any man could well see what was done, or hear what was said: much fitter surely to that purpose were serene and calm days, a time of general civility and peace, like that of Augustus Cæsar. That the declaration of God's mind should issue from the deserts of Arabia, (that den of robbers,) is as if the king should cause his edicts to be set up in the blindest and dirtiest nook of the suburbs: the market-cross surely, or the exchange, (the place of most general and ordinary concourse,) such as, in respect to the world, was the flourishing empire of Rome, were more convenient, and wisely chosen for that purpose. That, passing over the more gentle and tractable part of his people, a prince should send his laws to a rabble of banditti; should pick out for his messenger a most dissolute varlet, attended with a crew of desperate ruffians, resolved to buffet and rifle all they met, were an odd way of proceeding to communicate his pleasure unto the better and more orderly sort of people, (such as were the subjects of that well governed empire;) by persons of good meaning, mild disposition, and innocent behavior, (such as were the Apostles of our Lord ;) in a quiet and gentle manner, (such as these only used;) would surely better become a worthy prince. Thus even the exterior circumstances of Mahometanism, (both absolutely and in comparison,) belonging to its rise, its growth, its continuance, (so full of indecency, of iniquity, of inhumanity,) ground strong presumptions against its divinity; or rather, plainly demonstrate that it could not proceed from God, whose truth cannot need such instruments or such courses to maintain it, whose goodness certainly abhors them. But farther, if we look into the matter and inward frame thereof, we shall find it a mass of absurd opinions, odd stories, and uncouth ceremonies; compounded chiefly of the dregs of Christian heresies, together with some ingredients of Judaism and Paganism confusedly jumbled, or unskilfully tempered together. From Christian heresies it seems to have derived its negative doctrines, opposite to Christianity; as for instance, when allowing Christ much respect, it yet denies his being the Son of God, and that he did really suffer; rejecting his true story, it affixes false ones on him: as also some positive ones; for example, that unreasonable opinion, so much misbeseeming God, that God hath a body, (Mahomet, forsooth, once

touched his hand, and felt it very cold,) might be drawn from the Anthropomorphites; that doctrine concerning the fatal determination of all events, (so prejudicial to all religion, subverting the foundations of justice between God and man, man's free choice in serving God, God's free disposal of rewards suitable to men's actions,) they probably borrowed from the Manichees, a sect that much obtained in those eastern parts. The Jew contributed his ceremonies of circumcision and frequent purgations by washing, his abstinence from swine's flesh, hist allowance of polygamy and divorce: I might add, that perhaps from him they filched that proud, inhuman, and uncivil humor of monopolising divine favor and good-will to themselves; so of restraining their own kindness and respect to persons of their profession or sect; condemning, despising, and hating all the world beside themselves; calling all others dogs, and adjudging all to certain damnation; and, which is more, affirming that all of their belief, how wicked soever their lives have been, shall at length assuredly partake of salvation: so partial do they make Almighty God, so addicted to a mere name and outward show, feigning him, as in shape so in passions, human and like themselves. Indeed in this main part of religion, a true notion of God, his nature, his attributes, his method of providence, their doctrine is very peccant, representing him, in his nature and actions, very unworthily. Their descriptions concerning the state of men after death, (that main and principal part of religion, which gives life and vigor to the rest,) whence can we better deduce its original, than from the Pagan notions or stories of Elysium and Hades? what better pattern can we find, whence that paradise of corporeal delight, or rather of brutish sensuality, should be transcribed, which any man sees how poor an encouragement it is, how unworthy a reward, to virtue; yea, how much it is apt to detract from, to discourage all performances of reason and honesty? The like we might say of the punishments (which in due correspondence to the rewards they propound) they only or chiefly inflict on the body; the main part, it seems, of which a Mahometan man consists. And must he not be very stupid, who can suffer himself to be persuaded that such conceits (conceits favorable indeed to pleasure, and indulgent to the flesh, but contrary to

virtue, prejudicial to the spirit and reason of man) should come from the God of wisdom and holiness? Farther, how Mahomet was inspired, his stories alone will evince; stories patched up out of old histories corrupted, mangled, and transplaced; interlarded with fabulous legends, contrary to all probable records of history, (the names, places, times, and all the circumstances whereof he most unskilfully changes and confounds,) yea repugnant to the nature and possibility of things; so that in a manner every tale he tells is an evident argument of an ignorant and an impudent impostor; and he that so blunders and falsifies about matters of fact, who will trust him in matters of right and reason? which things, if it were worth the while, might by various instances be showed; and you may every where receive satisfaction therein. The like might be said concerning its multitude of silly ceremonies, grounded on no reasonable design, nor subservient to any purpose of virtue; the institution whereof no man therefore, without injury to the divine wisdom, can impute thereto. But I shall only add two farther considerations on this matter: one, that whatever is good or plausible in this religion, (such as are some precepts of justice and charity, although these confined among themselves,) may reasonably be supposed taken from Christianity, which being senior in standing, may (in points wherein both agree) well go for the mistress; and however that, on the score of such doctrines or laws, we have no reason to think this religion came from God; for why should he reveal that again, which in a larger extent, on better grounds, with more advantage, he had declared before; which also then was commonly embraced and acknowleged? I also observe that this religion, by its own free concessions, doth evidently destroy itself; for it admits Christianity once to have been a true doctrine, proceeding from and attested to by God: but Christianity did ever declare itself to be a general, perpetual, perfect, and immutable rule of faith and practice; that never any accessions thereto, any alterations thereof, ought to be made or admitted; that whatever spirit, coming after it, should offer to innovate, or pretend to new discoveries contrary to, or different from it, must be suspected of delusion, foretelling and forewarning against such endeavors that should appear, as fallacious and mischievous:

this, it appears, (by the writings of those who first planted Christianity, writings which no man in his wits can question to be theirs; being through a continual uninterrupted course of times, from the beginning, by general consent of both friends and adversaries, acknowleged and attested to as so; all characters within them imaginably proper for that purpose, confirming the same; as also by the current tradition of their disciples, immediate and mediate, extant in records unquestionable, and by all other means conceivable,) this, I say, it most plainly appears, was one grand doctrine and pretence of Christianity at first, which the Mahometans acknowleging originally true and divine in the gross, must consequently grant itself to be an imposture.

And thus much seems sufficient to demonstrate that religion not to be of a divine extraction. I shall next proceed to consider the pretences of Judaism, and to show that neither it was such a perfect revelation as we proved it probable God would vouchsafe to make. But that shall be the subject of another discourse.

SUMMARY OF SERMON XV.

EPHESIANS, CHAP. I.-VERSE 13.

THE plea of Judaism examined. This religion we acknowlege to have had its birth from God: its truth and goodness we do not question: but we find it in many respects defective, and without the conditions due to such a revelation as we require; for it was not universal; nor full and complete; nor designed to be of perpetual obligation and use.

1. It was not general, nor directed to, or intended to instruct and oblige mankind: itself expresses so much; its whole tenor and frame shows it: so do all the circumstances of its rise and progress. This illustrated by the words of Scripture ; by divers of its laws; St. Paul calling the whole law a partition wall; by the covenant made between God and a particular nation; a covenant in formal terms declaring this. In the body of the law there is often a distinction made between them who were bound to observe it, and others that were not; there are duties enjoined, which others could not properly or decently perform these stated: the same inference drawn from the peculiar rewards of obedience, and punishments of disobedience, &c.

It may be added that, as the laws and rites of this religion were designed only for the Jews; as they did only agree to their circumstances; so they were only suited to their inclinations and capacities: this topic enlarged on. From which and many other obvious considerations it may appear that this dispensation was not, in its nature or design, general; but