h intercession forms no part." Jesus spoke in the Aramaic language, and not in Greek. The term used by Jesus, as explained by a Christian scholar of the Bible, Wastenfells, was Mauhamana (Aramaic) which becomes Mauhamanna in Hebrew, both signifying the praised; and in the sister language, Arabic, it is Muhammad or Ahmad, derived from the same root Hamad which means to praise. Jesus it is now easy to understand, bespoke of the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhammad after him which is further confirmed by the Di vine word in the Holy Quran = "And when Jesus, son of Mary, said 0 Children of Israel, surely, I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad." (61 : 6). The
Oomforter the Paraclete and the spirit
terms indicating one and the same person, the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Turn over Chapter 15, verse 2(j,
of truth are synonymous
of the Gospel according to John, and read: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." But our American Bahai, Mr. Roger N. Paries, would have us believe that the Comforter and Paraclete were two separate and distinct personages, and that the Comforter whom Mr. Paries identifies with Bahaullah of the Divine heights, "would bring the Kingdom to this earth" and "posses full authority to abrogate the ceremonial laws." Facts, however, give lie to these high-sounding claims. Instead of establishing his Kingdom OIl this earth, Bah aullah passed all his life in imprisonment, weeping and wailing, and at last yielded up his ghost in exile in a state of utter failure and frustration. A dreadful and disgraceful doom of a truth, has been prescribed in the Law of God Almighty for such claimants. Pharaoh of Egypt, when he asserted his claim to be the Divine Being, was devoured and destroyed by a dreadful death, in spite of all his might and main. It was the Holy Prophet Muhammad who established the Kingdom, both spiritual and temporal, on this earth. Professor Browne spoke the truth when
be stated that the Bahais were clever enough to adapt their preaching to the ear of their interlocuter without caring much for the scruples of truth. That Bah aullah claimed Divinity for himself in unambiguous terms, and founded a new creed of his own quite apart from the great religion of Islam, is a fact which cannot be denied nor disowned. But his followers show him up in different garbs as suited their purpose on the occasion. To the Christians they would say that Bahaullah was the incarnation of God the Father, and his son Abbas Effendi was that of God the Son i.e, Jesus the Christ. The Christians who believe in the pagan doctrine of Incarnation, are thus easily taken in. But when a Bahai accosted and addressed an Ahmadi Musal man who believed Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, foretold in the sacred scriptures, the Bahai would spread another net, and exhibit Bahaullah as a claimant to Messiahship only, and argue that since Bahaullah had proclaimed himself as such, i. e. Promised Messiah, long before Hadzrat Mirza Sahib, 80 Bahaullah, and not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should be accepted as the real Messiah. Making a reference to a prophecy in the Old Testament (Daniel 8:14), a Bahai jumps
to the queer conclusion that the event of the Second Coming of Christ was fulfilled in the appearance of Bah aullah "the only Messiah in the world". From the super-most and supreme height of Divinity to the humbler position of a human Messiah is indeed a great fall to ascribe to his object of worship and adoration. We shall, however, refer to verses (Chapter XII. 9-11), of the same Book of Daniel where the time of the Second Coming of Jesus, son of Mary, had been foretold in quite distinct and definite terms : Go thy way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of t