That part of the argument which to Sir William Muir seemed weak and rather forced appeared in the same light to myself. It had been very fairly refuted by Muslims, and so I had no difficulty in supplying its place with more useful matter.

I think it will be found that I have endeavoured with some success to remove anything in the manner of stating the doctrine of the Trinity which has hitherto given Muslims good ground for rejecting it as illogical and as opposed to the doctrine of the Divine Unity. The part of the book which deals with the essential Deity of the Logos has been entirely re-written and amplified, and objections have been carefully weighed and answered.

Dr. Pfander's statements regarding the approximation to the doctrine of the Trinity supposed to be found by anticipation in Plato, in the Rig-Veda, in the Upanishads, and in other places, have required a very great deal of correction in order to bring them up to the level of our present knowledge. I have consulted the original authorities as well as leading modern writers on these subjects in order to do this properly. Now that 'the schoolmaster is abroad', it is evidently undesirable that Muslims should be able to find anything antiquated in our statements on such points.

I have omitted those Scriptural references which seemed unsuitable for the purpose of proving what they were quoted to prove, supplying others in their stead. In the same way I have left out

Pfander's argument that 'Wisdom' in Prov. viii. 12-31, denotes Christ (chapter i, section iii), as being at least very doubtful. It does not do to bring forward in controversy in the mission-field doubtful or fanciful or forced explanations of the holy Scriptures. Muslim and Hindu readers are apt to hold that the strength of the chain is that of its weakest part.

Scriptural quotations I have taken from the Revised Version, for obvious reasons.

My revision and translation are based on the Urdu version of Pfander's original German work, principally because the Urdu had received his latest corrections and amplifications, especially in reference to Hindu doctrines. I have also, however, consulted the Turkish version (London, 1861). My attempts to obtain a copy of the Arabic version have been unsuccessful. I regret this, because it leaves me in some uncertainty regarding a few words in the Arabic passage given in the appendix, and of which a translation appears in chapter ii. section ii (pp. 174-6). These as they appeared in the Urdu and Turkish versions were full of blunders of the press. I have tried to correct them, so as to give an intelligible text.

It is hardly necessary to explain that to make a literal English translation of the book, though easy, would have been mere waste of time. Valuable as the Miftahu'l-Asrar was when it first appeared, the lapse of time and progress of