one. The Rev. Dr. Bauerjea was the first to broach it, and the objection I have to it is that it is not proved. There are three points that are necessary to its establishment: first, a late date must be given to the Gîtâ; secondly, an early date must be given for the spread of Christian influence or knowledge in India; and, thirdly, similarities must be proved between the Krishna myth and the history of Christ. In section 9 of the paper the author says:- "The fact is, it is impossible to prove that the Gîtâ was written prior to the Christian era"; but, on the other hand, I say it is impossible to prove that it was not written prior to the Christian era. So long as we are content to engage in the work of destruction it is not necessary to substantiate our own theory; but, when we begin to substantiate a theory of our own, we must have a basis for it, and we must be able to prove it. We must remember that many scholars agree that the Bhagavad-Gîtâ was written before Christ. Professor Hunter, in his Indian Empire, says there is an allusion to the Mahâbhârata in the work of Dion Chrysostomos, 75 A.D., which would mean that the Bhagavad-Gîtâ itself must have been written some time before that. In paragraph 15 of the paper, we read that "In the Bhagavad-Gîtâ he (Krishna) is once or twice addressed as Vishnu. The doctrine of the avatâras, or incarnations, of Vishnu, are also only first developed in the Purânas. Thus, the legends of the fish, the tortoise, and the boar are found in the Satapatha Brâhmana; but it is only in the much-later Purânas that they are described as incarnations of Vishnu.” There is indeed a vast gap of eight centuries between Christ and the Purânas, during which Vishnu was growing into importance. But upon what grounds does Mr. Collins fix the date of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ at any particular point between the two? Then, the author of the paper says: "When the worship of Vishnu as the supreme spirit really superseded that of Indra we cannot definitely say, but it seems to belong to the more metaphysical age of Hindu thought." If we were searching for the metaphysical age of Hindu thought, we ought to look for it in the age succeeding the introduction of Buddhism. So much for the first point. Mr. Collins' arguments have not very plainly established his own theory that the Bhagavad-Gîtâ was written in the third century after Christ. As to the next point, the necessity of establishing an early date for Christian influence in India. In section 22 of the paper we have the arguments, which, I suppose, are familiar to us all, especially that about St. Thomas as the Apostle of India; and the further statement as to Pantænus, the tutor of Clemens Alexandrinus, finding a Gospel of St. Matthew there in the second century. Both of these are connected with the coast of India, whereas the Bhagavad-Gîtâ has for its scene Upper India; and how this shows that Christian influence was brought to bear on Upper India and beyond the coastline I am at a loss to see. In the 24th section of the paper we find the dates put very late indeed-—587 Anno Domini-to show connexion with the Grecians in the sixth century, and also with Persia, on the supposition that some of the Christianity was derived from Persia. But what a difference there is between the sixth century and

the third, when, as stated here, the Bhagavad-Gîtâ is supposed to have been written! But, after all, the real point at issue is the third, namely, What are the similarities between the Krishna myth and the history of Christ? It certainly seems to me that these similarities are by no means as great as many persons seem to imagine. I believe the best answer to all these theories to be that which Mr. Collins makes in the 2nd section of his paper, where he shows how we may find myths in almost anything. I am here reminded of the various theories adopted to find the number of the Beast, 666, in the names of historical personages, by which it would not be difficult to prove any given person to be the Beast. But let us consider a few of these supposed similarities. In the first place, we have to deal with the idea of incarnation. I do not think that enough stress has been laid on the fact that the Christian idea of incarnation is absolutely unknown even at the present time in India. I allude to the Christian idea of the incarnation of Christ as perfect God and perfect man. In the 5th section of the paper Mr. Collins says:-"I believe I am correct in saying that this is the first time that the distinct idea of incarnation is to be found in the Hindu writings." I suppose he means incarnation in the human form, because, as he remarks a few pages further on-"The legends of the Fish, the Tortoise, and the Boar are found” as far back as "the Satapatha Brâhmana.” These legends are related as distinct incarnations of Brahma, who is alleged to have come down and assumed these forms. Surely, here was the idea of incarnation many years before Christ. I am delighted, however, to see that Mr. Collins, at the conclusion of his paper, sets aside those absurd ideas with regard to the similarity of the Krishna myths with the account of Christ from His being born of a virgin, and in a cave, and so forth. Of course, there is not the smallest foundation for assertions of this kind, as Mr. Collins has clearly shown. It was only the other day that I took up a tract, written by Mr. Bradlaugh, and headed, Who was Jésus Christ? in which it was ignorantly stated that Krishna was born of a virgin mother. This shows the evil of allowing statements of such a nature to pass uncontradicted, and I take it that part of the work of this Society is to show that assertions of this kind are unhistorical, and without a vestige of proof. Turning to a book with which I was familiar in India-Isis Unveiled--by Madame Blavatzsky, I find her idea, which runs through the work from beginning to end, to be, that religion is one, and all these myths are one. Where she gets some of these ideas, I do not know. Her imagination is certainly called into play when she says that there are credible traditions that Krishna died on a cross, and explains by saying that he was nailed to a tree by an arrow, and therefore was crucified. These theories are so curiously absurd that they do not need a single word of refutation; but still, it is necessary to refer to them to show that they have no foundation. With regard to the similarity between the names of Christ and Krishna, it merely comes to this, that they spell Krishna with the letters Chr instead of Kr; but the only theory that could stand is that as the name of Krishna existed before that of Christ, these stories were grafted upon Krishna,

but certainly not that the name was derived from Christ. Turning once more to Mr. Collins' paper, I notice that at the beginning of section 16, he says, speaking of Krishna :— "He preaches a new faith, personal devotion to him, as the embodiment of the divine." In my opinion, that paragraph is the strongest of all with regard to the similarity in teaching, but it is not conclusive, because in the writings of the Hindoos every god is made to claim fealty to himself, and to ask people to believe in him rather than in others. As to the idea of forgiveness, that, of course appears in the Vedas, in which there are prayers for forgiveness. With regard to the sentence in section 6 of the paper,-"Every one will allow, I think, that these are novel doctrines, of which there are no discernible germs in the Vedic literature,”—that remark, I think, may stand. Turning to the miracles mentioned on the latter part of the same page, they are, doubtless, very striking indeed, as showing a resemblance to the works of Christ; but after all, what are they but mere coincidences, such as we might readily imagine in the lives of two persons embracing a great many events, both of them believed by their votaries to be deities. In section 29 of the paper, I think the similarities are decidedly very curious. For instance, we have Yadu," as "A singular echo of Yahudah," and "Vasu" as being like "Yoseph," or Joseph, inverted. There can be no doubt that these similarities are remarkable ones; but having said that, we have said all. If we were to proceed to base theories on them, and to derive Christianity from them, or to go from them to Christianity, I agree with Professor Max Müller, and do not see what grounds we have for doing so. I would say, in conclusion, that the one thing as to which I am confident, as far at least as my own opinion is concerned, is that the origin of the Krishna myth is not attributable to Christianity in any way whatever, although it is just possible that stories may have been carried into the Krishna myth from the history of Christ. But "the truth is, " as Mr. Collins states in the 20th section of his paper, "That there is only one point. common to the two pictures, and that is the bare fact of the incarnation of the Deity." I am afraid that, speaking on the spur of the moment, I have not put my opinions as clearly as I should have wished; but I have not had time to put my thoughts into writing. I may add that I read the paper with the greatest pleasure, as it shows a great amount of thought and learning. I must apologise to the author for having differed from him; but I suppose it is right for us to express our opinions where we do differ from those who favour us, as Mr. Collins has done, with the results of their studies on particular subjects. I have here, if any one wishes to see them, two diagrams of Krishna, painted by Hindoos of Benares, and showing how he is regarded by the people of that part of India.

Professor ODELL.—I should like to ask this question of the last speaker. How ought it to affect our faith in Christ, if we are to suppose that Krishna and others taught some of the sublime doctrines of Christianity?

Rev. H. M. M. HACKETT.-I think it ought to confirm our faith in Christ, because it confirms our faith in God, as showing that He has not left Himself without a witness in all the nations of the earth.

:

Mr. W. ST. CHAD BOSCAWEN.-I agree with Mr. Hackett in saying that the connexion between Krishna and Christianity demands from us the Scotch verdict of "not proven." We know that a school of thought has been gaining ground in England and America, which connects Buddhism and Christianity,—a school which has been chiefly guided by a work Mr. Howard mentioned, Arnold's Light of Asia. I have recently heard a paper read on that work in connexion with the work of Christianity, and I must congratulate Mr. Collins, who has had a long experience in India (as also had the gentleman who read the paper I refer to), on the fact that he has not fallen into the errors which were undoubtedly apparent in the paper recently heard. But I think that the more practical way of looking at the subject is to take account of the points with which the author of the paper has dealt in relation to a number of Indian myths. There is one, for instance, which has reference to the placing of the child Krishna in a basket and sending it over a river. This is common to half-a-dozen other mythical personages, between whom we cannot establish the slightest connexion. I may mention Sargon, King of Babylonia, and the same story is told of Moses, of Romulus, and of the Greek hero, Perseus, while it appears in five or six other forms which I cannot at the present moment remember however, it is well known that the water-baby is quite a common feature in mythology. Again, we have the birth of the hero from a virgin as a common allegation, and we are not supposed to show that every such myth is to be connected with Christianity. In fact, I think there is just as much risk in making these comparisons on the one side as on the other. The paper is written from an Indian point of view, of which I know very little, but it seems to me that the endeavour to establish the introduction and influence of Christianity in India as having a bearing on the form of the Indian religions is somewhat weak. The solar myth, we know, has been applied to Biblical heroes as well as to other heroes, and the most formidable attack of all was that on which Dr. Goltzieher based his celebrated work, The Mythology of the Hebrews, a good deal of which we cannot believe, though there is much in it that we must highly value. A great deal that was there advanced was founded on an essay by a German student, perhaps one of the most powerful essays that has been written on the solar myth. It relates to the myth of Samson, as it is there put, and the story of Samson presents a remarkable resemblance in name and general character to a well-known Oriental story, which Dr. Steinthal made out. The essay is a very valuable one; but the danger is dealing with similarities without being able to prove any historical connexion, because if you are proving influence, one way or the other, you must prove it historically. I must say I am not sorry to find that the condition of the chronology of Indian literature is almost as difficult and perplexing as that of other nations. Mr. Budge, of the British Museum, recently discovered a document, which contains many of the clauses of the Nicene Creed. The document was taken from the Temple of Ammon, and is of a very early date, the 18th or 19th Dynasty, and yet it contains clauses of the Nicene Creed.

It would be very hard to prove any connexion between that document which has lain hid in the Egyptian tomb for all these years, and the Nicene Creed, as drawn up so long afterwards. There is hardly any old poem in the Vedic literature to which you can turn, in which you do not find such similarities. It is reasonable to suppose that religious thoughts and feelings which are the outpourings of human minds and hearts, often find expression to a certain extent in the same form, and actuated by the same influences, so that we may frequently find similarities where it would be very difficult to prove the slightest connexion.

THE AUTHOR.-There has been so formidable an array of objections to my paper that I am afraid I shall not be able in the time at our disposal to reply even to a tithe of them. There are, however, one or two points that have struck me somewhat differently from the rest. I think the description of Krishna as a perfect man, and also as the embodiment of the will of the Supreme Being, is very different from all the pictures, as far as I have studied them, both of Hindooism and the heathenism of other nations. There was no idea more common than that the Gods descended in human form; no idea more common than that which made man divine; but when we come to Krishna, and consider his person and teaching, we have such an evident resemblance in his most prominent features to the more prominent features of the Saviour's nature and teaching, that we feel there must have been some reason for it. If the similarity is merely the result of philosophic thought or of man's imagination it would seem wonderful indeed; but we have, further than this, the fact that there are a great many similarities in other directions, as Mr. Boscawen has remarked; and I would ask, how is it 'that so many of the heathen gods, according to the latest descriptions of them, are so very like the Saviour oftentimes in His manifestations, and very often, also, in His teachings,—why, for instance, should there be the wonderful idea of birth from a virgin in so many cases as Mr. Proctor affirms? We shall find that a great number of these histories were written only for the purpose of upsetting Christianity; as, for instance, in the notorious history of Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus, to gratify Julia Domna, as also in the transformation of the Persian Mithras by Manes. There is one particular point to which attention ought to be specially directed, and that is the incongruity between the character of Krishna and his teachings as developed in the Gîtâ. There is also the same incongruity between the teachings of Buddha and the history of his character, as given in the latest Buddhist writings.

Mr. BOSCAwEN.-There is just one thing I should like to add. I do not quite see the force of Mr. Collins' argument with regard to these similarities. If they are to be traced to the influence of Christianity, how does he account for the resemblances which we know are to be found long before the time of Christ? I do not know whether he has read the Speaker's Commentary, in which some remarkable resemblances are stated by one who has no bias on the side of Assyrian studies, and he finds a curious similitude between Merodach of the Babylonian literature, and the Messiah of the Hebrew