of promise; and the Messiah, the heir and dispenser of his blessing, came by promise. The birth of Ishmael was not the subject of promise*; and Mahomet, the only analogous inheritor and conveyancer of his blessing, came without promise. Isaac was the legitimate seed; and, conformably with the dignity of his birthright, became the rightful promulgator, through Christ, his descendant, of the true faith of the Gospel. Ishmael was the illegitimate seed; and, consonantly with the disadvantage of his birth, became the suitable progenitor, through Mahomet, his descendant, of the spurious faith of the Koran. † In a word, the parts of this entire parallel lie over against each other, like two answering tallies the discrepancies contributing, perhaps still more than the agreements, to the completeness of the proof 59, by the just distance which they preserve between the original promises, as viewed in their fulfilments. The objects proposed in the following work are, to trace out these promises and fulfilments in their principal parts and bearings; to examine the case of Mahometanism, as a providential * Saint Paul has specially noted this important distinction between the two brethren. See Gal. iv. 22, 23. Since this was written, I remark with satisfaction a valuable coincidence of view, in a philosophical observer of the phenomena. Mr. Turner styles "the Mahometan system, a spurious offspring, the Ishmael of Christianity." Hist. of Eng. vol. iv. p. 431. arrangement growing out of the Ishmaelitish covenant ; and, by these means, to throw additional light on the truth and divine authority of the Gospel. It is hoped that, in the course of this argument, the chief difficulties of Mahometanism will be solved, and its embarrassments disentangled; while that which has hitherto been regarded as a triumph by the infidel, and a stumbling-block by many a sincere Christian, will be converted into a new argument and evidence, in behalf of our most holy faith. The soundness of the principle on which this inquiry is conducted may be brought directly to a severe and satisfactory test, by trial of its effects upon the phenomena of Mahometanism : first, as measuring by a just standard, whatever is objectionable in its character; and, secondly, as vindicating the ways of Providence, in the permission of this overwhelming heresy. 1. An immediate result of the reference of Mahometanism, for its origin, to the promise of God to Abraham concerning Ishmael, must be the conviction, that, both as to its merits and its defects, the religion of Mahomet has hitherto been tried by a wrong standard. Its merits and defects have constantly been estimated by comparison with Christianity: whereas, if we at all admit the principle in question, Judaism, and not Christianity, should, in the first place, be made the touchstone. 60 The questionableness of the comparison with Christianity is particularly observable, as it affects the objectionable features of Mahometanism. The purity of the Gospel presents a startling contrast with the lax morality of the Koran. Its spirit of peace is irreconcileably at issue with the spirit of a religion, preached by armed missionaries, and propagated by the sword. But it may fairly be asked, is this direct and unqualified comparison reasonable and just? And the principle on which our present argument is founded suggests the reply, that it is not. The reference of Mahometanism to the original promise in favour of Ishmael, and the admission of a pre-ordained and germinant connection between this lesser promise, and the great promise to Isaac, lead unavoidably to the conclusion, that, in the first instance, Judaism is the only proper standard of comparison. But, as measured by this standard, the parallel stands upon very different grounds. Those features of Mahometanism, which wear only the character of unmitigated deformity, when tried by the pure and searching light of the Gospel, and which will not endure for a moment the touch of this Ithuriel spear, find sufficient precedents and parallels, when brought into contact with the punitive precepts, and carnal ordinances, of the Mosaic law.* The law of Moses, as well as that of Mahomet, recognised and enforced the doctrine of appeal to the sword. 61 The Mosaic and Moslem systems were equally remarkable for the exterminating severity, prescribed and exercised by both, against idolatry, in whatever form or disguise. And the conquest of Canaan presents, on a diminished scale indeed, but in a yet more rigorous and uncompromising shape, the perfect model for the erection, in an after age, of the conquering domination of Mahomet. 62 Again, the law of Moses, as well as that of Mahomet, acknowledged, by its sanctions, the received laws and customs of the East, on the subjects of marriage and concubinage. † The doctrines of a plurality of wives, of divorce, and of legitimate concubinage, it is true, are barely deducible from the Pentateuch ‡, while they are palpably and obtrusively put forward in the Koran: but the practice of the Israelites, in process of time, went far beyond the permissive precepts of their law; and the inner apartments of their kings and nobles are graphically recalled to mind, by the similar and rival structures at Bagdad or * Sale, Prelim. Discourse, p. 162. Mills, pp. 332-334. Constantinople. Abuses, at once indicated and explained by the Gospel declaration, that the latitude allowed or tolerated by the law of Moses, was conceded, not in the way of precept, but of permission; and that the concession was extorted from the reluctant lawgiver, by the waywardness of a hard-hearted and disobedient people. ** But if this explanation be sufficient, as undeniably it is, for the vindication of the law of Moses, we cannot with any consistency reject its application, so far as it applies, to the extenuation of that of Mahomet. He found the Arabs at least as corrupt and incorrigible in their morals †, as Moses, in his day, had found the ancient Israelites. Polygamy and concubinage had obtained the sanction of immemorial prescription among the tribes of the peninsula. If, therefore, he shunned the encounter with human prejudices and passions in these their strongest holds, it is bare justice only that this uninspired legislator, himself but just emerged from the darkness of Paganism, should be admitted to plead the apology, which the highest authority vouchsafed to offer in behalf of the inspired lawgiver of the Jews. The personal morals of Mahomet, however, St. Matt. xix. 7, 8. + White, Bampt. Lect. p. 159. |