adopted implies that there are marks in creation which do plainly indicate the Trinity of the Creator. A number of explanatory instances or analogies are given, after which their force is summed up as follows:—" To conclude, it is clearly proved from these examples, that nature contains unequivocal marks of the existence of the Divine nature in Trinity; and, in truth, whoever attentively considers them, will perceive that plurality in unity is possible." There is no serious objection to bringing forward instances of plurality in unity with the object of proving it not to be impossible: nay, if care be taken that they, are not used as direct analogies, they may be beneficial in displaying the inability of man to fathom mysteries infinitely short of the sublime doctrine of the Trinity. Put the expressions go beyond this, and imply that nature directly points out the doctrine; and from this we dissent as unfounded, and as giving the adversary a needless advantage. For example, the Circle is stated to be an emblem of the Deity, having neither beginning nor end; and the fact that trigonometry is the key to its measurement and comprehension, is represented as an illustration of the Trinity by which alone the Divine nature can be understood. Such exemplifications only pave the way for our opponents. Thus the author of the Saulat uz Zaigham, in a passage which it would be painful to translate, draws the figure of a triangle, and, after some contemptuous remarks upon the inequality of its angles, adds this cutting scoff," If this be the way of their arguing, why anybody may join the Virgin Mary to the Deity, and drawing a square may assert that here is quaternity in unity"; and to complete the blasphemy he adds the diagram by way of illustration! To shew the species of reply which is given to one of Pfander's less objectionable analogies, —that of the plurality in unity of man, —we give a further quotation from the same work:—