accept the proof that has been given there on this point.

One who accepts neither Christianity nor Muhammadanism, may demand an investigation that goes further back, and ask that these are the very books which the Christian Church has always held as containing the message of Jesus, and that they are reliable records of that message; and these proofs, too, are not wanting; but as far as the discussion between Christianity and Muhammadanism is concerned, it is sufficient to claim that these are the books which were held in the time of Muhammad to be the Gospel of Jesus, for the Qur'an states that what the Christians then held in their hands was the revelation of God through Jesus.

We desire, further, to point out that the question as to how the position which Jesus claimed to occupy towards God and man, is ultimately to be explained or defined from a theological or philosophical point of view, does not at first come up for settlement, and may be left for further discussion. There is no use arguing on the theological bearing of these claims, or on the way in which they may be systematically stated unless we first of all are sure that He actually made them. Once a man has been satisfied that He really made them, it will be time enough for him to consider their theological bearing, and see how they are to be formulated and defined in scientific or theological terms and language.

In such a study of the words and deeds of Jesus, the Muhammadan investigator will naturally find much that goes totally against his preconceptions. But we ask him to remember that he professes to be seeking not the proof or disproof of this or that religious system, not the proof of this or that theological conception, but the truth itself. If he finds that Jesus really made these claims, it will then, but only then, be necessary for him to ask himself how he can explain the fact that Muhammad witnessed to Jesus as a true prophet, and yet taught much that is in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus. But one thing we must insist on, and that is, that no one has an intellectual right to accept Muhammadanism as true, before he has investigated the claims of Jesus who, the Qur'an witnesses, was a prophet, and taught the true religion of God.

If any one undertakes this study of the Christian Writings, we ask him to study the question with open mind. In this connexion it is worth while quoting from Ghazali, who, speaking of wrong methods of argument, says in his Al-Iqtisad fi’l-I'tiqad: And I do not say that this is the nature of the common people, but it is the nature of most of those whom I have seen who are looked upon as learned men. For they do not differ from the common people in the matter of tradition. Nay they have added to the tradition of the sect, the tradition of demonstration; for in their