| 44 |
THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY
|
|
|
But whatever was the nature of the petition, God vouchsafed only a temporal
blessing. Forster's reasoning hangs here upon a very slender thread, and yet
upon that is suspended the whole of his argument! he says, the covenant of
Ishmael,
|
"Would seem, as well from the manner of its announcement, as from the
general analogy of character plainly intended by the parallel terms of the two
covenants, to contain a certain real, though low and subordinate, spiritual
application. Indeed that Abraham should have offered up the petition that
Ishmael might live in the light of God's countenance, and under a Divine
blessing and protection (a petition certainly implied by the prayer
that he might live before Jehovah, and inherit the promise granted in favour
of Isaac), may be received as conclusive and moral evidence on this point; for
a blessing of a merely temporal nature was little likely to be thus
sought by 'the father of the faithful'; in whose eyes things temporal
appear invariably to have been held in little estimation" (p. 119).
|
|
Assuming thus, the whole point at
issue, he proceeds:—
|
"In the case of Isaac, we know the precise manner and steps of the
accomplishment; and in our knowledge of this detail, possess the clue for
investigating the analogous accomplishment, in the case of Ishmael. It is
requisite only, that the apparent historical fulfilments of the covenant of
Ishmael shall be found on examination to correspond with the ascertained
historical fulfilments of the covenant of Isaac, and if there be any force in
the scriptural analogy established between those brethren, the demonstration
aimed at in these pages must be considered complete" (p. 132).
|
|
Forster's ideas, however, of a promised blessing, and its fulfilment, are very
singular. He assumes that because Hagar was a bondswoman, and Ishmael
illegitimate, the religion of their descendants must partake of the
qualities of both; in his own language,
|
"If from Isaac was to spring the true religion; from Ishmael there might
be expected to arise as a counterpart, a spurious faith. If the true
Messiah, the descendant of Isaac, and who, like him, came by promise,
was to be the founder of the one creed; a counterfeit Messiah, the descendant
of Ishmael, and who, like him, should come without promise, could be
the only appropriate founder of the other" (p. 90). And again,
"Prophecy cannot be supposed to recognise in Ishmael, the child of the
flesh, the son of the bondwoman, the illegitimate, seed, anything higher than
the fore
|
