CHRISTIANITY AND MAHOMETANISM.
(Diffusion of each, compared.)

Without doubt the principal cause of the great progress made by Mahomet was the method he took to force those by arms to submit to his religion, who would not embrace it readily. We need not search elsewhere for the cause of his progress; for this was the sole and entire one. I do not deny, but the divisions of the Greek church, whose sects were unhappily multiplied, the bad state of the oriental empire, and the corruption of manners, found a favourable conjuncture for the designs of this impostor;—but after all, what resistance can be made to conquering arms, and forcing subscriptions? Ask the dragoons of France, who made use of this method in 1685; they will tell you, that they will undertake to make the world sign the whole Alcoran, provided they have time to enforce that maxim, “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in. It is very probable, that if Mahomet had foreseen he should have had such good troops at his command, he would not have taken so much pains to forge new revelations, and to put on an air of devotion in his writings, and to tack together so many pieces of Judaism and Christianity. Without engaging in this troublesome business, he might have been sure of planting his religion wherever his arms were victorious; and if any thing were capable of persuading me, that there was a good deal of fanaticism in the case, I should incline to believe it, from the infinite number of things in the Coran, which appear no wise necessary, but to serve when he had no mind to use force. Now there are many things in that book, which are posterior to the first success of Mahomet’s arms.

This truth preserves to the Christian religion one of the exclusive proofs of its divinity. The gospel, preached by obscure persons, destitute of learning and

eloquence, and of all human supports, and cruelly persecuted, yet in a little time prevailed over the whole world. This matter of fact, which no one can deny, would however be of no force, if it could be made appear, that a false church spread as far by the like means. This argument would certainly be spoiled, if it could be proved, that the Mahometan religion owed not the suddenness of its great progress to the violence of its arms. Since therefore there are two things equally clear in the monuments of history; one of which is, that the Christian religion was established without the use of the secular arm; the other, that the Mahometan religion was established by the way of conquest; no reasonable objection can be made against the Christian proof, because this infamous impostor suddenly overspread an infinite number of provinces with his false doctrines. It is well, however, that we have the three first centuries of Christianity secure from this parallel; otherwise it would be folly in us to object to the Mahometans the violence they used for the propagation of the Coran; they would quickly put us to silence, for they need only cite to us these words of Mr Jurieu: “ Can any one deny, that Paganism was destroyed by the authority of the Roman emperors? We may venture to affirm, that Paganism would be still in being, and that three-fourths of Europe would still be Pagan, if Constantine and his successors had not employed their authority to abolish that religion. The Christian emperors have extirpated Paganism, by pulling down its temples, destroying its images, forbidding the worship of its false gods; by appointing preachers of the gospel, in the place of false prophets and teachers, by suppressing their books, and spreading sound doctrine.” Jurieu’s Rights of Two Sovereigns, page 280. ⁸¹ See also the 8th letter of the Picture of Socinianism, at page 501, where the same author affirms, “ That doubtless, had it not been for the authority of the emperors, the temples of Jupiter and Mars would still be kept up, and the false gods of the Heathens would have a great number of adorers?’

We must freely declare the truth: the kings of France have planted Christianity in the country of the Frisons and Saxons by Mahometan ways; and the same force was made use of to plant it in the north. The same ways were also made use of against the sects that durst condemn the pope, and will be used in the Indies, whenever it can be done. And from all this conduct it plainly appears, that we can no longer reproach Mahomet for having propagated his religion by force—I mean, by denying toleration to any other. He might argue thus ad hominem:—If force be wrong in its own nature, it can never be lawfully made use of; but you have made use of it from the fourth century unto this present time; and yet you pretend, you have done nothing in all this but what is very commendable. You must therefore confess that this way is not wrong in its own nature, and consequently, I might lawfully make use of it in the first years of my vocation.—It would be absurd to pretend, that a thing which was very criminal in the first century, should become just in the fourth; or that a thing which was just in the fourth, should not be so in the first. This might have been pretended, if God had made new laws in the fourth century; but do you not found the justice of your conduct, since Constantine till this present time, upon these words of the gospel, “ compel them to come in,” and upon the duty of sovereigns? You should therefore have used force, if you could have done it, from the very day after the ascension.—Bellarmine, and many other writers of the Romish party, would grant him this; for they say, “ That if the Christians did not depose Nero and Dioclesian, it was because they had not sufficient temporal force to do it; but that of right they might have done it, being in no way

obliged to endure a king over them, who is not a Christian, if he endeavour to pervert them from the faith.” They were therefore obliged to set up a sovereign over them who should establish the gospel, and extirpate Paganism, by the means of authority. Mr Jurieu does not differ much from the opinion of Bellarmine; for he tells us that the greatest part of the Christians were patient only through their weakness and want of power; and though he does not blame their conduct in not taking arms against their princes, yet he thinks they had a right to do it; and if they had done it, they could not have been blamed. The three examples he gives of the way in which authority may be lawfully employed, are that of the kings of Israel, that of the Christian emperors, and that of the reformed princes. “ These last,” says he, “ have abolished popery in their states, by removing its professors, by appointing teachers of sound doctrine and pure morals, by burning the images, by burying the relics in the earth, by forbidding all idolatrous worship. In this they were so far from doing any thing against the law of God, that they exactly observed his commands: for it is his will, that the kings of the earth should strip the beast, and break her image. Never did any Protestant, to this day, blame this conduct, and never will any judicious man apprehend the thing otherwise. Things have always been thus, and, if it please God, will always be so, in spite of our libertines and inconsiderate men.” Consult the 284th page of his book, and you will find there these memorable words: “ For the little profit which you might draw from thence now, the church would suffer great loss; and perhaps you would be obliged to retract in a few years, and doubtless you would do it. For if the kings of France and Spain should use their authority to drive popery out of their dominions, as the kings of England and Sweden have done, you would be so far from blaming them, that you would think it very well done. But you may be assured that this is to come to pass; for the Holy Spirit says, ‘ That the kings of the earth, who have given their power to the beast, shall take it from her; and that they shall make her desolate, and eat her flesh/ The same authority of the western kings, who erected the empire of popery, shall destroy it: and this will be perfectly agreeable to the design of God, and to his will; wherefore we shall find nothing in it to gainsay. And therefore, that you may be uniform in your judgment, follow the truth, which never changes; and do not govern your opinions according to interests, which are changing every day.” You see, therefore, that both Catholic and Protestant writers lay it down as an immutable principle, which will hold in all times, that it is lawful to make use of authority for the propagation of the faith. If therefore they enter into dispute with the Mahometans, they must renounce those arguments which have been always used against them from the manner of propagating their religion.

In a contemplation of Mahometanism, however, we lose the proof which is taken from the large extent of Christianity, which furnished the fathers with an argument against the Jews, and the sects which were bred in the bosom of Christianity, and which continued in full force till the time of Mahomet. Since that time we must forsake it; for, considering only the extent, the religion of this false prophet might claim to itself the ancient prophecies as well as the Christian. We cannot therefore sufficiently wonder, when we find the Bellarmines, and such famous writers of controversy, affirm in general, that extent is a mark of the true church: and pretend by this method to gain their cause against the Protestants. Nay, they are even so imprudent as to put prosperity among the marks of the true church. “ Elmacin’s Saracen History,” says Hothinger, “very clearly describes the speedy progress of Mahometanism, and its success against the

Christians; so that I cannot but wonder how Bellarmine stumbled upon so trifling and inconclusive an argument. It was easy to foresee that, as to these two marks, they would be answered, that the Mahometan may more justly pass for the true church than the Christian. The religion of Mahomet is unquestionably of much larger extent than the Christian; its victories, its conquests, its triumphs, are incomparably more illustrious than any thing the Christians can boast of in this kind of prosperity. The exploits of the Mahometans are without doubt the most glorious things that history affords. What can we find more wonderful than the empire of the Saracens, which extended from the Straits of Gibraltar as far as the Indies? Has it fallen? See the Turks on one side, and the Tartars on the other, who preserve the grandeur and renown of Mahomet. Find, if you can, among the conquering Christian princes, any that can be put in the balance with the Saladins, the Gengis-Chans, the Tamerlanes, the Amuraths, the Bajazets, the Mahomets II, the Solimans. Did not the Saracens confine Christianity within the bounds of the Pyrenean mountains? Did they not commit an hundred outrages in Italy, and proceed as far as the heart of France? Did not the Turks extend their conquests to the confines of Germany and the gulf of Venice? The leagues, the crusades, of Christian princes, those grand expeditions which drained the Latin church of men and money, may they not be compared to a sea, whose waves flow from the west to the east, to be broken when they encounter the Mahometan forces, like one that splits against a steep rock? Finally the Christians have been forced to yield to Mahomet’s star; and instead of following him into Asia, they have reckoned it a great happiness to be able to maintain a running fight in the centre of Europe. The Mahometans, being more addicted to war than study, have not written histories equal to their actions; but the Christians, having many great wits, have written histories which excel all that they have done. But notwithstanding this want of historians, these Infidels can tell us, that Heaven has at all times given testimony to the holiness of their religion, by the victories they have obtained. The Christians ought not to use that sophism, and imitate them improperly, as a father of the oratory did. His book is scandalous and of pernicious consequence; for it is founded upon this false supposition, that the true church is that, which God has most enriched with temporal blessings. If we were to determine religious disputes by this rule, Christianity would quickly lose the cause. But prudence will not permit that they should be decided in that manner; they must be fortified by confessions of faith, and no regard must be had, either to extent, or the greater number of victories. I know not whether we may venture to be tried by our morals; but if the infidels should allow the preference to wit, learning, and military virtue, we must take them at their word; for they would infallibly lose the cause at this time; since they are much inferior to the Christians in these three things. A fine advantage, indeed, that we know better than they the art of killing, of bombarding, and destroying mankind! Observe, I pray you, that the Mahometan religion had formerly a large share in that temporal glory which consists in cultivating sciences; for they flourished under the empire of the Saracens with great lustre; who then had fine wits, good poets, great philosophers, famous astronomers, and renowned physicians; to say nothing of several caliphs who acquired a very great reputation by their moral qualities, and those peaceable virtues which are no less valuable than the military virtues. There is, therefore, no kind of temporal prosperity, wherewith that sect has not been favoured in a very distinguished manner.

I have said that it would not be safe to leave it to

be tried by our morals, whether the Christian be the true religion. This requires some explanation, as I do not pretend, that Christans are more irregular, as to their morals than the Infidels; but I dare not affirm that they are less so. It may probably be true, as a general assertion, that Christians and Infidels cannot justly reproach each other; and, if there be any difference between them as to morals, it is attributable more to climate than to religion.—Art,Mahomet.