57 |
THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY
|
|
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
|
|