Eternals than one; thereby adopting the Christian belief*, which inculcates the doctrine of a distinctness of persons in the divine nature.""

Upon the question respecting faith and works, or the doctrines of divine grace, and human merit, the analogy between Judaism, Christianity, and Mahometanism, in the history of their sects, is also substantially preserved: the Pharisees and Publicans in the Jewish church, being paralleled, in ancient Christendom, by the opposed schools of Saint Austin and of Pelagius, and in modern Christendom, by the disciples of Calvin, and those of Arminius; while, in this feature of their history, on the part of Islamism, a correspondence with both dispensations is very forcibly presented, in the contest between the sect of the Waïdians, and that of the Morgians: the former of which sects asserts, in its fullest sense, the moral responsibility of every man for his actions; in direct opposition to the latter, which pushes its rejection of human responsibility, to the last extreme of the antinomian doctrine.t

Among the Turkish sects, this particular controversy has been more generally moved; and

* It is almost needless to observe, that this, like the accusations of modern Socinianism, is grossly inaccurate. Orthodox Christians, while they assert a distinctness of persons in Godhead, expressly state, that it consists of "not three eternals, but One Eternal."

+ Pocock. Spec. pp. 251-257.

their analogy with the conflicting parties in the Jewish and Christian churches is proportionately marked the community of the Dervises, like the followers of Saint Augustine, strenuously upholding the operations of the grace of God in man, as vitally essential to the production of good works; the sect of the Tzofilar, after the example of the Pharisees among the Jews, and of the disciples of Pelagius in the Christian church, strongly advocating the sufficiency of human merit, considered altogether independently of the divine aid and influences. *

Besides the correspondence which has been now briefly indicated between Christianity and Mahometanism, in the history of their sects and schisms, there subsists a further analogy, in the rise of the religious orders, which successively sprang up within the two systems. This feature of the general parallel will find an appropriate place, in the ensuing comparison of the Mahometan with the papal superstition.

* Hott. Hist. Orient. p. 365.

SECTION X.

ANALOGY OF MAHOMETANISM WITH POPERY.

In the preceding sections, the religion of Mahomet has been compared with Christianity at large, in its eastern and western branches; in order to the exposition, on a scale sufficient for the final object of our argument, of the several analogies ascertained to subsist between the two religions.

The analogy of Mahometanism with the church of Rome, constitutes a distinct and prominent feature in the general parallel; and, as such, is entitled to a separate consideration. In a former place *, it was stated, that the rival ecclesiasticopolitical tyrannies appear to be represented in the prophecy of Daniel, under the common symbols of the eastern and western little horns. It shall be my present aim, to trace out more fully the detail of that actual similitude, which made it but natural, that they should be symbolized under a common type.

Before we proceed, however, to the facts of

* Sect. ii.

this detail, it may be satisfactory to reflecting minds, that some notice should be taken of the remarkable providence visible in the particular point of time which gave birth to Mahometanism. From the nature of the primitive relation between the two systems, the inference is plain, that Mahometanism must necessarily have followed Christianity in order of time: it was providentially destined to be the spurious counterpart of the true revelation; with which, consequently, it was impossible that it should synchronize, since it belongs essentially to the character of heresy, that it should spring up from the corruptions of the true faith. Now, the natural and proper season for the rise of such an apostasy would, obviously, be a period wherein the true religion should have reached its lowest ebb of degeneracy. Again, if Mahometanism was ordained to rank as the eastern head of antichrist, it might further be expected to coincide chronologically with the rise of antichrist in the west.— How then, let us inquire, in point of fact, does Mahometanism stand circumstanced in both these respects? The answer of history is conclusive for our argument. It arose in the seventh century of the Christian era; that is to say, precisely at the worst and lowest epoch of corrupted Christianity. It arose, also, in one

and the same age, if not rather in the very year, in which papal Rome first and permanently erected her antichristian tyranny in the opposite quarter of the globe.

The corruptions of Christianity, in the East and in the West, sprang up, it is matter of notoriety, in the apostolic age itself; and grew and multiplied exceedingly, at a very early period of church history. From the first century downward, both the eastern and the western church exhibited melancholy precursive tokens of an approaching universal decline, from the principles, and from the power, of true religion. The gradual declension of the two great branches of Christendom was distinguished, however, from its outset, by this remarkable contrast, that, while the apostasy of the Greek church lay, chiefly, in the generation of heretical pravity, that of the Latin, consisted, principally, in the growth of superstition, and of its never-failing accompaniment, moral corruption. The proficiency of the two churches, in these distinct departments of iniquity, advanced progressively, from age to age, towards full maturity, in despite of many and powerful providential coun

teractions; until, at the commencement of the seventh century, as every kind of authority combines to demonstrate, the decay of religion and morals had become universal, throughout Chris