1184. The main position which I have thus far taken is, however, virtually conceded in another part of your letter. Alluding to what I had urged as to the importance of acknowledging Mohammed as your mediator, and relying on his mediation only for justification as all-sufficient, reconciling all difficulties, and removing all embarrassment from the consideration of the union of justice and mercy in the deity, you say: ‘But _does_ it remove all embarrassment? Is not Allah himself the author of the plan of salvation? Was not Mohammed himself Allah, and also his vicegerent?’ The _impossibility_ of answering these questions satisfactorily to the plainest reason, teaches me to recoil from the impiety of inquiring _how_ my Maker will save me or reconcile his own attributes? I know full well that the great mass of human minds are totally incapable of considering such a subject with any approximation to a solution of it, and therefore do I feel that the eternal salvation or condemnation of mankind does not depend on such theological questions. Here you directly admit the inability of reason in most minds satisfactorily to comprehend some of the great and high points of the Mohammedan system, and the consequent impiety of her _attempting_ such a comprehension. You might as well explicitly admit her inability for this comprehension in _all_ minds; for _no_ mind in its present state can by _reason alone_ grasp all that Allah has revealed in the Koran. These great and high things are not proposed to reason _alone_, but to reason so far as their _evidence_ is concerned, and to _faith_ so far as their substance is to be received. Reason may satisfy herself that they _are_ revealed. _Faith alone_ can take in the substance which they contain. When they _are_ proposed to it, faith _must_ receive them, or salvation cannot come, whether the reason of the individual addressed be the ‘plainest’ or otherwise.