presence of the Deity; while the Vadakalai regard it as infinite and uncreated, and in itself a means (upâya) by which salvation can be assured. The second point of difference is parallel to the controversy between the Calvinists and Armenians in the Christian Church. The Vadakalai, with the latter, insist on the concomitance of the human will in the work of salvation, and represent that the soul lays hold of God as a young monkey which grasps its mother in order to be conveyed to a place of safety. The Tenkalai, on the contrary, maintain the irresistibility of divine grace and the utter helplessness of the soul till it is seized and carried off by its mother like a kitten to be conveyed to a place of safety. From these two curious but apt illustrations the one doctrine is known as markata kishora nyâya, the other, as marjala kishora nyâya, the “young monkey theory,” or the “kitten theory.” [The Nimbârak sect.] 4. Of the Nimbârak Mr. Growse [196] writes:—“The word means ‘the sun in a nîm tree,’ a curious designation which is explained as follows:—The founder of the sect, an ascetic, by name Bhaskarachârya, had invited a Bairâgi to dine with him, but unfortunately delayed to fetch his guest until after sunset. Now the holy man was forbidden by the rules of his order to eat except in the daytime, and was greatly afraid that he would be compelled to practise an unwilling abstinence; but at the solicitation of his host the Sun God, Sûraj Nârâyan, descended from the Nîm tree, under which the repast was spread, and continued beaming upon them until the claims of hunger were fully satisfied. Thenceforth the saint was known by the name of Nîmbarka or Nimaditya. Their doctrines, so far as they are known, are of a very enlightened character. Thus their doctrine of salvation by faith is thought by many scholars to have been directly derived from the Gospel; while another article in their creed, which is less known but is equally striking in its divergence from ordinary Hindu sentiment, is the continuance of conscious individual existence in a future world, when the highest reward of the good will be not extinction, but in the enjoyment of the visible presence of the divinity whom they have served while on earth: a state, therefore, absolutely identical with heaven, as our theologists define it. The one infinite and invisible God, who is the only real existence, is, they affirm, the only proper object of man’s devout contemplation. But as the incomprehensible is utterly beyond the reach of human faculties, He is partially manifested for our behoof in the book of Creation, in which natural objects are the letters of the universal alphabet, and express the sentiments of the Divine Author. A printed page, however, conveys no meaning to any one but a scholar, and is liable to be misunderstood even by him; so, too, with the book of the world. And thus it matters little whether Râdhâ and Krishna were ever real