There is some incoherency in the words ascribed to Jesus by the Fourth Gospel. It reads as if several Periqlytes had already come and gone, and that "another Qeriqlytos" would be given only at the request of Jesus. These words also leave behind the impression that the Apostles were already made familiar with this name which the Greek text renders Periqlytos. The adjective "another" preceding a foreign noun for the first time announced seems very strange and totally superfluous. There is no doubt that the text has been tampered with and distorted. It pretends that the Father will send the Periqlyte at the request of Jesus, otherwise the Periqlyte would never have come! The word "ask," too, seems superficial, and unjustly displays a touch of arrogance on the part of the Prophet of Nazareth. If we want to find out the real sense in these words we must correct the text and supply the stolen or corrupted words, thus:

"I shall go to the Father, and he shall send you another apostle whose name shall be Periqlytos, that he may remain with you for ever." Now with the additional italicized words, both the robbed modesty of Jesus is restored and the nature of the Periqllyte identified.

We have already seen that the Periqlyte is not the Holy Spirit, that is to say, a divine person, Gabriel, or any other angel. It now remains to prove that the Periqlyte could not be a consoler nor an advocate between God and men.

1. The Periqlyte is not the "Consoler" nor the "Intercessor." We have fully shown the material impossibility of discovering the least signification of "consolation" or of "intercession". Christ does not use Paraqalon. Besides, even from a religious and moral point of view the idea of consolation and intercession is inadmissible.

(a) The belief that the death of Jesus upon the Cross redeemed the believers from the curse of original sin, and that his spirit, grace, and presence in the Eucharist would be for ever with them, left them in need of on consolation nor of the coming of a consoler at all. On the other hand, if they needed such a comforter, then all the Christian presumptions and pretentions concerning the scrifice of Calvary fall to the ground. In fact, the language of the Gospels and that of the Epistles explicitly indicates that the second coming Jesus upon the clouds was imminent (Maat. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27; 1 John ii. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 1;w Thess. ii. 3, etc.).

(b) Consolation can never make restitution of the loss. To console a man, who has lost his sight, wealth, son, or situation, cannot restore any of those losses. The promise that a consoler would be sent by God after Jesus had gone would indicate the total collapse of all hope in the triumph of the Kingdom of God. The promise of a consoler indicates mourning and lamentation and would naturally drive the Apostles into disappointment if not into despair. They needed not a consoler in their distress and afflictions, but a victorious warrior to crush the Devil and his power, one who would put an end to their troubles and persecutions.

(c) The idea of an "intercessor" between God and man is even more untenable than that of the "consoler." There is no absolute mediator between the Creator and the Creature. The unity of Allah alone is our absolute intercessor. The Christ who advised his audience to pray to God in secret, to enter the closet and shut the door and then to pray - for only under such a condition their heavenly "Father" would hear their prayer and grant them His grace and succour - could not promise them an intercessor. How to reconcile this contradiction!

(d) All believers, in their prayers, intercede for each other, the prophets and angels do the same. It is our duty to invoke God's mercy, pardon, and help for ourselves as well as for others. But God is not bound or obliged to accept the intercession of anyone unless He pleases. If Allah had accepted the intercession of His Holy Servant Muhammad, all men and women would have been converted to the religion of Islam.

I would be duly grateful to the person through whose intercession I obtained pardon, and relief. But I shall always dread the judge or the despot who was delivering me into the hands of an executioner. How learned these Christians are, when they believe that Jesus at the right hand of his Father intercedes for them, and at the same time believe in another intercessor - inferior to himself - who sits on the throne of Almighty! The Holy Qur-an strictly forbids the faith, the trust in a "shafi'" or intercessor. Of course, we do not know for certain, but it is quite conceivable that certain angels, the spirits of the prophets and those of the saints, are permitted by God to render help and guidance to those who are placed under their patronage. The idea of an advocate before the tribunal of God, pleading the cause of his clients, may bevery admirable, but it is erroneous, because God is not a human judge subject to passion, ignorance, partiality, nd all the rest of it. The Muslims, the believers, need only education and religious training; God knows the actions and the hearts of men infinitely better than the agngels and prophets. Consequently there is no necessity for intercessors between the Deity and the creatures.

(e) The belief in intercessors emanates from the belief in sacrifices, burnt offerings, priesthood, and a massive edifice of superstition. This belief leads men into the worship of sepulchres and images of saints and martyrs; it helps to increase the influence and domination of the priest and monk; it keeps the people ignorant in the things divine; a dense cloud of the intermediary dead cover the spiritual atmosphere between God and the spirit of man. Then this belief prompts men who, for the pretended glory of God and the conversion of the people belonging to a different religion than theirs, raise immense sums of money, establish powerful and rich missions, and lordly mansions; but at heart those missionaries are political agents of their respective Governments. The real cause of the calamities which, have befallen the Armenians, the Greeks, and the Chaldeo-Assyrians in Turkey and Persia ought to be sought in the treacherous and revolutionary instruction given by all the foreign missions in the East. Indeed, the belief in the intercessors has always been a source of abuse, fanaticism, persecution, ignorance, and of many other evils.

Having proved that the "Paraclete" of St. John's Gospel does not and cannot mean either "consoler" or "advocate," nor any other thing at all, and that it is a corrupted form of Periqlytos, we shall now proceed to dscuss the real signification of it.

2. Periqlytos etymologically and literally means "the most illustrious, renowned, and praiseworthy." I take for my authority Alexandre's Dictionnaire Grec-Francais=Periqlytos, "Qu'on peut entendre de tous les cotes; qu'il est facile a entendre. Tres celebre," etc.;"=Periqleitos, tres celebre, illustre, glorieux;=Periqleys, tres celebre, illustre, glorieux," from =Kleos, glorire, renommee, celebrite." This compound noun is composed of the prefix "peri," and "kleotis," the latter derived from "to glorify, praise." The noun, which I write in English characters Periqleitors or Periqlytos, means precisely what AHMAD means in Arabic, namely the most illustrious, glorious, and renowned. The only difficulty t be solved and overcome is to discover the original Semitic name used by Jesus Christ either in Hebrew or Aramaic.

(a) The Syriac Pshittha, while writing "Paraqleita," does not even in a glossary give its meaning. But the Vulgate translates it into "consolator" or "consoler." If I am not mistaken the Aramaic form must have been "Mhamda" or "Hamida" to correspond with the Arabic "Muhammad" or "Ahmad" and the Greek 'Periqlyte."

The interpretation of the Greek word in the sense of consolation does not imply that the name Periqlyte itself is the consoler, but the belief and the hope in the promise that he will come "to console the early Christians. The expectation that Jesus would come down again in glory before many of his auditors had "tasted the death" had disappointed them, and concentrated all their hopes in the coming of the Periqlyte.

(b) The Qur-anic revelation that Jesus, the son of Mary, declared unto the people of Israel that he was "bringing glad tidings of an apostle, who shall come after me and whose name shall be Ahmad," is one of the strongest proofs that Muhammad was truly a Prophet and that the Qur-an is really a divine revelation. He could never have known that the Periqlyte meant Ahmad, unless through inspiration and divine revelation. The authority of the Qur-an is decisive and final; for the literal signification of the Greek name exactly and indisputably corresponds with Ahmad and Muhammad.

Indeed, the Angel Gabriel, or the Holy Spirit, seems even to have distinguished the positive from the superlative form the former signifying precisely Muhammad and the latter Ahmad.

It is marvellous that this unique name, never before given to any other person, was miraculously preserved for the most Illustrious and Praiseworthy Apostle of Allah! We never come across any Greek bearing the name Periqleitos (or Periqlytos), nor any Arab bearing the name of Ahmad. True, there was a famous Athenian called Periqleys which means "illustrious," etc., but not in the superlative degree.

(c) It is quite clear from the description of the Fourth Gospel that Perqlyte is a definite person, a created holy spirit, who would come and dwell in a human body to perform and accomplish the prodigious work assigned to him by God, which no other man, including Moses, Jesus, and any other prophet, had ever accomplished.

We, of course, do not deny that the disciples of Jesus did receive the Spirit of God, that the true converts to the faith of Jesus were hallowed with the Holy Spirit, and that there were numerous Unitarian Christians who led a saintly and righteous life. On the day of the Pentecost - that is, ten days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ - the Spirit of God descended upon the disciples and other believers numbering one hundred and twenty persons, in the form of tongues of fire (Acts ii.); and this number, which had received the Holy Spirit in the form of one hundred and twenty tongues of fire, was increased unto three thousand souls who were baptized, but were not visited by the flame of the Spirit. Surely one definite Spirit cannot be divided into six-score of individuals. By the Holy Spirit, unless definitely described as a personality, we may understand it to God's power, grace, gift, action, and inspiration. Jesus had promised this heavenly gift and power to sanctify, enlighten, strengthen, and teach his flock; but this Spirit was quite different from the Periqlyte who alone accomplished the great work which Jesus and after him the Apostles were not authorized and empowered to accomplish, as we shall see later.

(d) The early Christians of the first and second centuries relied more upon tradition than upon writings concerning the new religion. Papias and others belong to this category. Even in the lifetime of the Apostles several sects, pesudochrists, Antichrists, and false teachers, tore as under the Church (1 John ii. 18-26; 2 Thess. ii. 1-12; 2 peter ii. iii. 1; John 7-13; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Tim. iii. 1-13; etc.). The "believers" are advised nd exhorted to stick to and abide by the Tradition, namely, the oral teaching of the Apostles. These so-called "heretical" sects, such as the Gnostics, Apollinarians, Docetae, and others, appear to have no faith in the fables, legends, and extravagant views about the sacrifice and the redemtion of Jesus Christ as contained in many fabulous writings spoken of by Luke (i. 1-4). One of the heresiarchs of a certain sect - whose name has escaped my memory - actually assumed "Periqleitos" as his name, pretending to be "the most praiseworthy" Prophet foretold by Jesus, and had many followers. If there were an authentic Gospel authorized by Jesus Christ or by all the Apostles, there could be no such numerous sects, all opposed to the contents of the books contained in or outside the existing New Testament. We can safely infer from the action of the pseudo-Periqlyte that the early Christians considered the promised "Spirit of Truth" to be a person and the final Prophet of God.

3. There is not a slightest doubt that by "Periqlyte," Muhammed, i.e. Ahmad, is intended. The two names, one in Greek and the other in Arabic, have precisely the same signification, and both mean the "most Illustrious and Praised," just as "Pneuma" and "Ruh" mean nothing more or less than "Spirit" in both languages. We have seen that the translation of the word into "consoler" or "advocate" is absolutely untenable and wrong. The compound form of Paraqalon is derived from the verb composed of the prefix-Para-qalo, but the Periqlyte is derived from the peri-qalo, but the Periqlyte is derived from the Peri-qlue. The difference is as clear as anything could be. Let us examine, then, the marks of the Periqlyte, which can only be found in Ahmad - Muhammad.

(a) Muhammad alone revealed the whole truth about God, His unity, religion, and corrected the impious libels and calumnies written and believed against Himself and many of His holy servants.

Jesus is reported to have said about Periqlyte that he is "the Spirit of Truth," that he "will give witness" concerning the true nature of Jesus and of his mission (John xiv. 17; xv. 26). In his discourses and orations Jesus speaks of the pre-existence of his own spirit (John viii. 58) xvii. 5, etc.). In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus is reported to have often spoken of the glory and the splendour of Muhammad's spirit whom he had seen. There is no doubt that the spirit whom he had seen. There is no doubt that the Spirit of the Last Apostle was created long before Adam. Therefore Jesus, in speaking about him, naturally would declare and describe him as "the Spirit of Truth." It was this Spirit of Truth that reprimanded the Christians for dividing the unity of God into a trinity of persons; for their having raised to the dignity of God and Son of God, and for their having invented all sorts of superstitions and innovations. It was this Spirit of Truth that exposed the frauds of both the Jews and Christians for having corrupted their Scriptures; that condemned the former for their libels against the chastity of the Blessed Virgin and against the birth of her son Jesus. It was this Spirit of Truth that demonstrated the birthright os Ishmael, the innocence of Lot, Solomon, and many other prophets of old and cleared their name of the slur and infamy cast upon them by the Jewish forgers. It was this Spirit of Truth, too, that gave witness about the true Jesus, man, prophet, and servant of God; and has made it absolutely impossible for Muslims to become idolaters, magicians, and believers in more than the one only Allah.

(b) Among the principal marks of Periqlyte, "the Spirit of Truth," when he comes in the person of the "Son of Man" - Ahmad - is "he will chastise the world for sin" (John xvi. 8, 9). No other servant of Allah, whether a king like David and Solomon or a prophet Abraham and Moses did carry on this chastisement for sin to the extreme end, with resolution, fervour, and courage as Muhammad did. Every breach of the law is a sin, but idolatry is its mother and source. We sin against God when we love an object more than Him, but the worship of any other object or being besides God is idolatry, the evil and the total negligence of the Good - in short, sin in general. All the men of God chastised their neighbours and people for sin, but not "the world," as Muhammad did. He not only rooted out idolatry in the peninsula of Arabia in his lifetime, but also he sent envoys to the Chosroes parviz and to Heraclius, the sovereigns of the two greatest empires, Persia and Rome, and to the King of Ethiopia, the Governor of Egypt, and Several other Kings and emirs, inviting them all to embrace the religion of Islam and to abandon idolatry and false faiths. The chastisement by Muhammad began with the delivery of the word of God as he received it, namely, the recital of the verses of the Qur-an; then with preaching, teaching, and practising the true religion; but when the Power of Darkness, idolatry, opposed him with arms he drew the sword and punished the unbelieving enemy. This was in fulfilment of the decree of God (Dan. vii.). Muhammad was endowed by God with power and dominion to establish the Kingdom of God, and to become the first prince and Commander-in-Chief under the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords."

(c) The other characteristic feature of the exploits of Periqlyte - Ahmad - is that he will reprove the world of righteousness and justice (loc. cit.). The interpretation "of righteousness, because I am going to my Father" (John xvi. 10) put into the mouth of Jesus is obscure and ambiguous. The return of Jesus unto his God is given as one of the reasons for the chastisement of the world by the coming Qerqlyte. Why so? And who did chastise the world on that account? The Jews believed that they crucified and killed Jesus, and did not believe that he was raised and taken up into heaven. It was Muhammad who chastised and punished them severely for their infidelity. "Say, O Muhammad, to the unbelieving Jews: They did not really kill him; but God took him up unto Himself" (Qur-an, iv. 158). The same chastisement was inflicted upon the Christians who believed and still believe that he was really crucified and killed upon the Cross, and imagine him to be God or the son of God. To these the Qur-an replied: "Yet they [the Jews] slew him not, nor crucified him, but the matter was made dubious to them." Several velievers in Jesus in the very beginning of Christianity denied that Christ himself suffered upon the Cross, but maintained that another among his followers, Judas Iscariot or another very like him, was seized and crucified in his stead. The Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Corpocratians and many other sectaries held the same view. I have fully discussed this question of the Crucifixion in my work entitled Injil we Salib ("The Gospel and the Cross") of which only one Volume was published in Turkish just before the Great War. I shall devote an article to this subject. So the justice done to Jesus by Ahmad was to authoritatively declare that he was "Ruhu 'l-Lah," the Spririt of God that he was not himself crucified and killed, and that he was a human being but a beloved and holy messenger of God. This was what Jesus meant by justice concerning his person, mission, and transportation into heaven, and this was actually accomplished by the Apostle of Allah.

(d) The most important mark of Periqlyte is that he would chastise the world on account of Judgment "because the prince of this world is to be judged" (John xvi. 11). The King or Prince of this world was Satan (John xii. 31), xiv. 30), because the world was subject to him. I must draw the kind attention of my readers to the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel written in Aramaic or Babylonian dialect. There it illustrates how the "thrones" ("Kursawan") and the "Judgment" ("dina") were set up, and the "books" ("siphrin") were opened. In Arabic, too, the word "dinu," like the Aramaic "dina," means judgment, but it is generally used to signify religion. That the Qur-an should make use of the "Dina" of Daniel as an expression of judgment and religion is more than significant. In my humble opinion this is a direct sign and evidence of the truth revealed by the same Holy Spirit or Gabriel to Daniel, Jesus, and Muhammad. Muhammad could not forge or fabricate this even if he were as learned a philosopher as Aristotle. The judgment described with all its majesty and glory was set up to judge the Supreme Judge, the Eternal. It was then that someone appeared "like a son of man" ("kbr inish") or "barnasha," who was presented to the Almighty, invested with power, honour, and kingdom for ever, and appointed to kill the Beast and to establish the Kingdom of the People of the Saints of the Most High.

Jesus Christ was not appointed to destroy the Beast; he abstained from political affairs, paid tribute to Caesar, and fled away when they wanted to crown him King. He clearly declares that the Chief of this world is coming; for the Periqlyte will root out the abominable cult of idolatry. Muhammad accomplished all this in a few years. Islam is Kingdom of Judgment, or religion; it has the Book of Law, the Holy Al-Quran; it has God as its Supreme Judge and King, and Muhammad as its victorious hero of everlasting bliss and glory!

(e) "The last but not the least mark of the periqlyte is that he will not speak anything of himself, but whatsoever he hearts that will he speak, and he will show you the future things" (John xv. 13). There is not one iota, not a single word or comment of Muhammad or of his devoted and holy companions in the text of the glorious Qur-an. All its contents are the revealed Word of Allah. Muhammad uttered, pronounced the Word of God as he heard it read to him by the Angel Gabriel, and was reduced to writing by the faithful scribes. The words, sayings, and teachings of the Prophet, though sacred and edifying, are not the Word of God, and they are called Ahadith or Traditions.

Is he not, then, even in this description, the true Periqlyte? Can you show us another person, besides Ahmad, to possess in himself all these material, moral, and practical qualities, marks, and distinctions of periqlyte? You cannot.

I think I have said enough on the Periqlyte and shall conclude with a sacred verse from the Qur-an: "I follow no other than what is revealed unto me; nor am I more than a Public Warner" (x1vi.).

The Holy Qur-an presents to us the true Jesus Christ as "the Son of Mary;" and the Holy Gospels, too, present him to us as "the Son of Mary;" but that Gospel which was written on the white tablets of the heart of Jesus and delivered to his disciples and followers orally, alas! was soon adulterated with a mass of myth and legend. "The Son of Mary" becomes "the Son of Joseph," having brothers and sisters. Then he becomes "the Son of David;" "the Son of Man;" "the Son of God;" "the Son" only; "the Christ;" and "the Lamb."

Many years ago, one day I visited the Exeter Hall in London; I was a Catholic priest then; volens nolens I was conducted to the Hall where a young medical gentleman began to preach to a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association. "I repeat what I have often said," exclaimed the doctor, "Jesus Christ must be either what he claims to be in the Gospel or he must be the greatest impostor the world has ever seen!" I have never forgotten this dogmatizing statemtnt. What he wanted to say was that Jesus was either the Son of God or the greatest impostor. If you accept the first hypothesis you are a Christian, a Trinitarian; if the second, then you are an unvelieving Jew. But we who accept neither of these two propositions are naturally Unitarian Muslims. We Muslims cannot accept either of the two titles given to Jesus Christ in the sense, which the Churches and their unreliable Scriptures pretend to ascribe to those appellations. Not alone is he "the Son of God," and not alone "the Son of Man," for if it be permitted to call God "Father," then not only Jesus, but every prophet and righteous believer, is particularly a "son of God." In the same way, if Jesus were really the son of Joseph the Carpenter, and had four brothers and several married sisters as the Gospels pretend, then why alone should he assume this strange appellation of "the Son of Man" which is common to any human being?

It would seem that these Christian priests and pastors, theologians and apologists have a peculiar logic of their own for reasoning and a special propensity for mysteries and absurdities. Their logic knows no medium, no distinction of the terms, and no definite idea of the titles and appellations they use. They have an enviable taste for irreconcilable and contradictory statements, which they alone can swallow like boiled eggs. They can believe, without the least hesitation, that Mary was both virgin and wife, that Joseph was both spoouse and husband, that James, Jossi, Simon, and Judah were both cousins of Jesus and his brothers, that Jesus is perfect God and perfect man, and that "the Son of God," "the Son of Man," "the Lamb," and "the Son of David" are all one and the same person! The feed themselves on heterogeneous and opposed doctrines which these terms represent with as greedy an appetite as they feel for bacon and eggs at breakfast. They never stop to think and ponder on the object they worship; they adore the crucifix and the Almighty as if they were kissing the bloody dagger of the assassin of their brother in the presence of his father!

I do not think there is even one Christian in ten millions who really has a precise idea or a definite knowledge about the origin and the true signification of the term. "the Son of Man." All Churches and their commentators without exception will tell you that "the Barnasha" out of humility and meekness, never knowing that the Jewish Apocalyptical Scriptures, in which Jesus and his disciples heart and soul believed, foretold not a "Son of Man" who would be meek, humble, having nowhere to lay his head, and be delivered into the hands of the evildoers and killed, but a strong man with tremendous power and strength to destroy and disperse the birds of prey and the ferocious beasts that were tearing and devouring his sheep and lambs! The Jews who heard Jesus speaking of "the Son of Man" full well understood to whom he was alluding. Jesus did not invent the name "Barnasha," but borrowed it from the Apocalyptical Jewish Scriptures: the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Books, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Daniel, etc. Let us examine the origin of this title "the Barnasha" or "the Son of Man."

1. "The Son of Man" is the Last Prophet, who established "the Kingdom of Peace" and saved the people of God from servitude and persecutions under the idolatrous powers of Satan. The title "Barnasha" is a symbolical expression to distinguish the Saviour from the people of God who are represented as the "sheep," and the other idolatrous nations of the earth under various species of the birds of prey, ferocious beasts, and unclean animals. The Prophet Hezekiel is almost always addressed by God as "Ben Adam," that "the Son of Man" (or of Adam) in the sense of a Shepherd of the Sheep of Israel. This Prophet has also some Apocalyptical portions in his book. In his first vision with which he begins his prophetic book he sees besides the sapphire throne of the Eternal the appearance of "the Son of Man." This "Son of Man" who is repeatedly mentioned as always in the presence of God and above the Cherubim is not Hezekiel (or Ezekiel) himself? He is the prophetical "Barnasha," the Last Prophet, who was appointed to save the people of God from the hands of the unbelievers here upon this earth, and not elsewhere!

(a) "The Son of Man" according to the Apocalypse of Enoch (or Henoh).

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ was very familiar with the Revelation of Enoch, believed to be written by the seventh patriarch from Adam. For Judah, "the brother of James" and the "servant of Jesus Christ," that is the brother of Jesus, believes that Enoch was the real author of the work bearing his name. There are some dispersed fragments of this wonderful Apocalypse preserved in the quotations of the Early Christian writers. The book was lost long before Photius. It was only about the beginning of last century that this important work was found in the Canon of the Scriptures belonging to the Abyssinian Church, and translated from the Ethiopic into the German language by Dr. Dillmann, with notes and explanations." The book is divided into five parts or books, and the whole contains one hundred and ten chapters of unequal length. The author describes the fall of the angels, their illicit commerce with the daughters of men, giving birth to a race of giants who invent all sorts of artifices and noxious knowledge. Then vice and evil increase to such a pitch that the Almighty punishes them all with the Deluge. He also relates his two journeys to the heavens and across the earth, being guided by good angels and the mysteries and wonders he saw therein. In the second part, whic is a description of the Kingdom of Peace, "the Son of Man" catches the kings in the midst of their voluptuous life and precipitates them into hell. But this second book does not belong to one author, and assuredly it is much corrupted by Christian hands. The third book (or part) contains some curious and developed astronomical and physical notions. The fourth part presents an Apocalyptical view of the human race from the beginning to the Islamic days, which the author styles the "Messianic" times, in two symbolical parables or rather allegories. A white bull comes out of the earth; then a white heifer joins him they give birth to two calves: one black, the other red; the black bull beats and chases away the red one; then he meets a heifer and they give birth to several calves of black colour, until the mother cow leaves the black bull in the search the red one; and, as she does not find him, bawls and shrieks aloud, when a red bull appears, and they begin to propagate their species. Of course, this transparent parable symbolizes Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Sheth, etc., down to Jacob whose offspring is represented by a "flock of sheep" - as the Chosen People of Israel; but the offspring of his brother Esau, i.e. the Edomites, is described as a swarm of boars. In this second parable the flock of sheep is frequently harased, attacked, dispersed, and butchered by the beats and birds of prey until we come to the so-called Messianic times, when the flock of sheep is again attacked fiercely by ravens and other carnivorous animals; but a gallant "Ram" resists with great courage and valour. It is then that "the Son of Man," who is the real master or owner of the flock, comes forth to deliver his flock.

A non-Muslim scholar can never explain the vision of a Sophee - or a Seer. He will - as all of them do - bring down the vision to the Maccabees and the King Antiochus Epiphanes in the middle of the second century B.C., when the Deliverer comes with a tremendous truncheon or sceptre and strikes right and left upon the birds and the beasts, making a great slaughter among them; the earth, opening its mouth, swallows them in; and the rest take to flight. Then swords are distributed among the sheep, and a white bull leads them on in perfect peace and security.

As to the fifth book, it contains religious and moral exhortations. The whole work in its present shape exhibits indications which show that it was composed as late as 110 B.C., in the original Aramaic dialect, by a Palestinian Jew. At least such is the opinion of the French Encyclopaedia.

The Qur-an only mentions Enoch under his surname "Idris" - the Arabic form of the Aramaic "Drisha" being of the same category of simple nouns as "Iblis" and "Blisa." "Idris" and "Drisha" signify a man of great learning, a scholar and an erudite, from "darash" (Arabic "darisa"). The Qur-anic text says: "And remember Idris in the same book; for he was a just person and a prophet; and We exalted him to a high place" (xix).

The Muslim commentators, Al-Baydhawi and Jalalu'd-Din, seem to know that Enoch had studied astronomy, physics, arithmetic, that he was the first who wrote with the pen, and that "Idris" signifies a man of much knowledge, thus showing that the Apocalypse of Enoch had not been lost in their time.

After the close of the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures in the fourth century or so B.C. by the "Members of the Great Synagogue," established by Ezra and Nehemiah, all other sacred or religious literature besides those included within the Canon was called Apocrypha and excluded from the Hebrew Bible by an assembly of the learned and pious Jews, the last of whom was the famous "Simeon the Just," who died in 310 B.C. Now among these Apocryphal books are included the Apocalypses of Enoch, Barukh, Moses, Ezra, and the Sibyline books, written at different epochs between the time of the Maccabees and after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. It seems to be quite a la mode with the Jewish Sages to compose Apocalyptical and religious literature under the name of some celebrated personage of antiquity. The Apocalypse at the end of the New Testament which bears the name of John the Divine is no exception to this old Judaeo Christian habitude. If "Judah the brother of the Lord" was really the author of the one hundred and ten chapters bearing that name, there is no wonder that Justin the Martyr, Papias, and Eusebius would believe in the authorship of Matthew and John.

However, my aim is not to criticize the authorship of, or to extend the comments upon these enigmatic and mysterious revelations which were compiled under the most painful and grievous circumstances in the history of the Jewish nation; but to give an account of the origion of this surname "the Son of Man" and to shed some light upon its true signification. The Book of Enoch too, like the Apocalypse of the Churches and like the Gospels, speaks of the coming of "the Son of Man" to deliver the people of God from their enemies and confuses this vision with the Last Judgment.

(b) The Sibylline Revelation, which was composed after the last collapse of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, states that "the Son of Man" will appear and destroy the Roman Empire and deliver the Believers in one God. This book was written at least fourscore years after Jesus Christ.

(c) We have already given an exposition of "the Son of Man" when we discussed the vision of Daniel, where he is presented to the Almighty and invested with power to destroy the Roman Beast. So the visions, in the "Assumption of Moses," in the Book of Baruch (or Barukh), more or less similar in their views and expectations to those described in the above-mentioned "Revelations," all unanimously describe the Deliverer of the people of God as "Barnasha" or "the Son of Man," to distinguish him from the "Monster;" for the former is created in the image of God and the latter transformed into the image of Satan.

2.The Apocalyptic "Son of Man” could not be Jesus Christ This surname, "Son of Man," is absolutely inapplicable to the son of Mary. All the pretensions of the so-called "Gospels" which make the "Lamb" of Nazareth of "catch the kings in the midst of their voluptuous life and hurl them down into the hell;" lack every bit of authenticity, and the distance separating him from "the Son of Man" marching with the legions of angels upon the clouds towards the Throne of the Eternal is more than that of our globe from the planet of Jupiter. He may be a "son of man" and a "messiah," as every Jewish king, Prophet, and high priest was, but he was not "the Son of Man" nor "the Messiah" whom the Hebrew Prophets and apocalyptists foretold. And the Jews were perfectly right to refuse him that title and office. They were certainly wrong to deny him his prophethood, and criminal to have shed his innocent blood -, as they and the Christians believe. "The Assembly of the Great Synagogue," after the death of Simeon the just in 310 B.C., was replaced by the "Sanhedrin," whose president had the surname of "Nassi" or Prince. It is astonishing that the "Nassi" who passed the judgment against Jesus, saying: "It is more profitable that one man should die rather than the whole nation should be destroyed," was a prophet! If he were a prophet, how was it that he did not recognize the prophetic mission or the Messianic character of "the Messiah"?

Here are, then the principal reasons why Jesus was neither "the Son of Man" nor the Apocalyptic Messiah:

(a) A messenger of God is not commissioned to prophesy about himself as a personage of some future epoch, or to foretell his own reincarnation and thus present himself as the hero in some great future drama of the world. Jacob prophesied about "the Apostle of Allah," Moses about a prophet who would come after him with the Law, and Israel was exhorted to "obey him; Haggai foretold Ahmad; Malachi predicted the coming of the "Messenger of the Covenant" and of Elijah; but none of the prophets ever did prophesy about his own second coming into the world. What is extemely abnormal in the case of Jesus is that he is made to pretend his identity with "the Son of Man," yet he is unable to do in the least degree the work that the foretold "Son of Man" was expected to accomplish! To declare to the Jews under the grip of Pilate that he was "the Son of Man," and then to pay tribute to Caesar; and to confess that "the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head;" and then to postpone the deliverance of the people from the Roman yoke to an indefinite future, was practically to trifle with this nation; and those who put all these incoherences as sayings in the mouth of Jesus only make idiots of themselves.

(b) Jesus knew better than everybody else in Israel who "the Son of Man" was and what was his mission. He was to dethrone the profligate kings and to cast them into the hell-fire. The "Revelation of Baruch" and that of Ezra - the Fourth Book of Esdras in the Vulgate - speak of the appearance of "the Son of Man" who will establish the powerful Kingdom of Peace upon the ruins of the Roman Empire. All these Apocryphal Revelations show the state of the Jewish mind about the coming of the last great Deliverer whom they surname "the Son of Man" and "the Messiah." Jesus could not be unaware of and unfamiliar with this literature and this ardent expectation of his people. He could not assume either of those two titles to himself in the sense which the Sanhedrin - that Supreme Tribunal of Jerusalem - and Judaism attached to them; for he was not "the Son of Man" and "the Messia," because he had no political programme and no social scheme, and because he was himself the precursor of "the Son of Man', and of "the Messiah" - the Adon, the Conqering Prophet, the Anointed and crowned Sultan of the Prophets.

(c) A critical examination of the surname "Son of Man" put three and eighty times in the mouth of the master will and must result in the only conclusion that he never appropriated it to himself; and in fact he often uses that title in the third person. A few examples will suffice to convince us that Jesus applied that surname to someone else who was to appear in the future.

(i) A scribe, that is a learned man, says: "I will follow thee wheresoever thou goest." Jesus answers: "The foxes have their holes; the birds of heaven their own nests; but the Son of Man has not place where to lay his head." In the verse following he refuses one of his followers permission to go and bury his father! You will find not a single saint, father, or commentator to have troubled his head or the faculty of reasoning in order to discover the very simple sense embodied in the refusal of Jesus to allow that learned Scribe to follow him. If he had place for thirteen heads he could certainly provide a place for the fourteenth too. Besides, he could have registered him among the seventy adherents he had. The Scribe in question was not an ignorant fisherman like the sons of Zebedee and of Jonah; he was scholar and a practised lawyer. There is no reason to suspect his sincerity; he was led to believe tat Jesus was the predicted Messiah, the Son of Man, who at any moment might summon his heavenly legions and mount upon the throne of his ancestor David. Jesus perceived the erroneous notion of the Scribe, and plainly let him understand that he who had not two square yards of ground on earth to lay his head could naturally not be "the Son of Man"! He was not harsh to the Scribe; he benevolently saved him from wasting his time in the pursuit of a futile hope!

(ii) Jesus Christ is reported to have declared that the Son of Man "will separate the sheep from the goats." The "sheep" symbolize the believing Israelites who will enter into the Kingdom but the "goats" signify the unbelieving Jews who had joined with the enemies of the true religion and were consequently doomed to perdition. This was practically what the Apocalypse of Enoch had predicted about the Son of Man. Jesus simply cofirmed the relation of Enoch and gave it a Divine character. He himself was sent to exhort the sheep of Israel to remain faithful to God and await patiently the advent of the Son of Man who was coming to save them forever from their enemies; but he himself was not the Son of Man, and had nothing to do with the political world, nor with the "sheep" and "goats" whcih both alike rejected and despised him, except a very small number who loved and believed in him.

(iii) The Son of Man is said to be "the Lord of the Sabbath day," that is, he had the power to abrogate the law which made it a holy day of rest from labour and work. Jesus was a strict observer of the Sabbath, on which day he used to attend the services in the Temple or in the Synagogue. He expressly commands his followers to pray that the national collapse at the destruction of Jerusalem should not happen on a Sabbath day. How could, then, Jesus claim to be the Son of Man, the Lord of the Sabbath day, while he was obliged to observe and keep it like every Jew? How could he venture to claim that proud title and then predict the destruction of the Temple and of Capital City?

These and many other examples show that Jesus could never appropriate the surname of "Barnasha" to himself, but he adcribed it to the Last powerful Prophet, who really saved the "sheep," i.e. the believing Jews; and either destroyed or dispersed the unbelievers among them; abolished the day of Sabbath; established the Kingdom of Peace; and promised that this religion and kingdom will last to the day of the Last Judgment.