experience of any influence of God's Spirit striving with his own evil will and purifying it and moulding it into the likeness of His own holy will. Muhammadanism thus only makes certain demands of man, and leaves him to himself to struggle as best he can, constantly reminding him the while that he is weak and that his weakness is part of his constitution as given him by his Maker, and promising him no certain salvation from sin; offering him no divine assistance in the task that has been imposed upon him, and holding out to him only a dim and uncertain hope if he succeed by his own unaided efforts in fulfilling what is demanded of him.

And yet this is but a small part of the difference between Muhammadanism and Christianity in respect to their adaptation to the condition and needs of man. But it is not necessary to pursue the question further; for, after all, it is not by any such comparison that the two can join issue as to their rival claims.

In a comparison of any two religions which have not that relation which Christianity and Muhammadanism have to one another, such a mode of argument might be one of the best that could be adopted; but as deciding between the claims of Christianity and those of Muhammadanism, it must hold a very minor place, or, at least, it must be used only after the question has been settled on other grounds, Which is the true

revelation of God? to strengthen and support the conclusion otherwise reached.

Another way in which it is often attempted to approach the Muhammadan is to ask him to contrast, or rather to contrast for his enlightenment, the character of Jesus with that of Muhammad, and to argue that the nobler messenger must be the herald of the nobler and more perfect religion. This is specially undertaken because it is the custom of Muhammadans to claim for their prophet a moral perfection which they regard as a model and pattern for all succeeding ages, though he himself acknowledged that he had need of God's forgiveness, and is represented in the Qur'an itself as taught by God to seek forgiveness.

In regard to any such comparison, Christianity has not merely nothing to fear but all to gain. This is a method, however, which has so often been employed that there is no need to enter into it here in particular. One thing, nevertheless, may be noted, namely, that it is no argument for the truth of an historical fact that you prove that the chief witness for it was a man of upright conduct, or good moral character, if the facts to which he bears witness are not such as he can attest at first hand. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can allow that the character of Muhammad was all that it ought to have been; all that his followers claim that it actually was—does this in any way prove that he is able