repetitions are, in many places, no addition to its literary style, and are certainly a weariness to the flesh, and a constant trap to the memory. Its alleged purity as regards the state of its text is simply a dogmatic statement. That it has remained unaltered since its final editing is no guarantee that we have in it only the ipsissima verba that fell from the lips of Muhammad, and though this is at present conceded by most critics, yet when literary criticism assails it more severely, as it certainly will some day, it may be demonstrated that it is far from perfect as it stands.¹

All that has been said by others to show the composite nature of its origin might here be repeated, and a few additions might perhaps be made to what has been already written, but it is not necessary to burden our argument with any lengthy criticism of the Qur'an. We would rather ask Muhammadans to place the two books side by side and honestly compare them to see which brings the reader to see more clearly his own sinfulness, and to realize the presence of the divine Spirit speaking to his hungering heart. We must ask Muhammadans to lay aside the prejudice with which he naturally approaches the Bible, because it is not in the literary style of the Qur'an, and to try to grasp the message which it brings to

his soul, and we have no fear as to which will then be finally judged as being the more wonderful book.

All these and many other methods of appealing to Muhammadans have doubtless their uses and places in the work of the Christian missionary. Some are suitable to one occasion, some to another; some appeal to the temperament of one man, and some to that of another; but none of them takes into consideration the one real vital issue between Muhammadanism and Christianity. And yet when one looks closely at the opposing claims of these two religions, it is seen that there arises a very distinct and clear issue between them.

This issue between the two religions is not the question of the book which each regards as the word of God. It is not to be settled finally by a comparison of the characters of the two religious teachers. And, least of all, is it to be determined by the comparative suitability of either system to the condition and needs of mankind. On this latter ground there are those who argue that one religion may be suited to the western mind and adapted to the needs of western society and civilization; while the other may be suited to the eastern mind, and better adapted to the needs of eastern society and civilization. Those who argue thus forget that Christianity is essentially the product of the east, and that the civilization and conditions which at present exist in the west