169
to appreciation, a study of comparative theology is, we will not say futile, but simply impossible. According to a well-known legend, perhaps apocryphal, Khalif Omar consigned a cyclopean library to the flames on the strength of an argument whose logic was, from his view-point, irresistible. If those numerous volumes pretended to contain what was, tin its essence not comprised in the one 'God-given' Kitab (Book), theirs was insufferable presumption; if they could advance no such claim, they were an unmitigated superfluity. Either way what was believed to be the 'garnered wisdom' of ages was demonstrated to be Worthless. This would evidently reduce to an uncomfortable dilemma the position of the student of comparative religion who also owns allegiance to one infallible scripture. Is not that positon rather closely akin to the pious formality, described by Emerson, in pursuance of which grave church-dignitaries would meet in solemn conclave, invoke divine grace and guidance in the selection of a worthy hand for a.
