mind, between which all the other virtues have room.

His life was spent in doing good according to his highest perceptions, and in seeking to improve the moral and social condition of his people. Even his enemies, who rejected his mis. sion, with one voice extol his piety, his justice, his veracity, his clemency. Once, upon being asked to curse some one, he replied, "I am not sent to curse, but to be a blessing to mankind." He wept like a child over the grave of his faithful servant Zeid. "He visited the sick, followed any bier he met, accepted the invitation of a slave to dinner, mended his own clothes, milked his goats, and waited upon himself," says an Arab authority. He visited his mother's tomb some fifty years after her death, and wept there, because, as he believed, God had forbidden him to pray for her. Toward his family he was most affectionate. He was indulgent to his inferiors, and would never allow his awkward little page to be scolded, whatever he did. "I seryed him from the time I was eight years old," says his servant Anas, "and he never spoke harshly to me, though I spoiled much." He was easy of approach to all, even as "the river-bank to him who draweth water therefrom." He often spoke in condemnation of the errors he had himself committed; for instance, being one day engaged in an earnest conversation with a powerful Koreishite, whose conversation he much desired, he was approached by a poor blind man, who, unable to see that Mohammed was otherwise engaged, exclaimed, "Teach me, O apostle of God, some part of what God has taught thee!" Irritated by this interruption, Mohammed frowned and turned away from him. But his conscience soon smote him for having slighted the poor and humble and giving the preference to the rich and powerful. The next day's sura is known by the significant title "He Frowned," and reads thus:

The prophet frowned and turned aside,
Because the blind man came unto him,

And how knowest thou whether he might not have been cleansed from his sins? Or whether he might have been admonished and profited thereby?

As for the man that is rich,

Him thou receiveth graciously

And thou carest not that he is not clcansed.

As for him that cometh unto thee earnestly seeking his salvation,
And trembling anxiously, him dost thou neglect.

By no means shouldst thou act thus.

And ever after this, whenever the prophet saw the blind man Abdallah, he went out of his way to do him honor, saying, "The man is thrice welcome on whose account my Lord hath reprimanded me;" and he made him twice gov ernor of Medina.

One instance more. It is a memorable one, and shows how anxious the prophet was to correct an error when he was satisfied he had made one. Once, in a moment of despondency, he made a partial concession to idolatry, for the purpose of winning over the recalcitrant Koreishites to his religion, by intimating that their gods might make intercession with the Supreme God. One day, when the chief citizens were sitting near the Kaaba, Mohammed came, and began to recite in their hearing one of the suras of the Koran. In this sura three of the goddesses worshiped by the Koreish were thus mentioned:

What think ye of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manah, the third besides?

They are the exalted females, and their intercession with God may be hoped for.

Upon this the whole tribe of the Koreish signified their willingness to come over to the side of the prophet. His followers, seeing the immense advantage he had gained, would have passed the matter over as quietly as possible; but Mohammed, perceiving he had mistaken expediency for duty, would not allow that. He would recall the concession at all hazards, as publicly as he had made it, even though he should be charged with weakness and imposture thereby; and the sura was changed to read thus:

What think ye of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manah, the third besides ?
They are naught but empty names, which ye and your fathers have invented.

A comparison of the early histories of islam and Christi anity, and the means used by their adherents for the spread of their respective faiths, proves not only interesting but instructive. Islam triumphed, and became a religion mil

itant during the lifetime of its founder. Christianity, during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Fathers of the church, was almost an unknown sect, and not until the fourth century did it gain sufficient power to become aggressive, when, in the person of the crimson-handed Constantine, it compassed the throne of the Cæsars and assumed imperial power. But, though sufficiently strong to give a master to the empire, Christianity was never able to destroy the pre-existing paganism of Rome. The issue of the conflict was an amalgamation. of the principles of both; and it is to this day a grave question which is the predominant quality in Christianity-the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of paganism. The worship of Diana of Ephesus, it is true, was succeeded by that of the Virgin Mary; the deification of heroes was changed to the canonization of saints; and in pagan temples, before pagan shrines, the followers of the meek and lowly Jesus bowed in worship Contrast this incestuous union, to which Christianity owes its continued existence, with the course taken by the prophet of Arabia, who spread his own doctrines without adulteration, and repeatedly refused to listen to offers of compromise. "Not one unripe date," he answered, when, in his darkest hour, a powerful tribe offered to join his standard and embrace Islam, if he would but excuse them from the obligation of prayer.

Christianity is held up as the "religion of love," while Islam is called the "religion of the sword." Such statements are utterly inconsistent with the facts of history. Mohammed had recourse to the sword, it is true, but did not Christianity use the same means as soon as it had obtained the power to do so, and also to the full extent of that power? Throughout its entire history persuasion and example were used only when more forcible means were beyond its reach. Did Charlemagne convert the Saxons by preaching and example? Or did Otho the Great instil Christianity into the Sclavonic tribes? The observant reader of history knows that the history of the Christian church is but a record of wars and persecutions for opinion's sake. "Blood, blood," says Baxter, "stains every page.' The medieval papacy was never backward in unfurling the standard of religious war.

Ethelbert, in his conversion of the Danes, and King Olaf of Norway in propagating Christianity throughout his dominions used the sword with vigor, and the success of the Spaniards in Christianizing Mexico and Peru was due to the force of arms and the most cruel shedding of blood. When the Crusades are called to mind, in which no less than sixty millions lost their lives, the Spanish Inquisition, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the sack of Magdeburg by Tilly, the persecutions of the Manicheans in Greece, the slaughter of forty-five hundred pagan Saxons by the "greatest of Christian emperors," the extirpation of the Moors and Jews from Spain; when the answer of the papal legate in the war of extermination upon the peaceful Albigenses is remembered, and by which he sought to quiet the scruples of a too conscientious general, "Kill all, God will know his own," we are led to ask in wonder and amazement, "Is this then the boasted religion of love?" In the wars of Islam the total number of lives lost is stated by the best authorities to be 1,500,000, while in Christian wars and persecutions a careful estimate shows the number of lives taken in its name to be 150,000,000-one hundred times as many as were put to death in the name of Islam. Compare these figures and then decide if Christianity is a religion of love, and Islam a religion of the sword.

It is but justice to Mohammed to state that neither he nor his successors ever resorted to persecution, nor were their wars internecine. Even on the field of battle the conquering Mussulman allowed his conquered foe the two other alternatives of conversion or tribute.

Space will not permit a lengthy review of the social and political reforms which grew out of Islam, but it can be said in truth that all its tendencies were for good-the true dictates of a heart aiming at the highest ideals, the just and the true. Mohammed opposed slavery though it was a patriarchal institution and had been practiced by all the nations of the East. He did what he could for the elevation of the downtrodden, and enacted laws for their benefit. Jesus did not do this. Mohammed forbade the use of wine and intoxicating liquors, and it has become a part of his religious system. Jesus did not do this. Polygamy was a patriarchal institution. It

had been practiced by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and many of the distinguished characters in the Jewish nation. Mohammed modified it and divested it of its worst features. The attempt is not made to conceal the fact that he had himself had more than one wife, but in all cases he showed wisdom and moderation, with a desire to improve the social and political condition of his people. His laws were not perfect in every instance, but they tended toward perfection. Solon, the eminent law-giver of Greece, it will be remembered, remarked of his own legislation that while his laws were not the best he could devise, still they were the best the Athenians were able to receive. This remark will apply equally as well to the Arabian prophet.

Mohammed was not a vain metaphysician, nor did he pretend to supernatural knowledge or power. His theology was very simple "There is but one God"—and with a liberality to which the world has long been a stranger, he admitted the salvation of men of any form of faith, provided their lives were pure. His sole object was to restore the primitive faith. of Abraham as opposed to polytheism. The term "Mohammedanism," so often used as an appelative of the religion taught by Mohammed, may almost be considered a misnomer. The term was not used by the prophet nor his earlier disciples, and it has been rejected by his followers. The creed is Islam, a verbal noun, meaning "submission to " and "faith in God." A calm resignation and a pious submission to his unchangeable will are the more prominent features of Islam. It does not, therefore, teach a man to be habitually whining about the throne of grace, begging for the gratification of real or imaginary needs, nor is it accompanied by the belief that the infinite chain of alternate cause and effect can be broken for the gratification of any one, however importunate he may be.

In this regard it shows a striking contrast to Christianity. Believing there is no such thing as law in the government of the world, and convinced of incessant interference of providence, the Christian seeks by prayers and entreaties to prevail upon God to change the current of affairs. The prayer of the Christian, therefore, is mainly an intercession for bene