of events which shall precede and follow the coming of that Son of Man; one of them is in chapter viii. 14: "That the sanctuary should be cleansed,” i. e. Jerusalem, called in Hebrew up a name which the Jews gave to that place from time immemorial, and on which account it was called by the Mohammedans Kudus, i. e. holy. It is therefore clear that the cleansing of the sanctuary shall be concomitant with those wonders (vii. 13.), when the four empires shall be broken to pieces by that "Stone" which shall descend from heaven, i. e. the Son of Man, in order that He, the Lord of glory, may enter into that cleansed sanctuary. By that "Ram, He-Goat," etc. to which you allude, are here meant different Kings, which is explained in the text itself, i. e. of the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires.

Secondly. "As to your writing that the time of Daniel was 453 years before that of Christ, etc."

If you read over my letter, you will perceive that you have mistaken me. I said, that I reason from analogy. The number 1260 -1290, as well as the seventy weeks (which latter relate to our Lord's first advent), clearly specify some great public transaction, from which we are to commence dating. The 1260 prophetic days, or years, are dated then from the "giving the saints into the hands of the little horn;" the seventy weeks from the issuing forth the commandment to restore and build the temple, are dated from the only remaining great event, which is farther recorded in Scripture, Nehemiah ix. and xi. and that is the complete re-establishment of the daily sacrifice: now this re-establishment of the daily sacrifice took place 453 years B. C. So that the whole of your second objection falls to the ground, as not applicable to my former letter. Beside this, you should have mentioned the names of the translators of the English authors alluded to, for I am sure that there is not one English book in which you will find the numbers you mention, nor is there an English book about Daniel translated into the Persian language.

Thirdly. "It mentions days and not years."

I answer, that by a prophetic day, a year is meant, that is clear by Ezekiel iv. 4, 5. And that Daniel took this method of counting days for years, according to Ezekiel, his cotemporary, is clear by Daniel ix.; for both profane and sacred history teach us that "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, and the cutting off of the Messiah," as many years did elapse as Daniel prophesied days should elapse. (Daniel ix. 25, 26.) You cited above English authorities without giving their names; I now give you English authorities with their names, i. e. the famous Doctor Scott in his answer to the Jewish Rabbi Crool; Doctor Mant, in his commentary of the Bible; Newton, Hooper, etc. and I would quote also the Italian and Spanish authors, Cornelius a Lapide, Bellarmin, and Ben Ezra.

Fourthly. You cite Matth. xxiv. 36.

I ask you, did our Lord say that that day and hour should never be known? Did he not give us signs of the times, in order that

we may know at least the approach of his coming, as one knows the approach of the summer by the fig tree putting forth its leaves? Matth. xxiv. 32. Are we never to know that period, whilst He himself exhorteth us not only to read Daniel the Prophet, but to understand it? and in that very Daniel, where it is said that the words were shut up to the time of the end (which was the case in his time), and "that many shall run to and fro," (an Hebrew expression for observing and thinking upon the time,) "and knowledge (regarding that time) shall be increased. Daniel xii. 4. Beside this, our Lord does not intend to say by this, that the approach of the time shall not be known, but that the exact “day and hour knoweth no man;" enough, he does say, shall be known by the signs of the times to induce us to prepare for his coming, as Noah prepared the ark; (for he compares those days to the days of Noah. Matt. xxiv. 37-41.) Enough is revealed to us in the Scripture, to know by all that has come to pass in the Eastern and Western Roman empires, that He, Christ, will soon set up the ark of his Church, as the only possible place of safety. When you say that angels ought to know it, you pre-suppose that we ought to believe in the omniscience of angels; but omniscience is the exclusive attribute of God.

Fifthly. You then come to the prophetic office of Mohammed, and say, "although there are many prophecies respecting him, yet to avoid lengthening, etc. a few are mentioned;" and then you cite Isaiah xxi. 7.

1st. If Mohammed be meant here, the Prophet does not make mention of him to his advantage; for he would then be described not as a Prophet, but as a "burden," i. e. misfortune to the country, Isaiah xxi. 1, (the burden.) 2, "A grievous vision," 3, 4. 2ndly. You have not one proof that Mohammed was to ride upon one of those "camels." Every attentive reader of this text will observe the description of such a concourse of nations only as is to be found in the East. And again, should he be meant here, he would be merely described (as I believe him to be described in other parts of Daniel) as an instrument for chastising the sins of men; as one, as Daniel saith, "who devoured much flesh," Daniel vii. 5. But this argument alone will refute the hypothesis that Mohammed and his Caliphs were the persons spoken of in chapter xxi. 9, as "coming with horsemen and crying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, etc." Mohammed was not in existence till very many (about 12) centuries after the destruction of Babylon. Thus I have answered all your citations from Isaiah xxi.

You produce John v. 32, and say, "this alludes to the testimony of the last of the Prophets (Mohammed) in favour of Christ."

Christ himself mentions in John viii. 18, with the very name, the Witness he meant. "I am one that bear witness of myself. and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

Mohammed contradicted the witness of Christ in the Koran. Christ witnessed that he himself was the Son of God, Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. John i. 34. Luke i. 35, etc. this the Koran denies.

Sixthly. You say, that "in John i. 26, 27, and Matt. iii. 11, you have a convincing proof in favour of a Prophet greater than Christ, and who else, you add, but our Prophet is endowed with such attributes?"

These are very unfortunate citations indeed for corroborating the prophetic office of your Prophet; for John the Baptist spoke of one who was then "among them," and in verse 29, the very person is mentioned (Jesus); and the same is maintained in Matt. iii. 13, 14, 15, where it is again distinctly shewn that Jesus was the very man to whom John alluded.

You say that "in Rev. ii. 26, 27, either Mohammed or the promised Mohde was meant."

1st. That Mohammed cannot be meant, is clear by this, that Mohammed did not "keep the works of Christ;" for in this very book which you cite, Christ is called the Beginning and the End, which Mohammed frequently denied.

2ndly. Mohde cannot be meant, for he is only to be found in later and not inspired writings of the Mohammedans, and not even alluded to in the Koran.

Seventhly. You ask, "How can the remaining signs take place within this limited period?"

I answer with your Koran: "God said: Let it be, and it was." To God everything is possible, He said: "Let there be light, and it was light.'

Eighthly. You say, that "to give weight to a sign, it is requisite that it should be accompanied with the thing signified." This is absurd; for instance, if I were to say that the death of such and such a King, or the war with such and such a nation, should be a sign that any particular dynasty should begin to govern; it does not follow from this, that the dynasty alluded to should begin to govern at that very moment in which the sign was given.

Ninthly. "These changes have always taken place, etc."

That the changes which shall take place will be analogous to the changes of past events, was predicted by our Lord himself, that it shall be "as in the days of Noah; but woe unto those, who will on this account ask, "where is the promise of his coming?" You Mohammedans do not seek a God who reveals himself in the works of nature, and who from one period of the world to another, demonstrates by the events of the world the truth of revelation; but you have an imaginary God, who, as you justly say, is a contrast to the works of nature. Your's is not a God who "sends rain upon the just and upon the unjust." Your Prophets are not natural characters, but all immaculate; your's is not a religion of love and of mercy, but a religion of persecution and of hatred. And I must observe, that it is highly inconsistent of the Mohammedans, to prove the divine message of Mohammed from our books, which you declare to have been corrupted, whilst you admit that they contain most stupendous prophecies.

Tenthly. You say that "Christians are at present in the height of their glory, etc."

This is the more awful for you Mohammedans; for those very judgments are predicted to break out over those portions of the earth which are partly ruled by Mohammedan powers.

Eleventhly. "The spreading of the good news by the angel flying,

etc."

I answer that the expression good news is in the original, Reve lations xiv. 6, Evagy and means the very word Gospel. As to Mohde, I have already said, that he is a personage not even mentioned in the Koran.

Twelfthly. "On what ground do you call the New Testament the Word of God? etc."

I answer first, that we call it the Word of God, because it contains the words of Christ, who was God, and the words of His Apostles, who were inspired by him. It seems that you are not aware that the whole of the Old Testament is also considered by Christians to be the Word of God; your asserted reason, why the Koran must be the word of God, is not convincing; for there are wicked people, even infidels, who composed books with wonderful elegance, and perspicuity, and strength. Moreover many of the Persians declare that Saadi is written with superior elegance; and some of the Arabians assert, that the Mekamat Hariri is written in far superior language than the Koran.

That the sun and moon are metaphors, as applied in Joseph's dream, is confirmed by the very words of Christ; for I must repeat what I have already observed as an answer to your first objection, that in order to understand well the meaning of a verse, one must read the preceding chapter or chapters connected with that verse; so we must do here. In Mathew xxii. Christ begins to speak about the future kingdom to be established, not in plain terms, but in parables, called in Arabic imsaal, and in Hebrew And that sun and moon is an oriental imagery for King and Queen, you yourself will admit. I would also remark, that it is necessary to hold in connection the Old and New Testament. Christ, in speaking to the Jews, was accustomed to refer to the Old Testament. Now there is a connection between the parabolic language of Christ in the 22nd chapter of Matthew, and the parabolic language of the Prophet Isaiah in his 34th chapter, 4th and 5th verses; both use the imagery of Eastern idiom. Isaiah's "host of heaven" signifies royal power, as the King of Babylon was called "the morning star," Isaiah 14; and as the King of Persia is called the "sun of the empire;" and as the empire of China is called the "celestial empire." Thus my assertion is borne out by texts in Scripture, by Christ's word, and by the language of Oriental literature. Yours truly,

JOSEPH WOLFF.

DEPARTURE FROM LUCKNOW.

Feb. 3.-I preached in the British residency; after the service was over, three Mussnlmans called, and desired instructions in Christianity.

In the afternoon I preached in the cantonment; then took a cor

dial farewell of Major and Mrs. Low, and Sir Jeremiah and Lady Bryant, and set off for Cownpore. Here I again lodged with my excellent friend Lieutenant Conolly, who has lately published his travels through Affghanistaun; he is a man of strict principles, deep religion and research; but as he had no interest, his merits have been overlooked.

Feb. 5.-I dined with Colonel Whish, and expounded the Scripture in his house.

Feb. 6.-I lectured in the tents of the English officers, and preached to several native officers who professed the Mohammedan religion. One of the Subdars, i. e. native officers, made this enquiry: "If Jesus Christ was a King, why did he not coin money?" Another replied, that he came not as a King, but as a Fakeer (poor man). Another said, he would die in the religion in which he was born. I replied, that his ancestors did not think so, for they were idolaters and became Mohammedans; and no man says, that he will die poor, because his father has been poor.

Feb. 9.-I had again the greater part of the day discussions with the Mussulmans, in which Conolly kindly assisted me.

Feb. 11.-I called on the Roman Catholic Priest, an Italian, who was a well informed man.

Feb. 12.-I left Cownpore with Captain Layard, and arrived at Futtehpore, where I lectured, and took up my abode with Mr. Rivaz, an excellent and pious gentleman. I met there with a bold, talkative, and self conceited sciolus, who without knowing any thing of the Sanscrit tongue, talked nonsense about the antiquity and excellency of the Vedas. According to the great Sanscrit scholar, Horace Wilson, the Vedas are little, known yet, and no satisfactory data exist for computing their antiquity. The computation of Mr. Colebrooke makes them about 1400 years anterior to Christianity. Munoo Smerti is supposed to have been composed about seven centuries B. C.; frequent references are made to the Vedas in this work.

Feb. 15.-Arrived at Allahabad, a place of pilgrimage for Hindoos; as the Gunga (Ganges) flows here. I lived half the time with Mr. Fane, and the other part of my stay with Mr. Turnbull and Caldecotte; preached in the church, and lectured in the freemasons' hall.

ARRIVAL AT BENARES.

Feb. 20.-I arrived at Benares, and took up my abode with General White. I visited the zealous and pious Missionaries of the Church Missionary Society, Messrs. Smith, Leupold, and Knorp. They assisted me in managing my affairs, and in preaching, and making researches; and so did also the Rev. Mr. Hammond, for whom I preached in the church and lectured.

Feb. 21.-I breakfasted with the above mentioned Missionaries. Mr. and Mrs. Smith of the Church Missionary Society have established a school for Hindoo and Mohammedan girls and boys, who learn by heart the ten commandments, and portions of Scripture.