writers. Merodach is the "healer" who goes between the Gods and men, and is assumed to be the nearest approach between man and God that has ever been found in the Assyrian inscriptions. This and other resemblances which are very striking, are all belonging to a period before the time of Christ. I would, for my own part, repudiate any attempt to establish that the Hebrew Messiah was an echo of Merodach; in the Babylonian inscriptions we frequently find these resemblances.

The CHAIRMAN.-It seems to me that the question is whether certain minute points of resemblance-minor points of similarity-do not show historical connexion? That certain wide similarities may appear in different myths of independent origin, there is no doubt; but one can hardly refuse to say that in certain particular cases there are similarities that can hardly be accidental. Each case must, or ought to be taken and investigated by itself. It is a moot point as to which of these two classes this history belongs; but we must not say that, because Mr. Collins thinks these idylls of the life of Krishna copied from the life of Christ, therefore all similarities of history must have been derived one from the other.

Mr. BOSCAWEN.-What I think is, that if we adopt the view put forward by Mr. Collins, other people may use the same argument in the opposite way. The CHAIRMAN.—With regard to what has been said about the Nicene Creed, it is exceedingly possible that Athanasius derived many of the expressions he used from secular sources.

Mr. BOSCAWEN.-I saw the manuscript I have mentioned, and it is a strong argument in your favour.

THE AUTHOR.-As far as my own belief is concerned, I am of opinion that throughout the whole of the time before the Christian era there was a continuous knowledge of an early Revelation from God, and that would account for almost everything we want to account for, and I say that we have in the case of Krishna some particular facts and teachings which are, in a very special way, similar to the facts and teachings of Christianity. If the two do not belong to each other, how have they come to display this similarity, and how is it that these teachings of Krishna are so very distinct from everything in Hindooism previously?

Mr. STALKARTT.—The question seems principally to turn on a chronological question about which there can be no certainty, namely, whether this book or that was written first. We know that the Hindoos are very fond of making evidence. They make evidence for the courts. They will lay evidence twenty years in advance, and it is impossible to rely on any Hindoo chronological table, unless you have evidence on which you can base your decision.

The Meeting was then adjourned.

THE AUTHOR'S REPLY.

WITH regard to the date of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, I have not placed it in the third century of the Christian era, but "after the third century"; that is, I have spoken of the third century as the most remote date probable. And here I think I am in good company, for I believe Professor Max Müller places it in what he calls the "Renaissance period of Indian literature," the commencement of which he gives as about 300 A.D.; and Sir Monier Williams speaks of it as, at all events, "a comparatively modern episode of the Mahâbhârata" (Religious Thought and Life in India, p. 63). It is perfectly true, as Professor Douglas says, that "nothing is so deluding as Oriental chronology "; what is to be noted, however, is, that recent researches have somewhat modified not a few dates once pretty widely received. Mr. Fergusson's papers on Indian chronology in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society are, for instance, a case in point. And no doubt Professor Max Müller is on very sure ground when he speaks of the "blank in the Brahmanical literature of India from the first century before to the third century after our era" (India, p. 86. et seq.).

It may not be out of place to remark that there is a passage near the end of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, which may, I think, indicate that it was written at a time when Vaishnavism was seeking by a party, and perhaps more or less secret, propagandism to supplant Buddhism. The passage I refer to is as follows :-" This [namely, the teaching of the Gîtâ]* you should never declare to one who performs no penance, who is not a devotee, nor to one who does not wait on [some preceptor], nor yet to one who calumniates me" (Telang's Translation, p. 129). It has, indeed, by some been supposed that the reference is to the Saivites. But would not the "performer of no penance," the "non-devotee," the "calumniators of Vaishnavism," seem rather to point to the Buddhist than to the Saivite? At all events, this remarkable passage, when its actual reference becomes more clear in the light of a more perfect historical knowledge of Hinduism, should afford us some clue to

* Prohibitions as to certain classes of learners are found at the close of other books also, e.g., Aitareya-Aranyaka, iii., 2, 6, 9.

the date of the poem. If, as I suppose, the reference be to the Buddhist, when the antagonism, which ultimately led to the expulsion of Buddhism from the continent, was probably at its height, this passage must be referred to a time some centuries below the commencement of the Christian era; while if, according to the other supposition, the dreaded enemy were the Saivite, the origin of the passage might be even more modern.

With respect to another subject, frequently expressed, that the doctrine of the Gîtâ is only a natural development of germs of religious thought already exhibited in earlier Hindu writings, especially in the Upanishads, which are generally regarded as the latest of the strictly Vedic writings, it seems to me to be a theory which cannot be substantiated. I cannot find in the Upanishads any adumbration of the special character of the Gîtâ. The Upanishads may be broadly said to be meditations-and often most charmingly illustrated meditations—on the Universal Spirit, as manifested throughout nature, and especially in the persons of gods and men; and the nearest approach that I remember to have remarked to the teaching of Krishna is the saying of Indra to one who had reached his heaven, "Know me only; that is what I deem most beneficial to man, that he should know me " (KaushitakiUp., chap. iii.). But I cannot persuade myself that this is a germ pregnant with the "mysteries" of the "divine song"; nor can it lead up to the doctrine of the manifestation of the divine in the human, which is the specific doctrine of the poem.

The real character of Vaishnavism, as distinguished from earlier Hindu religious thought, needs to be carefully studied. The new phase in Vaishnavism is the worship of a personal God, originating from the incarnation of Vishnu in the person of Krishna; and this is at the real root of Vaishnavism, and plainly discernible in its branches, through its many subsequent entangleinents. The thesis of Vaishnavism, and some of the most prominent parts of its construction, are so manifestly of the same nature as the thesis of Christianity, and some of its most prominent features, that it is difficult indeed to believe that they have arisen without any connexion whatever between them. And to suppose a supposition that we know to have been made-that Christianity itself has borrowed some of the gems of Vaishnavism, and has rescued them from a setting of fable and immorality, to give them a fresh setting in the midst of the divine light of purity ; nay, to claim—and the claim has been made-that they are themselves the very germs and parents of that divine light in the midst of which they glow in the Christian Scriptures, is to make a

supposition in defiance of all ordinary reason. But the fact of such theories having been mooted shows how strong the conviction has been of some real connexion between the two. And I cannot see the ultimate "danger" that is represented as attending the discussing the nature of such apparent connexion. That Christianity is the real source from which Vaishnavism received its new doctrine of the worship of a personal God, seems to me historically consistent. The only remaining supposition possible is, that both are indebted to some early, and more perfect system; this is apparently a not uncommon view of the case: but where, then, is the more perfect original from whence both Christianity and Vaishnavism have derived their leading thoughts? One position, indeed, remains

from which my argument might be broken; and that is the denial of the fact that there are so many actual parallelisms between Vaishnavism and Christianity as I have stated. And this we must leave to the judgment of the individual student, who will study Vaishnavism as it develops about the person of Krishna, from the Mahabharata on through the Purânic period. The quotations that I have given from the Mahâbhârata and Gîtâ are only samples of many, the limits of a paper forbidding more detailed statements. And these are not to be taken as mere coincidences, but in connexion with the origin and peculiar character of what is called Vaishnavism. Since writing this paper I have had the pleasure of reading Sir Monier Williams' Religious Thought and Life in India ; and his conclusions with regard to Vaishnavism are so similar, as it seems to me, to what I have advanced, that I venture to quote some of his remarks. He says (pp. 96 and 97), “Vaishnavism is, like Saivism, a form of monotheism. It is the setting aside of the triune equality of Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu in favour of one god, Vishnu (often called Hari), especially as manifested in his two human incarnations, Rāma and Krishna. 'Brahma and Siva,' said the great Vaishnava teacher Madhva, 'decay with their decaying bodies; greater than these is the undecaying Hari.' And here, at the outset of an important part of our subject, I must declare my belief that Vaishnavism, notwithstanding the gross polytheistic superstitions and hideous idolatry to which it gives rise, is the only real religion of the Hindu peoples, and has more common ground with Christianity than any other form of non-Christian faith. Vedism was little more than reverential awe of the forces of nature and a desire to propitiate them. Brahmanism was simply an Indian variety of pantheistic philosophy. Buddhism, which was a product of Brahmanism, and in many points very similar to Brahmanism, gained many followers by its disregard of caste distinctions, and its

offers of deliverance from the fires of passion and miseries of life; but in its negations and denials of the existence of both a Supreme and human spirit, was no religion at all; and in this respect never commended itself generally to the Indian mind. Saivism, though, like Vaishnavism, it recognised the eternal personality of one Supreme Being, was too severe and cold a system to exert exclusive influence over the great majority of the Hindu peoples. Vaishnavism alone possesses the essential elements of a genuine religion. For there can be no true religion without personal devotion to a personal God,—without trusting Him, without loving Him, without praying to Him, and, indeed, without obeying Him. Who can doubt that a God of such a character was needed for India,-a God who could satisfy the yearnings of the heart for a religion of faith, love, and prayer, rather than of knowledge and works? Such a God was believed to be represented by Vishnu." And again (page 140), “The idea of devotion (bhakti) as a means of salvation, which was formally taught by the authors of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, BhagavataPurāna, and Sandilya-sutra, was scarcely known in early times. The leading doctrine of the Vedic hymns and Brahmanas is that works (harma), especially as represented by the performance of sacrifices (yajua), constitute the shortest pathway to beatitude, while the Upanishads insist mainly on abstract meditation and divine knowledge as the true method."

It should be observed that this worship of a personal deity in devotion, faith, and love, which is the essence of Vaishnavism, originates in the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, in the descent, or avatara, of Vishnu in the person of Krishna. The other avatāras, or manifestations of Vishnu, are of subsequent development: that is, though the Rāmas were historically before Krishna, they were only long afterwards deified. Moreover, the common heathen idea of Gods visiting the earth in human or other form, like Euripides' Bacchus, and numberless other instances, such as those found in Homer's Od., p, 484, Ovid's Met., viii. 626, or such as the fish, tortoise, and boar of the Satapatha Brahmana, belong to quite a different line of thought. How are we to account for this new departure of Vaishnavism from the earlier Hindu systems of religious teaching? Could the "religious need" of India have itself produced the idea of the personal God it required? I believe I am indebted to Bishop Temple-though I write from memory-for the aphorism, that while we may allow of a development of religion under suitable influences, we cannot allow of evolution from the spontaneous conclusions of the human mind. The latter is the heresy of the day in which we live. That the central thought of Vaishnavism

Maou