From the Archives – Unity vs Trinity (Part I of II)

The original article does not have an author’s name; however in the early days of The Review of Religions Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Founder of The Review of Religions, would write articles in Urdu which would be translated into English.

For those who believe in God and His attributes and in the reward of good and evil hereafter, it is of the first importance to find out the true means of salvation.

If the Divine laws of nature, the human nature itself, the plainest evidence in the teachings of the Holy Books of God, the opinion of the majority of the believers in His revealed word, and other living and incontrovertible proofs, all tend to show and speak with one voice that there is no salvation except through the blood of Jesus Christ^as, and no deliverance from eternal punishment but through a belief in the mysterious doctrine of Trinity, injustice and iniquity could go no further than reject these two blessings to fallen humanity. These are sure and infallible tests and can never lead to an erroneous conclusion, and therefore we may trust to their combined evidence for guidance in determining the truth or falsity of the two central dogmas of the Christian faith. We shall briefly consider the evidence of each of these five witnesses and point out the conclusions that follow.

The doctrine of salvation, as preached by the Christian missionaries, is too well-known to be stated at any length. Salvation, they say, depends upon two things. In the first place, a man should believe in the doctrine of Trinity i.e., he should regard the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as three separate and co-eternal gods, yet constituting only one eternal God. Thus he must believe them to be three and one, at one and the same time. The second indispensable requisite for salvation according to the Christians is a belief in the dogma that Jesus Christ^as died on the cross, and by means of this accursed death shared with Satan the curse which of old had always been the lot of the Prince of Darkness and the unclean spirits. And we are told that those who believe in the curse upon Jesus^as, shall be saved the evil consequences of the dangerous curse which sows the seed of unbelief, iniquity and all other evils in the heart of man, turns him to the path of faithlessness, blinds the heart, and is the cause of an ever-widening separation and an ever-increasing enmity between the heart of man and the Divine Master. As to those on whom this curse falls and who partake of it, it is necessary that, as heirs of the author of evil, their hearts should turn away from God, and that they should hate Him, and thus fall into an eternal hell; for curse is the dark taint which brands the face of Satan. But Jesus^as, it is said, so loved the world that he himself requested his Father to subject his heart to this perilous curse so fraught with danger and attended with consequences equally dangerous.

This is the summary of the principles on which rests the salvation offered by the Christian missionaries, and it is with regret that we have to say that both these dogmas are dead against the laws of nature, repugnant to the nature of man, unsupported by the Holy Books of God, uncorroborated by any living and conclusive proofs, and rejected by the opinion of the majority of those who have inherited the revealed books.

Take Trinity first and we see that Divine law goes quite against this strange doctrine. Every thing, in its simplest form, has been created by God in a spherical or round shape—a fact which attests to and is consistent with the Unity of God. Look at the earth and the great heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon and stars; are they not all spherical? The elements also show a rotundity in shape. Take a drop of water and it is also spherical. Had the doctrine of Trinity been true, all these things should have been created in a triangular shape. The handiwork of a three-cornered god ought to have been three-sided like its maker. The stars of the heavens and the elements of the earth should all have been triangular so as to serve as an indication to trinity in the person—or persons, whichever is consistent with the Christian theology—of the Creator. It strikes strange that the nature of God should have been triangular, and the creation of His hand should without an exception have followed the law of sphericity. The more we look into the laws of nature, the more are we convinced that the doctrine of Trinity finds no support in nature and is plainly rejected by the Divine law.

Evidence from the first source thus utterly subverting the theory of Trinity, we shall now consider if it is consistent with human nature. A mere glance would show that the idea is as strongly repulsed by human nature as by the natural laws. Christian theologians admit, and Rev. Pfander supplies written testimony in his Mizan-ul-Haq, that people who have not been brought to the knowledge of Trinity by missionary efforts, though otherwise endowed with reason and all the human faculties, shall not be called to account for not believing in Trinity, but that their salvation shall only depend upon a belief in the Unity of God, unlike those to whom the doctrine of Trinity has been preached, whom a belief in the Unity shall not avail. Had the doctrine of Trinity any reality, it should have had its evidence in human nature, and then all human beings whom God had granted reason, no matter this doctrine had or had not been ever preached to them, should have been judged according to their belief in the Trinity of God. If there is any trace of this doctrine in the human nature, why is not man culpable for rejecting it. It is evident that the laws revealed to man through the prophets of God, are an image of the principles implanted in the nature of man. It is highly repulsive to the moral feelings of man that he should be compelled to accept that as his faith, of which he does not witness the least trace in his own nature. The plain dictates of human nature are the Unity of God and the absence of any rival or partaker. The three or four-sidedness of God or His alleged composition of three persons, is quite foreign to the nature of man. It is otherwise as to His oneness which is strongly impressed upon man’s nature. It is for this reason too that although ignorance and superstition have invented thousands of gods and goddesses to serve particular purposes, yet human nature, never resting satisfied with these self-made deities, has always attested to the existence of One Supreme God, and even idolators have acknowledged the existence of the Supreme Being with whom their minor deities served as intercessors. How can we account for this except that human nature bearing as it did very strong impressions of the Unity of its Creator, could never rest contented with the plurality of gods, but was compelled from within to acknowledge, above them all, the One True God.

Having seen the utter failure of the scheme of Trinity so far as Divine laws and the human nature could testify, we shall now turn to the third criterion and see what the prophets taught in plain words on this much contested point. Notwithstanding the alterations and corruptions which the teachings of the prophets have undergone, we still observe a strong element in them relating to the Unity of God. From the Book of Genesis to that of Malachi, all the prophets have in unfaltering tones declared the Unity of God, and have laid stress upon it to an extent that establishes the doctrine conclusively and renders it impenetrable to the least doubt. A few instances will suffice by way of illustration: Ex. 34:14 ; Dan. 3:28; Is. 40:18, 44:6 and 8, 55:5 and 6 ; Jer. 10:6 ; Hos. 13:4; Ps. 86:10 ; Neh. 9:6 ; I Chs. 17:20. Instances can be multiplied by hundreds in which the books of the Old Testament have taught in clear words the Unity of God. The Gospels notwithstanding that they have been, most of all, subjected to alterations from human hands, also bear witness to the same teaching in plain words in their plainest sense and no trace of Trinity will be observed in them. If the clear teachings of all those books which inculcate the Unity of God were placed in one scale of a balance and the false and whimsical assumptions of Christianity, due either to a misconstruction of certain prophecies or to a misunderstanding of certain allegorical phrases of the New Testament, in the other, the difference in the weight of evidence will be apparent to the dullest understanding, if it is not dead to all sense of shame and fear of God. Any one who takes the trouble to cast a glance first at the conclusive and positive evidence relating to the Unity of God preached by the prophets and the Holy Books, and then at the dubious and vague assertions, the whims, so to say, of the Christians, brought forward and even fabricated to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ^as, shall not have the least hesitation in coining to the conclusion that to expect any evidence of Trinity in the Holy Word of God delivered to mankind through the prophets, is as vain a desire as blowing at the sun under the delusion of extinguishing its light. I challenge every hired and unhired defender of Christianity to come forward and show if the same clearness and definiteness, the same emphasis and repetition, mark the teaching of Trinity as that of Unity in the Word of God. I most emphatically assert that the weight of evidence in the case of the latter principle is out of all proportion to the weight of the alleged proof in that of the former.

If any one can show that the same stress is laid upon Trinity as upon Unity in the revealed word of God, I would be the first to recant my principles and accept the opposite doctrine. But if such strong proof of Trinity cannot be had anywhere, it does then become the Christians to doff religious prejudice and not to reject the strong and conclusive arguments of Unity with nothing but whims and flim-flam in their hands to support their mysterious dogma. If they are determined to erect the whole building of their creed on the shaky foundation of obscure and vague assertions, what reason have they to blame their Hindu brethren for deifying Rama or Krishna. If gods can be made in this arbitrary fashion, the list of gods, instead of being limited to three, would soon swell to an enormous extent. What a bare-faced injustice that when the words God or Son of God or similar other metaphorical phrases are spoken of the prophets in the Bible, they still remain men and do not for that reason partake of Divinity, but when the same or even inferior words are used of Jesus Christ^as, or are only deemed to have been used of him, it being a matter of dispute whether they actually apply to him or to some body else, he is metamorphosed and becomes a god. If we can make gods of men in this arbitrary manner, then although the turning, of copper into gold may be impossible, yet the turning of men into gods or the God-manufacturing business would be an extremely easy task. But I ask if we can depend upon and find consolation in a God that is the creation of mortal whims and fashioned by mortal hands.

Having shown that the Bible lends no support to the doctrine of Trinity, we now come to the fourth point. Under this heading we shall discuss if the majority of the people of the Book have regarded Trinity as true. It is admitted on all hands that the Jews are the first heirs to the Bible, and among them Moses^as was the greatest prophet who gave a standing and perfect law to his people. He not only delivered the law to them but himself acting as the commentator explained it fully and cleared off all doubts as to the meaning of any passage in it. Now all the books of Moses^as without a single exception lay stress upon and assert the oneness of the Lord God in clear, definite and emphatic words, and the Israelites were commanded to learn these teachings by heart, bind them for a sign upon their hands and write them upon the posts of their houses and upon their gates. They were also warned that if they went aside from the path (of Unity) set for them and forgot the teachings relating to it, they shall be destroyed from off the face of the earth, severely punished from heaven as well as earth, smitten with incurable diseases, scourged with scale and itch, and brought to destruction in blindness and madness. The same teachings were further emphasised by giving, along with this warning of curse, a promise of blessings and bounties if they stuck fast to them.

To all these precautions for the safe preservation of this all-important doctrine, is to be added the fact of successive prophets continuing to rise from among the Israelites for fourteen hundred years which bring us close upon the time of Jesus^as. They never witnessed an interval during which they were left without a prophet. Moses^as himself did not leave them at the time of his death without a guide and guardian, but left Joshua his Minister as his substitute and as a leader of the people. The system of prophets that rose among the Israelites after Moses^as and walked in the footsteps of their great predecessor, is without a parallel in the history of the world. An enquirer, who casts aside the trammels of prejudice for a while, will at once be convinced that nothing could be more wonderful than that the Jews could have forgotten the central and most emphatic doctrine of all the books and the great aim of all revelation, which had repeatedly been communicated to them through an unbroken chain of continuously rising prophets, which was ever kept fresh in their memories and which had practically been acted upon by their fathers. And wonder of wonders that the radical principles of the Bible teachings, the doctrines of Trinity and Atonement, taught to the Jews through the prophets should have so passed out of their memories as not to have left the slightest trace behind them.

The teachings relating to the person and attributes of God were not simply related in the Bible as tales but were most deeply impressed upon the minds of the people, so much so, that their children and old women were also cognisant of them. Now if a denial of the Trinity and Atonement was really such a deadly sin and a blasphemy that the denier was for that reason to be condemned to eternal hell, how was it that the teachings of the prophets related these cardinal doctrines in such an obscure and ambiguous style. If really the case had been as is deemed by the Christians, it was the primary duty of all the prophets to bring Trinity to the front and enjoin a belief in it in the most unmistakable terms, taking care to avoid all words that could have led to the contrary conclusion of the oneness of God. But to the great bewilderment of the Christian theologians, the case is quite the contrary. All the books from the first to the last teem with the teachings of Unity, and the whole attention of the people was directed to this one great purpose, and the result was a deep impression upon the whole nation of the Unity of God. Had all the prophets from Moses^as downwards inculcated the doctrine of Trinity and declared this to be the chief object of their embassy from the Most High, the Israelites could not have been so utterly ignorant of it. If, as is alleged, Trinity and the blood of Jesus^as formed the groundwork on which rested the salvation of men, why did Moses^as and the prophets keep back this matter of life and death and not promulgate it? And if they ever propagated such a doctrine, it still remains to be solved why their books do not contain the slightest trace of it? How are we to explain the obvious fact that all the Jewish sects are as unconscious of this puzzle of Trinity as the son of a Muslim of the gods of Hindus, of their modes of worship and of the formulae of idol-worship? The solution of this problem remains as great a mystery as the doctrine of Trinity itself.

From the earliest times to our own day the Jewish sects have borne an unbroken testimony in their speeches and writings, and they still proclaim with a loud voice, that they were never taught Trinity and Atonement, nor is there the remotest trace of these strange doctrines in their Holy Books, and that a god-man had never been promised to them. Even if we admit the stubbornness, the bloodthirstiness, the iniquities and the transgressions of the Jews, justice compels us not to be so hard upon them as to suppose that they at any time expunged from the Bible the teachings of Trinity and Expiation which were the foundation-stones of their faith, and inserted in it in numerous places the simple doctrine of the oneness of God which resembled the teaching of the Qur’an on the point, and that they had all arranged and agreed to take this step. The absurdity of any such supposition appears further from the fact that the various Jewish sects, notwithstanding numerous points of difference, all testify in one voice that the doctrines of Trinity and Atonement had never been preached to them.

To secure further evidence, I wrote to certain learned Jews enquiring of them if the doctrines of the Old Testament relating to the person and attributes of God, resembled the Trinity and Atonement of the Christians or the teachings on the point of the Holy Qur’an. Their evidence was simply asked for as unprejudiced testimony, for they denied the revelation of the Qur’an and the Gospels alike. Their reply was in accordance with what I have shown above, viz., that the Bible taught the Unity of God from the first to the last, and not one jot of it gave any support to the doctrine of Trinity or Atonement. The injunctions of the books of the prophets in this respect, they wrote, resembled those of the Qur’an and were totally opposed to the Trinity and Atonement of the Christians. The books of Moses^as and those of the other prophets did not contain the slightest trace of the Christian doctrines, and they were at a loss to know how to reconcile the plain teachings of their Holy Books with the puzzling innovation of the Christians. It is the duty of every one who claims to follow truth to decide for himself this most important question and not to allow it to pass unnoticed. It is known to all that the Jews, who are called the people of God, were chosen as the first scholars in the Divine school under the guidance of righteous prophets who were constantly among them during the 1400 years that followed Moses^as. Notwithstanding the continuous revival of the teachings of the books of Moses^as by the successive rising of the prophets, and the constant presence of the Word of God spoken through them, which rendered a resort to the principle of analogical deduction unnecessary, nothing is more surprising than that the Jews should have remained so ignorant of the doctrines of Trinity and Atonement, although upon them alone depended their salvation. In vain did the prophets preach and in vain were their lives spent if they did not even communicate to the people the true doctrine of salvation, and thus utterly failed to fulfil the object for which they had been raised by God. Does not a thinking mind pause here to seek the reason of this deep mystery? Can the Christian doctrine of the attainment of salvation be reconciled by any sane person with the utter absence among the Jews of any sect or school which might for a moment have ever thought of faith in these two mysterious dogmas?

Add to it the circumstance that among the Christians there have been, and there still are, sects that have rejected Trinity. Consider now what remains in the hands of a Christian to boast of. Had all the sects of Christianity been unanimous as to this doctrine, a Christian might have caught at this last straw to console himself. But as it is, this is a bitter draught for Christians that internal differences as to the supposed corner-stone of salvation have undermined the whole foundation of their faith, and brought them face to face with the convincing argument of the Unity of God. The existence of Christian Sects that have rejected Trinity from the oldest times, as the Qur’an has also testified, proves it beyond doubt that as the doctrine of Trinity is repugnant to the Divine laws and to human nature, and disclaimed—nay repudiated—by the Holy Word of God, it is in like manner rejected by the evidence of an overwhelming majority of those who have inherited the Book of God.

All these witnesses having separately and combine disproved the doctrine of three gods, it remains for us to see if there is any peculiarity about Jesus Christ^as on whose basis his claim to Deity is supported. With a full knowledge of all the facts that are known about Jesus^as, I assert it positively, before all the world with a conviction as strong as it is possible for man to have, that there is nothing in Jesus^as above an ordinary human being, which may lead us even for a moment to entertain the idea that he was God. Much stress is laid upon his birth, but what are we to say of the first man, the parent of mankind, who had neither father nor mother. We never consider him God. Moreover, we see in our every-day experience thousands of worms brought into existence without any father. Shall we for that reason take them to be the Almighty Being that created the Universe, or are they to be considered as the sons of the Most High? I consider it as an invaluable favour of the Qur’an upon Jesus^as and his mother that it falsified the base charges of 600 years’ standing by verifying the birth of Jesus^as to have taken place in a manner which washed off the blemish from Mary. As to what the Jews allege with regard to this birth, the subject is so indecent that even a passing allusion could not be made to it. In short, the birth of Jesus^as is unattended with any such peculiarity as may entitle him to Divinity. On the other hand, learned physicians of the Greek and Indian Schools have given instances of such cases, rare though they be, and shown the possibility of a child being formed in the mother’s womb without the seed of man.

Neither does the fact that Jesus^as called himself the Son of God serve as any evidence of his actually being the Almighty God, for the Old Testament teems with such expressions as the Son of God, and not only the sons but also the daughters of God have been mentioned therein. One verse goes even so far as to say that we are all gods, and of Israel the Lord says, “Isreal is my son, even my first-born” (Ex, 4:22). Now all that is stated is that the expression Son of God has been used of Jesus Christ^as, but, as we have shown above, the same expression and even stronger ones have been used of numerous other persons in the Bible. What is the test to decide and who shall decide that in the one case the expression has been used metaphorically and in the other literally and actually? Is there any reason to suppose that the words are to receive a particular interpretation in the case of Jesus^as? The truth is that unable to realise the true sense of the expression, the Christian theologians have committed a blunder in interpreting it. Those who understand theological terms, know full well that expressions of honour and endearment, similar to the one under discussion, are constantly used in the Word of God of such of his chosen people as are His beloved ones. It is these metaphorical expressions which, when they fall into the hands of ignorant persons, are turned to the use of deifying those to whom they refer, an idea quite foreign to the original use. In the Gospels even Adam is spoken of as the Son of God. Are we then to take him actually so? Before we proceed to consider the claims of Jesus^as, it must be settled whether Adam was actually the Son of God, for he, too, like Jesus^as is honoured with the title.

If the use of such metaphorical expressions is sufficient to turn a man into a God, a Muslim may as well declare his own Holy Prophet^sa as God on the strength of the Holy Qur’an. Speaking of the Prophet^sa the Holy Book says, “the hand (of the Prophet) which is upon your hands is the hand of God.” Thus in this verse Almighty God terms the hand of the Prophet as His own Divine hand. Another verse runs this; “Say (0 prophet!) 0 my servants! who have transgressed upon your souls, do not despair of the grace of God, for God forgives all the sins.” In this verse all the people have been called as the servants of the Prophet being elsewhere called the servants of God, and furthermore the verse gives him the right of pardoning the sins of men. If the actual Divinity of man can be inferred from any circumstances, what stronger evidence than this is required to establish the Divinity of our Prophet. And this is not all. Verses to the same effect abound in the Holy Qur’an to such an extent that one may, if one chooses to take allegorical language literally, deduce from them the most definite conclusion as to the Divinity of our Holy Prophet^sa, and the fact stands in bold contrast to the doubtful evidence to the Sonship of Jesus^as, furnished by the vague and scanty material produced from the Gospels, notwithstanding all the pretensions of the Christian missionaries to the contrary.

So far as to evidence from the Scriptures of the two religions, but when we proceed a little further and look at actual facts, we meet with a total absence in Jesus Christ^as of that power and predominance which is the necessary requisite of Divinity, whereas in the person of our own Holy Prophet^sa we find its manifestation as clear as day-light. When the Prophet^sa declared his mission, the most violent opposition raged against him. As his mission was universal and contained an invitation to all the nations of the earth to Islam, similarly was the opposition not confined to any particular sect or community, but gradually extended its circle, as the sphere of his preaching became wider. People of all denominations and religious sects were determined to cut up Islam, root and branch, and none spared the least effort to injure him. Monarchs also sent their men to have the Prophet^sa arrested and put to death, but were hopelessly baffled in their evil designs. Consider then what saved Muhammad^sa from all these formidable foes, and what protected him in this wide-spread fire of enmity? The secret of it lies in the strong and deep connection of his soul with the Infinite, such a connection as no man has ever before or since attained. The Prophet^sa was jealous for the honour of the Lord his God and the Lord was, in return, jealous for the honour of His Prophet^sa.

Comparisons are odious but we can not refrain from briefly referring to one between the Companions of our Holy Prophet^sa and the Apostles of Jesus^as. One of the latter, Judas Iscariot, betrayed his master for the paltry sum of thirty half-crowns. This shows to what extent the chosen ones had faith in the righteousness of their teacher. In fine contrast with the despicable behaviour of Judas, shines out the noble conduct of the Companions of our Prophet^sa who forsook brothers, sisters, parents, sons, lands, properties and all, for the sake of their beloved master, because they saw in him a visible and glorious manifestation of the Most High God. Their fidelity to their master is unparalleled in the history of the world. Who can fathom the bottomless deep of the faith which undulated in their hearts? It was the face of God they saw clearly reflected in the face of their Prophet^sa. But the conduct of the Apostles in relation to their master is quite inexplicable, and we are unable to say what opinion they entertained of him. Peter, who had charge of the keys of heaven, cursed Jesus^as and was not satisfied until he thrice repeated his imprecations.

Take another circumstance. Not a few designs of the Prophet’s^sa murder were, over and over again, formed by his internal and external foes, but they were all hopelessly frustrated, notwithstanding his utter helplessness against his powerful enemies. On the other hand, whoever rose with the evil design brought ruin upon his own head. For instance, Khosru Parviz, the ill-fated monarch of Persia, became thirsty of the Prophet’s^sa blood and accordingly sent his men to arrest him. But hardly a night had passed before he himself became a morsel of death, notwithstanding that there is no evidence that our Holy Prophet^sa even prayed for his destruction. It is reported that when the soldiers of the emperor brought to the Prophet^sa the news of his contemplated arrest under the orders of the monarch, he replied that it was no business of his but that the whole matter lay in the hands of God who alone would give the response. Next morning he revealed to the soldiers the news of the assassination of their monarch under the supreme and unavoidable command of the Lord of heavens and earth. Here indeed we see a manifestation of the Deity for no sooner did Khosru Parviz conceive the idea of the Prophet’s^sa arrest than the Angel of Death, in obedience to the absolute decree of heaven, was upon him in Persia and cut short his life. What a contrast again when we cast a glance at the circumstances of Jesus^as arrest as narrated in the Gospels! We are obliged, with the utmost regret, to confess that a whole night’s prayers of Christ^as proved quite barren. He passed the night in a state’ of restlessness with eyes heavy and full of tears, but as soon as morn appeared, one Police Constable of the Roman Government with whom was a multitude of the people (the Jews), came and having arrested him put him into custody before 10 a.m. Isthis the all-powerful God whose end was so sad and pitiable? How can we put faith in a man as having a deep connection with God so long as we do not see him distinctly accompanied with the Grace of God in this very world?

From the evidence recorded of him what is Jesus^as but a man who fell on his face before God and prayed to him earnestly that the fatal cup may pass away, but his prayers were not answered, so do the Christians admit. But our lord and master the Prophet Muhammad^sa was the chosen one of God, upon whom Divine assistance was showered even without his praying for it. Hence it was that when the Companions of the Prophet^sa witnessed Divine assistance and favor distinctly showered upon him, they forsook everything for his sake, shed their blood in his cause and allowed themselves to be butchered like sheep and goats and died in faith and fidelity to him. Had the worship of man been allowed in the Divine faith, they would have gladly rejected the gods that were the creation of man’s imagination, and worshipped their master, the Lord’s elect as the great God. The reverence in which they held him and the obedience which they showed to his commandments, were neither shown towards Moses^as, nor had Jesus^as the good fortune to witness them in his devoted disciples. If anyone should care to compare the fickleness and unbelief of the disciples of Jesus^as with the steadfastness and faith of the Companions of Mohammad^sa, he should read the disgraceful acts related of Judas, or if not satisfied with his conduct, he may cast a glance at the testimony of Peter, the chief of the twelve who shall sit on thrones to judge Israel.

It should be clearly noted that the fear and timidity displayed by the disciples on the arrest of Jesus^as, was without any foundation. The Jews had not the power and means to cause any material physical injury, not even so much as a slap on the face, to the followers of Jesus. For, in the first place, Jesus^as himself was a Jew and the people were all his kinsmen. Moreover, owing to the dispersion and consequent loss of the majority of their tribes, they had been considerably reduced in number, and led humble lives under a foreign government. Notwithstanding all this weakness and adversity of the persecutors themselves, the disciples were so weak of faith that they were ever ready to forsake their master on being offered the slightest rebuke. Is this the effect of the preaching of one who appears with the powers of the Deity? In short it is in the life of the Holy Prophet^sa of Islam only that the glory of the great and living God is manifested, and we cannot imagine the   Deity or a manifestation of the Deity being laid hands on by the most abject persons and at last disappearing from the stage of life without any success or any Divine assistance coming to him.

From what has been said it is clear that the divinity of Jesus^as falls to the ground under all the important tests stated above. We shall now consider the subject from another point of view, viz., his morals. Here again we are sadly disappointed by the absence of any sound argument in his favour. Speaking candidly and uprightly, not a single excellent moral in Jesus’^as character can be proved to any satisfaction. Morals may broadly be divided into two large classes. Firstly, those that may be displayed in affluence and under easy circumstances. Secondly, the time for the display of the highest moral qualities arrives when a man, after years of suffering and persecution experienced in a state of helplessness and humility, is completely triumphant and gains absolute power over his enemies. In the case of Jesus^as both kinds are sadly wanting. Had he had plenty of resources and handsome fortune, and in that condition spent freely and given liberally, we would have been entitled to speak of him as a charitable and generous man who assisted widows, supported orphans, relieved the needy, clothed the naked, comforted travellers, took in strangers, fed the starving and gave timely help to the famine-stricken. But now we have no proof in hand of any of these commendable deeds. Similarly, had he after the years of sorrow and suffering during which he bore persecutions at the hands of the Jews, got triumph and complete victory over them and freely forgiven his bitterest enemies, he would have done a noble and exemplary deed worthy of emulation. We would have then had reason to say that he was of a mild and forgiving nature, as it is only at the time of absolute triumph over enemies that forgiveness can be shown. We, no doubt, love and revere Jesus Christ^as and consider him as a great prophet in the Mosaic line, but if we are asked to furnish evidence of his forgiveness and indulgence towards his enemies, we must confess our lack in this respect. There is no historical evidence of great and excellent moral qualities ever displayed by him. Our good opinion of him as a great and good prophet cannot be questioned here as it is based on our belief and not on any such demonstrable facts and historical research as may satisfy other minds.

If, on the other hand, we cast a glance at the career of the Holy Prophet^sa of Arabia, we meet with an overwhelming proof of the presence in his sacred person of both sorts of morals in the highest degree. The evidence of the unbelievers, the opponents of Islam, who praised the unparalleled generosity and charitableness of the Prophet^sa is sufficient to convince every man of common intelligence, and numerous acts of kindness and traits of hospitality are recorded in hundreds of books. When the Prophet^sa made his triumphant entry into Makkah, after twenty long years of suffering, and his bitterest enemies, who, on account of their cruelties and bloodshed, had rendered themselves liable to a wholesale and indiscriminate murder of young and old, of male and female, were completely reduced to subjugation and lay at his mercy alone, he freely forgave them and granted an amnesty to the whole population of Makkah, and said “I pardon you as Joseph pardoned his brethren and grant freedom to you all.” By the laws of war then prevalent they were all his slaves. This generous treatment unparalleled in the annals of war, was a sign to the Makkahns, and their hearts leaped to accept the truth which they had before rejected. Heavenly power attracted them all towards it and before sunset almost all of them embraced Islam. It is manifest from this that excellent moral qualities which are a manifestation of the attributes of God, are not to be sought for in Jesus^as, but that they were manifested in the Holy Prophet^sa of Islam. He is not only generous and charitable but also meek, open-hearted and forgiving. The field of battle bears evidence to his courage and manliness, freely giving alms to his charity and bountifulness, and forgiving the enemy after obtaining triumph over him to his clement and merciful nature.