The one says: “We require for the knowledge of the Creator a learned _sádik_, or sincere friend; and his special appointment is required, and after that instruction from him.” The other class says, “Instruction for the knowledge of any science can be obtained from any person, whether a master or not a master _specially appointed_.” As, by previous investigations, it is understood that the truth is with the first class, certainly the chief and leader of the first class will be the chief of the philosophers; and as it has been ascertained that the second class is erring, their leader is the leader of the deceived. The author says further, the _true_ doctrine is, that we acknowledge the _muhikk_, “him who knows for certain” _bahakk_, that is, “in truth,” which is a summary knowledge; and after the summary knowledge by which we recognise “him who knows for certain,” “in truth,” we want a detailed (distinct) knowledge of these questions; and our purpose in using the word _bahakk_, “in truth” is to express the necessity of having a _muhikk_, and the author says: By necessity we are to know the Imám, and by the Imám we know God in such a manner that by lawfulness we acknowledge him who is necessary, that is to say, that we acknowledge by the possibility of perfection the existence of the self-existent being. The author also says, that knowing the _true_ doctrine is knowing the unity _of God_. After this illustration, having in several sections exhibited an account of his own faith, and in some established it, he made in other sections a digression upon the creed of others, and the digressive sections are frequent; the proofs and disquisitions by controversy with regard to false religions, and the disquisitions by concordance with regard to the rightfulness of his own religion, are distinct from the totality of those arguments, which are between truth and falsehood, and the contrast between truth and falsehood, and that between small and great _is made evident_. The author further alleges, that in science there is truth and falsehood; but the distinguishing mark of truth is unity, and the distinguishing mark of falsehood is multiformity; unity is related to _authoritative_ instruction, and multiformity is related to opinion; instruction belongs to the assembly, and the assembly to the Imám; opinion is allied with conflicting sects, and these agree with their chiefs. As for the separation of truth from falsehood, and the resemblance which truth has with falsehood, and for the distinction between what is consistent and what is absurd, on both sides, a balance ought to be formed in which every thing may be weighed.[614] The author moreover says, that we obtained the knowledge of this balance from the speeches of the witnesses, and whatever is compounded of negation and affirmation; and whatever is deserving negation is falsehood; and whatever is deserving affirmation is truth; and by this balance we weigh the good and bad,