form of life; and so its emotion is part of the eternal ethical life of God.

Thus we see that the dilemma which is fatal to Deism, namely, that in creation God lays Himself open to reaction, limitation, passivity, emotion, and so to weakness and deficiency, is solved for us. These were no new things to God: they did not appear to Him to detract from His glory; they existed quite apart from creation; they were of His being, and in them He expresses Himself. Consequently when He graciously created a world, into which He entered in relation, and so allowed all the consequences of relation—self-limitation, reactions, passivities, emotions—He was doing no new thing; He was simply expressing His nature in time as He expresses it eternally.

In regard to God's creating Nature, it might conceivably be maintained that He did not in any way limit Himself, because He was creating something wholly under His own hand, capable of being acted on, but not of acting nor even of reacting, whose smallest motion was really God's doing. And, being entirely mechanical, it would have no point of resemblance or similarity with its Maker. But what shall we say of man, God's conscious, knowing, willing, feeling creation? How can we escape the conclusion that here at any rate there is a point of similarity between God's will and man's; between God as mind and man as mind; between God as knower and man as knower. If not, how could God communicate with man? There cannot be

intelligent communication unless the receiver is to some extent like the sender. To the oxen the hieroglyphics were, are, and will be, mere marks. But to us they are messages simply because there is a point of mental similarity between us and those who wrote them. So prophecy itself involves this similarity between God's mind and ours. But it is impossible for pure tanzih to admit any such correspondence or similarity. Yet it attempts to assert the possibility of communication. This is contradictory.

If Islam replies that the world, including man, is in every respect a tool in the hand of God's power, we say that many of the former metaphysical difficulties still remain (see above); and moreover that this makes impossible the quality of love in God; no one loves a machine, though he have absolute power over it. And of course it is even more impossible for a machine to love its worker, even on the assumption that it is a conscious machine and one that can understand the communications made to it by its Maker.

But even this assumption (that the machine is somehow rational) must be denied on pure tanzih principles. Why should tanzih deny reality to the will of man as a free thing, that is self-exercised, yet allow to man's intelligence that it is real and self-exercised. So here there is a dilemma: either you allow that man's intelligence is real, self-exercised, that is, capable of give and take, in which case you must say that the knowledge of