Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

"Burden upon Arabia," which is translated in the Arabic Bible, “Prophecy in Arabia:” but I proved to them that it means, “A prophecy predicting a calamity upon Arabia.” In the evening, after dinner, I expounded at Major Low's, Galatians v. 26, in the presence of Sir Jeremiah and Lady Bryant.

SKETCHES OF LUCKNOW.

The ancient name of Lucknow is Lucknampore; the population of Lucknow consists of 200,000 inhabitants: Sheahs, Soonnees and Hindoos. It is not known by whom it was founded. The public buildings are: Imamporah,* a mosque built by the late Vizier Asoofa Dawla. Imamporah of Nujuf Ashrefee, built by the late King, in which he is buried. The Mausoleum of the mother of Nawab Saadat Ale Khan. The Mausoleum of the Nawab Saadat Ali Khan. The Palace of the King. The British residency. Constantia house, built 1790 to 1804. It derives its name of Constantia from General Martin's motto, "Labore et constantia."

The principal Mullahs at Lucknow are: Sayd Mohammed, Moulvee Ibrahim, Moulvee Sukur Ullah, Moulvee Ismael, who is the principal native astronomer.

The country of Oude was separated from the kingdom of Delhi, in the time of the Vizier of Shooja, Addawla.

The following is a copy of the autograph letter of the King of Oude, previous to my conference with the Mullahs; he wrote it in English and in Persian.

"His Majesty cannot refrain from expressing to the Rev. Joseph Wolff the pleasure that he derived from his visit.

"His Majesty being satisfied of Mr. Wolff's talents, and anxious to learn an account of the countries and holy places he had visited, would wish that he remained here for a short time; but as his departure is so prompt, His Majesty bids him farewell, wishing the Rev. Joseph Wolff every prosperity and happiness."

"The above is the copy of the hand-writing of H. M. the King of Oude."

(Signed)

Lucknow, February 3, 1833.

J. PATON.

Feb. 3.-I preached in the British residency. After the service was over, three Mussulmans called, and desired instruction in Christianity.

Before I went away, the Mussulman Moulvees of Lucknow wrote me the following letter in Persian, which I left by chance in the British residency, and received it only when at Madras, to which place it was sent after me in the month of August.

The letter was written by Emeer Sayd Ahmed, Mujtehed of the

Sheah.

"I have received your second epistle, and perused its contents. You say that it is mentioned in the 8th chapter of Daniel, that

* Imamporah, means a place for an Imam, i. e. follower of Mohammed.

Christ would descend upon earth, after two thousand three hundred years from the time of Daniel, which was 453 years before Christ; that having deducted 453 from 2300, there remained 1847; and the present year is 1833, from which the latter sum having been deducted there remained 14 years, which is the period of Christ's coming.

First. In the above quotation the name of Christ is not mentioned, nor is Christ's coming alluded to. On what ground have you therefore assumed, that it has reference to that event? In the first place, state fully by what arguments you bring this as a proof of Christ's coming, and also detail fully how you prove your argument from the Ram, the He-Goat, the first high horn, the four other horns; and the country, and what the things are to which they refer, that it may be known how this is applicable to the coming of Christ.

Secondly. As to your writing that the time of Daniel was 453 years before that of Christ, we have nothing to do with the intervening period; the object is to fix the period which intervened between the time of Daniel seeing the vision, and the commencement of the Christian era. It appears from the translation of some English books which have been printed, that the distance from Daniel to the Christian era was 535 or 36 or 37 years; this is evidently not in accordance with your argument, because if the least of these doubtful periods be added to 1833, the number will be 2368; there is no ground therefore for waiting only 14 years more; for the period of Daniel's vision being past, nay, 68 years more have elapsed; and as Christ has not yet made his appearance, it is evident that Daniel's vision has no reference to him, otherwise he should have appeared at the end of that period, or near it; and if connection with that period is not necessary, his coming may be at the resurrection. You say that it is written in the book of Daniel, that Christ will come in 2300 years; it is not so in the chapter already quoted; it mentions 2300 days, and not years, which makes a great difference. You mentioned at one meeting, that 'days' means years; this is not the case. If such should be the interpretation in one or two places, it is of rare occurrence and metaphorical, and not as a plain fact; to assume a fact to be metaphorical, is not allowed to any but to one who is apt to make an interpretation which suits his own purpose.

Thirdly. To fix years is contrary to the words of Christ, for it is written in the 24th chapter of Matthew, verse 36, "But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only." You said in answer to this, at the conference, that the meaning of this verse is, that no one knows the day and hour except God, but it does not say that the year cannot be known. This is surprising, because the first and last period define the day and hour also as it does the year. If the people of the present age do not know the day, those that lived in those times knew it, and the angels certainly know it. How can therefore the saying of Christ, that even angels are not aware of it, be correct?

The mention of day and hour in the said quotation is by way of example, and the meaning is, that the period cannot be fixed at all. For instance, if it is said that nobody knows the day of judgment, it does not follow that the year and month of that event is known, but not the day; this is often used in colloquial discourse. Besides, let it be as you say, that day means year; Christ must also have meant by day, year.

Fourthly. Admitting your assumption to be correct; when there are 14 years remaining of Christ's coming, has the promised Prophet from the Arabians and the descendants of Kedar, foretold in the Old Testament, already appeared, or will there be a Prophet within these 14 years? If the former be the case, and our Prophet was not meant thereby, who is it else to whom the prophecy has reference? If the latter be the case, say fully whether there will be any true Prophet in Arabia except Christ, within these 14 years. Although there are many prophecies, yet to avoid lengthening the discourse, a few are mentioned by way of example.

1st prophecy, Isaiah xxi. Here it is mentioned that "he saw a chariot of camels with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels, and he hearkened diligently with much heed." In this prophecy, Christ and our Prophet are plainly alluded to, because the use of a camel for conveyance has been customary in Arabia; it is also written at the conclusion, "And behold here cometh a chariot of horsemen, and he answered and said, "Babylon is fallen, Babylon is fallen, and all the graven images of her gods he has broken unto the ground." It is well known that the breaking of images has particular reference to our Prophet, who was created by the powerful hand of God. Can any prophecy be more clear than this?

2nd prophecy. It is written in the same chapter of Isaiah: "The mighty men of the Children of Kedar shall be diminished." This is a plain demonstration in favour of the prophetic character of Mohammed, because Kedar is his ancestor.

3d prophecy. In the Gospel of John is written with reference to his mission, "There is another that bears witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true;" John v. 32. This alludes to the testimony of the last of the Prophets (Mohammed) in favour of Christ.

4th prophecy. John i. 26, 27, and Matt. iii. 11, is also a convincing proof in favour of a Prophet greater than Christ; and who else but our Prophet is endowed with such attributes?

5th prophecy. In the Revelation of John, at the end of the second chapter, Rev. ii. 26, 27, is in favour of the mission of Mohammed, who vanquished with the sword in religious wars; and it is probable that it may have reference to the reign of Mchde.

The Mohammedans agree in saying that at the end of the world he will make war against infidels, and convert all sects to Islamism. Jesus Christ will also descend at the time, and precede him. In this case also this prophecy confirms the prophecy of Mohammed's mission.

As to your combining Matt. xxiv. and xxv. with the Revelations of St. John in support of the approaching appearance of Christ, there are two ways in combating that argument. The signs which you take for granted, are either of those upon which Christ's appearance rests: in this case, Christ ought to appear now, for these signs have happened; or else other signs are required, the occurrence of which will determine the appearance of Christ, (which we wish for and expect,) and it will be cotemporary with the appearance of Imam Mohde; but how can the remaining signs take place within this limited period? Beside this, certain signs mentioned in Matthew are very doubtful. "There will be wars and rumours of wars, nations will rise against nations." Such has been the case ever since Mohammedanism has spread. There have been revolutions, and changes, and wars in all ages, and in all countries. Persons conversant with history, know that in the times of Tamerlan, Halakoo, and Nadir, great wars broke out, vast numbers were killed, and empires overturned. The selection of examples made to this effect, and which we have read in the newspapers, are not argumentative; because to give weight to a sign, it is requisite that it should be accompanied with the thing connected with it. These changes have always taken place, agreeably to the saying that the world is changeable; they have no particular reference to your object, nor have they any thing to do with the signs. In the same chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, there is another part of which it is unknown why you omitted to make mention. These rumours are the beginning of affliction;" then will they involve you in hardship, and give you up to death to the end. Christians are at present in the height of their glory and power, how can this be reconciled with the signs? The truth is, that it has happened in every age, that one nation has triumphed over another, and the world has frequently experienced anarchy, yet in various degrees. Those which you constitute as signs, should bear no resemblance to those that have preceded. But those events which have occurred in these times, cannot be said to have been in any high degree contrasted with past occurrences; on the contrary, former events have exceeded in importance those of the present age. Since therefore these events cannot be made applicable to the coming of Christ, how can they be taken for signs, unless it is said, that all signs are typical of Christ's appearance, without reference to any particular sign; and that the multiplication of these signs shall consist in wars, famine, pestilence, &c.

The second point embraces two things:

1. The spreading of the good news by the angel flying in all the countries of the earth; and next, the darkening of the sun. To this it is answered, that it is unreasonable to argue, that by the spreading of the good news, the propagation of the Gospel is meant; and why should it not be allowed, that the heavenly voice would be heard at the coming of God's elect, as is fully described in our traditionary books, with reference to Imaum Mohde? Besides, the

dissemination of the Gospel has not depended upon you, it has been circulated throughout the world for a long time.

On what ground do you call the New Testament the Word of God? If you say that it is actually the Word of God, without the participation of any one; every person that has seen these Gospels, knows that they are either the word of Christ or of his Apostles, and not the word of God. If you mean that they have been inspired by God, the thing is possible; but in this case, the same will be applicable to the books of all the Prophets, and to the Old Testament, which will be taken for granted; and they will metaphorically be called heavenly books, contrary to the Koran, which every one on reading finds to be the word of God, from the manner in which it is composed, particularly with reference to its elegance, and perspicuity, and strength.

The darkening of the sun and moon is evident, because the sun is the greatest of all planets, and the moon is a planet of the first heaven; they will certainly lose their light. To suppose thereby the overturning of any kingdom, and of a particular place, which you fully described in your letter, is unreasonable. To bring as evidence Joseph's dream, is useless to your object: first, because an expression may be metaphorical in one place, and not in another; beside this, the overthrow of all kingdoms, which, according to you, it must denote, has never taken place.

ANSWER.

This is the answer of Joseph Wolff, to the learned Emeer Sayd Ahmed, Mujtehed of the Sheah at Lucknow.

You say:

First. "In the above citation the name of Christ is not at all mentioned, etc."

If you were to prove to me something from a certain text in the Koran, and I were to answer you in the manner in which you answer me, you would tell me, "read the whole contents of the preceding chapter, which are in strict connection with this verse." I give you now the same answer. The contents of Daniel ii. and again vii. 1-28, are a fourfold succession of kingdoms, which should arise out of the earth, but which should not endure for ever; whereas the kingdom of the Son of Man and his saints, of whom Daniel speaks, should endure for ever. That the "Son of Man, coming in the clouds of heaven," mentioned in verse 13, is Christ the expected Messiah, is not only admitted by Christians and Jewish commentators, but must be likewise admitted by you, as an orthodox Mohammedan; for according to the Koran and your Hadees, Christ, not Mohammed, went in the form of the Son of Man to heaven, and therefore he only can return in that form. Now all true Mohammedans believe what the Koran contains, and the Koran says that Christ was not actually crucified, but that it was merely a likeness of Christ, and that Christ himself was translated to heaven in the body in which he shall reappear on earth.

The eighth and following chapters of Daniel contain a succession

« AnteriorContinuar »