star-gazing philosophers, and in direct contradiction to the voice at once of Astronomy and Revelation.¹ The Maulavi apparently cannot distinguish between the use and the abuse of reason. He can not, or will not, see that we may employ reason to ascertain the existence of the Deity (without presuming to search out the mysteries of His nature), and then to guide us in recognising His revelation; here reason must stop, and henceforth her only legitimate office is to search into the contents and discover the meaning of the Divine record. Until this principle be admitted we have little to hope from Moslem discussion.

In pressing his argument from Scripture, the Maulavi opposes to Christ's assumption of Divine attributes His own express avowal of subordination. Such attributes cannot be proved to exist in His nature independently and absolutely (which alone would imply divinity), for they are generally spoken of as derived from the Father, and this dependence is inadmissible in the idea of the Divine nature.

His union with the Father is stated to be a union of spirits like that which subsists among believers, and the word "forsaken" pronounced upon the cross, is adduced as clearly proving the absence of any closer connection. He holds that there are two applications of the word God, one of which was in the Old Testament used towards prophets and princes, and in the New to Christ; and he dextrously adduces our Saviour's quotation, "I said ye are gods," as conclusive upon this head. The argument of obeisance and adoration he treats in the same way, but does not explain how Thomas came to join them together in his act of worship. The "word" and "spirit of God" are explained in much the same way as that of the authors we have already considered. The Word means the imperative "Be," by which all