quoted, "Mahometism has been frequently accounted a Christian heresy; and, as it had its origin in Christianity, so to Christ it looks in the end. For, according to the creed of the Mahometans, Jesus is expected to descend to earth, to embrace the religion of Mahomet, to slay antichrist, and to reign with his saints." *

On the whole it appears, that the analogy between the original covenants of Isaac and Ishmael is carried on, and the ecclesiastico-political character of this analogy elucidated, through a full, clear, and consistent, prophetical parallel, foreshown in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and fulfilled in the related and mutually opposed systems of Christianity and Mahometanism; religions incontrovertibly emanating from those two brethren.

In the great antagonist apostasies of Popery and Mahometanism, at once connected and hostile perversions of the one true revelation, Isaac and Ishmael are to be seen, at the same time, linked with, and enlisted against, one another: while the proof of a designed spiritual connection between their covenants is thus preserved,

* For this genuine article of Mahometan belief, see "Mishcat-ulMasabih, or a collection of the most authentic traditions, regarding the actions and sayings of Muhammed.' Calcutta, 1810. Translated from the original Arabic, by Captain A. N. Matthews, Bengal Artillery. Vol. ii. p. 551.

through a period of twelve hundred years, in the history of a twofold antichristian tyranny, catholic and heretical, which, branching out at precisely the same point of time from the true Church, has continued to afflict Christendom, in the East and in the West, from the commencement of the seventh century to the present day.

The concurrent rise, and the parallel progress and decline, of the eastern and western branches of antichrist, here imperfectly delineated, will be more fully examined in another place.*

*See section x.

SECTION IV.

HISTORICAL ANALOGY OF MAHOMETANISM WITH

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

THE inquiry proposed in this section, into the historical analogy subsisting between the Mahometan apostasy on the one hand, and the Jewish and Christian revelations on the other, properly begins with a review of the historical parallel which subsists between the founders of the three religions. For, if a pre-ordained and providential connection really obtains between the religions themselves, there can be no doubt that this connection will be apparent, in the first instance, in the history of the respective founders, Moses, Christ, and Mahomet. Moses was the great type of Christ, the true Messiah; which relation pre-supposes some signal correspondence in their prophetic characters: and Mahomet, who, in the argument of this work, stands to both in the antithetical relation of the eastern head of antichrist, or a spurious

messiah, ought to unite in himself historical marks of agreement with the type and with the anti-type.

*

It is obvious, and has often been remarked, that in many features of the correspondence here proposed for consideration, Mahomet studiously set himself to counterfeit the prece dents of Moses and Christ, in the Law and Gospel. In great part of this analogy, therefore, the resemblance unquestionably is imitation. Instead, however, of being an objection, this broad and undoubted plagiarism affords the strongest confirmation to the fact of a providential parallel. It enters into the definition of a false prophet, that he should copy after the true; of a spurious messiah, that he should counterfeit the genuine; of an antichrist, that he should imitate the Christ. The principle here stated, it rests not with us to argue; it has been fixed, once for all, by our Lord's declaration. He foretold the future rise of false prophets, and false Christs, with these accompanying tokens of their character and pretended missions, that they should assume to be the Messiah foretold by Moses and the prophets,

* In some respects, the agreements could not be common to both type and anti-type: thus, Mahomet was a spurious lawgiver, as opposed to Moses; and a false Messiah, as opposed to Christ.

and that, by lying

and expected by the Jews, signs and wonders, they should so artfully counter-fashion the signs and wonders of the Gospel, as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.* Had not Mahomet, therefore, in his person and in his creed, travestied the historical characters of Moses and Christ, as recorded in Scripture, he must have wanted the proper and essential marks of an antichrist. Nor, without such similitude to Moses in particular, could he, in any sense, rank as a pretender to be the Messiah of the Jews. But he did studiously imitate the greatest of the former prophets in virtue of this studied likeness, he formally presented himself to the Jews as their Messiah: and, by both proceedings, he established incontrovertibly his providential office, as the predicted antichrist of the East.

the

Many of the resemblances in this parallel, on the other hand, are certainly not imitations. And this fact will also claim the special notice of the reader. Inasmuch as, while the existence of studied agreements was essential to fill up character of the eastern antichrist, the existence of undesigned coincidences was not less essential, to mark out, in his appointed coming, the predisposing providence of God. Without re

* St. Matt. xxiv. 24.