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 false, 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 use 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 greatness and grandeur. And it would be but a poor apology for the ufe of fuch expreffions, were we to endeavour to defend them by saying; 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 detefted, as abfolutely unlawful.-If in the style of the world, mortal beauties be called adorable; if they be spoken of as fo many divinities; the language, though figurative, 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, 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 ufed 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 easily taken for the Supreme Being!

Again: If Jefus Christ be not of the fame effence with his Father, Mahomet was much wifer than he. As wisdom confifts in choofing the belt 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 himfelf: 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 ufe of plain, and ftrong, 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 other beings. The ancient prophets foretelling that God fhould be glorified, in an extraordinary manner, in the latter times, exprefs their ideas in the following words; "The lofty looks of men fhall be humbled, and the haughtiness of man fhall be bowed down, and the "LORD ALONE 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 himself 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 be:' I answer, It would be a haughty kind of modelty for a mere creature to fay, The Former of all things is greater than I. Neither Mofes nor Ifaiah, nor any of the prophets, ever used fuch language. A loyal fubject never affects to say, 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 say, 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?

66

It may, perhaps, be replied, Here you beg the queftion: for thofe expreffions, from which your • conclufion is drawn, require a very different interpre⚫tation.' When, for instance, Jefus is called GoD, our adverfaries will have the name to fignify, that he was fent from God and reprefents 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 expreflions mean, that he was from the time of John the Baptift, is the author of the gofpel, and of all that is done under that difpenfation. When he is called, "GOD manifeft in the flesh;" the character fignifies a creature that reprefents 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 accomodation, and not in a literal and proper fense.A fmall share of common fenfe is quite fufficient to fhew how unnatural and violent thefe 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 Christian 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 Christ 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 represent a creature as possessed of the characters and properties of God. Whereas Chrift and his apostles have ufed many expreffions that are obfcure and equivocal; fuch as, in their most common acceptation, feem to inveft a creature, a mere man, with the glories of the Deity: we being obliged to understand the terms of which a difcourfe confifts, in their common and natural fignification, and not in one that is uncommon and forced. Confequently the language of Mahomet is more proper to glorify God, than the language of Chrift; and, therefore, if the defign of the latter was to honour and exalt God, he has not fucceeded in it fo well as the former.

Further: If the fentiments of our adverfaries be true, Mahomet was more concerned for the good of mankind than Jefus Chrift. This appears from hence. A prudent and diligent endeavour to preferve men from idolatry, is one of the greatest marks of a fincere regard to their happiness; because idolatry deftroys their fouls, by excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. If, then, Jefus Chrift be not a divine perfon, of the fame effence with his Father, he has not taken proper measures to preferve men from the dreadful evil of idolatry, while Mahomet has done it effectually: for he has abolished the Chriftian idolatry in a great part of the world, and laid fuch foundations of his own religion, that a man cannot be guilty of idolatry, without firft ceafing to be

his difciple. But as for Chrift, he has given occafion to it; he has laid a foundation for it. For he does not only permit and direct his difciples to give him the titles of the Supreme Being; but alfo to afcribe to him the perfections and works of the Deity, and to apply to him many of the fublimeft oracles of the Old Teftament, which relate to the God of Ifrael.

It was, for inftance, a very surprising thing, that Jefus, when he appeared to Thomas, after his refurrection, fhould fuffer him to cry out, 66 MY LORD, AND MY GOD!" without faying a word to him about the impiety and blafphemy of an exclamation, which treats the creature as if he were the Creator. Thomas, before, was an unbeliever; now he is an idolater. Till that inftant, he would not believe that Jefus was rifen; he confidered him as a man lying under the power of death; but now, on a fudden, he addreffes him as God; he bows and adores. Of the two extremes, the latter is most condemnable; for unbelief is not fo criminal as idolatry. That difhonouring Jefus Chrift; this ufurping the throne of God. Better for Thomas, therefore, to have perfifted in this unbelief, than, by renouncing it, to fall into idolatry. And yet-ftrange indeed! ftrange to astonishment! who can account for it? Jefus upbraids him only with the former; not at all with the latter.— Befides, as our Lord could not but know what an impreffion thefe words of his amazed and adoring apoftle would make on the minds of men; as he knew that the Jews, deceived by expreffions lefs acceptionable than thefe, had accused him of blafphemy; and as he knew that these very expreffions would give occafion to Christians in fucceeding ages, to treat him as the true God; it is evident that he ought, from a concern for the good of mankind, to have strictly prohibited all expreffions, which tended to make fuch a dangerous impreffion. And yet he not only permits his difciples to speak after this manner; but directs them to record the expreffions, for the perufal of all future generations; and that without giving the leaft