's reprefentative, and that it is as fuch he is an object of worship; yet, not being God, he cannot, without manifeft idolatry, be worshipped as God.

Again: Idolatry is a crime which violates the law of God and deftroys the fpirit of piety: it is directly oppofite to the two great ends of religion; which are, the glory of God, and the falvation of our fouls. As

to the former, it evidently robs JEHOVAH of his glory, and invests creature with it. As to the latter, the Spirit of infallibility has declared, that "idolaters fhall "not inherit the kingdom of God."

Hence it follows, that the Chriftianity we profefs, is a corruption of the Chriftian religion; and that Mahometanism is the re establishment of it. For if Chriftianity in its primitive purity, reprefent and treat Jefus Chrift as a mere creature; we corrupt and fubvert it, when we confider and worship him, as the true God. If, then the religion of those who worship him as the Supreme Being, be a corruption of Chriftianity; the Mahometan religion, which reprefents God as infinitely fuperior to Jefus Chrift, must be, in this respect, the re-establishment of it.

We have been told, indeed, by Epifcopius, That the Chriftian religion is not a science of bare contem. plation, but a practical knowledge; and, that it confists • in obedience, rather than in any abstracted fpeculations

ar,

on the Deity. I grant the principle, but deny that it is pertinently applied in the cafe before us. What, are thofe fentiments mere fpeculations, which are of such importance, that we are guilty of idolatry, if they be alfe, and our adversaries of blasphemy, if they be true! If our Lord be of the fame effence with his Father; in other words, if he be God by nature; he ought to be adored as fuch: and our opponents cannot, without the greatest impiety, refufe to acknowledge and worship him under that moft exalted character. But if he be mot of one effence with the Father, we cannot confider and addrefs him as the true God, without being guilty of idolatry. So that the great question here is, How may we avoid impiety, on the one hand; and idolatry on the other? confequently, it is practical and of the highest importance.

The learned Arminian juft mentioned, labours much, therefore, to little purpose, when he endeavours to prove, That it is not effential to falvation to know, whether

Jefus Chrift be a divine perfon, by eternal generation; or whether, being a mere creature, he be called God, on account of his ministry.' For, to prove that the knowledge of these things is not effential, he must not only fhew, that the Socinians may, without being idolaters, worship one whom they believe to be a mere man, by nature; but also, that we, without the guilt of idolatry, may adore Jefus Christ as GOD, though he be not fo in reality. If our belief of the eternal generation and confubftantiality of the Son of God, betray us into idolatry; nothing can be more fundamental, or more neceffary, than a knowledge of those questions which refpect his generation and confubftantiality. But it is) certain, that our doctrine, upon this fubject, does lead us into idolatry, if we be in an error, as to the doctrine itfelf. For if Chrift be not of the fame effence with his Father, he is not God: and if fo, we cannot place him on the throne of God, by paying divine honours to him without manifeft idolatry.

Nor have we any excufe, by which to extenuate the impiety of our conduct. For, were we to fay, That we worship him as the Supreme Being, because we verily believe him to be fo;' the Heathens, as before obferved, 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, becaufe, though he be not fo, he deferves our adoration; we fhould only change the state of the question. For the question here, is not, whether he deferves 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 most 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 should afcribe the glory of God to none but God? Or, what