•r.''/^:"-jiv>* 
 
 
 
 •:^>< 
 
 
 ?#' 
 
 ol ^^^^ ®h^^J^|}fa/ ^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 6'/i^^: 
 
 BL 2775 .G73 P4 1879 
 
 Perry, John T. 
 
 Sixteen saviours or one? 
 
 
 

 ■.i^f Vfi'' .' ■ .■■■•.. • ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;':^^ 
 
 
Sixteen Sayiours or One? 
 
 THE GOSPELS NOT BRAHMANIC. 
 
 JOHN T. "PERRY. 
 
 "We are no Brachmans, or Indian Gymnosophists, dwellers in woods 
 remote from the affairs of life. We know that our duty is to give thanks 
 to God, the Lord and the Creztor ." —Tertullian. 
 
 CINCINNATI: | 
 
 Peter G. Thomson, 179 Vine Street. 
 
 1879. 
 
COPYRIGHT 
 
 1879. 
 
 PETER G. THOMSON. 
 
tt tttt| ^[n^r: 
 
 DEos at tfie QQe of more tfian nincfij ijcars, stiff retains fiis interest in t^e 
 Qrcat questions lufiirfi f^car upon man's nature and destiny; Ifiis oofume is 
 affectionatcfy and gratcfuffy inscrikd. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 
 
 OF making of books there is no end, and every addition to 
 the already overgrown mass of Hterature should have ample 
 justification. This little volume claims no exemption from the 
 responsibility because of its diminutive size, but trusts that its 
 subject and purpose will sufficiently excuse its appearance. 
 
 The skepticism prevalent among well-read people, may be as 
 liostile to revelation as the infidelity of eighty or one hundred years 
 ago, but it is more decorous. It alleges historical criticism and 
 scientific discovery as the bases of its conclusions, and rarely gets 
 into a passion. Yet the iconoclastic school of Paine and Voltaire is 
 not dead. It has only found new pupils. The earliest opponents 
 of the Bible, though radicals in theory, were aristocrats in practice. 
 Anthony Collins, perhaps the ablest of the English deists of the 
 first half of the last century, always sent his servants to church, that 
 they might not rob him. Voltaire denounced with severity 
 Holbach's "Good Sense," because it taught atheism to valets and 
 chambermaids. It was not until Paine, a man of the people, wrote 
 in a strictly popular manner, that the English masses were provided 
 with a scheme of unbelief suited to their tastes and comprehension. 
 
vi Introductiox 
 
 During the quarter of a century following our Revolution, the 
 influence of the ' ' Age of Reason" was paramount among the radical 
 democracy of New York. Dr. John ^^\ Francis has given in his 
 ^'Old New York" a fearful picture of the demoralization of the period. 
 Elihu Palmer, a blind man and apostate minister, lectured regularly 
 to a chosen circle, by which he was regarded as infallible, and 
 second only to the great Thomas. In his "Principles of Nature" he 
 has left behind him a summary of his deistical scheme. 
 
 Thirty years later, the lectures of Frances Wright and Robert 
 Dale Owen, and their paper, the J^ree Enquirer, spread atheism 
 among the working people of New York. Benjamin Offen, a 
 *' philosophical" shoemaker, also lectured at Tammany Hall. The 
 late Gilbert Vale united the callings of a mathemetical instrument 
 maker and publisher of skeptical works, and about the same time 
 Abner Kneeland started the hivestigator at Boston. "Liberal" 
 papers were also established in other places, but they all, and the 
 Enquirer as well, soon died out. The movement seemed to have 
 culminated. The Investigator alone maintained a somewhat sickly 
 existence, and its publisher issued a list of skeptical works at very 
 high prices. Judging from the persistency with which old editions 
 were kept on sale the demand was not very large. 
 
 Recently a change for the worse has taken place. Infidel Spirit- 
 uaHsm has allied itself to out-and-out materialism, and its advocates 
 are pushing the same books and manifesting entire sympathy in the 
 anti-chrisdan warfare of the successors of Kneeland. There are 
 
Introduction. 
 
 now at least three houses in New York, two in Boston and one in 
 Chicago, which pubUsh long lists of books and tracts assailing the 
 Christian faith, the divine existence, and often the sanctity of 
 marriage. Some of these publications have passed through numerous 
 editions, and all are thoroughly adapted to shake the belief of those 
 who are unfamiliar with the questions discussed. Their authors are 
 either persons, who having no reputation to lose, are utterly 
 unscrupulous in their statements, or men who, having prejudged the 
 case, are incapable of fairly weighing evidence. Anything that will 
 serve their purpose in telling against Christianity is good enough for 
 them. Writing in this spirit, it is not strange that their productions 
 should appear very weighty to the unsophisticated. They never fail 
 to make out a " good case." 
 
 The great majority of these effusions are ^not read by what is 
 known as the reading public, and many of their special objections 
 and assertions are not noticed in the standard volumes on the 
 evidences of Christianity. For about fifty years Robert Taylor's 
 Diegesis has been published in Boston«with the advertisement that it 
 is deemed "unanswerable in fact and argument," yet it has 
 received litde attention. The Rev. George E. Ellis reviewed it in 
 The Christian Examiner over forty years ago. The paper is 
 excellent as far as it goes, but hardly sufficient as an answer to a 
 work, very dangerous, because extremely dishonest, and so be- 
 sprinkled with Greek and Hebrew as to wear the appearance of 
 profound scholarship. It will not do to say that noticing books of 
 
Introduction. 
 
 this kind serves to advertise them. They are already advertised, 
 and are sowing the seeds of unbeHef, communism and recklessness of 
 all kinds among large numbers of voters. If clergymen and philan- 
 thropists wish to know all the reasons for non-attendance at church 
 among the working classes, they will do well to inquire into the 
 circulation of books and pamphlets unknown to them, yet filled 
 with deadly poison. 
 
 Some time ago my attention was called to the works of Mr. 
 Kersey Graves, a skeptical spiritualist of Richmond, Indiana. I 
 first heard of their wide circulation at the East. As they had passed 
 through several editions, I did not feel that I ran any risk of giving 
 them undue publicity by commenting upon them. It seemed best 
 to make my strictures known in the author's own locality. My 
 friend Mr. Daniel Surface of the Richmond Telegram, kindly gave 
 me ample space in his columns, and I reviewed at length the two 
 volumes of Mr. Graves which have gained the widest circulation. 
 
 He repHed, and I rejoined. The controversy then closed, not 
 because Mr. Graves had no desire to prolong it, but because the 
 publisher of the Telegra7n thought the subject had been exhausted. 
 The three articles make up this volume. The public care of course 
 very little about Mr. Graves and myself, but I have chosen to repro- 
 duce the discussion, with no changes save the correction of typo- 
 graphical errors, the amendment of a few hastily written sentences, 
 and the addition of a note or two, in my own letters. I have made 
 no alteration in Mr. Graves', defense, but have inserted two or three 
 
Introduction. ix 
 
 shcrt communications in which he corrected or explained what he 
 had said before. The reader will thus be able to see what each side 
 has to urge for itself. It is not as a discussion however, that I ask 
 attention to the book. I think I can claim first, that the main argu- 
 ments of Taylor's Diegesis, Volney's Ruins, Higgins' Anacalypsis, 
 and Jacolliot's Bible in India, as well as those of Mr. Graves himself, 
 are fully and fairly met ; second, that the materials here gathered 
 must be sought elsewhere in more than one authority and are not to 
 be found in the ordinarily accessible defenses of the Bible. The 
 positions refuted are those which compose the stronghold of the 
 infidel working-men throughout the country, and hence deserve the 
 special attention of the clergy. Furthermore, some of them are 
 gaining a revived acceptance among writers of more eminence than 
 the last named, and a new edition of the Anacalypsis, which has 
 long been out of print, is announced. 
 
 1 make no pretensions to scholarship ; I have simply endeavored 
 to study my subject carefully and thoroughly, and honestly to record 
 my conclusions. The field of comparative mythology is a vast one, 
 and no single person can hope to view, much less to till its entire 
 surface. I have been compelled through lack of space to confine 
 myself to one or two vital issues. If I have shown that Christ is no 
 copy of Krishna, and Christianity no modification of any of the old 
 ethnic beliefs, I have not been unconscious of the many curious 
 ramifications, survivals of a j^rimitive revelation, or proofs of the 
 spiritual unity of all men — which unite the faiths of widely separated 
 
 2 
 
Introduction. 
 
 nations. I have glanced at these in passing, but they are much 
 more satisfactorily, though briefly, set forth in a' note from Professor 
 Swing, which will be found in the appendix. My authorities are 
 sufficiently credited in the context. I wish, however, to acknowl- 
 edge special obligations to Hardwick's "Christ and other 
 Masters," a work remarkable for its keen analysis of the differences 
 as well as resemblances between Christianity and the ethnic faiths. 
 Cardinal Wiseman's "Lectures on the Connection between Science 
 and Revealed Religion," are also no less valuable in regard to 
 certain essential points, because some of their statements respecting 
 natural science have become antiquated during the more than forty 
 years, which have elapsed since their delivery. 
 
 No one can be more conscious of the defects of my work than 
 myself. I could plead in extenuation the unceasing demands of a 
 daily newspaper, yet I have yielded to the request of many friends 
 and readers that I should incorporate my articles in a permanent 
 form. I hope their expectations and my desire of the good thus to 
 to be attained will not be disappointed. 
 
 Gazette Office. J. T. P. 
 
 Cincinnati^ April 15, 1879. 
 
{( 
 
 The Sixteen Crucified Saviors," 
 
 Mr. KERSEY GRAVES AS A THEOLOGIAN AND SCHOLAR. 
 
 To the Editor of the Richmo?id Telegram: 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The controversy on the evidences of Christianity has assumed 
 various forms. Sometimes one position has been assailed by skep- 
 tics, and sometimes another. Each campaign has had its pecuHar 
 tactics. While borrowing from those Avhich preceded it whatever 
 seemed serviceable, those weapons that had proved valueless were 
 thrown away. Just now German rationalists and their English and 
 American imitators are chiefly anxious to prove that the Old and 
 New Testament records are not the work of their reputed authors, 
 but of a sufficiently later origin to allow time for mythical and 
 legendary narratives to grow up. There are others who place their 
 reliance on the alleged discrepancies of revelation and science, 
 forgetting that natural philosophers have changed ground in 
 hundreds of particulars within the last quarter of a century, and 
 that the shifting process has by no means ceased. 
 
12 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 The people of Richmond are pretty generally aware, I suppose, 
 that their fellow citizen, Mr. Kersey Graves, published a few years 
 ago a volume with the surprising title of "The World's Sixteen 
 Crucified Saviors, or Christianity Before Christ,-' of which 
 the fourth edition now lies before me. It purports to contain, ' ' new, 
 startling, and extraordinary revelations in religious history, which 
 disclose the oriental origin of all the doctrines, principles, precepts 
 and miracles of the Christian New Testament, and furnishing a key 
 for unlocking many of its sacred mysteries, besides comprising the 
 history of sixteen heathen crucified gods." In an ''Address to the 
 Clergy," prefixed to the main work, he informs the teachers of the 
 Christian faith that ''The divine claims of your (their) religion are 
 ^one— all swept away by the 'logic of history,' and nullified by the 
 demonstrations of science." He then repeats in detail various 
 alleged coincidences between the scriptural records of the birth, life, 
 and death of Christ and the so-called saviours, who, he says, preceded 
 Him ; the inference, of course, being that the claims of all are 
 equally true and equally false, since the "primary constituent 
 elements and properties of human nature being essentially the same 
 in all countries, and all centuries, and the feeling called Religion 
 being a spontaneous outgrowth of the human mind, the coincidence 
 would naturally produce similar feefings, similar thoughts," &c. He 
 further says : 
 
 ^"Researches into oriental history reveal the remarkable fact that the 
 stories of incarnate Gods answering to and resembling the miraculous character 
 of Jesus Christ have been prevalent in most, if not all, the principal religious 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 15 
 
 heathen nations of antiquity ; ( were there any irreligious ones ? ) and the 
 accounts and narratives of some of these deific incarnations bear such a strik- 
 ing example to that of the Christian Savior — not only in their general features, 
 but in some cases in the most minute details, from the legend of the 
 immaculate conception, to that of the crucifixion, and subsequent ascension 
 into heaven — that one might almost be mistaken for the other." 
 
 If he has demonstrated, as he claims to have done, the fore- 
 going positions, any further assault on Christianity would be very 
 much like kicking a corpse, yet we fancy that Mr. Cxraves is not 
 quite as confident, on sober second thought, as he was while the 
 glow of authorship was fresh, for he has just favored the public with 
 a second effusion of the same general character, and involving, we 
 must say, quite a number of repetitions. The new volume is styled, 
 "The Bible of Bibles, or Twenty-seven Divine Revelations," 
 containing a descripdon of twenty-seven Bibles, and an exposidon 
 (we suppose he means exposure) of two thousand biblical errors in 
 Science, History, Morals, Religion and General Events; also, a 
 delineation of the character of the principal personages of the 
 Chrisdan Bible, and an examinadon of their doctrines." 
 
 The first of the two books is the more important, but a review 
 of its contents will involve an inquiry into the andquity and merits 
 of the chief heathen "bibles," while the author's estimate of the 
 character and evidences of the Hebrew and Chrisdan scriptures, 
 being the same in both volumes, may be considered without exclu- 
 sive reference to either. 
 
 Before bet^innin^ on the "Sixteen Saviors," Mr. Graves names 
 
14 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 thirty-five persons, historical and mythological, who have received 
 or claimed divine honors. Among these are Salivahana, of 
 Bermuda! Though the word we have italicized is twice repeated, 
 we will hold the proof reader responsible for relegating an East 
 Indian divinity to the new world. Mohammed is also in the list, 
 though he never pretended to be more than a prophet. Ixion is set 
 down by Mr. Graves as a Roman, though he appears in the classics 
 as a fabulous king of Thessaly, who was tied to a wheel in Hades 
 for being too intimate with Juno. As he was a murderer before he 
 became a libertine in the circles of Olympus he is certainly a queer 
 candidate for supernatural dignity. 
 
 THE SIXTEEN "SAVIORS." 
 
 But we will i^ass to the sixteen who, our author asserts, were 
 believed to have been crucified in or about the years affixed to their 
 names. They are Chrishna, of India, 1200 B. C. ; the Hindoo 
 Sakia, 600 B. C. ; Thammuz, of Syria, 1160 B. C. ; Wittoba, of the 
 Telengonese, 552 B. C. ; lao, of Nepaul, 622 B. C. ; Hesus, of the 
 Celtic Druids, 834 B. C; Quexalcote, of Mexico, 587 B. C. ; 
 Quirinus, of Rome, 506 B. C. ; (Aeschylus) Prometheus, crucified 
 .547 B. C. ; Thulis, of Egypt, 1700 B. C. ; Indra of Thibet, 725 
 B. C; Alcestos (we suppose Alcestis is meant), of Euripides, 600 
 B. C. ; Atys, of Phrygia, 1170B. C; Crite, ofChaldea, 200 B. C; 
 Bali, of Orissa, 725 B. C; Mithra, of Persia, 600 B. C. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 15 
 
 After reading the astounding catalogue, the reader will natur- 
 ally inquire whether the statements are true? We are afraid we 
 shall have to reduce the list very materially before we consider 
 certain theories not original with Mr. Graves, upon which all his 
 conclusions are based. Sakia, who is no other'than Buddha, must 
 first be dismissed. He is a historical character, a reformer and 
 founder of an important sect. He never was crucified, however, 
 but died a natural death at the age of about eighty, four hundred 
 years or more before Christ. The earliest canon of his writings was 
 not formed until a century and a half after his death. None of the 
 miraculous stories concerning his birth can be traced back to a 
 period preceding the Christian era. The oldest writings concern- 
 ing him extant — there are two sets, the southern and northern, of 
 which the latter are the more marvelous — are subsequent to the 
 Christian era, in their present form at least. 
 
 Thammuz, or the Tammuz, is an Eastern version of the 
 mythical Greek character Adonis, the beloved of Venus, who was 
 killed by a boar, not by crucifixion. 
 
 Hesus, sometimes called Esus, not Eros, the god of love, as 
 Mr. Graves prints it, was the Celtic war god, the counterpart of the 
 Roman Mars, and, as some affirm, the chief divinity, whose symbol 
 was the oak. 
 
 Quexalcote, or Quetzalcoad, as Prescott spells his name, was 
 the Mexican god of the air. During his residence on earth, it is 
 said, he instructed the natives in the use of metals, in agriculture, 
 
i6 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 and in the arts of government. From some cause, not explained,, 
 the historian of the Conquest of Mexico, tells us "Quetzalcoatl 
 incurred the wrath of one of the principal gods and was compelled 
 to abandon the country. On his way he stopped at the city of 
 Cholula, where a temple was dedicated to his worship, the mossy 
 ruins of which still form one of the most interesting relics of 
 antiquity in Mexico. When he reached the shores of the Mexican 
 gulf, he took leave of his followers, promising that he and his 
 descendants would revisit them hereafter, and then entering his 
 wizard skiff, made of serpents' skins, embarked on the great ocean 
 for the fabled land of Tlapallan." 
 
 Quirinus, of Rome, is only our old friend Romulus, under the 
 title given him on his deification after his mysterious disappearance. 
 The name also belongs to Mars, his reputed father. He was no 
 more a savior than any of the later Roman emperors who arrogated 
 to themselves divine honors. 
 
 As for Thulis, or Zuhs, of Egypt, whom Mr. Graves makes a 
 saviour about the time that Jacob was serving T.aban, we are told 
 that he was the same as Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis, who was 
 sacrificed if he reached the age of twenty-five years, though it was 
 pretended that he drowned himself. This animal could hardly be 
 called a crucified saviour, though he was supposed to be glorified by 
 the indwelling of Osiris. The biggist bull, however, in the case, is 
 our author's assertion that from the name Thulis that of the myster- 
 ious northern island, the Ultima Thule was derived ! Mr. Graves 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 17 
 
 may be a theologian and philosopher, but he is not "up" in 
 philology. 
 
 ''Alcestos," whom he would have us believe to have been a 
 female saviour, laid down, or offered to lay down her life for her 
 husband, when told by an oracle that he could never be cured of a 
 disease unless one of his friends died in his stead. Some accounts 
 represent her as rescued at the last instant by Hercules. Alcestis 
 or Alceste, as she is sometimes called, is the heroine of a drama by 
 Euripides, and of a modern opera. 
 
 Atys, of Phrygia, was a shepherd beloved by the goddess 
 Cybele. She made him a priest, imposing on him a vow of 
 celibacy. This he violated, and being made delirious by the 
 incensed divinity, castrated himself. 
 
 Crite, of Chaldea, is affirmed by an imaginative writer from 
 whom our author has derived the main thread of his work, to be set 
 forth in the sacred books of the Chaldeans, as a crucified god, a 
 redeemer and atoning offering, etc. It is enough to say that we 
 have found no mention of him in the investigations of such modern 
 archaeologists as George Smith, nor in the admirable summary of 
 Babylonian beliefs and history in the latest edition of the Encyclo- 
 psedia Britannica. 
 
 Wittoba, an incarnation of Vishnu, is the same as Chrishna. 
 Bali is another of the divinities with which, under various names 
 later Brahmanism has swarmed. lao, of Nepaul, who Mr. Graves 
 thinks may have been the original of the Hebrew Jehovah! is 
 
 3 
 
1 8 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 probably one of the Jins or deities of the Jains, a heretical sect of 
 Northern India, who have mingled Buddhism and Brahmanism 
 with strange conceits of their own. Indra, of Thibet, is a 
 Buddhistic transformation of Indra, the sky god of early Brahman- 
 ism, and later the personal opponent of Chrishna. Mr. Graves has 
 cited at second or third hand the reports of uncritical mediaeval 
 Christian missionaries concerning these latter deities. 
 
 Prometheus, a thoroughly mythical character, who was nailed 
 to a rock on Mt. Caucasus — not on a cross — where a vulture was 
 perpetually to feed on his ever growing liver, was rescued by 
 Hercules, after thirty years of torment. He is an interesting 
 character, but it is hardly fair to quote a dramatic poet of the fifth 
 century before Christ, as authority concerning a person who, if he 
 had ever lived at all, must have flourished at least a thousand years 
 earlier. We have thus reduced the catalogue to Mithra and 
 Chrishna, or Krishna, as the best authorities spell the name. 
 With them we shall deal later, as they, especially the last named, 
 are the chief dependence of Mr. Graves, and the school of writers 
 of whom he is the exponent. 
 
 MR. GRAVES' SCHOLARSHIP. 
 
 The reader has already been furnished with some interesting 
 glimpses of Mr. Graves' scholastic attainments, and it is only just to 
 him, as well to the public, that their full extent should be known. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 19 
 
 He himself tells us in the introduction to the ''Saviors" that 'ignor- 
 ance of science and ignorance of history are the two great bulwarks 
 of religious error." It is well, therefore, to be certain that our guide 
 is thoroughly conversant with the paths through which he proposes 
 to lead us, in urging us to desert the well trodden road of old 
 fashioned beliefs. It certainly does not inspire confidence to find 
 so few of his ' ' saviors " answering the descrij^tion he gave at 
 the start, and we are puzzled, to say the least, by further 
 information which he vouchsafes us. 
 
 What must one think, who has looked over the plates of unintel- 
 ligible hieroglyphics in Lord Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities, 
 to find one set referred to as if it were a printed volume — as an 
 ''ancient work called Codex Vaticanus," in which "the immaculate 
 ■conception is spoken of as part of the history of Quexalcote, the 
 Mexican Savior"? Is it possible that Mr. Graves has never seen 
 the Codex, or the great work in which it is reproduced ? 
 
 Again, he regards Alcides and Hercules as two different 
 persons, when they are the same. In another place he refers to 
 Alcides as an Egyptian, and Prometheus as a Roman god ! Are 
 all the classical writers and lexicographers wrong, or has Mr. 
 Graves been corrected by " spiritual" influences ? 
 
 He represents Confucius as miraculously born, when, in truth, 
 he was the son of his father's second marriage, and was the soberest 
 of matter-of-fact men, a kind of Chinese Ben Franklin, who dis- 
 couraged religious enthusiasm, taught practical morality on purely 
 
20 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 earthly considerations, and died very unromantically at a good old 
 age. The great Jew Maimonides is styled Mamoides, and Ludwig 
 Feuerbach, whose name the author ought to know, since he 
 professes to ([uote him, is called Mr. Fleurbach. It is very care- 
 less, if not very dishonest, to claim that Herod had fourteen 
 thousand babes massacred at Bethlehem, or more strictly to assert 
 that that number perished, if Matthew has written the truth. There 
 were not anything like fourteen thousand men, women and children, 
 all told, in Bethlehem and its ''coasts." The village was a little 
 one, and a dozen children under two years old would be a fair 
 estimate. 
 
 But his errors are not confined to surmises. He thus garbles 
 Gibbon: "In a note to chapter XV, he (Gibbon) says, 'It is 
 probable that the Therapeuts (Essenes) changed their name to 
 Christians, as some writers affirm, and adopted some new articles 
 of faith." Gibbon really says : " Basnage * "^^ "^ ''^ has 
 examined with the most critical accuracy the curious treatise of 
 Philo, which describes the Therapeutse. By proving that it was 
 composed as early as the time of Augustus, Basnage has demon- 
 strated, in spite of Eusebius (b ii. c 17) and a crowd of modern 
 Catholics, that the Therapeut?e were neither Christians nor Monks. 
 It still remains probable that they changed their name, preserved 
 their manners, adopted some new articles of faith, and gradually be- 
 came the fathers of the Egyptian ascetics." 
 
 On page 62, lao, of Nepaul, appears as Jao AVapaul, a god cf 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 
 
 Britain. The next example of our author's inteUigence is very 
 rich. He says : "We will first hear from Colonel Wiseman, for ten 
 years a Christian missionary in India." Then follows a quotation 
 from Cardinal Wiseman's lectures on Science and Religion ! 
 
 I was surprised that Mr. Graves should misrepresent Gibbon, 
 for if there is honor among thieves there surely ought to be fair 
 dealing between skeptics. Having discovered this rule disregarded, 
 I was prepared to find him slandering an aposde. We are coolly 
 told that Paul, in Romans iii. 7, justifies falsehood when he says : 
 ''If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his 
 glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" Why does not 
 Mr. Graves quote the next verse, " And not rather (as we be 
 slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) ' Let us do 
 evil, that good may come', whose damnation is just " Are mis- 
 quotation and perversion among the methods of breaking down 
 the "bulwarks of religious error?" 
 
 Occasionally his malice gets the better of his consistency. On 
 page 304 ("Saviors") he quotes some verses in eulogy of forgiveness 
 from the "old Persian bible," which say: 
 
 "Forgive thy foes nor that alone; 
 
 Their evil deeds with good repay : 
 Fill those with joy who leave thee none, 
 And kiss the hand upraised to slay." 
 
 To this he adds : 
 "The Christian Bible would be searched in vain to find a moral sentiment 
 ■or precept superior to this. Certainly it is the loftiest sentiment of kindness 
 
Sixteen Saviours or One, 
 
 toward enemies that ever issued from human lips, or was ever penned by- 
 mortal man. And yet is found in an old heathen bible. Think of ' kissing 
 the hand upraised to slay.' Never was love, and kindness, and forbearance- 
 toward enemies more sublimely expressed than in the old Persian ballad." 
 
 On page 347, he talks differently. After citing the text: 
 "Love your enemies," he adds: 
 
 "Then what kind of feeling should we cultivate toward friends? And 
 how much did he love his enemies when he called them fools, liars, 
 hypocrites, generation of vipers, &c? And yet he is held up as 'our' example 
 in love, meekness and forbearance. But no man ei'er did lot'e an enemy ; it is a 
 moral iinpossibilily, as much so as to loz<e bitter ornauseating foody 
 
 The italics are my own. The charming harmony of sentiment 
 should be duly credited to Mr. Graves. 
 
 Referring to resurrections, we are informed that personages 
 declared by the author to be Egyptian gods, "Tyndarus and 
 Hypolitus, were instances of this kind, both (according to Julius) 
 having been raised from the dead." Who was Julius? Hippolytus, 
 not Hypolitus, and Tyndarus were both personages in Grecian 
 mythology ; the latter being the father of Helen. Mr. Graves may 
 have had access to better authority, perhaps. 
 
 We have also the very novel information, on the alleged 
 evidence of '-Col. Hall and Dr. Oliphant," that " no drunkenness, 
 no fighting, no quarrelling, no thefts, no robberies, no rapes, no 
 fornication, no domestic feuds or broils, and no fraudulent dealing 
 take place in Japan." I should prefer to examine these authorities 
 for myself rather than take Mr. Graves' word for it. If they say 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 23 
 
 any thing of the kind, they contradict other writers, and what the 
 mails so frequently bring in the way of accounts of rebellions, 
 assassinations and wide-spread immorality. So much for the 
 "Sixteen Crucified Saviors," and the author's learning. We have 
 by no means exhausted the fountain, for there remains an abundant 
 supply in both volumes, to some of which we shall apply analytic 
 tests in other connections. We have made it very evident, 
 however, that Mr. Graves is neither well informed nor honest. We 
 shall next proceed to examine the trustworthiness of the authorities 
 on which he has principally relied. 
 
 HIS AUTHORITIES. 
 
 A casual glance at both books, especially the "Saviors," will 
 show, that, with much trash and many repetitions, they contain a 
 good deal of curious learning, " important if true." Where did the 
 author get it? The blunders we know are his own, but all is 
 not stupidity. He has been candid enough to say regarding the 
 " Saviors," and the remark is in part applicable to the " Bibles," 
 " Many of the most important facts, were derived from Sir Godfrey 
 Higgins' Anacalypsis, a work as valuable as it is rare." He would 
 not have exaggerated had he admitted that the bulk of his data was 
 borrowed from this source. Had he been more exact, however, he 
 would not have given Mr. Higgins the prefix " Sir." He was an 
 English country gentleman of studious habits, born in 1771, and 
 dying in 1833, before his Anacalypsis, in two volumes quarto, saw 
 
24 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 the light. He was previously well known to antiquaries by his 
 "Celtic Druids," a work of much research but eccentric con- 
 clusions. The Anacalypsis is a vast muddle of undigested infor- 
 mation, gathered from all sources, good, bad and indifferent, and 
 shaped to suit his preconceived theory. It is regarded by scholars as 
 curious, but as absurd in argument. Mr. Higgins, though learned, 
 was incapable of weighing authorities. The sub-title of the Ana- 
 calypsis is "an Attempt to unveil the Mysteries of the Saitic Isis." 
 Now, it happens that the Saitic Isis was not veiled. Plutarch thus 
 quotes the inscription on the temple of Neith [probably the Egyp- 
 tian prototype of Athene or Minerva] at Sais : ''lam that was, 
 and is, and is to be; and my veil no mortal hath yet drawn 
 aside." Whether Neith or Isis was the embodiment of the divine 
 wisdom which Mr. Higgins endeavored to solve, it is certain that 
 even skeptical scholarship recognizes his utter failure. He was 
 childishly credulous, "believing everything but the Bible." 
 
 His theory is that of Dupuis, with modifications. Dupuis a 
 French astromoner, born 1742, died 1809, reached the opinion that 
 all the religions of antiquity rose from nature-worship, and that their 
 mythologies were allegories of celestial phenomena. The sun, the 
 twelve signs of the zodiac, and the precession of the equinoxes 
 solved every problem. He included Christianity, holding that the 
 alleged birth of Christ, on the 25th of December, was only the 
 passage of the sun from the winter to the vernal solstice; that His 
 mother was the constellation Virgo; Simon Peter, Aquarius, and so 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 25 
 
 on. Other nations had typified the same processes under different 
 names from time immemorial. Everything began, however, in 
 Egypt. This wild idea is not wholly destitute of fact as applied to 
 some of the ancient heathen systems. Its fault is that it inverts the 
 pyramid. The nations worshiped the sun, moon, and stars, first as 
 the dwelling places of divinity, and afterwards as deities; but their 
 mythologies were largely distortions and exaggerations of real, 
 earthly events which were subsequently ascribed to the heavenly 
 bodies, first typically but finally in good faith, at least, among the 
 masses. Absurd as the system of Dupuis must seem, it had a 
 temporary success. Volney popularized it in his "Ruins," and 
 others adopted it in part or as a whole, but it is now obsolete, except 
 among ignorant infidels of the Boston Investigator and Graves 
 stamp.* 
 
 Applied to Christianity it involves the assumption that the 
 early Christian Martyrs died for their belief in a Master whom they 
 very well knew never existed. 
 
 Mr. Higgins was a great admirer of Dupuis. He borrowed 
 much from him, and declared that the priests hated his '' Origine de 
 Tous les Cultes," so much that it was very scarce and hard to get. 
 
 - This remark is perhaps too sweeping, though it would have been true a few years 
 ago. After slumbering for more than a generation since the death of Sir William 
 Drummond, Mr. Higgins and others of their class, men with some pretensions to learning, 
 though with small claims to common sense or fairness, like Goldziher and Inman, show a 
 disposition to retrace some of the abandoned paths. They are agreed only in their desire 
 to prove the scriptures unhistorical, for they differ much in both theories and details. 
 The sun myth hobby is partly responsible for this revival of old speculations. 
 
2 6 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 That was forty-seven years ago. I procured without difficulty in 
 Paris last summer, a copy of the unabridged work in three volumes, 
 quarto, with an atlas of plates for just $5. There were plenty more 
 to be found, and the abundance and cheapness show the esteem in 
 in which the book is now held. The greatest blow that Dupuis ever 
 received was the discovery that the zodiacs of Esneh and Denderah, 
 which according to his astronomical plan ought to be many 
 thousand years old, only date back to the Roman emperors, and 
 are younger than our era. 
 
 This was a fact which Mr. Higgins disliked to acknowledge,, 
 but he was wary, and so selected India as the mother of all mytho- 
 logies. Abraham himself, he says, was a fugitive from Brahma 
 land. He had suffered in a war between the worshipers of the 
 female principle and those who reverenced the male. He retained 
 much of the old system which adored the sun under various incar- 
 nations or avatars. When Mr. Higgins wrote, Buddhism was. 
 believed to be older than Brahmanism, a theory that is now as obso- 
 lete as his philology. According to the Surya Siddhanta, a famous 
 Indian mathematical treatise, which Mr. Higgins held to be of very 
 remote antiquity, and which the Brahmans claim to be inspired, and a 
 million years old, the equinoctial point moves eastward one degree 
 in six hundred years, and as often as this change occurred it was 
 thought that an incarnation took place. Among these, Krishna 
 the eighth avatar of Vishnu, was the most famous in India, while 
 others of the "Saviors" had the same reputation in the various 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 27 
 
 countries to which Brahmanism had been carried. Thus, actually, 
 hving persons might be falsely endowed with divine honors at each 
 cycle. Sakia, the real historic Buddha, was according to Mr. 
 Higgins, the ninth Indian avatar, following Krishna at an interval of 
 600 years. To Jesus Christ, a Jewish reformer, the same ascriptions 
 were made by Jews who had been proselyted to beliefs borrowed by 
 the Essenes from the east. A consideration of this process will show 
 how the author of the Anacalypsis, and Mr. Graves, after him, 
 explain the alleged frequent appearance of "crucified saviors'^ 
 throughout the ancient world. According to them, Indian 
 mythology had penetrated -almost everywhere, and people were sun- 
 worshipers often without knowing it. Everything that was super- 
 natural in all religions came from the scheme of cycles. We know 
 very well that supernatural legends were abundant in the old world, 
 and that heroes were often endowed with supernatural attributes by 
 the credulous multitude, but they were not generally Saviours in the 
 usual sense of the word, much less crucified ones, as we have 
 already seen. 
 
 KRISHNA. 
 
 Of all the avatars, or incarnations, Krishna, whose name Mr. 
 Graves spells Chrishna, Mr. Higgins, Cristna, and another skeptic, 
 Christna, was the most important. Indeed he is the one whom the 
 infidels of a past generation endeavored to set up as the prototype 
 
28 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 of Christ. They attempted, as we have seen, to increase the 
 similarity of the names, but the resemblance is more apparent than 
 real. Christ, as we hardly need say, means the anointed. Krishna 
 signifies black. When, however, the English first became 
 acquainted with oriental literature, ninety or one hundred years 
 ago, they discovered coincidences which were very startling. 
 Believing as some of them did, that the story of Krishna dated 
 back hundreds of years before the Christian era, there were points 
 that were exceedingly troublesome. Krishna was the eighth, and 
 first complete avatar of Vishnu ; those which preceded him being 
 mere emanations. One object of his incarnation was ''the 
 destruction of Kansa, an oppressive monarch, and, in fact, an 
 incarnate Daitya, or Titan, the natural enemy of the gods." Kansa 
 was the cousin of Devaki, the divine, Krishna's mother, who was 
 married to a nobleman named Vasadeva. Vasadeva had another wife 
 named Rohini. Devaki had had six children, and hearing that she 
 was about to have another, Kansa seized her and her husband and 
 put them in prison. Vishnu, however, interfered, and transferred 
 the unborn child, who was Balarama, Krishna's future playfellow, 
 to the womb of Rohini, who was still at liberty. Devaki's eighth 
 child was Krishna, so he could hardly be said to be born of a 
 virgin. Celestial phenomena, including a great light and the visit 
 of an angel choir, accompanied the birth. Kansa pursued the 
 child, but its father escaped with it, and, on reaching a river, the 
 infant commanded it to open a passage, which it did, a serpent 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 29 
 
 meanwhile holding its head over the youthful divinity as a kind of 
 umbrella. His father exchanged him for the child of a cowherd, 
 returning to the palace with the latter. Kansa, Herod-like, gave 
 orders for slaying all the male children in the neighborhood. 
 Krishna meantime grew up among the peasants, joining in all their 
 sports, marrying several of the girls, and being very hcentious in 
 appearance, if not in reality. Like Apollo, he was master of the 
 lyre, and sepents and beasts were beguiled by his melodies. He 
 overcame the great serpent, Keliga, and trampled on its head. In 
 later years he is said to have cleansed lepers, raised the dead, 
 descended into the invisible world, and reascended to the proper 
 paradise of Vishnu. He finally conquered Kansa, fought in a 
 battle which lasted eighteen days, twirled a mountain on his little 
 finger, stole a famous tree from heaven, and performed other 
 incredible deeds. Rukmini was his favorite wife, but he had 
 sixteen thousand others, each of whom bore him ten sons. He 
 had been warned to beware of the sole of his foot. As he sat one 
 day in the forest, a huntsman. Jura (old age), mistook him for a 
 beast and mortally wounded him in his foot. Another legend has 
 it that he was nailed to a tree by the arrow, and that he foretold 
 before dying, the miseries which would take place in the Kali Yuga, 
 a wicked age of the world, thirty-six years after his death. So great 
 a light it is said to have proceeded from his dying body that heaven 
 and earth were illuminated. 
 
 It would be absurd to say that the life of Krishna parallels 
 
30 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 that of Christ, but still there are some striking similarities. What 
 
 is the explanation ? If we are to believe Higgins and Graves, the 
 
 Krishna story, as I have epitomized it above, dates back to 1200 
 
 B. C. The latter asserts in his "Bibles:" 
 
 " In times coeval with the earliest authentic records, says a writer, the 
 Hindoos calculated eclipses, and were venerated for their attainments in some 
 of the arts and sciences! According to the learned astronomer Baily (he 
 ineans Bailly) their calculations in astronomy extended back to the remote 
 period of seventeen hundred years before Moses, and some of the ancient 
 monuments and inscriptions of India bespeak for its religion a very remote 
 antiquity. Some of our modern learned antiquarians have expressed the opin- 
 ion that the Sanscrit language of the Brahmans is the oldest language that can 
 be traced in the history of the human race. They also state that this language 
 was extant before the Jews were known as a nation ; and neither it nor their 
 religion has ez'cr been known to change. These facts are sufficient to establish 
 the existence of the Brahman and Buddhist systems of religion long prior to 
 the earliest records of the Jewish nation." 
 
 A greater amount of absurdity and falsehood could hardly have 
 been compressed within so few lines. Yet much of what is said was 
 believed by Mr. Higgins, and forms the basis of his hypothesis. We 
 mention as a well known fact that Hindoo religion found its earliest 
 expression in the Vedas, so called from Ved, the law. There are 
 four of these, the oldest being the Rig Veda. They are believed to 
 have come immediately from God. Each consists of two parts, the 
 first called Sanhita, comprising hymns, jDrayers and ceremonies for 
 sacrifice and oblations; the second called Brahmana, in which the 
 first cause, creation of the world, moral duties, precepts, j^unish- 
 ments, etc., are set forth. They have a number of supplements 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 31 
 
 and commentaries. Many of the hymns are subUme, but there is a 
 decided leaning toward pantheism. There is some doubt as to their 
 age. Bunsen, always extravagant on the side of antiquity, thought 
 that some of the hymns might have been composed three thousand 
 years before Christ. Prof. Whitney of Yale College, the leading 
 Sanscrit scholar in our country, inclines to 2000 to 1500 B. C. ; 
 Max Mueller, the translator of the Rig Veda, thinks the hymns 
 were collected in their present form from twelve hundred to one 
 thousand years before Christ, though composed earlier. It must be 
 noticed that the Vedas have nothing to say of a trinity composed of 
 Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, or of any incarnations. Brahma was 
 then neuter, scarcely personified. In the Institutes of Manu, a later 
 compilation, there is the first trace of the modern system of gods. 
 
 Next comes the grand period of the great epics, the Mahab- 
 harata and the Ramayana, pre-Christian, but with many compara- 
 tively modern interpolations and changes. An episode of the 
 former recounts a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, whom he is 
 serving as charioteer. This episode is known as the Bhavagat-gita. 
 The Krishna legend has now become established. It does not 
 contain, however, the most striking points of resemblance to the 
 gospel naratives which we have summarized, and yet the Bhavagat- 
 gita is held to be post-Christian by leading scholars, some assigning 
 it to the first, and others to the third century of our era. It is in 
 the Puranas, and in one of the most recent of them, the Vishnu- 
 Purana, regarded by some as only three or four hundred years old. 
 
Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 by others relegated to the twelfth century, that it appears full blown. j 
 Granting the utmost that can be demanded, the features, on which 
 Mr. Graves lays chief stress are post-Christian ; probably stealings 
 from the apocryphal gospels, which we have good reasons to believe | 
 were circulated in India in the early Christian centuries. There was 
 much trade between that country and the west, and Nestorian ■ 
 missionaries visited it- before the Puranas attained their present form. '. 
 
 INDIAN ANTIQUITY AND LITERATURE. \ 
 
 As to the age of Hindoo literature I shall first quote the late i 
 Ebenezer Burgess's able "Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race." 
 He was a clergyman and missionary to be sure, but Mr. Graves fre- , 
 quently cites the Rev. D. O. Allen, another missionary, so he can- 
 not object to the class. Besides, Mr. Burgess was a member of the 
 American Oriental Society, author of a Marratta Grammar, and ■ 
 co-translator of the Surya Siddhanta, an Indian mathematical work 
 already mentioned and to which reference is made in the * 'Saviors." 
 He says: 1 
 
 "The earliest Hindoo writings and the earliest astronomical observations ' 
 on record cannot h^ proved to have had an earlier date than the fourteenth or 
 fifteenth century before Christ, though a few hundred more may be conceded ] 
 as probable. The oldest astronomical treatise, which has been regarded, as an 
 important witness against the Bible, is proved incontrovertibly to have been 
 composed some four or five centuries after Christ. And as the work of bring- ^ 
 ing to light the ancient literature of the Brahmans proceeds, the tendency ; 
 among European scholars is to bring it within more and more modern limits. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 
 
 33 
 
 This tendency to modernize is sometimes, doubtless, allowed to proceed too 
 far. But, however, this may l^c, this fact may be regarded as estalilished, 
 viz: that the ancient literature of India affords no materials for disproving 
 (he truthfulness of the Bible; on tlie contrary, it contains much that corrobor- 
 ates the claims of the sacred volume to a divine authenticity." 
 
 I will furnish him with a still more radical citation from that 
 most eminent secular authority, Klaproth. He says in his Memoires 
 Relatifs a 1' Asie : 
 
 "The astronomical tables of the Hindoos, to which a prodigious an- 
 tiquity has been attributed were constructed in the seventh century of the com- 
 mon era, and were posteriorly reported by calculations to an anterior epoch." 
 
 We thus see what becomes of the Surya Siddhanta and its rev- 
 alations regarding the cycles. Furthermore, the antiquity which 
 Messrs Higgins and Graves claim, is based on the speculations of 
 Bailly, a French astronomer of the last century, Avhom even Voltaire 
 beheved to be wild. Laplace, an unbeliever, and the greatest 
 astronomer of his day, was equally convinced of the absurdities of 
 Bailly's scheme. He says: 
 
 " l"he origin of astronomy in Persia and India is lost, as among all other 
 nations, in the darkness of their ancient history. The Indian tables suppose a 
 very advanced state of astronomy ; but there is every reason to believe that 
 they can claim no very high antiquity. Herein I differ with pain from an 
 illustrious and unfortunate friend." [Bailly was guillotined in the first French 
 revolution.] 
 
 Other eminent astronomers coincide with Laplace, and 
 it is a common if not dominant belief that the Indians derived 
 their astronomy from abroad.-'^ More than this, a noted 
 
 =•■ See Postscript. 
 
 5 
 
34 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 English astronomer, Mr. Bentley, taking the statements of the 
 Janampatra or horoscope of Krishna, which contains the position 
 of the planets at the time of his birth, found that the heavens could 
 only have been as there described on the 7th of August A. D. 600. 
 This shows that the astronomical calculations respecting him are 
 comparatively modern. What then is left of Mr. Higgins' cycles ? 
 But we are told that Alexander the Great heard the name of 
 Krishna when in India in the fourth century before the Christian 
 era. This is granted, though Arrian who tells the story, lived in the 
 second century of our era. We do not ignore the fact that there 
 may have been an ancient hero, about whom legends gradually 
 clustered. Yet the Puranas, which are almost the sole authority 
 for the life of Krishna, so far as it resembles that of Christ, are 
 known to be modern. The Bhavagat-gita, as we have said, is 
 referred to the first and third centuries after Christ, while the 
 Puranas which furnish the most startling and numerous coinci- 
 dences, are as says, H. H. Wilson in his *' Religion of the Hindoos," 
 not *' anterior to the eighth or ninth centuries and the most recent 
 not above three or four centuries old." That relating especially to 
 Krishna, which supplies most of our account of him, has been 
 conceded by Brahmans as the production of Yopadesa, who flour- 
 ished in the twelfth century of our era. If any resemblances 
 between Christ and Krishna seem to exist in the older versions, after 
 due excision of the later accounts has been made, we may give the 
 parallelism all the weight it deserves and suffer nothing. As Hard- 
 wick says in his " Christ and Other Masters : " 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 35 
 
 "If Krishna was violently persecuted in his infancy, it might be an- 
 •swered, so was Hercules exposed to the implacable rage of Juno. If Krishna, 
 in his triumphs comes before us crowned with flowers, the description will 
 apply to Bacchus also. If Krishna, veiling his divinity, is said to have been 
 concealed beneath the roof of Nanda, the cow-herd, Apollo, in like manner, 
 acted like an ordinary mortal, when he sought a shelter in the household of 
 Admetus. Or if, again, Krishna is to be regarded as a purely human and his- 
 torical hero, doomed to death in childhood from forebodings that his life 
 would prove the ruin of another, we can find his parallel in the elder Cyrus, 
 who had also been intrusted to the care of herdsmen to preserve him from the 
 vengeance of his royal grandfather, whose death it was foretold he should 
 eventually accomplish." 
 
 We have said enough about Krishna, we should think, to sat- 
 isfy a reasonable person that if any parallelism exists between him 
 and Christ, it was not borrowed from the Indian hero. It should 
 also be noticed that it is only by a stretch of the imagination that 
 Krishna can be said to have been crucified. Further, there is no 
 ■doctrinal likeness. As Hardwick well says : 
 
 "The most perfect incarnation of Vishnu, as found in Krishna, is docetic 
 merely ; it rather seems to be than is. According to the theory of matter 
 which prevailed among his followers, the divine and human could not truly 
 ■come together, and could not permanently co-exist. The one essentially ex- 
 cludes the other. Krishna, therefore, on going back to his celestial home, or 
 in the language of philosophy, on his re-absorption into the Great Spirit of the 
 universe, entirely lays aside the perishable flesh which he had once inhabited. 
 "* * * In this respect, he differs altogether from the God-man of the 
 ■Christian Church, the Mediator in whom divine and human are completely 
 reconciled." 
 
 Mr. Graves has asserted that the Hindoo religion has never 
 changed. We have already indicated the absurdity of this state- 
 
36 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 ment. There has been, even leaving out of account the great Bud- 
 dhist schism, as every tyro in oriental literature knows, a complete 
 and constant departure from nature-worship to a pantheon crowded 
 with millions of divinities, and from a simple ceremonial to the 
 grossest and most barbarous rites. It is the same process which has 
 taken place in all lands where God in His unity has been abandoned. 
 The first chapter of Romans describes the downward road in 
 perfectly vivid language. 
 
 •We read, in the article on Brahmanism, in the latest edition of 
 the Encyclopaedia Britannica : . 
 
 " Buddhism appears to have been the State religion in most parts of 
 India during the early centuries of our era. To what extent it became the 
 actual creed of the body of the people it will probably be impossible ever to 
 ascertain. One of the chief effects it produced on the worship of the old 
 gods was the rapid decline of the authority of the orthodox Brahmanical 
 dogma, and a considerable development of sectarianism. Among the great 
 variety of the deities of the pantheon, Siva, Vishnu, and Parvati have since 
 claimed, by far, the largest share of adoration, and it is in special accounts of 
 the Saira, Vishnaro, and Sakete sects, rather than in an exposition of the 
 Brahmanical belief, that the religious history of India, from about the begin- 
 ning of our era, can be dealt with satisfactorily. At that time, the worship 
 of Vishnu in his most popular avatar, in the person of Krishna, appears to 
 have received much countenance at the hands of the priests, with a view of 
 counteracting the growing influence of Buddhism. The sectarian spirit gave 
 gradually rise to a special class of works, the modern Puranas composed for 
 the express purpose of promoting the worship of some particular deity. In 
 the seventh century, the authority of Sakyamouni's (Buddha's doctrine was 
 already on the wane. * * ■■•'■ Siva does not occur in the Vedic hymns 
 as the name of a god, but only as an adjective in the sense of kind auspices. 
 " Vishnu occupies a place in the Vedic mythology, though by no means such a 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 37 
 
 place as would entitle him to that degree of exaltation implied in his charac- 
 ter as one of the three hypostases of the divinity, -•■ -=■ * As the 
 language of the Aryan Hindoos has undergone continued processes of modifi- 
 cation and dialectic division so their religious belief has passed through vari- 
 ous stages of development, boldly distinguished by certain prominent features." 
 
 The Suttee is comparatively modern. Tlie Rig Veda tells the 
 widow to go home from her husband's funeral rite and resume her 
 duties. 
 
 This is sufficient to show that Mr. Graves' Sanscrit studies must 
 have been undertaken under very unfavorable circumstances. We 
 should expect such mistakes from a man who alleges Horace 
 Greeley as authority for the statement that there is "no doctrine of 
 Christianity but. what has been anticipated by the Vedas 1 " 
 ANOTHER OF MR. GRAVES' AUTHORITIES. 
 
 I have said that " Higgins' Anacalypsis " is Mr. Graves' chief 
 authority in regard to the " Saviors," and other . points ; but he is 
 not the only one. We have frequent unacknowledged flings from 
 " Paine's Age of Reason," for which Bishop Watson's "Apology" is 
 a sufficient antidote ; and more from that very dishonest and ill-tem- 
 pered work, Taylor's Diegesis, a treatise which makes Krishna the 
 prototype of Christ, and accepts as true the blunder of Eusebius in 
 reckoning the Essenes as the original Christians — an idea repudiated 
 by the great mass of the Christian Church, ancient and modern, as 
 by the able skeptic, Gibbon, already quoted. Taylor recanted his 
 infidelity in later life, and so may be regarded as having abandoned 
 his untenable hypothesis. No modern writer of eminence has con- 
 
38 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 founded the Essenes with the Christians, save DeQuincey, the 
 eccentric opium eater, and Taylor's assertions regarding Krishna 
 have been overthrown in our criticisms of Higgins and Graves. 
 
 There is another writer, however, from whom the latter 
 appears to have borrowed largely in his "Saviors," and to whom 
 he does not give due credit. That writer is M. Louis Jacolliot, 
 whose ''Bible in India'' has helped Mr. Graves to fill his pages of 
 alleged coincidences between the lives and teachings of Krishna 
 and Christ, and between the names of Old Testament and Vedic 
 characters. Regarding the former, he is frank enough to say in a 
 note what most men would dislike to confess : 
 
 "The author deems it proper to state here with respect to the comparison 
 between Christ and Chrishna, that some of the doctrines which he has 
 selected as constituting a part of religion of the Hindoo Savior, are not found 
 in the teachings of that deified moralist. But as they appear to breathe forth 
 the same spirit, it is presumed he would have endorsed them had they come 
 under his notice." 
 
 I have not room to examine all Mr. (xraves' pretended 
 exposition of Krishnaism and its parallelism with Christianity. In- 
 stead of doing so, I shall simply bring evidence as to the utter 
 worthlessness of the authority on which he has based his statements. 
 Mr. John Fiske, whom he should accept as an impartial judge since 
 he is is one of the most zealous advocates of the "science" which 
 is to overthrow the Bible, says in a review of :\Ir. Gladstone's. 
 ''Juventus Mundi :" 
 
 "But the whole subject of comparative mythology seems to be terra, 
 incognita to Mr. Gladstone. - * The only work which seems really to- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 39 
 
 have attracted his attention is M. Jacolliot's very discreditable performance 
 called 'The Bible in India.' Mr. Gladstone does not, indeed, unreservedly 
 approve of this book ; ])ut neither does he appear to suspect that it is a 
 disgraceful piece of charlatanry, written by a man ignorant of the very 
 rudiments of the subject which he proposes to handle." 
 
 But I have a still more important witness against M. Jacolliot, 
 and as his testimony is very curious and interesting, I shall be ex- 
 cused for reproducing it at considerable length. Max Mueller, the 
 eminent philologist, whose authority on oriental literature is second 
 to none, has published a paper on ''A Chapter of Accidents in 
 Comparative Theology." After recounting many of the mistakes 
 into which learned men have fallen in their attempts to discover 
 similarities between the Biblical narratives and the various heathen 
 mythologies, and showing the fallacy of identifying totally different 
 personages, historical or fabulous, from some resemblance between 
 their names, and instancing the errors of Sir Wm. Jones, he 
 continues : 
 
 " It was under these influences that Lieut. Wilford, a contemporary of 
 of Sir William Jones, as co-laborer took up the thread which Sir William 
 Jones had dropped. Convinced that the Brahmans possessed in their ancient 
 literature the originals not qnly of Greek and Roman mythology, but likewise 
 of the Old Testament history, he tried every possible means to overcome their 
 reserve and reticence. ^ * "•=■ The coyness of Pandits yielded. The 
 incessant demand created a supply, and for several years essay after essay 
 appeared in the Asiatic Researches, with extracts from Sanscrit MSS, con- 
 taining not only the names of Deukalion, Prometheus, and other heroes and 
 deities of Greece, but likewise the names of Adam and Eve, of Abra- 
 ham and Sarah, and all the rest. '•• ^ At last, however, the coincidences 
 became too great. The jMSS. were again carefully examined, and then it was 
 
40 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 found that a clever forgery had been committed, that leaves had been inserted 
 in ancient MSS., and that on these leaves, the Pandits, urged by Lieut. 
 Wilford to disclose their ancient mysteries and traditions, had rendered in 
 correct Sanscrit verses all that they had heard about Adan) and Abraham from 
 their inquisitive master. Lieut, (then Col.) Wilford did not hestitate to 
 confess that he had been imposed upon." Mr. Mueller continues : " As long, 
 however, as researches of this kind are carried on for their own sake, and from 
 a mere desire of discovering truth, without any ulterior objects, they deserve 
 no blame, though for a time they may lead to erroneous results. But when 
 coincidences between different religions are searched out simply in support of 
 preconceived theories, whether by the friends or enemies of true religion, the 
 sense of truth, the very life of all science is sacrificed, and serious 
 mischief will follow without fail. Here we have a right, not only 
 to protest but to blame. There is on this account a great difference 
 between the books we have hitherto examined and a work lately 
 published in Paris by M. J^icolliot, under the sensational title of 
 La Bible dans P Iiidc; 7'ie de Jesus Christna. If this book had been written 
 with the pure enthusiasm of Lieut. Wilford it might have been passed 
 by as mere anachronism. But when one sees how its author shuts his eyes 
 against all evidence that could tell against h'im, and brings together without 
 any critical scruples whatever seems to support his theory that Christianity is 
 a mere copy of the ancient religion of India, mere silence would not be a suffi- 
 cient answer. Besides, the book has lately been translated into English, and 
 will be read, no doubt, by many people who cannot test the evidence on 
 which it purpprts to be founded." 
 
 Mr. Mueller tells how M. Jacolliot, who was a judge at 
 Chandernagore, from studying the ancient holy books of the 
 Hindoos, became convinced that our civiHzation, our religion, our 
 legends, and our gods, have come to us from India, after passing in 
 succession through Egypt, Persia, Ji^dea, Greece and Italy. He 
 found the Old and New Testaments in the A^edas, and quotes texts 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 41 
 
 which allege that Brahma created Adima (in Sanscrit the first man), 
 and gave him for a companion Heva (in Sanscrit, that which com- 
 pletes life.) Our author continues : 
 
 "But much more extraordinary things are quoted by Jacolliot from the 
 Yedas and the commentaries. In one passage of the Vedas we are told that 
 the ancient poet exclaimed, 'Woman is the soul of humanity.' On page 63 
 we read that Manu, Minos and Manes had the same name as Moses, &c. 
 a- ^- * It has been remarked with some surprise that Vedic scholars in Eu- 
 rope had failed to discover those important passages in the Veda which he 
 has pointed out, or still worse, that they had never brought them to the atten- 
 tion of the public. "-^ * * It is simply the story of Lieut. Wilford over 
 again, only far less excusable now than a hundred years ago, and decidedly 
 reprehensible on account of the author's unscientific bias. Many of the words 
 -which M. Jacolliott quotes as Sanscrit, are not Sanscrit at all ; others never 
 "have the meaning which he assigns to them ; and as to the passages from the 
 "Vedas (including an old friend, the Bhaga veda gita), they are not from any 
 old Sanscrit writer — they simply belong to the second half of the nineteenth 
 century. What happened to Lieut. Wilford has happened again to M. Ja- 
 •colliot. He tells us the secret himself. ' One day,' he says, 'when we were 
 xeading the translation of Manu l)y Sir W. Jones, a note led us to consult the 
 Indian commentator Kutiska Batha, when we found an allusion to the sacri- 
 ■fice of a son by his' father prevented by God himself, after He had commanded 
 it. We then had only one determination to find again in the dark mass of 
 the religious books of the Hindoos, the original account of that event. We 
 should never have succeeded but for the complaisance of a Brahman, with 
 whom we were reading Sanscrit, and who, yielding to our request, brought 
 ais from the lil^rary of his pagoda the works of the theologian Romet Savias, 
 which yielded us precious assistance in this volume.' As to the story of the 
 •son offered as a sacrifice by his father and released at the command of the 
 ;gods, continues Mr. Mueller, M. Jacolliot ought to have found the original 
 account of it from the Veda, with text and translation, in any history of an- 
 cient Sanscrit literature. He would soon have seen that the story of Suns- 
 
 6 
 
42 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 chepa being sold by his father in order to l)e sacrificed in the place of an In- 
 dian prince has very little in common with the intended sacrifice of Isaac by 
 Abraham. M, Jacolliot has, no doubt, found out by this time that he has- 
 been imposed upon, and, if so, he ought to follow the example of Col. WiL- 
 ford, and publicly state what has happened. Even then, I doubt not that his. 
 statements 'will continue to be quoted for a long time, and that Adima and 
 Heva, thus brought to light again, will make their appearance in many a 
 book and many a lecture room." 
 
 This expectation has been abundantly reaHzed in Mr. Graves' 
 volumes. Will he acknowledge his error now that it has been made 
 known to him on unimpeachable authority ? 
 
 BUDDHISM— THE ZEND-AVESTA. 
 
 The^ reader has perhaps had enough of Mr. Graves. The 
 utter worthlessness of his authorities relative to Brahmanism has 
 been demonstrated, and his glaring incompetency to separate truth 
 from falsehood has been made equally apparent. Yet his assertions 
 on some other departments of his subject must not be passed over. 
 We can afford to be brief with his attempt to confound Buddhism 
 with Christianity. Their doctrines are entirely different; the one 
 making nirvana or annihilation by absorption into divinity the end 
 of all, and denying any personality to the Supreme ; while in the 
 other "life and immortality are brought to light." There are 
 legends that Buddha was born of the Virgin Maia, but they can be 
 traced no nearer than several hundred years after his death, and 
 several centuries after Christianity was established. The Buddhist 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 43 
 
 romancers simply adopted Christian facts into their own mythology. 
 There is no resemblance between the ascetic life and natural de- 
 cease of Buddha, and Christ's miraculous career and violent death. 
 We know that Mr. Higgins has attempted to prove that both 
 Krishna and Buddha were crucified, but he has to pass off Roman 
 Catholic pictures taken by the Portuguese to India as heathen pro- 
 ductions, and quote unsupported legends to make even a fair show 
 for his case.* 
 
 The Zend-Avesta or Zenda-Avesta, as Mr. Graves improperly 
 calls it, means Avesta — text, and Zend translation, commentary, 
 or paraphrase. It is the ancient Parsee Bible proper; but the 
 Sadder, which our author calls its New Testament, is only a 
 summary of Parsee doctrine. 
 
 He says also, "The historical facts to establish the Persian 
 religion long prior to that of the Jews are numerous, cogent and 
 unanswerable. They have calculations in astronomy, which scien- 
 tists admit must have been made four hundred years anterior to the 
 time of Moses. According to Berosus, fragments of their history 
 have been found which extend it back fifteen thousand years ; and 
 he fells us it is computed with great care." This, as far as the 
 scientists are concerned, is decidedly novel, and if the statement of 
 Berosus is to be believed, they disagree with him, since there is a 
 vast difference between fifteen thousand years and four hundred 
 before Moses, which last would carry us back to about the time of 
 Abraham. Berosus was a priest of Belus at Babylon, and historical 
 
 =•= See Postscript. 
 
44 Sixteen Saviours or One, 
 
 writer who lived in the fourth century before Christ. He is not a 
 very ancient authority, and not a very trustworthy one. He 
 claimed for his own Chaldea an antiquity of 2,150,000 years, so 
 that his statements respecting Medo-Persia are at least to be taken 
 with allowance. Many have thought that Zoroaster was a contem- 
 porary of Darius, but it is generally believed that he lived much 
 earlier. He is supposed to be the author of some parts of the Zend- 
 Avesta, but not of all, and much of the original work is lost. 
 Hardwick ("Christ and Other Masters'") says: 
 
 "One chief result of modern exploration in this region of philology has 
 been to demonstrate that whether as preserved in the original, or as translated 
 by Parsees, the treatises of the Avesta in their present sliape can date no farther 
 back than the Sassanian revival in the time of Arlaxerxes, or the third century 
 of the Christian era, (A. D. 226.) Another of tlicse results has tended to con- 
 firm and justify suspicions with regard to the antiquity of several writings 
 Avhich are commonly adduced as high authorities by modern Parsees. Of one 
 important work (the Bundehesh) we may affirm with certainty that it had 
 never existed in the Zend or elder dialect of Persia. ■•' •■■ -'■ ••' * 
 
 Such criticisms are not, of course, intended to deny that many chapters 
 of the Persian sacred works have been actually committed to writing as early 
 as 400 B. C, for ' books of Zoroastrians ' are related to have perished at the 
 time of Alexander's expedition. Many, also, of the sacred chants and cere- 
 monial precepts, many as now existing, have originated at the epoch of the 
 first migrations. Yet, while granting this, our ablest scholars seem to be 
 persuaded more and mere that Avorks which have been brought together in 
 the Avesta, are not only the productions of different ages, but have all been 
 modified and modernized by the intrusion of fresh matter." 
 
 To the same effect we might quote other authorities, but Hard- 
 wick is inferior to none in his field. It is true that in the Zend- 
 Avesta the narratives of the temptations, the fall of angels, etc., 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 45 
 
 have a closer resemblance to the Biblical statements on the same 
 subject than most other ancient records. Yet they are mingled with 
 much that is degrading, and the collection lacks the historical form 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures. The unity and personality of God, the 
 grand peculiarity of our Bible, is wanting. We have instead the 
 dualism which makes Ormuzd the good, and Ahriman the evil deity. 
 We cannot be sure that the resemblances to the Bible were not de- 
 rived from intercourse between the Jews and their Persian masters 
 in the captivity, or even in post-Christian times ; since, as we have 
 seen, the Zend-Avesta in its present form is no older than the third 
 century of our era. Again, assuming the truth of Genesis, we 
 should be prepared to expect certain coincidences of traditions. A 
 deliverer is promised there, and though the nations that "forget 
 God" were suffered to go on in the path of wickedness which they 
 had chosen, with minds constantly becoming more blind through 
 the influence of the hardening of the heart which sin always brings, 
 they could not wholly forget primeval revelation. History is full, 
 not of ''Crucified Saviors," but of man's consciousness of sin, and 
 desperate longings to make peace with the " great first cause least 
 understood," but of whom the visible universe so plainly testified 
 that they were without excuse for their misdeeds. Plutarch says 
 that many cities are without Avails; some without temples, but none 
 without an altar. Whence came this universal belief in the neces- 
 sity of sacrifices and blood atonement? Was it the product of 
 man's imagination and fears, or was it, even in its gross perversion,. 
 
46 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 such as the immolation of human beings, a survival of the faith by 
 which Abel offered up the firstlings of his flock ? The conscience 
 of men to-day, of the learned and refined, as well as of the ignorant 
 and coarse, utters the same teachings. Yet Mr. Graves says the 
 ''Bibles" were all written when man was animal rather than intel- 
 lectual, and that he has now out-grown such conceptions. On the 
 contrary he himself is a living witness to the truth of what we have 
 stated. He cannot rest. He is constantly berating Christianity 
 and asserting that it is dead, but the spectre will not down. His 
 boastings are like the whistlings of the superstitious man as he 
 passes through a grave yard after dark, the proof of his appre- 
 hensions. 
 
 All Christians recognize in the heathen dogmas the workings 
 of man's sense of sin and the vague traditions of the fall and the 
 promised helper. They know, however, that the latter first ap- 
 peared in the One who said, "I am the way, the trutli and the Hfe" 
 — not as did Plato, Socrates and others, that He was the disciple of 
 truth. We well know that sublime ethical doctrines are scattered 
 through the writings of the ancient sages. They are mixed, how- 
 ever, with much that is false ; were held largely as theory and not 
 as rules for practice, and exerted comparatively little influence on 
 the lives of the masses. The Chinese quote more often than they 
 observe the version of the golden rule enunciated by Confucius; 
 the morals of Seneca, the brother of the Gallio who "cared for 
 none of these things," are not unlike those of his contemporary the 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 47 
 
 apostle Paul, yet the former was the toady of Nero, and his writ- 
 ings are known only to scholars. The latter counted all lost for 
 Christ, and is remembered and copied, not for his ethics, but for 
 the divine sanction by which they were established. There is much 
 moral wisdom in heathen teachings, but more inconsistency and 
 folly. The gospel, /. e. the good neius from heaven, is found only 
 in our Scriptures. Mr. Graves may sneer at all this. He cannot 
 affirm however that the Jews learned of the Persians, for much of 
 the Old Testament is as old if not older than the hymns of the 
 Zend-Avesta, and all of it dates back centuries before the existing 
 form of the Persian work. Moreover its teachings have a living 
 and irrefutable illustration in the history and condition of the Jewish 
 people. 
 
 MITHRA. 
 
 The later forms of religious thought in Persia developed a 
 kind of mediator in the person of Mithra. He was the highest of 
 the twenty-eight second class divinities of the ancient Persian pan- 
 theon. He was god of the day, and, in a higher sense, of light, 
 presiding over the movements of the principal heavenly bodies. 
 The meaning of his name is a friend. He was the protector of 
 man in this life and in the next. Omniscient and all-hearing, he 
 ran his course unceasingly between earth and heaven, and with his 
 club beat off Ahriman, or the great principle of evil and his subor- 
 dinates, the daevas. 
 
48 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 His mysteries were attended by fearful initiatory ordeals and 
 human sacrifices were perhaps connected with his worship in some 
 cases. Mithraism was finally suppressed in the Roman empire, A. 
 D. 378. Mithra was represented as a beautiful youth with a Phry- 
 gian cap, kneeling upon a bull, into whose neck he plunges a dag- 
 ger. Allegorical emblems of the sun surround the group, the bull 
 being at the same time attacked by dogs, a serpent and a crab. The 
 mysteries were celebrated at the spring equinox, March 25th, and 
 Mithra's birthday was December 25th, the day fixed when the 
 Church had become formal and borrowed observances from heath- 
 enism which it transformed to its own uses, as the natal day of 
 Christ. This change involved no acceptance of the original rites. 
 All evidence points to early April as the true date of the Saviour's 
 birth. There is no doubt that Mithraism exerted some influence on 
 Christianity, after the latter had lost its primitive simplicity, but it h 
 absurd to believe, as Dupuis 'endeavors to prove, that our religion 
 is a branch of Mithraism. 
 
 In this pretence Mr. Higgins, and of course Mr. Graves, con- 
 cur. The most they can claim is that some early Christian apol- 
 ogists exaggerated certain points of resemblance between their own 
 faith and Mithraism, in order, we may suppose, to help on the 
 conversion of adherents of the latter cult. The Manichean heret- 
 ics endeavored to blend IMithraism with Christianity. For a time 
 their influence was extended, but they soon passed into obscurity. 
 The same change of dogmas is obvious in Parseeism as in Hindoo- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 49 
 
 ism. In early days Mithra was wholly subordinate to Ormuzd. 
 The Zend-Avesta describes him as his creature and tributary. In 
 the early Christian centuries he was declared to have been gen- 
 erated by the sun either from the rock or soil — not from a virgin, 
 as Mr. Graves affirms, and there is no pretense of his having been 
 crucified. 
 
 SOME LAST WORDS. 
 
 Mr. Graves also describes the Chinese sacred books which are 
 mere treatises on practical morality; the Koran largely borrowed 
 from the Scriptures and which apparently confounds Miriam, the 
 sister of Moses, with the Virgin Mary ; the book of Mormon and 
 several minor works deemed inspired by some, but says nothing of 
 them which demands attention, and I therefore pass them over, to 
 give a little space to the more personal characteristics of his ' ' criti- 
 cism." It is very singular, however, that he does not include in 
 his list the Chaldean " Genesis " which gives an account of the 
 Creation, the fall and deluge much like that of Moses, yet obvi- 
 ously an independent and somewhat "heathenized " version of the 
 same great sacred tradition handed down in our Scriptures. 
 
 I have reviewed the theories which he has borrowed from abler 
 men than himself, and shown that they are not new, and that they 
 fail to prove that there ever were '* Sixteen Crucified Saviors" 
 even in popular belief. His attempted establishment of coinci- 
 dences in their doctrines as well as their births and deaths, being 
 7 
 
50 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 founded on the same evidence as the latter, falls also to the ground. 
 Of his own additions and assumptions it is difficult to say whether 
 they most expose his impudence or his ignorance. It is very evi- 
 dent that he is not competent to form a candid judgment. His 
 treatment of the Old and New Testaments shows a degree of pas- 
 sion, a wilful blindness, and an unfairness that defeats itself. 
 Granting for the sake of argument that the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures is a doubtful matter, they are venerable for age and con- 
 tain much that is beautiful in thought and expression. Yet our 
 author can see nothing of this, but detects contradictions and ab- 
 surdities everywhere. He has prepared a long list of discrepancies 
 for the "Bibles,," and promises more of the same sort. In their 
 compilation he has evidently been indebted to a pamphlet filled 
 with passages strained and garbled for a similar purpose, that was 
 published in Boston some years ago. Did he ever see the Rev. 
 J. W. Haley's masterly exposure of that brochure, called an " Ex- 
 amination of Alleged Contradictions," etc.? If he has not, I 
 advise him to procure it, before going further. A consultation of 
 the Bible itself will be enough to show that many of his so-called 
 contradictions do not exist. There are obscure and seemingly dis- 
 cordant passages in the Scriptures, but most are susceptible of ex- 
 planation and adjustment, and none are of great importance. He 
 has decidedly overshot his mark. If the Bible be indeed such a 
 nonsenical and immoral book as he contends, it is strange that none 
 but men of loose doctrines, if not of loose lives, have discovered 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 51 
 
 the fact ? Will Mr. Graves himself be hurt by a close observance 
 of the ten commandments? Is it immoral to enjoin purity of 
 thought as well as act ? We have never seen a more signal exem- 
 plification of the " evil heart of unbeUef " than in the man who 
 charges the Scriptures with indecency yet frequently indulges in 
 profane and indecent jests. And this master of all science refers in 
 his " Bibles " to Isis, the chief female deity of Egypt, as " him! " 
 Mr. Graves believes either that Christ never existed, or that all 
 that was supernatural concerning Him is falsehood. He ought now 
 to be convinced that Krishnaism affords him no ground for unbe- 
 lief He must go elsewhere than India for support in his skepti- 
 cism. Will he tell us how the unparalleled character of the Son of 
 Man was invented ? He may not agree with Rousseau who pro- 
 nounced it God-like. What has he to say of this tribute by a fel- 
 low unbeliever, of rare talent, John Stuart Mill ? 
 
 "And whatever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism, 
 •Christ is still left, an unique figure, not more unlike all his precursors than 
 all his followers, even those who had the direct benefit of his teachings. 
 Who among his disciples, or among the proselytes, was capable of inventing 
 the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed 
 in the gospel? Certainly not the fishermen ofGallilee; as certainly not St. 
 Paul, whose character and idiosyncracies were of a totally different sort; still 
 less the early Christian writers, in whom nothing is more evident than that 
 the good which was in them was all derived, as they all profess that it was 
 •derived from the higher source." 
 
 Mr. Graves does not believe in prophecy. He asserts that 
 Tyre wa^ not taken by Nebuchadnezzer as predicted. That is a 
 
52 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 point disputed among scholars. Has he ever read Volney's descrip- 
 tion of the modern village on its site, in which that unbeliever 
 unconsciously, we suppose, used about the exact words of scripture 
 in saying he saw only a k\v rocks covered witli fishermen's nets. 
 He tries to explain away the destruction of Babylon by the fact that 
 a small setdement exists near by. He does not grapple, however, 
 with the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and its announcement that the 
 man of sorrows should "make his grave with the wicked and with 
 the rich in his death ;" unintelligible until centuries later, when 
 Christ, after being crucified between two thieves, was laid in the 
 sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea. He is silent regarding the pre- 
 dicted dispersion of the Jews. He omits to notice the prediction 
 that Bethlehem should be the birthplace of the Messiah. I might 
 greatly extend this list, but I have said enough on this point. 
 
 He limits the proof of Christ's existence pretty much to the 
 statement of Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate. 
 This is sufficient in itself, and pronounced unimpeachable by 
 Gibbon, though assailed by the dishonest Taylor. But this is not 
 all. Martial, Suetonius and Pliny bear witness to early Christianity 
 or its founder. The text of Josephus, which Mr. Graves sets aside 
 as wholly spurious, is held by Gieseler and other German historians 
 to be only pardally interpolated; and then Josephus certainly writes 
 of John the Baptist, and confirms various statements in Acts. The 
 Roman catacombs afford a vast mass of evidence in favor of the 
 authenticity of the early Christian records. Mr. Graves himself in 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 
 
 53 
 
 one place admits on Lardner's testimony that the gospels were 
 written a few years after the death of Christ, while elsewhere he 
 repeats the silly story that the New Testament books were first voted 
 inspired at the Council of Nice, about A. D. 325. Is he ignorant 
 of the fact that Irenaeus, A. D. 185, declared that there were four 
 gospels; that he and his contemporary, TertuUian, quote or refer to 
 the gospels about four hundred times, and that two-thirds of the 
 New Testament is found cited in the works of Origen, A. D. 185 to 
 254? Theophilus, A. D. 169, composed a commentary on the four 
 gospels. The gospel of Matthew was circulated in India between 
 175 and 190. Tae Muratorian Canon, about 170, which is mutil- 
 ated at the beginning, after an apparent reference to Mark, men- 
 tions Luke as the third, and John as the fourth book. The epistle 
 of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna 177, quotes from Luke, and 
 from the gospel and first epistle of John. In the writings of Justin 
 Martyr, Hermas and Barnabas, running back to the beginning of 
 the second century, there are frequent New Testament passages. 
 In those of Clement, of Rome, born about the time of the crucifix- 
 ion, are many expressions corresponding with the utterances of the 
 first three gospels. The voting of which our author makes so much, 
 was the due attestation of the writings which had always been recog- 
 nized as canonical, in order that the apocryphal imitations might 
 be assigned their proper place. 
 
 Paul in the fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians, an epistle 
 which the most skeptical German writers have been compelled to 
 
54 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 admit as genuine, declares that there still survived many of five 
 hundred Christians who had seen Christ after his resurrection. The 
 story might be incredible, but it was believed; credited in the face 
 of persecution, infamy and death. Would men have rushed by 
 hundreds and thousands to certain destruction if they had not had 
 reason for their faith ? 
 
 Mr. Graves does not believe in miracles, unless in the wretched 
 tricks of his spiritualistic confreres, yet all the early adversaries of 
 Christianity, heathen as well as Jewish, admitted that Christ worked 
 them. They ascribed them to magic and other absurd causes, but 
 the Talmud, Celsus, Porphyry and Julian were all in accord on this 
 point. Mr. Graves may prefer the revelations of mediums and rap- 
 pers, but the majority of those who have been born to the privileges. 
 of Christendom and many who listen to the teachings of the mis- 
 sionaries whicli Christendom sends forth, will find consolation in 
 life and support in death from the old, old story. A recent traveler 
 in heathen lands says he found no new temples — the superstitions 
 that built them are going to decay, and the edifices will, sooner or 
 later, follow them. Christianity, on the other hand, in spite of the 
 dissensions, the follies, the coldness and the unfaithfulness of its 
 followers, is still living, still spreading, and will grow brighter and 
 purer until there comes to it the light of the perfect day. 
 
 J. T. P. 
 
 Cincinnati, Jan. 25th, 1879. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 55 
 
 MR. GRAVES' REPLY. 
 
 A REVIEWER R^iVIEWED. 
 
 To the Editor of the Telegram : 
 
 When I learned that an extensive review of my works was to 
 appear in the Telegram, I conjectured that it would be from the 
 pen of some bigoted sectarian, whose creed had been cast in some 
 theological institution, and that it would consist of a string of dog- 
 matic assertions, without much evidence, or the citation of histori- 
 cal authorities. But I confess myself happily disappointed. It is 
 for the most part one of the most fair, candid, and apparently 
 truth-seeking criticisms I have ever seen from the pen of a Chris- 
 tian writer. And I feel certain that if we do not agree in our 
 conclusions as the result of our investigations, we can agree on 
 friendly terms to disagree. It is true, he indulges in one or two 
 cases in rather unfriendly language, and makes rather unfriendly 
 charges. But if he has any grounds for this, he will not have when 
 he reads my defense and explanation. He seems to call in ques- 
 tion my ''scholastic attainments," my respect for the truth, and 
 my mofal reputation, or moral character. As for my scholastic 
 attainments, I beg leave to say that I never claimed to attain to 
 any eminence in scholarship, having never spent a day in my life 
 in a college as a student. I graduated in a log hut about ten feet 
 high, roofed with poles and clapboards. With respect to my 
 character for truthfulness, I will only say that there are men in the 
 
56 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 city of Richmond and vicinity who have known me for more than 
 fifty years, and if any of them have ever suspicioned me of being 
 guilty of a willful departure from the truth, I have never learned 
 the fact. As for my character in other respects, as shown by my 
 practical life, I will assume the liberty to say that I am willing to 
 have it compared with that of my reviewer, or any clergyman in 
 the United States, and promise to show as clear a record. An in- 
 vestigation of my practical life will show that I have lead an honest 
 and industrious Hfe, and have been strictly temperate in my habits. 
 I never, knowingly, wronged a man out of a dollar ; never had a 
 fight, nor even serious quarrel, with any person ; never indulged 
 in profane swearing; never got drunk, nor swallowed a dram of 
 any kind of intoxicating liquors, nor swallowed enough of intoxi- 
 cating beverages of any kind, or of all kinds put together, to make 
 a dram. And lastly, I never took but one chew of tobacco in my 
 life, and that I repented of in less than a half an hour, and I 
 promised my God if I lived through it I would never take another. 
 And that promise I have never broken. If my reviewer can pre- 
 sent or exhibit a better practical life than this, he will command my 
 highest esteem as a true, moral man, and I have no reason to 
 doubt but that he is such a man, if he does not award me the same 
 honor. As for reputation, in the popular sense, I never aspired 
 for popular favor. I never courted either popularity or notoriety ; 
 and if I had, my personal appearance would have been a bar in 
 the way of attaining it. I have led such an obscure life, and am 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic, 57 
 
 so unprepossessing in my personal appearance, that perhaps, as the 
 editor suggests, I am better known at home than abroad. These 
 things have not escaped my observation. Perhaps; I might say 
 
 with Tom : 
 
 *' Says Dick to Tom your character is bad, 
 I've heard it from many. 
 You lie, said Tom, 
 I never had any." 
 
 Perhaps, I have not much character or reputation of any kind. 
 My main object has been to lead an honest, useful, and truthful 
 life, whatever evidence my reviewer may suppose he has found to 
 the contrary. And I admit, he does cite one case which does 
 seemingly sustain his charge of misrepresentations in quoting his- 
 tory — one case of alteration in the four thousand citations which I 
 have made — the case of Gibbon. But this matter I will explain 
 sstisfactorily when I come to it. With this much preface and per- 
 sonal defense allow me to say I am glad the review has been Avritten 
 .and published, because it presents the popular church view of the 
 question, which has been presented substantially to the public a 
 hundred times before, by different writers, and thus furnishes the 
 readers of the Telegram an opportunity of seeing and examining, 
 {when collated with my version of the matter) both sides of the 
 •question. And I am perfecdy willing to rest the case with the ver- 
 dict of the reading public, knowing that truth will triumph sooner 
 or later. And here allow me to suggest, that it is a matter of import- 
 ance that we should know what we are trying to discuss, and 
 
58 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 clearly understand the ground of difference between us. Other- 
 wise, we may in our ignorance of each other's views and positions, 
 waste much time and paper in arguing points we are both agreed 
 on. And, this I observe, my honest and gentlemanly reviewer has 
 inadvertently done. 
 
 A large portion of his article is occupied in arguing points that 
 I have never doubted or disputed. And consequently, my reply 
 will not occupy the space in the Telegj'am which his article does, 
 while at the same time I shall notice every point of any import- 
 ance, on which we differ. I cannot escape the conviction that he 
 has not read my books very thoroughly, as he charges me, in some 
 cases, with omitting what I have inserted with great care, and in 
 other cases of believing or disbelieving, what I have not only de- 
 nied, but attempted to disprove. For example, he says: "Mr. 
 Graves does not believe in prophecy." Here is a most signal 
 blunder. I have repeatedly, in both my large works avowed my 
 belief in prophecy, and cited many examples of prophecy and 
 their literal fulfillment " to the very letter," in both works. For 
 proof, see page 298, of "The Sixteen Saviors," and i22d of 
 "The Bible of Bibles." Here, then, is one point settled. 
 
 Again, after representing me as being an enemy of the Bible 
 and "berating Christianity," he says: "The Bible contains much 
 that is beautiful in thought and expression. Yet Mr. Graves can 
 see nothing of this." Here is another serious mistake. On page 
 28 of "The Bible of Bibles,'" he will find the following language: 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 59. 
 
 " There are in all Bibles beautiful veins of thought coursing through 
 their pages, and they contain many moral precepts, which are in 
 their nature, elevating and ennobling, and, which if i)ractically lived 
 up to, would do much toward improving the morals of the people 
 and enhancing their happiness." And on page 64 it is stated with 
 respect to the Christian Bible, that, ' ' There is scarcely a book, or 
 even a chapter in the whole Bible, that does not evince a spirit of 
 religious devotion, and an effort for the right, and the prophets 
 often breathed forth a spirit of the most elevated poetry." And 
 elsewhere, it is stated that the Bible is a very useful book in its 
 place, and that I have no objection to urge against the Bible, but 
 only to the improper use to which it is applied, etc. 
 
 Now, this certainly does not evince a spirit of hatred for the 
 Bible, as my reviewer represents. Having incidentally noticed these 
 points, I will now try to follow my reviewer in regular order. He 
 faults me for my scholarship, because I spell some words differently 
 from some of the authors which he has read, and also for using 
 wrong words. But here he commits several rather laughable 
 blunders himself in his efforts to correct me. Cobb, says : " Before 
 a person assumes the office of teacher or critic, he should be certain 
 he has studied the subject far enough to dispel his own ignorance." 
 
 He attempts to correct me for using the word "exposition" 
 and says I mean ''exposure." But here he is mistaken, I mean 
 exactly what I say. Webster, Walker and Worcester all define 
 "exposition" to mean " the act of exposing," and that was exactly 
 
6o Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 what I was attempting to do. His criticisms with respect to spelUng 
 foreign and Oriental names leads me to conclude that his reading of 
 history has not been as extensive as I at first supposed. His read- 
 ing seems to have been confined to a few favorite authors, and 
 some of them, not very reliable. Otherwise he would know, and 
 should know, that there is no uniform standard for spelling scarcely 
 any foreign names. Take for example, the God of the Hindoos, 
 whom he calls Krishna, and assumes this is correct. And yet 
 some of the missionaries and Oriental scholars, who have lived in 
 that country and studied their language, spell the word Kreshna, 
 or Kreeshna, and others Krishnoo, and others again Chrishna and so 
 on. There are not less than seven ways of spelling this word. And 
 authors differ in their mode of spelling other foreign names in the 
 same way. He says that Quexalcote should be Quetzalcoatl. But 
 I prefer the English, while he gives the Aztec mode of spelling the 
 word. It appears he is ignorant of the fact that the word has been 
 translated. Again he says, the Celtic God whom I call Eros, "is 
 not Eros but Esus." But I prefer to take that standard authority, 
 the New American Cyclopedia, for authority in the case, which 
 •declares it was Eros, unless he can show, he has got ahead of that 
 work, written by and endorsed by all the learned men of the age 
 Fleurbach is a typograhical error. I have the work and have 
 seen the name a hundred times, and know how it should be spelled. 
 He certainly commits a serious blunder in leaviq^ out a syllable 
 when he uses the word Bahavatgita. I have consulted eleven 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 6i 
 
 authors, and they all spell it Baghavatgita, as I have in my books. 
 And I might cite other examples to show that his philological wis- 
 dom is hardly competent to criticise and correct scholarship. And 
 I might say of him as he says of me, "he is not much of a 
 philologist.'' 
 
 But I must hasten to more important points. He wades 
 through an almost interminable sea of Oriental legends and traditions 
 to show that my crucified gods all died a natural death, except 
 those, perhaps, who were mere fabulous beings. But all this is 
 a work of supererogation, so far as I am concerned. I admit the 
 whole of this detail substantially. It contains no new ideas and no 
 new facts. The same or a similar history of those gods, can be 
 found in almost any common work on heathen mythology. I have 
 nine authors who relate substantially the same history of those gods 
 my reviewer has written out. Our libraries are well supplied with 
 works of this character, which relate pretty much the same story of 
 these Oriental gods. I not only admit this, but I also admit they 
 may be as reliable as the history of them, which I have presented in 
 "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." That is for the authors 
 to settle, and not for me. The secret of the whole matter is; two 
 very popular and learned authors, who have investigated and 
 studied the subject more critically than any other writers, who ever 
 wrote on the subject, claim to be able to throw new light on the 
 subject. They claim, just as Max Muller does, with respect to the 
 Hindoo vedas, to have discovered that changes and alterations or 
 
62 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 omissions were made many years ago in the histories of the Oriental 
 gods, by which some of the most important events of their Uves 
 were either left out or materially altered. Those two avithors are 
 Alexander Dow and Sir Godfrey Higgins. (All the English writers 
 I have seen prefix Sir to his name, my critic to the contrary 
 notwithstanding) . 
 
 Higgins, who devoted twenty years to the investigation of the 
 subject, presents an imposing array of facts to prove that an impor- 
 tant chapter in the history of many of the Oriental gods^ being 
 written by interested representatives of other religions, was left out, 
 either accidentally, or from interested motives. He cites one very 
 striking case in proof and illustration, which is made a matter of 
 record, by the authority of the British parliament. A deputation 
 which was sent out by the British to examine the laws, polity, and 
 political and religious institutions of India and other Oriental coun- 
 tries, learning in India, the curious story of their incarnate god, 
 Chrishna, they made notes of it in their report. But as these notes 
 were thrown together hastily without any arrangement, on leaving 
 the country, they placed them in the hands of a learned Roman 
 Catholic bishoj^, at Calcutta, with instructions to arrange them to- 
 gether in chronological order, and send them to London. But it 
 was found, when they came to be examined, after they had reached 
 that city, that they had been materially altered — whole chapters 
 were missing, and the most important events of his life, such as his 
 immaculate conception, his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc., 
 were entirely left out. It was so seriously mutilated that the com- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 63 
 
 -mittee would not endorse it. And Mr. Higgins says that the 
 Roman CathoHcs have perpetrated similar frauds with respect to 
 other rehgions. And these frauds being committed before the his- 
 tories of some gods, now in circulation, were written, we conse- 
 quently have not the full history of their fabulous lives, as most, if 
 not all of them must be supposed to be. 
 
 My critic could have saved all the labor in attempting to show 
 those gods were not crucified by simply reading the note appended 
 to the chapter on crucifixions in ''The World's Sixteen Crucified 
 :Saviors," page 119, where I have stated: "There is much ground 
 to doubt whether any of those crucifixions ever took place, or were 
 •ever realized as actual occurrences. It must be borne in mind that 
 ■a great deal of ancient history is mere fable. Many things related 
 as actual occurrences were designed for mere symbols. Many of 
 the ancient Christians argued that this was true of even Jesus Christ 
 — that some of the principal events recorded in his life Avere never 
 realized as actual occurrences, and were not intended to be so un- 
 derstood, but were designed to be understood in some spiritual 
 sense." 
 
 The moral lesson designed to be taught by the chapter on 
 crucifixions (as stated in my note, page 119,) is simply that the 
 belief or idea of the crucifixion of gods was prevalent in various 
 Oriental countries long before the reported crucifixion of Christ, and 
 whether fact or fiction, is a matter of no importance, if we could 
 -determine. It would not affect my position in the least, if it could 
 
64 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 be shown that the gods were all fabulous beings, (as many of them 
 probably were,) and that the story of their crucifixions were sheer 
 fabrications. It was not the fact, but the mere conception of the 
 crucifixion of gods, that I aimed to establish. Some of them^ 
 which were stated as mere fiction, came to be looked upon by many 
 as a matter of fact. It may be asked if I accept these stories of 
 crucifixion as fiction, why I have related them as a matter of fact, 
 and assigned a date for their occurrence ? That question is easily 
 answered. My note shows that it was the belief of their disciples, 
 and not my own, I was giving. I have assumed no more license 
 than writers on romance always do — that of relating imaginary 
 events as real. I have nowhere stated that I accept or endorse the 
 cases of crucifixions as facts. I have stated on page ii8, that I be- 
 lieve they were invented, and for what purpose they were invented. 
 They are designed to teach an important moral lesson. 
 
 My learned critic ridicules the idea of Ixion having been cruci- 
 fied as an actual occurrence. And so do I. And yet it is apparently 
 related as a matter of fact, with a spiritual significance. In some 
 cases, other beings were crucified with the gods — one being ar- 
 ranged on each side, as in the case of Christ. This also has a 
 symbolical or spiritual signification. 
 
 Take for example, the Celtic story of a god being crucified 
 with a lamb on one side and an elephant on the other. The ele- 
 phant was designed to represent the magnitude of the sins 
 of the world, being the largest animal then and there known, 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 65 
 
 while the lamb was designed to represent the innocency of the vic- 
 tim — /. ^., the god offered up. Here we have "the lamb of God 
 taking away the sins of the world." Here is another spiritual les- 
 son. And whether the god was crucified or not, does not in the 
 least affect the moral of the story. 
 
 Of course I do not believe any more than he does that a lamb 
 or an elephant, or that Apis (which I learned when a boy, is the 
 Latin term for bull), was ever crucified, even though millions in 
 past ages may have believed it. 
 
 My learned and gentlemanly critic says, " Chrishna was not 
 crucified, but died a natural death at the age of about eighty." 
 That may be, but why does he say so ? Because he has found the 
 statement in some author which he has read ! But will he be as 
 reasonable with respect to Christ, whom some, even Christian au- 
 thors, and a number of the early Christian churches and thousands 
 of the most pious and devout primitive Christians, stoutly main- 
 tained was never crucified ! Even that author whom he quotes 
 himself as being a reliable and unimpeachable authority, (Ireneus), 
 denies he was ever crucified. This learned and pious bishop de- 
 clared upon the authority of the martyr, Polycarp, who claimed to 
 have got it from St. John and the elders of Asia, that Christ was 
 not crucified, but lived to the age of about fifty. Here, then, are 
 two accounts of Christ, as well as of Chrishna. If he accepts the 
 story of the crucifixion of one, why not the other ? or if he rejects 
 that of Chrishna, why not that of Christ, also — seeing we have con- 
 9 
 
66 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 tradictory stories in both cases. This brings me to notice the very- 
 senseless expedient which he drags in to prove that the story of 
 Chrishna is a mere transcript of that of Christ. 
 
 Of all the ridiculous and silly subterfuges ever invented to save 
 a sinking cause, and proving the truth of the proverb, ''that drown- 
 ing men will catch at straws," that of dragging the ancient Hindoo 
 god, Chrishna, down into the sixth century of the Christian era, is 
 one of the most laughable, if not tragical, ever on put record. I 
 hope my respectable critic will not accept this as personal. It is 
 not intended for him. He did not invent the story. It was in- 
 vented long before he was born, by an arrogant, self-conceited, pe- 
 dantic student of divinity, by the name of Richard Bently, whom 
 my critic calls an astronomer (God save the mark ! ) I have never 
 seen a work on astronomy that so much as mentions his name. He 
 resorted to the silly farce of attempting to show by the senseless 
 rules of astrology, that the planets point to the six hundredth year 
 of the Christian era as the time of Chrishna's birth, an assumption 
 so foolish and senseless that his own friends laughed at him, and 
 finally laughed him out of it, and he gave it up. It is so thin that 
 I was astonished when I found that my learned critic is disposed to 
 endorse it, and it almost compelled me to doubt his good sense, or 
 else his honesty. The evidence is so voluminous to prove that 
 Chrishna figured in history long before the birth of Christ, that any 
 person who should express a doubt of it in the presence of any Ori- 
 ental scholar, outside of the Christian ranks, would be laughed at. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 67 
 
 Another very weak expedient which my critic drags in as evi- 
 dence, that the hfe of Chrishna was borrowed from that of Christ, 
 is the fooHsh story that Max Miiller has found a few forged leaves 
 in one of the vedas. (Muller he spells Mueller, but the New Cy- 
 ■clopedia, the best authority in the world, spells it Muller. Here he 
 is beat again). I call this story foolish, because even if true, it can 
 -amount to nothing. 
 
 When Horace Greeley asserted that all the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity can be found in the Hindoo vedas, (which the Rev. D. O. 
 Allen, twenty-five years a Christian missionary in India, admits to 
 be at least 1000 years older than Christianity) he did not mean it 
 could all be found in one volume of the vedas. They are scat- 
 tered through the five volumes. And my 456 striking analogies in 
 the life and doctrines of Christ and Chrishna are not the half of 
 them taken from the vedas, but from the other Hindoo books, and 
 from the various volumes of the New American Cyclopedia, much 
 l)etter authority than Max Muller, professor in the old English 
 •orthodox university of Oxford. 
 
 Sir William Jones, whom the New American Encyclopedia 
 pronounces the greatest linguist and Oriental scholar ever known, 
 and who was at the same time a devout Christian, and who lived 
 and died in India, obtained a more critical and profound knowledge 
 ■of the Hindoo religion than any other scholar who ever wrote on 
 the subject. We will hear what he says on the subject. He says, 
 "*' that the name of Chrishna and the whole outline of his history 
 
68 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 were long anterior to the time of our Savior, and probably to the 
 time of Homer, we know very certainly." (Asiat. Res. Volume 
 I St, page 254). Now mark, he says. " we know very certainly" 
 — no guess about it. To suppose that he was deceived in the mat- 
 ter by a few false pages of history stuck in one of the vedas would 
 be the climax of nonsense, for the vedas proper, don't say a word 
 about this god. It is found in other sacred books, and not only in 
 the books, but engraved and inscribed on old time-worn rocks, 
 much older than the books, and whom all the Oriental scholars who- 
 ever examined them, I believe, pronounce much older than Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 When that English writer, Mr. Moore, wrote his work called 
 "The Hindoo Pantheon," in which he inserted a great many dravv^- 
 ings, representing the crucifixion of the god Chrishna, Avith the 
 cross and the print of the nails in his hands and feet, made by 
 nailing him to the cross, also the mark of the spear in his side — all 
 drawn from sculptured drawings, found on some of the oldest- 
 looking rocks and rock temples in India, none of the Christian 
 professors, who labored so hard with him to keep him from pub- 
 lishing these facts, ever denied but that they were much older 
 than Christianity, or they would not have opposed it. They were 
 not drawn from the vedas or any other books, but from solid por- 
 phyry rock, bearing evidence of being several thousand years old. 
 That great orthodox historian, Mr. Goodrich, puts the quietus on 
 this matter, and settles the question forever, by telling us that the 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 69 
 
 first Christians and Christian missionaries who entered India and 
 China, were very much astonished to find a religion so strikingly 
 similar to their own in both of those countries, and could only ac- 
 count for it by supposing that the devil anticipating the coming of 
 Christ, got out a system of religion just like his. That is, he got 
 out the second edition of the gospel plan of salvation before the 
 first edition had been published, which certainly proves him to be 
 a very smart chap, thus to outwit God Almighty. 
 
 Now, as this occurred long before the alleged alterations in the 
 Hindoo sacred books, it settles the matter forever as to their being 
 forged, and especially in the case of China, where no alterations are 
 •claimed to have been made. And hundreds of other similar facts 
 might be cited if I had room for them, to prove the superlative non- 
 sense of trying to make out that the Hindoos borrowed their relig- 
 ion from the Christian gospels. It is too thin.- Even that bigoted 
 misssionary, D. O. Allen, who lived among them twenty-five years, 
 don't claim it. 
 
 I come now to notice an alleged contradiction in one of my 
 books, with respect to loving enemies. First statement: — 
 "Forgive thy foes, nor that alone, 
 
 Their evil deeds with good repay ; 
 Fill those with joy who leave thee none, 
 And kiss the hand upraised to slay." 
 
 Second statement: "No man ever did love an enemy. It is 
 a moral impossibility, as much so as to love bitter or nauseating 
 food." It seems strange, passing strange, that any person can see 
 
70 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 any contradiction in these two statements. The first statement 
 says not a word about loving enemies. It speaks of forgiving them, 
 filling them with joy, repaying their evil deeds with kindness or 
 kind treatment, the very acts I have recommended in both of my 
 books, and the very acts I have recommended as a substitute for 
 loving enemies in the very next sentence after the statement that 
 it is impossible to love them ; which my critic should have been 
 fair enough to have quoted. "Treat thine enemy kindly and 
 thus make him a friend," is my advice, which is the sentiment I 
 have so highly commended in the Persian moral system. 'MVhen 
 I say "they gave utterance to the loftiest sentiment that ever issued 
 from human lips," I make no allusion to their loving enemies, for 
 they say nothing about it. And let it be understood, it was not the 
 feeling that prompted Christ to enjoin love to enemies that I criti- 
 cised, but the philosophy. The feeling may be a noble one, and 
 yet unphilosophical and impracticable of execution. I did not 
 mean to show that Christ was not a philanthropist, but that he was 
 no philosopher to enjoin what is impracticable. To settle the 
 matter in a few words, I will put two questions to my critic: ist. 
 Can you treat enemies with respect, repay their evil deeds with 
 kindness, the sentiment of the first statement ? You will say yes. 
 2d. Could you love an enemy while beating you unmercifully and 
 smashing your face into a jelly out of sheer spite, or while abusing 
 your wife before your eyes? If you say no, then the question is 
 settled. If you say yes, I will prove by Webster that you are mis- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 71 
 
 taken. Webster defines love as a verb, to mean '* to be pleased 
 with," and love as a noun, to mean *'an affection of the mind 
 toward an object which excites pleasure or pleasurable emotions." 
 Could the cruel and brutal treatment of yourself or wife excite 
 pleasurable emotions in your mind ? You are compelled to say no, 
 and that settles the question again. Then where is the contradic- 
 tion, when you yourself admit both statements to be true ? Let it 
 not be understood that because we can't love an enemy, we should 
 therefore hate him; nothing of the kind. We may, by treating 
 them kindly, excite their love toward us so that we may finally 
 come to love them. 
 
 I will now notice the case of the alleged misquotation of 
 Gibbon. It appears as my friendly critic has presented it, that I 
 have made Gibbon say exacdy the opposite of what he did say, or 
 intended to say. I will only say that if I did commit such an error 
 it must have been corrected, for I do not find it as he has quoted it, 
 in the last edition of the work. And I will also say that I shall feel 
 profoundly thankful to my critic for any errors he can find and 
 report in either of the books. And I will never let another book 
 be bound up till the error is corrected. While the book referred to 
 was going through the press, I was traveling in Minnesota, so that 
 I had no opportunity to correct typographical errors, or errors made 
 by the lady who copied it for the press. And when it came out, I , 
 found a great many errors had been made in my historical 
 quotations, by leaving out or putting in words so far as I had the 
 
72 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 works from which I had quoted in my possession. But many of 
 the historical works I used had been hired or borrowed and 
 returned to the owners, so that I could not examine the correctness 
 of the quotations made from them till I could obtain them, which, 
 in some cases was very difficult, and in other cases impracticable. 
 
 Higgins' large work, from which I have quoted very largely, 
 and which I hired from a gentleman in New York, at an expense 
 of five dollars, I have not been able to get hold of since I returned 
 it. Nor have I seen Gibbon's work since my book was first pub- 
 lished, and from which I made several quotations. But I will 
 obtain it and see if any errors have been made by the copyist or 
 type-setter. I have corrected more or less errors in every edition of 
 the work that has been issued, as fast as I have succeeded in getting 
 hold of the numerous works from which I have quoted that are not 
 in my library. And if I have overlooked an error made in quoting 
 Gibbon relative to the Essenes, it was because on reading it I sup- 
 posed it to be his real sentiments, and I suppose and believe so yet, 
 notwithstanding he appears to deny it in this case. But other quo- 
 tations made from him show very plainly that he did believe the 
 Essenes were the original Christians, notwithstanding he appears 
 sometimes to deny it. So that if the copyist or type-setter, by leav- 
 ing out a sentence or part of a sentence, did misrepresent his lan- 
 guage they evidently have not misrepresented his real sentiments; 
 so that not much harm is done after all. 
 
 I intend to show hereafter by quotations from his writings what 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 73 
 
 his real sentiments were in the case, when I get hold of them again. 
 I have made it a rule, in both of my works, to shorten quotations 
 from history when I could do so without perverting the meaning. 
 But I did not, in any case, designedly misrepresent an author. 
 Indeed, it would have been foolish for me to have done so, know- 
 ing that I would soon be detected, especially if perpetrated on a 
 work as well known as Gibbon's, which is in nearly every library, 
 both public and private. 
 
 A man would be the greatest fool imaginable to attempt to 
 perpetrate a fraud on a work as common and as well known as 
 Gibbon's, with the idea that he would not be found out in less than 
 a month, or at least a year ; and then as there are, in this case, 
 many better witnesses to prove the same thing, it would be un- 
 necessary to force him into a lie to prove it. It can easily be seen 
 that there was less motive for misrepresentation in- this case than in 
 most of the other five thousand historical citations found in the 
 three books. This explanation must satisfy every candid and un- 
 biased reader, that no misrepresentation or perverted quotation was 
 intended. And if any is found, no time will be lost in correcting 
 it. No person could be more mortified than I was to find more 
 than a hundred typographical errors in the first work, and about 
 thirty in the last work, ("The Bible of Bibles"). They cannot be 
 found in the last edition of it, however. 
 
 Referring to a number of these typographical errors such as 
 Mamoides for Maimonides, Colonel for Cardinal, and several other 
 
74 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 cases the critic says, ' ' We know these blunders are his own." Now 
 this is rather a broad and bold assumption of knowledge on his part, 
 and withal it seems to me rather uncourteous and does not sound 
 very well in a writer who has committed the several blunders with 
 respect to names and words I have pointed out in this article, and 
 who, after condemning me for using the word " exposition," uses it 
 himself in the same sense. But I can excuse him by supposing that 
 the work of criticising is something new to him. I will only say 
 further on this point that I think I have committed no errors in 
 either of my works. The typographical errors referred to above 
 were marked by me for correction but somehow overlooked by the 
 publishers. 
 
 To avoid trespassing upon the columns of the Telegram, or the 
 liberality of its kind and indulgent editor, I will notice the other 
 objections with which my reviewer attempts to demolish me, in the 
 briefest and most succinct manner possible. In speaking of my 
 estimate of the number of children destroyed under Herod (14,000) 
 my reviewer says, " It is very careless, if not very dishonest in Mr. 
 Graves to claim that Herod had 14,000 babes slain. There was not 
 anything like 14,000 men, women and children all told in Bethlehem 
 and its coasts. A dozen children under four years would be a fair 
 estimate." Here is a wonderful stretch of historical knowledge 
 which demolishes all the standard historical works on eastern Asia, 
 I ever read, and throws all commentators overboard. The New 
 American Cyclopedia, the standard authority for the world, says that 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 75 
 
 Herod the Great was, for some time governor of Gallilee, and after- 
 wards at the instance of Mark Antony, the Roman senate made 
 him king of all Judea. His decree extended to "Bethlehem and 
 all the coasts around about." This is very indefinite, but it must 
 have comprised an extent of many miles, and a population of many 
 thousands. At least, this is the view more than one-half of 
 Christendom have always had of it. And it is to their learned men 
 I am indebted for the esUmate of 14,000. So that the reviewer 
 must settle the matter with them. This estimate of 14,000 was 
 made by learned orthodox Christians, and not by me. The most 
 learned men of the most orthodox church in the world (the Greek 
 church) made this estimate only a few hundred years after the 
 massacre is said to have taken place. (See Haywood.) And I 
 guess more than one-half of Christendom have believed it ever 
 since. Hence it will be seen that there have been -many millions of 
 "very careless and very dishonest" men and Christians besides Mr. 
 Graves, and sound, orthodox Christians at that. I have never 
 known any Christian writer to put the number less than 8,000. 
 Now I will not retort upon my reviewer, and say he is either "very 
 careless, or very dishonest" to put the number at a dozen, but will 
 use the softer word ignorant. 1 have noUced this objection at 
 greater length than I should have done, because I am accused of 
 being dishonest in putUng the number at 14,000 instead of the 
 glaring and self-evidently absurd number of twelve. The idea is 
 laughable. 
 
76 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 2. The reviewer tries to make sport of my assigning Salava- 
 hana to Bermuda. He seems to suppose that I have reference to 
 a cluster of West India Islands, called the "Bermudas" when I don't 
 even use the name. It is Bermuda, not the "Bermudas." I speak 
 of a small province as appears in ancient Burmah. 
 
 3. He asks, when I quoted Paul about lying for the glory of 
 God, why I did not quote the next verse about not doing evil that 
 good may come of it. I answer because it is on a different subject 
 and has no direct connection with the first verse. It commences: 
 "And not rather," etc., which shows it is not the same thing, and 
 not intended to teach the same doctrine. 
 
 4. He says my boastings about the new discoveries in theol- 
 ogy are like the whistlings of the superstitious man while passing 
 through a grave yard. Here he is mistaken. My whistling was 
 done while a good orthodox church member, when I read Horace 
 Greeley's statement that all the doctrines of Christianity can be 
 found in the old heathen Hindoo bible (the Vedas). It alarmed 
 and shook my orthodoxy so badly, that I had to whistle to keep up 
 courage ; and also when I found that i:)hrenology traces man's evil 
 actions to the brain instead of the devil. 
 
 5. He says: " All evidence points to early April as the true 
 date of the Savior's birth. If all the evidence points to that date, 
 then the twenty-fifth of December has been celebrated for hundreds 
 of years as the real time, without any evidence of its being such; 
 and would not that prove they were either very ignorant, or ' ' very 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 77 
 
 careless, or very dishonest." This paragon of wisdom should have 
 been born a few hundred years sooner, so as to stop the vast waste 
 of time and money in celebrating the twenty-fifth of December. 
 
 6. He says, Prometheus is a mere fabulous character, on 
 whose liver vultures are represented as feeding for thirty years, 
 while nailed to a rock. I know that is the story told in our popular 
 works on heathen mythology, which I read when a boy. But Mr. 
 Higgins says, ''I have seen the account which declares he was 
 nailed to a cross with hammer and nails." Ana., Vol. i, page 327. 
 He pronounces the first story a dishonest fabrication. 
 
 7. My reviewer says, " Mr. Graves charges the scriptures 
 with indecency, yet constantly indulges in profane and indecent 
 jests." Here is another egregious mistake. I never indulged in 
 profane language in my life ; never uttered a profane oath, or used 
 a profane word. Nor did I ever indulge in indecent or vulgar 
 language. It is so repulsive to my nature that I studiously 
 avoided, when writing my books, quoting the vulgar language of 
 the Bible, even when referring to the many texts which contain 
 such language. Doubtless the Bible writers meant nothing wrong 
 in the case, and such language was not repulsive to them, but it is 
 to me. 
 
 8. He admits there are discordant and contradictory passages 
 in the Bible, but says they were not important. Dear me, what a 
 stretch of credulity. I have cited 277 contradictions, and have 
 shown that there is scarcely one doctrine, principle, or precept in 
 
78 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 the Bible, or an important event that is not referred to by contra- 
 dictory statements, thus rendering it absolutely impossible to learn 
 anything with certainty about them. And yet I will not say these 
 contradictions were always in the Bible. I am objecting to the 
 Bible as it is and not as it may have been. It was under the con- 
 trol of the Roman Catholics for nearly a thousand years. And I 
 have cited more than a dozen Christian writers in " The Sixteen 
 Saviors," who declare the Bible has been thoroughly changed since 
 it was first written. So that even if it were right once, it can't be 
 right now. 
 
 9. He tells us that Robert Taylor repented of his infidelity 
 l^efore he died. Well, that is news. But it can't be true, whoever 
 may have started the report. He died in an apoplectic fit, so that 
 he had no time to repent. And, besides, he was about the last man 
 in the world to repent of anything. With firmness and self-esteem 
 almost unbounded, he feared nothing, and was as stubborn as a 
 mule. It would take something more than thunder and lightning 
 to change such a man's views. 
 
 10. Criticising my language when I speak of religious nations, 
 he asks, '' Were there ever any irreligious nations ? " Such a 
 question discloses a greater ignorance of history than a man who 
 assumes the high prerogative of a critic should possess. There 
 have been many irreligious nations. Livingstone, in his African ex- 
 plorations, names several nations or tribes who manifested no 
 knowledge or belief in religion of any kind ; such as the natives 
 of the Arru Island. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 79 
 
 11. He speaks of the ascension of Christ being witnessed by 
 5,000 disciples. I would ask how that could be, when, according 
 to the Acts, 1, 15, written after that time, the number of disciples 
 was only 120. What had become of them? Had they relapsed 
 back into heathenism ? 
 
 12. He faults me for considering the few lines referring to 
 Christ in Josephus an interpolation and a forgery. But this is not 
 an infidel assumption. The most eminent modern Christian writers 
 are with me in this position. That able Christian author, Dr. 
 Lardner, who has written ten volumes in defense of the Christian 
 faith, and which may be found in nearly all Christian libraries, as- 
 signs nine reasons for rejecting it as a fraud. But his last reason 
 would have been sufficient, that it is not found in the early editions 
 of Josephus. He also shows that the leader of the Jews (Josephus) 
 could not call Jesus "the Christ," for that was the very thing the 
 Jews denied. I have not room for all his reasons. He concludes 
 by saying that " for these nine reasons it ought forever to be re- 
 jected as a forgery." 
 
 13. The reviewer calls " the code of Menu, of the Hindoos,' 
 (he says Manu) ' a modern compilation.' " But the fourteen Chris- 
 tian authors which I have read on the subject consider it one of the 
 oldest sacred books in the world. The Hindoo missionary, Allen, 
 5ays it is 900 or 1,000 years old. He must settle the matter with 
 his own witnesses. 
 
 14. He says, " Mr. Graves cannot affirm that the Jews bor- 
 
8o Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 rowed of the Persians." Yes, but I can affirm that a number of 
 Christian writers say that they did not only borrow from the Per- 
 sians, but of the Egyptians, and other nations. Mr. Enfield, Mr. 
 Beers, Mr. Gibbon, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cunningham, etc., etc. ^ 
 all make this affirmation. Here he has his own witnesses to over- 
 throw again. 
 
 15. He says the legend appertaining to the Hindoo Buddha 
 originated several centuries after Christianity was established. Here 
 is another case of rebellion against all the historical authors and 
 authorities I have ever read (not less than 27 in number), including 
 the world-renowned Mr. Goodrich, the no less famous and pious 
 Sir Wm. Jones, and that standard authority for the world, the Nev/ 
 American Cyclopedia, and all the Christian missionary writers I 
 have ever seen. They all place him from 300 to 1,000 years before 
 Christ. I v/ill give him into the hands of his own witnesses again, 
 and he and they must fight it out. 
 
 16. He says the features of resemblance between Christianity 
 and heathenism, 0:1 which I lay most stress, Vv^ere stealings from the 
 Apocryphal gospels. Well, I confess that is rich. The early Chris- 
 tians attributed the Apocryphal gospels to the devil. It seems, 
 then, that the heathen obtained the doctrine of Christianity from 
 the devil. And how did the devil come into possession of them ? 
 And when did he become a missionary for propagating the gospel, 
 and what will be his reward for it ? 
 
 17. The most important consideration in this discussion is 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 
 
 involved in the question, How did heathen nations come into pos- 
 session of the doctrines of Christianity, as I have shown in my 
 works that they teach and preach nearly them all ? My learned and 
 friendly reviewer attempts to account for it by assuming that soon 
 after the establishment of Christianity, all the principal heathen 
 nations underwent an entire change and revolution by the introduc- 
 tion of the doctrines and precepts of the gospel into their old, 
 time-worn and musty systems. In noticing this position I will ex- 
 amine a little further the evidence he attempts to adduce to show 
 that the Hindoos stole the whole history of Christ, and nearly all 
 his religion in the sixth century. The assumption is based, as I 
 have stated, upon the astrological calculations Mr. Bently, a man 
 of some learning in some respects, but not much of an astronomer, 
 though he wrote a work on the Hindoo astronomy. There is a 
 long string of facts tending to show not only the absurdity but the 
 impossibility of being any truth in this calculation^ more of which 
 I will cite. And to avoid extending my article, already longer than 
 I intended, I will state them in the briefest manner possible, and 
 leave the readers to their own conclusions.. 
 
 I. The disciples of the Hindoo religions, including both 
 Buddhism and Brahmanism, comprise about one-third of the in- 
 habitants of the globe, and have been for nearly 2,000 years scat- 
 tered all over the Eastern world, embracing India, China, Egypt, 
 the Birman Empire, Tartary, Japan, Thibet, Ceylon, Siam, etc., 
 etc. And it would appear, according to our reviewer and Mr. 
 II 
 
82 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Bently, that these 400 milHons of heathens, with their old and 
 musty systems of reHgion which had not been known to change 
 essentially in a thousand years, suddenly, as by an electric shock, 
 revolutionized and remodelled these old iron-bound systems of the- 
 ology and mythology, one of them by stealing the life of Christ 
 from the Aprocryphal gospels, and the other his doctrine and pre- 
 cepts and engrafting them into their antiquated time-worn creeds, 
 though scattered as they were over the world for hundreds of thou- 
 sands of miles with no telegraphs or railroads, and many of them 
 no other way of learning for hundreds of years that a new system 
 of religion had been introduced into the world. Those may be- 
 lieve this who can. 
 
 2. Had there been any real science or sense in Bently's 
 theory, the discovery would have produced a sensation throughout 
 the Christian world ; but it was so manifestly weak and absurd 
 that it attracted but litde attention. 
 
 3. And it does not appear that any eminent astronomer, 
 either in Europe or America, indorsed Bently's pretended discovery. 
 
 4. His own friends ridiculed his theory. 
 
 5. And finally a quietus was put upon the matter by some 
 scholars a little smarter or sharper, and a little better posted, in- 
 forming him that the same pointing of planets, his calculation was 
 based on, took place prior to the time of Alexander, 330 B. C, 
 which would indicate the time of Chrishna's birth to be (instead 
 of 600 A. D.,) as long before Christ, as 300 millions of Hindoos 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 83 
 
 and all our able historians and the historical writers of other 
 nations have always placed it. And thus he was compelled to give 
 it up. 
 
 6. The Hindoos have always claimed that such star pointings 
 are periodical, and hence had occured hefore. 
 
 7. The history of Hadrian, a Roman emperor, (who was 
 born 76 A. D.,) proves that the name of Chrishna was known 
 more than 500 years before the time Bently assigns for the origin 
 ■of his story. He is also spoken of in the history of Alexander, 
 330 B. C. Perhaps my reviewer had better try to bring Alexan- 
 •der down into the Christian era. 
 
 8. None of the 150 Christian missionaries that I have heard 
 of, who have been long operating in India, have indorsed Bently's 
 theory, after examining their books, statues, temples, ancient lan- 
 guages, calculations in astronomy, &c., which furnish such con- 
 vincing proof, that both those gods, Chrishna and Buddha Sakia, 
 figured in their history more than 2,000 years ago. 
 
 9. And besides the 150 Christian missionaries, I have seen 
 more than fifty authors, mostly Christians, who place Chrishna and 
 Sakia, both before Christ. In fact, I have seen no reliable author 
 who does not. 
 
 10. That profound Oriental scholar. Sir William Jones, in ad- 
 dition to the testimony of his, already, says : Asiat. Res. volume 
 I. "In the Sanscrit dictionary, compiled ?nore than 2,000 years ago, 
 we have the whole story of this incarnate god (Chrishna), reputedly 
 
84 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 born of virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the ty- 
 rant ruler of the country, like Christ from Herod." Asiat. Res. 
 volume I, page 260. 
 
 IT. The first Christian missionaries that entered India, which 
 was long before Bently's planet pointing, found the history of both 
 these gods therc^ and confessed their astonishment (as already 
 stated) to find their histories and doctrines so near like those of 
 Christ. 
 
 12. That standard authority, the New American Cyclopedia,, 
 places Buddha's birth at 543 B. C, (see volume 4, page 61). 
 And Chrishna's birth, it admits, and all writers admit, was much 
 earlier. 
 
 13. It says the history and doctrines of Buddha were 
 introduced into China 65 B. C. And before that date, more 
 than half of the doctrines of Christianity were taught in the old,, 
 long-established religion of the country. And yet Christian mis- 
 sionaries and everybody else admit that there has never been any 
 perceptible change in the religion of China during the whole period 
 of her existence, with respect to its principal doctrines. They pos- 
 sess not the slightest tendency to innovation. When, then, or how 
 could she, or how did she, borrow the doctrines of Christianity ? 
 
 14. And Egypt presents us with another formidable case. 
 Not only had she the name of the Hindoo gods before the estab- 
 lishment of Christianity or the birth of Christ, but in her oldest sys- 
 tem of religion are found taught nearly all the doctrines, both of 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 85 
 
 Judaism and Christianity, as shown in my books. And yet the 
 proofs of the great age of her reHgion and its wide propagation 
 long before Christ, are absolutely overwhelming and beyond refu- 
 tation, and amply sufficient to convince any impartial investigation. 
 Taylor says : *' Everything of Christianity is of Egpytian origin." 
 Egypt seems to have the most definite dates of her history, and the 
 strongest proofs of the great antiquity of her religion and her gov- 
 •ernment, of any other religion in the world. Her pyramids, her 
 hieroglyphics and her dynasties of kings, are strong witnesses. 
 Manetho furnishes us with a definite calculation of the reign of 300 
 kings, comprising 31 dynasties, and covering a period of 3,555 
 years extending down to 351 B. C, which the New American Cy- 
 clopedia says " is fully established by comparison with the monu- 
 ments," (volume 7, page 36.) And under the reign of several of 
 these kings, most of the doctrines of Christ and the whole code of 
 the Jewish theocracy was taught. And all long before the advent 
 of Christ, as shown in my two large works. 
 
 Why did not the reviewer attempt to overthrow my position 
 with respect to the Egyptian Essenes, preaching and practicing 
 nearly every doctrine of Christianity long anterior to the birth of 
 Christ? "For it was here, (in Egypt), says Mosheim, the Essenes 
 ■dwelt long before the coming of Christ," (vol. i, p. 196); and I 
 have given a long list of the most striking analogies in their doc- 
 trines and principles to those of Christ, to the formidable number of 
 sixty, which embraces nearly all the doctrines and precepts of the 
 
86 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 gospel. I suppose the reason he skipped over this chapter, he 
 found it impossible to bring down their origin into the Christian 
 era. He has no Bently theory to help him out of this difficulty, 
 hence, he barely alludes to the subject, and then dismisses it by 
 saying: "No modern writer of eminence has confounded the 
 Essenes with the Christians, except De Quincy, the opium eater." 
 But here his historical knowledge falls short again. Bishop Marsh, 
 Michaelis Weilting, a work entitled, "Christ the Spirit,"' and that 
 world renowned Christian historian, Euscbius, (and others), all 
 admit that the Essenes preached the doctrine of Christianity long 
 before the coming of Christ. Eusebius makes the astounding state- 
 ment that "those ancient Therapeuts (Essenes) were Christians, and 
 their ancient writings were our gospels," (Eccl. Hist., p. 6;^). 
 What have you to say to this, brother reviewer ? And "Christ the 
 Spirit," (by Hitchcock), says: "The Christians were the later 
 Essenes — that is, the Essenes of the time of Eusebius, under a 
 changed name, that name having been made at Antioch, where the 
 disciples were first called Christians." Here is something definite 
 and positive to prove that Christianity was preached before Christ. 
 Let my reviewer then cease to call me an infidel, when I prove 
 nearly all my positions by Christian writers. His judgment must be 
 .strongly biased to denounce or renounce such writers as DeQuincy. 
 Hear what the world's authority, the New American Cyclopedia says 
 about him. It says: "Mr. DeQuincy identified the Essenes as 
 being the early Christians — that is, the early Christians were known 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 87 
 
 as Essenes. Such testimony coming from such a source is entitled to 
 much weighty' (Vol. i, p. 157). The Cyclopedia tells us De- 
 Quincy's testimony is entitled to much weight. But the reviewer 
 tries to create the impression that it is entitled to no weight at all. 
 What confidence then can we repose in his judgment? He seems 
 to assume DeQuincy could not tell the truth because he used 
 opium. And, perhaps, the reviewer uses another narcotic, called 
 tobacco. If so, must we assume he can't tell the truth? If either 
 opium or tobacco can incapacitate men for telling the truth, then 
 the world must be in a fearful and deplorable condition, indeed. 
 
 I will now assume that my main position is established beyond 
 refutation, viz: that the doctrines of Christianity were preached in 
 the world before the coming of Christ, which shows it to be of 
 human origin, and whether taught by a dozen nations or only one 
 nation, is of no consequence. One proves it as well as a hundred 
 could do. 
 
 As my reviewer several times condemns my scholarship, and 
 ranks me amongst the ignorant, because, as he assumes, I do not 
 spell foreign names correctly, I will here '' turn the tables," and 
 show that it is only a case of " the pot caUing the kettle black." 
 There is scarcely a foreign name in his article but that he spells 
 differendy from that of some of our popular writers. I will cite a 
 few cases in proof and illustration : 
 
 I. The Hindoo god, he spells Krishna; that profound Hindoo 
 scholar, Sir William Jones, spells it as I do, Chrishna. — [See Asiat. 
 
88 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Res.] Renan spells it Christna ; Dow spells it Chrishnoo ; Spillard, 
 Chreshnou, and others, Chreeshna, etc. 2. He speaks of Max 
 Mueller, but there was no such a man, according to our standard 
 cyclopaedia. His name is Max Muller, as I stated before. 3. His 
 Manu should be Menu, according to the same authority. 4. Saky- 
 amouni should be Sakyamuni, according to the same authority, 
 but most writers spell it as I do, Sakiamuni. 5. His Vishnu, Dow 
 spells Vishnoo, and Robertson, Vishnou. 6. Buddha, Dow spells 
 Boodha. 7. His Kali Yuga, Allen spells Kalee Yuya, and Child, 
 Kali-Yug. 8. His Siva, Allen spells Scvu. 9. His Bahavet Gita, 
 the Cyclopaedia spells Baghavat Gita, and others Baghavat Geeta. 
 10. His Mahabarata, Allen spells Mahabarat. 11. His Puranas, 
 the Cyclopaedia spells Purans, and Dow, Poorans. 12. His Keliga 
 should be Kaliga, according to most writers. 
 
 Here are a dozen cases besides some previously cited, and I 
 could give other cases which prove that he has " become wise above 
 what is written." And it suggests the conclusion that although he 
 is well read in certain channels, he has not been over the whole 
 field, and should have contented himself a while longer in being an 
 humble student before he assumed the high position of a teacher 
 and a critic, and calls others ignorant who had evidently read more 
 than he has. Such a poor philologist can hardly be considered a 
 trustworthy guide in matters of history. 
 
 I see by the last Telegram, that no less than four critics are now 
 after me, which will perhaps justify me in extending my article a 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 89 
 
 little longer than I intended. As they appear to be all friendly 
 characters, I hope we can exchange thoughts in good feeling. As 
 for Professor Swing, I have no criticism to offer upon his article.* 
 It breathes the right spirit, and portrays quite beautifully the origin 
 of the belief in Saviors. He traces it to the same origin "The 
 World's Sixteen Saviors" does. He considers it as that work does, 
 an outgrowth of man's moral and religious desires and aspirations. 
 I confess the thought is beautiful, as well as apparently true. And 
 -a similar conception is involved in the belief of crucified gods. A 
 work entitled, " The Progress of Religious Ideas," says the belief 
 once generally prevailed that the gods would sometimes leave Par- 
 adise and descend to the earth on purpose to work, to suffer and to 
 die for mankind. And thus becoming practically acquainted with 
 the sorrows and temptations of humanity, they could jusdy judge its 
 sins while they sympathized with its weakness and its suffering. — 
 {Vol. 2, page 163.] And thus is suggested the origin of the belief 
 in crucified gods. It seems rather beautiful, and contains a good 
 Tnoral, as' is true of many other religious ideas and doctrines. And 
 in this way the belief came to prevail extensively in the world, in 
 ■different nations, that gods had suffered and died for mankind upon 
 the cross. There appears to be but two well authenticated cases of 
 actual crucifixion. Those two cases are Christ and Chrishna. The 
 other cases are probably, most or all of them, mere figments of the 
 imagination, or else borrowed from real cases. As to the belief or 
 
 ■••'See Appendix. 
 12 
 
go Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 conception, however, there can be no question. Suspensus crucis 
 (suspended to the cross) found on monuments prove this. Professor 
 Swing, doubtless, knows something of these facts of history. 
 
 I observe that the attention of the famous Henry Ward 
 Beecher has been turned to our discussion. He suggests that the 
 reviewer's article should be published as a " thin book."' The word 
 "thin " is quite suggestive, and I propose that it be entitled, " The 
 Thin Book," as this title may indicate the character of its contents, 
 and its logic and its conclusions, all of which are thin enough. 
 And if the publisher will allow me to furnish one-half the contents 
 of the work, I will furnish one-half of the funds for pubhshing it. 
 
 Another writer comes to the front with words of cheer for the 
 reviewer, who signs himself "D." This is a very significant 
 letter when applied to '' the lower regions." His words are amus- 
 ing, if not instructive. He frankly confesses he has never " wasted 
 his precious time " in examining the books he condemns. If this 
 be true, I suggest that his time must be worse than wasted now, 
 when he writes on the subject. Such a man would not be allowed 
 to sit on any jury, or testify before any Court of Justice in the civ- 
 ilized world — a man who prejudges a case and brings in a 
 verdict before he has examined the evidence. Such a witness or 
 juror would be ruled out of Court in three minutes. His de- 
 cision in favor of the reviewer revives in memory the story of a 
 young lady who hastened to the house of a neighbor at early dawn 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 91 
 
 to see a new-born babe, Rushing to the cradle before the dark- 
 ness of night was sufficiendy dispelled to make objects clearly 
 visible and discernible in the room, she exclaimed, " Dear me, what 
 a beautiful babe — it is the very picture of its daddy ! " But when 
 a light was brought, it revealed the astonishing fact that there was no 
 object in the cradle but an ebon cat. Mortified at her hasty decision, 
 she confessed her mind was made up more from desire than from 
 knowledge. Perhaps friend D's decision was controlled more by 
 desire than knowledge. And when he comes to examine the case 
 in broad daylight, he may find there is some cat about it. He will 
 of course, accept this illustration in good feeling, as I cherish no 
 feelings of unkindness towards him, if he does seek to bring odium 
 on me by calling me an infidel ; at least, he calls my books infidel 
 works. And yet they have been read by hundreds of Christians 
 and Christian clergymen. It has not been long- since a popular 
 Christian clergyman, residing in the same city in which my re- 
 viewer resides, called to see me, and stated he had purchased and 
 read the work, and that he had butlitde objecdon to offer to it (The 
 Sixteen Saviors). He stated he might differ some with respect to some 
 conclusions, but the facts are undeniable, as they are mosdy drawn 
 from Christian authors. Such a man is " not far from the king- 
 dom." My friend D. may call me an infidel, if he chooses, upon 
 the assumption that I disbelieve the Bible, and yet I frankly confess 
 that it contains moral lessons which, if he and other Christian pro- 
 fessors would try as hard to live up to as I do, would save the 
 
92 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 world. Isaiah's beautiful and noble exhortation, " Come, and let 
 us reason together," has often thrilled me with pleasure, and Paul's 
 exhortation, ''Try and prove all things," is noble. These two 
 moral injunctions, if carried out in practice by everybody, would 
 soon inaugurate that glorious era when truth, love and justice, and 
 practical righteousness would cover the earth as waters cover the 
 sea. But none of the Churches or Christian professors practice 
 them, or else they would all meet and reason together, and the in- 
 fidels with them, and compare their views and doctrines together in 
 a spirit of friendship and loving kindness, to see who is right. I 
 should be in favor of such a convocation as this. It would soon 
 revolutionize the world, and establish universal harmony. 
 
 But I guess my friend D. has not faith enough in his Bible to try 
 it. In this respect, I am a better Christian than he is, and have 
 more faith in the power of truth, and am a better practical observer 
 of the precepts of the Bible. The truth is, I do not condemn the 
 Bible for what it may once have been, but for its present errors. 
 That it contains errors now, thousands of Christian professors 
 themselves admit. In fact, I hold no opinion or position but what 
 is endorsed by many Christian professors. Why, then, am I called 
 an infidel ? I do not condemn the Bible, as such, but only the im- 
 proper use to which it is applied. Nor will I condemn any man for 
 his belief, as I have stated, if he will keep the doors and windows 
 of his mind open for the admission of light. The error is in shut- 
 ting out the light by refusing to investigate, and thus assuming we 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 95 
 
 are infallible beings, like our friend D. I have made it a rule 
 through life to give no decision on any controverted question until 
 I hear all the parties, and thoroughly examine all the evidence. He 
 who does not adopt this rule will find, at the end of the journey of 
 life, that he has committed errors and mistakes. Mr. D. congratu- 
 lates the reviewer on the successful refutation of the positions as- 
 sumed in my books, although he has never read the books, and, 
 consequently don't know what one of their positions is. This is 
 about as sensible as the boy who claimed to be a great reader be- 
 cause his father was, although he had never seen inside of a book. 
 Nine distinct propositions are laid down in the first page of the 
 Bible of Bibles, and twenty-one are laid down in the Sixteen Sa- 
 viors, yet the reviewer has not so much as noticed any one of them. 
 It is an easy matter to go through any book and select its weakest 
 points for criticism, and leave its main positions untouched. State- 
 ments may be criticised and even proved false, and yet the leading 
 positions and propositions of the book may remain intact and un- 
 disturbed. My rule is in criticising a book, to hunt for the strong- 
 holds and strong positions, and attack them first. The main object 
 in all my writings is the development of truth. And I do most sol- 
 emnly affirm before heaven and earth, that I would not propagate 
 a single error to the world if I knew it. And I do solemnly de- 
 clare, also, that I shall feel devoutly thankful to any person to point 
 out errors in any of my writings" if he or she can find any, and that 
 is possible, as I do not claim to be infallible. I have no creed to 
 
94 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 support, no ism to maintain, and no church or society for whose 
 reputation I am responsible. It is unreasonable, therefore, to sup- 
 pose I am interested in the propagation of error, and should be 
 denounced as a wicked or dangerous man. My way of meeting 
 and answering slanderous reports is so to live that nobody who 
 knows me will believe them or can believe them. I shall never 
 fight nor sue for my character, not considering it worth such a 
 sacrifice. And besides, such a remedy is worse than the disease. 
 
 And now I must have a word more with my reviewer as I see 
 he has fired off another rocket in the last Telegram, Well, I like to 
 discuss the question with him because he has " a reason for the hope 
 that is in him." He is not so much accustomed to dealing in 
 naked assertions without a show of proof, as most of those I have 
 met have done. He seems to have a large store of facts, although 
 they don't always prove what he assumes. He now comes forward 
 with another witness to overthrow the assumed antiquity of the Hin- 
 doos, based on astronomical calculations. His witness is Mr. H. 
 Klaproth, a German traveler, who figured in history about half a 
 century ago. He studied the languages and acquired some knowl- 
 edge of science, but never rose very high in the scale of literary 
 fame. He fills about as short a chapter in history as the redoubt- 
 able Mr. Bently. The Cyclopedia honors then both with a brief 
 notice, but it is very remarkable that it says not a word about 
 either of their great astrological and astronomical discoveries which, 
 if true, must have produced an entire revolution in the religious 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 95 
 
 systems, not only of India, but of all the principal nations of the 
 earth, and must have overthrown all the chronological tables and 
 astronomical calculations for thousands of years. 
 
 The omission of the Cyclopedia to notice them is of itself 
 entirely sufficient to bring discredit upon the whole story. And it 
 is a remarkable circumstance that neither Mr. Bently, nor Mr. Kla- 
 proth furnish any reliable data or basis for their calculations. We 
 must accept the little evidence they furnish and assume the balance, 
 or be denounced as infidels. Mr. Klaproth asserts that the astro- 
 nomical tables of India, running back for several thousand years, 
 were constructed in the seventh century, A. D. But we are not 
 furnished with the convincing evidence of this statement, but must 
 assume that it is so and that he is infallible in his calculations. 
 But Prof. Playfair, a philosopher of Edinburgh, furnishes us with, 
 some definite and positive facts calculated to overthrow Klaproth's 
 calculations, or rather assumptions. Klaproth assumes that their 
 astronomical calculations are back-handed, and were made since 
 the events took place ; but Prof. Playfair points to the fact that the 
 calculations were made in a language so ancient that the present 
 natives do not understand it, and with astronomical instruments cut 
 or imbedded in solid rock bearing evidence of being several thous- 
 and years old. The natives know nothing about either the lan- 
 guage or the instruments, while there is no important event in their 
 history so late as the seventh century but what they are familiar 
 with. Here is very strong presumptive evidence against the assump- 
 
g6 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 lion of those astronomical calculations being of modern origin ; and 
 taken in connection with the fact that they have chronological 
 tables showing the names and duration of time for the reign of each 
 king for two thousand years, makes the case still stronger ; and then 
 when we look at the sculptures and inscriptions on their statues and 
 temples, constituted of porphyry, the hardest rock in the world, we 
 have a three-fold cord of evidence of their great antiquity that is 
 hard to resist unless we have a creed at stake which is dearer to us 
 than the truth. 
 
 I have now noticed nearly all the points and statements of any 
 importance in the reviewer's article. I find one, however, near the 
 close of his article which is of too serious a character to pass un- 
 noticed as it seems to involve an indirect attack upon character 
 He says, " If the Bible be indeed such a nonsensical and immoral 
 book as he contends, it is strange that none but men of loose doc- 
 trines if not of loose lives have discovered the fact'' Here is a 
 broad and not a very honorable insinuation against the character of a 
 very numerous class of people comprising several millions, and, as 
 I understand it, designed for me in particular. With respect to my 
 own character, however; I have already spoken. I shall therefore 
 notice its general application : and here permit me to remark, his 
 historical knowledge seems to be sadly d'eficient again, and he virtu- 
 ally rejects and turns State's evidence against hk own witnesses. 
 Some of the leading religious journals, and some of the foremost 
 writers in the ranks of the Christian church, contradict his state- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 97 
 
 ment in the most positive manner that the men and women of loose 
 Uves and character constitute the infidel class. Hear what 
 that bigoted orthodox journal of world-wide fame, the New York 
 Evangelist, says on this subject : 
 
 "To the shame of the church it must be confessed that the 
 foremost men in all our philanthrophic movements in the interpre- 
 tation of the spirit of the age, in the practical application of genuine 
 Christianity, in the reformation of abuses in high and low places, in 
 practically redressing wrongs, and in the moral and intellectual 
 regeneration of the race, are the so-called infidels of our land. 
 The church has pusillanimously left not only the working oar but 
 the very reins of salutary reform to those she denounces as inimical 
 to Christianity (infidels) and who are doing with all their might for 
 humanity's sake what the church ought to do for Christ's sake, and 
 if they succeed, as succeed they will, in banishing rum, restraining 
 licentiousness, in reforming abuses, (among Christians), and in 
 elevating the masses, then must the recoil upon Christianity be 
 disastrous in the extreme. Woe, woe, woe, to Christianity when 
 infidels -i^ -■' get ahead of the church in morals, and in 
 the practical work of Christianity. In some instances they are 
 already far in advance. In the vindication of truth and righteous- 
 ness they are pioneers, beckoning to a sluggish church to follow in 
 the rear." 
 
 Here you have the testimony of one of your own witnesses in 
 direct opposition to your own statement with respect to infidels 
 13 
 
98 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 being men of ''loose lives and loose morals." You say they are, 
 while this church organ assures us their morals are better than those 
 of Christians and church members ; which must we believe ? And 
 then that famous, pious and devout Christian writer, Catharine 
 Beecher, comes forward with a long list of similar testimonies 
 gathered from leading business men all over the country who are 
 Christians, clergymen, bishops, etc., who testify in the most posi- 
 tive manner that infidels and outsiders in all parts of the country 
 are superior in the exhibition of practical morality in all their 
 dealings — that they are more honest, more reliable, and more truth- 
 ful than Christian professors generally, and are thus practically 
 superior in morals. Her statement and report are too long to pre- 
 sent here. They may be found on page 319 of her "Appeal to 
 the People." Our reviewer then must admit he is mistaken or else 
 reject the testimony of his own witnesses. And it will be observed 
 by the reader that in the more than fifty points he has raised against 
 the books he criticises and their author, I have met him in nearly 
 every case with his own witnesses. Therefore if my positions are 
 wrong, and I am as bad a man as he represents, he will certainly 
 admit this much, to say the least, that I am in pretty good com- 
 pany. His indirect charges of dishonesty and bad morals I accept 
 in good spirit, believing they were made in haste and without due 
 reflection, and that upon "sober second thought," he will see and 
 admit he is mistaken. As for our discussion, allow me to say I 
 cherish no fears but that the truth will ultimately prevail wherever 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 
 
 99 
 
 it may be found, whether upon Christian or infidel ground. The 
 ^reat amount of interest which seems to be awakened in the minds 
 of both the parties in this discussion will, I trust, result in the promo- 
 tion of perfect good feeling in the minds of all interested. I will 
 state in conclusion what I omitted to state in its proper place, that 
 one of the oldest men in this county, residing near Richmond, 
 (James Moore), who has read Gibbon, says he clearly understands 
 this author by some of the language he uses, to imply that he be- 
 lieved the Essenes were the early Christians. If, then. Gibbon's 
 language has been misquoted, his real sentiments have not been 
 misrepresented, and not much harm is done by it. 
 
 Kersey Graves. 
 
 Note. — I wish to add (a point before overlooked) that I am 
 prepared to show that nearly all the strikingly similar doctrines of 
 Chrishna and Christ (436 in number), were a part of the Hindoo 
 religion long before the birth of Christ and the alleged forgeries on 
 the Hindoo books Muller speaks of, and Muller himself would not 
 deny it nor would he contend that the striking similarity between 
 Chrishna and Christ, Sir William Jones points out in the Sanscrit 
 Dictionary, were forgeries. And I wish also to state that Bently 
 Tvas a D. D., and his story died a hundred years ago and before 
 he died, and has been seldom mentioned since. 
 
 MR. GRAVES' ADDENDA. 
 
 I have reproduced Mr. Graves' answer just as it was printed. 
 In order that he may not be held responsible for any slips of the 
 
loo Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 pen, and may have the full benefit of his sober second thoughts, I 
 subjoin the following notes and explanations furnished by him to 
 successive issues of the Telegram during the progress of the con- 
 troversy. 
 
 [It may here be mentioned that the extract from Klaproth originally printed in a brief note 
 containing some typographical corrections, has been inserted in its natural place in the present 
 volume, and that two or three names wrongly spelled in the Tclegi-avi^ have been corrected, 
 thus depriving Mr. Graves' criticisms ofthe force they may have had when written]. J.T. P^ 
 
 AN ERROR CORRECTED. 
 
 To the Editor of the Telegi'am : 
 
 In my article of last week, in speaking of the age of the code 
 of Menu of the Hindoos, I am made to say, either by a blunder 
 of my own (^r an error in the type-setter, that " the missionary Al- 
 len says, it is 900 or 1,000 years old." It should read, " the mis- 
 sionary Allen says, it is 900 or 1,000 years older than Christianity." 
 
 Allow me to say also, that I had intended to notice every 
 point in my reviewer's article. But owing to the extreme length of 
 my review, I omitted to notice a few points, which I considered of 
 no importance. I still hold myself in readiness, however, to an- 
 swer them, either in public or private, when called upon to do so, 
 and answer any question appertaining to the subject of controversy. 
 
 Kersey Graves. 
 
 It may perhaps be well for me to say with respect to the name 
 Max ]\Iullcr, that neither my reviewer's mode of spelling it, (Muel- 
 ler,) nor mine, (Midler,) gives the true pronunciation of the word. 
 The Germans place a bar over the '' u " to denote the true sound. 
 
The Gospels not J>rahmanic. ioi 
 
 Herod's decree was to destroy children under two years of 
 age, instead of four, as stated in the review. Other typographical 
 errors occur in the review, but are not deemed important. 
 
 K. G. 
 
 AN ERROR CORREC'l'ED. 
 
 To the Editor of the Richmond Telegram : 
 
 Please he kind enough to allow me space sufficient to correct 
 •one more error. I have been so unmercifully pushed and over- 
 tasked with writing of late that I have written with such haste, in 
 •some cases, as to commit mistakes, and also to overlook mistakes 
 previously made. While writing my first large work I marked a 
 large number of passages in different historical works, which, to 
 save time, I got two persons to copy out for me. In some cases I find 
 they copied too much^ and in other cases not enough. One of the 
 latter errors occurs in quoting from the New American Cyclopedia 
 (vol. 7, p. 292), or was made by the type-setter. 
 
 When I wrote the review for the Telegram, as the Cyclopedia 
 was not at hand, I copied the passage from an early edition of my 
 book, in which the error occurs, without observing it was one of 
 those errors I have corrected in later editions. (Here let me 
 announce that I have a full list of corrected errors of both books, 
 more than a hundred in number, which every person can see in 
 print who may desire it). Both books are now revised and correc- 
 
Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 ted. I have had a portion of the Cyclopedia for many years, but 
 only recently the whole work came into my possession with the 
 volume containing the error referred to. 
 
 The copyist makes the Cyclopedia say that DeQuincy identi- 
 fied the Essenes with the early Christians ; and it appears he did 
 according to the Cyclopedia. But the Cyclopedia says also that 
 the Christians only assumed the name in disguise to save them from 
 their enemies ; (and some writers think they were never afterwards- 
 separated). 
 
 The Cyclopedia is made to say ''such language coming from 
 such a source is entitled to much weight.'"' Here is a mistake. 
 This should have been given as my language, instead of being in- 
 cluded in the quotation from the Cyclopedia which I did not 
 observe when I copied it for the Telegram. It will be seen I copied 
 it word for word from my book, (page 218). For me to misquote 
 the Encyclopedia, intentionally, would prove me to be the veriest 
 fool, knowing that the reviewer has access to the work and would 
 detect me in a moment. With this explanation the reviewer, if he 
 should happen to find this, error, is welcome to all he can make 
 out of it, and all the other errors which are now corrected. Theo- 
 dore Parker and Bayard Taylor both stated that they found errors, 
 in their works after they had passed through several editions. But 
 these errors don't affect the main positions of the work. 
 
 I would like to furnish my reviewer with corrected copies of 
 my works, and all persons having either of my works I will 
 exchange with and furnish them a copy with the errors corrected. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 103 
 
 Then criticisms will be in order and just, and not until then, unless 
 
 confined to the leading positions of the work, which I am prepared 
 
 to defend. 
 
 Kersey Graves. 
 
 Postscript. — Permit me to say to those who may read the 
 
 reviewer's article this week, that I admit there are many errors in 
 
 both of my works, which the reviewer possesses. But as I have 
 
 explained how they occurred, and have stated they are not in the 
 
 last editions, they will please make due allowance on this account. 
 
 I desire to state that I admit that Max MuUer speaks of some 
 
 errors of Sir Wm. Jones in his " Chapter of accidents in comparative 
 
 theology." But my statements of MuUer's views of the Sanscrit 
 
 dictionary is based on a declaration of his, made since that time. 
 
 And my statement relative to '-reliable authors" on the Herod 
 
 massacre should be ''reliable calculations." The Arru islanders 
 
 spoken of as having no religion is a typographical error. It should 
 
 be Arruba, as a portion of the natives of the Arru islands are 
 
 Christian professors. Mr. Livingstone speaks of other tribes who 
 
 have no religion. 
 
 K. G. 
 
 valedictory. 
 
 To the Editor of the Telegram : 
 
 Now as the discussion is closed, allow me to tender my thanks 
 to J. T. P. for the able and gentlemanly manner in which he has 
 reviewed my books. And you will be kind enough to allow me 
 
I04 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 space sufficient for the explanation of a matter which I preceive is 
 misunderstood, and without which explanation great injustice must 
 be done to me, as well as to many of your readers. I have stated 
 that more than a hundred typographical errors occurred in the first 
 edition of "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." But allow 
 me to say they nearly all consisted in merely wrong letters or 
 wrong words, such errors as could readily be detected by the 
 reader, and therefore of no importance whatever. I believe that 
 only two mistakes were made in quoting history that were not cor- 
 rected d(/ore //le^rs^ edition 7vcn^ foj^ress — one from Gibbon, as no- 
 ticed by J. T. P., and the other from the New American Cyclope- 
 dia, as noticed by myself, and these I am certain are not essential 
 in setthng any point, proposition or doctrine in the book. Most of 
 the errors were corrected in the second edition ; so that a recent 
 examination satisfies me that not a dozen errors can be found in the 
 edition now in the hands of my reviewer. 
 
 About thirty typograpical errors (as I have stated) occurred in 
 the first edition of "The Bible of Bibles." Most of them consist 
 in giving the wrong figures for verses and chapters in quotations 
 from the Bible, while the quotations themselves are correct. Such 
 or similar errors can be found in almost any book. I had supposed 
 no reader could attach any importance to such errors. If any do, 
 however, I will exchange with him or her, and furnish a corrected 
 copy. As trifling as these errors are however, a criticism might be 
 made on them that would give them undue importance. Hence I 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 105 
 
 requested the kind editor to make no criticism on the first and 
 uncorrected edition. With respect to the word Apis, allow me to 
 say that while every person who ever saw the inside of an almanac 
 knows that taurus is the generic Latin term for bull, apis is a Latin 
 word and applied also symbolically to designate the Egyptian 
 fabled bull. Apis is the Latin for bee (see Webster.) I will fur- 
 nish a fuller explanation privately to any person desiring it. My 
 note on apis made while reading the review of J. T. P. reads thus : 
 '• Apis, the Latin term for bee, used also symbolically to designate 
 the Egyptian fabled bull." The statement, as criticised, is not as I 
 
 intended it. 
 
 Kersey Graves. 
 
 THE REPLY REVIEWED. 
 
 To the Editor of the Richmond Telegram : 
 
 recapitulation. 
 
 You were kind enough to surrender a good deal of space to 
 my exposure of the fallacies, mistakes and misrepresentations of 
 Mr. Kersey Graves's two volumes, ''The Sixteen Crucified Saviors" 
 and "The Bible of Bibles." With your permission, I will more 
 briefly examine Mr. Graves's very peculiar reply to my strictures. 
 I cannot object to its length, for the author has been no more long- 
 winded than myself. It would have been much more to the pur- 
 
io6 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 pose, however, had he concentrated his attention on the chief 
 points at issue, instead of dilating on minor features, quibbHng over 
 orthography, furnishing autobiographical details, and criticising mat- 
 ters not in controversy. 
 
 The real questions are, whether the idea of a virgin-born, 
 miracle-working, and finally crucified Saviour entered into the con- 
 ception of many nations of antiquity, and whether the one 
 presenting most points of resemblance to Jesus Christ, viz: Krishna 
 of India, was in the latest, and only coincident form of the myth,, 
 a pre- or post-Christian conception. 
 
 I showed that none of the classical authors, dictionaries of my- 
 thology and other authorities, had any thing to say of the cruci- 
 fixion of fifteen of Mr. Graves's ''Saviors." As to the sixteenth, 
 Krishna, I quoted Burgess, Laplace, Bentley, and Klaproth, to 
 prove that the Hindoo astronomy on which Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
 Graves's chief authority, bases his claim of a very long series of 
 cycles and avatars, is of late origin, and in its perfected form, post- 
 Christian, as the famous treatise Surya Siddhanta certainly is. 
 I also cited Wilson, the historian of Hindoo religion, to show that 
 the Puranas in which alone is the story of Krishna in full bloom — 
 the Vedas contain notliing of it and the epics only its germ — are- 
 not older than the eighth or ninth century of the Christian era, 
 and the one specially devoted to Krishna latest of all. I showed 
 that Mr. Higgins's Anacalypsis, while a work of great research, 
 was absurd and superannuated in theory; and that M. JacolHot, an- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 107 
 
 other author on whom Mr. Graves placed great dependence, was 
 either a deceiver or deceived. I pointed out that while Buddha 
 was a pre-Christian, historical character, the virgin-born Buddha of 
 myth was described only in works which are post-Christian. If the 
 stories are older, we can only suppose the fact. I adduced high 
 authority for believing that the Zend Avesta, though a collection of 
 much older prayers and hymns, dates its present compilation to a 
 post-Christian period, and hence cannot have been the source 
 from which any coincident Old Testament cosmogony was derived. 
 I sketched the strong historical evidences of Christianity, quoted 
 the assertion of the philosophical unbeliever, John Stuart Mill, that 
 neither Jew nor Gentile could have invented the character of 
 Christ, and glanced at the fact that men had always vaguely 
 yearned for a deliverer, a point afterward developed with rare 
 beauty and skill by Prof. Swing. I also exposed some glaring mis- 
 representations and many blunders. 
 
 MR. GRAVES ON MUELLER. 
 
 How has Mr. Graves met all these points ? He is silent 
 regarding Mill, and only endeavors to weaken Gieseler's partial 
 acceptance of Josephus's testimony to Christ by saying that Lardner 
 rejected the whole passage. The issue is between acute modern 
 German scholarship and the historical knowledge of the middle of 
 the last century; but the result is not of first class importance. 
 
io8 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 He says nothing of the Zend Avesta, and only mentions Buddha 
 to convey the false impression that I regard all legend concerning 
 him to be post-Christian. What I did say has been virtually 
 repeated above. Mr. Graves has not any fault to find with the 
 testimony of Laplace, Burgess, or Wilson. He is savage against 
 Max Mueller for exposing Jacolliot, though he does not complain of 
 equally emphatic condemnation by John Fiske. He goes so far as 
 lo sneer at Mueller as inferior in authority to the anonymous 
 compiler of an article in a superseded edition of a Cyclopedia — (Mr. 
 Graves uses the old American, of which the last volume was 
 published in 1863, the new being eleven years later.) He is prob- 
 ably not aware that Mueller was commissioned by the East India 
 Company to translate the Rig Veda ; that his notes on the text are 
 regarded as marking an era in the history of Sanscrit literature, and 
 that no living man's dictum on Oriental theology and philosophy 
 carries more weight. Mr. Graves's favorite Cyclopedia furnishes a 
 biography of Mueller, but is silent regarding Mr. Higgins. 
 This shows the compiler's estimate of the two men. In passing I 
 must notice that Mr. Graves affirms that Mueller's name is Muller, 
 and so appears in the Cyclopedia. I must contradict him. If he will 
 look again, he will see two dots over the u, except in the capitals at 
 the beginning of the notice. These dots, which can be used over a, 
 o, or u, show that the letter is modified, or as the Germans say, 
 becomes an umlaut. The change is the introduction of the e sound. 
 Thus Muller is pronounced very like our word Miller, while Muller 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 109 
 
 would be Mooler. It is allowable to add the e instead of 
 using the dots, and the former course is taken where the fonts are 
 not provided with the dotted letters. To close this discussion of 
 Prof Mueller's responsibility, which will seem wholly superfluous to 
 those acquainted with the literature of the day, it may be said that 
 he could not misrepresent Jacolliot without being exposed to rival 
 philologists — for he has had his differences with one eminent man at 
 least — and also that Col. Wilford has told the story of the frauds 
 practiced on himself, in the pages of the Asiatic Researches. 
 
 THE TWO BENTLEYS. 
 
 But if Mr. Graves is angry with Mueller, he is furious against 
 Bentley. That gentleman, in a communication to' the sixth volume 
 of the Asiastic Researches, showed by mathematical calculations, 
 that, granting the position of the planets to have really been at the 
 birth of Krishna as they are set down in his horoscope, he must 
 have been born, if at all, A. D. 600. First, Mr. Graves styles Mr. 
 Bentley " an arrogant, self-conceited, pedantic student of divinity, 
 by the name of Richard Bently, (he erroneously omits the e) 
 whom my critic calls an astronomer (God save the mark.") Next 
 I am told that Mr. Bentley is "a man of some learning in some 
 respects, but not much of an astronomer, though he wrote a work 
 on the Hindoo astronomy;" a quietus having been finally put on 
 
Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Kim by other calculations giving Krishna greater antiquity. " The 
 redoubtable Mr. Bently" is again mentioned, and lastly it is said 
 that '^ Bently was a D. D., and his story died a hundred years ago 
 and before he died, and has been seldom mentioned since." 
 
 Now, respecting these passionate but hardly reconcilable state- 
 ments, I have only to say that Mr. Graves has mixed up two very 
 different persons. Richard Bentley, a renowned theologian and 
 Greek scholar, died in 1742, aged eighty. He probably never 
 heard of Hindoo astronomy. John Bentley, a fellow of the Royal 
 Asiadc Society, wrote the analysis of Krishna's horoscope, about 
 the year 1801. The Edinburgh Review took up cudgels against 
 him, and a sharp controversy followed. Bentley waged a gallant 
 fight, and whether or not he established all the minutiae of his con- 
 clusions, posterity has declared that he was right in general. In- 
 deed, among his contemporaries, such men as the eminent French 
 mathematician, Delambre, Dr. Maskelyne, Astronomer Royal of 
 -Great Britain, Cuvier, Heeren, and Klaproth, all sustained him. 
 It is from Klaproth's letter to Bendey that I quoted the statement 
 of the late origin of Hindoo astronomy. Mr, Graves thinks Klap- 
 roth a mere traveler. He was not a traveler except for the study 
 of history and languages, and the contemptuous criticism is either 
 an illustradon of stupidity or a wretched shift to get rid of testi- 
 mony which is not agreeable. I must not forget to add that all Mr. 
 Graves's indignation against Bentley, and his blundering as well, are 
 second-hand. The confusion of the theologian and the mathema- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. m 
 
 tician was first made in Taylor's Diegesis, and it is thence Mr 
 Craves stole his thunder. 
 
 THE FACTS ABOUT INDIA, 
 
 While in matters of detail modern Orientalists may hold di- 
 verse opinions, there are certain great facts which are regarded as 
 settled. Among these are the radical changes which affected the 
 religious faith of the Hindoos after the Veda age. The Vedas, 
 though of different periods, mainly inculcate nature worship, with 
 occasional gUmpses of one supreme being. Their gods generally 
 have different names from those of the later Epic and Puranic 
 periods and the trimurti or trinity, much less the Krishna incarna- 
 tion, are not found in them or in the laws of Manu, a later produc- 
 tion than the Vedas — not a late one as was erroneously printed in 
 my last. There is almost no reliable Indian history. Only one 
 date before Christ has been actually verified; that of a king named 
 •Chandrugupta, who ascended the throne B. C. 315. The authentic 
 history of India begins with the twelfth century of our era. Hence 
 a thorough comparison of languages and dialects, and a careful 
 •collation of the manuscripts containing the sacred writings have 
 been required. This has been the work of years, but largely of 
 the last quarter of a century. It is made clear that the elaborate 
 Brahmanical ceremonial gradually superseded the Vedaic nature 
 worship; that a war ensued between the priestly and soldierly 
 
112 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 castes ; that the former being victorious by the aid of the common 
 people, intermingled some of their superstitions with their own; 
 that the trinity and incarnations were elaborated by slow degrees, 
 and became more definite when the rise of the opposing faith of 
 Buddhism rendered a firm stand necessary, reaching their full 
 height only when liuddhism was finally expelled from the Indian 
 peninsula twelve or fourteen centuries after the Christian era. I 
 substantiated these general facts in my former article, but I will 
 make a few additional citations to clinch the argument. 
 
 Chambers's Encyclopedia, a work noted for its impartiality 
 and its avoidance of all disputed positions, and anything which 
 looks like partisanship, says of the great epics : 
 
 "Krishna has in the Bhagavad-gita the rank of the supreme deity, but 
 there are in other passages, again in the Mahabharata, in which the same 
 claim of Siva is admitted, and an attempt is made at comparing their rival 
 claims by declaring both deities one and the same. Sometimes, moreover, 
 Krishna is in this epos declared to represent merely a very small portion of 
 Vishnu. In the Mahabharata, therefore, which is silent also regarding many 
 adventures in Krishna's life, fully detailed in the Puranas, the worship of 
 Vishnu in this incarnation was by no means so generally admitted or settled as 
 it is in many Puranas of the Vishnuit sect, nor was there at the epic period 
 that consistency in the conception of a Krishna avatar, which is traceable in 
 the later works." 
 
 I (juoted the opinion of Wilson, the learned writer on the re- 
 ligion of the Hindoos, that the Puranas are not anterior to the 
 eighth or ninth centuries, (of the Christian era,) and the most re- 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 113 
 
 .cent not above three or four centuries old. Mr. Graves has nothing 
 to say to this, except to produce the loosely expressed opinion of Sir 
 William Jones. Sir William was a great and learned men, but he 
 died in 1794. Since his day Oriental research has made prodigious 
 strides. One might as well quote him on questions of philology and 
 ethnology against Mueller, Weber, Lassen, Burnouf, and other mod- 
 ern scholars, as to depend on Captain Tuckey, who reached the lower 
 falls of the Congo, in 1816, and there died, as authority regarding the 
 upper river, now that we have Stanley's narrative to read. 
 
 Weber and Lassen, German authorities of the first-class, and 
 .not known as religious enthusiasts, agree on the interpretation of a 
 passage of the Mahabharata: That it shows that at an early period 
 of the history of the Christian church, three Brahmans visited 
 some community of Christians, either in Alexandria, Asia Minor or 
 Parthia, and that on their return they were enabled to introduce 
 important changes in their hereditary creed, and more especially to 
 make the worship of Krishna the most important feature of their 
 system. At this time, though India was pretty well known to the 
 Christian world, there was no confounding of Christians with 
 Brahmans. The famous Tertullian said : " We are no Brachmans, 
 nor Indian gymnosophists, dwellers in woods, estranged from the 
 affairs of life. We know that our duty is to give thanks for every- 
 thing to God, the Lord and the Creator." Yet there was inter- 
 course between the East and West. 
 
 Weber has seen in the Hindoo Kali-yuga when the tenth ava- 
 15 
 
114 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 tar of Vishnu is to occur, a borrowing from the white horse of Reve- 
 lation. He doubts whether the incarnated Krishna was identical 
 with the Indian Hercules of the Greek writers, '' who was no in- 
 carnation, in the proper sense of the language, and very different 
 from the Krishna of later times." Mr. Pavie, a prominent French 
 Orientalist, says in the preface to a translation of a Purana, pub- 
 lished in 1852 : 
 
 " Krishna worship is the most recent of all the philosophical and reli- 
 gious systems which have divided India into rival sects. Based on the theory 
 of successive incarnations, which neither the Veda nor the law-makers of the 
 first Brahmanic epoch admit, Krishnaism differs in all points from the creeds 
 peculiar to India : so that one is inclined to regard it as a borrowing, made 
 from foreign philosophies and religions." 
 
 It is certain that the epics have been greatly interpolated ; less 
 than a quarter of the Mahabharata, for example, having entered 
 into its original composition. That the Bhagavat-gita, the episode 
 in which Krishna appears in divine, but not in the later semi- 
 Christian garb, is post-Christian ; that the apocryphal Gospel of the 
 Infancy was circulated at an early period on the Malabar coast, and 
 was held in special honor by the Manichean heretics, who strove to 
 corrupt Christianity with Indian theories. According to Eusebius, 
 the Christian missionary, Pantaenus, went as far as India. Flourish- 
 ing Christian churches were established in the Hindostan as early as 
 the latter part of the second century. These are well established 
 facts, and show that the Hindoos had abundant opportunity for 
 investing one of their favorite deities with new attributes. Yet, 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 115 
 
 Tiow different is Christianity from Krishnaism. The one protects 
 purity and proclaims the sacredness of human Hfe ; the other abounds 
 in licentious rites, and in the month of July celebrates the departure 
 •of Krishna from his native land in the horrible festival of Juggernaut ! 
 Yet, the faiths are essentially the same, according to Mr. Graves. • 
 
 MR. graves' S REMARKABLE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 But he has authorities who bear testimony to facts otherwise 
 unattainable. I shall not trouble myself about his eminent Mr. 
 'Goodrich, whom I guess to be no other than the well known com- 
 piler, " Peter Parley," and Horace Greeley, who knew as much 
 about Sanscrit as he did about Greek, but quote the following 
 paragraph from his reply : 
 
 " The secret of the whole matter is : two very popular and learned au- 
 thors, who have investigated and studied the subject more critically than any 
 •other writers who ever wrote on the subject, claim to be able to throw new 
 light on the subject. They claim, just as Max Muller does, with respect to 
 the Hindoo Vedas, to have discovered that changes and alterations or omis- 
 sions were made many years ago in the histories of the oriental gods, by which 
 some of the most important events of their lives were either left out or mate- 
 rially altered. Those two authors are Alexander Dow and Sir Godfrey Hig- 
 gins. {All the English writers I have seen, prefix Sir to his name, my critic 
 to the contrary notwithstanding.)" 
 
 To begin with a point of little importance, I must repeat that 
 Mr. Higgins is not called " Sir." If Mr. Graves will look into his 
 favorite Diegesis he will see him mentioned as ' ' Godfrey Higgins, 
 Esq., of Skellow Grange." Next he evidently quotes Dow at sec- 
 
ii6 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 end hand. Alexander Dow, who died in 1779, translated from the 
 Persian of Ferishta, a History of India, which has no bearing on 
 religious traditions. This was published between 1768 and 1772,. 
 when very little was known respecting the Oriental religions. In 
 an introduction of seventy-six pages, Col. Dow gives a very superfi- 
 cial sketch of Brahmanism, much inferior in every way to a modern 
 Encyclopaedia article. He mentions, I believe, that the Brahmans 
 accused the Jews and Mohammedans of having borrowed some re- 
 ligious rites, and that is about all. 
 
 MR. HIGGINS AND HIS WEAKNESSES. 
 
 As for Mr. Higgins, I find quoted in Allibone's Dictionary of 
 Authors, a work of standard authority, the following comment on 
 the Anacalypsis, from the London Athenaeum, a leading literary 
 weekly of that metropolis, which fully confirms my estimate of the 
 book in my former communication : 
 
 *' It occasionally happens that books written to display some peculiarity 
 of system, or, — as the wicked say, — crotchet of the author, turn out to have 
 a value of their own, from the very great number of well indexed and well 
 referenced facts which they contain. We remember being much struck by 
 seeing among the books of reference in the Museum Reading Room, the Ana- 
 calypsis of Godfrey Higgins. Never was there more wildness of speculation 
 than in the attempt to lift the veil of Isis. But thousands of statements cited 
 from all quarters, and very well indexed, apparently brought the book into 
 such demand as made it convenient that it should be in the reading room 
 itself." 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 117 
 
 This was published in August, 1856, more than twenty years 
 ago. The book is to be found in many of the large libraries of 
 Europe and this country, yet we see no really learned skeptics on 
 either side of the water urging its theories against Christianity. 
 Mr. Higgins was about the last of the host which fought the faith 
 under the banners of Orientalism. 
 
 Mr, Graves quotes a silly story from Higgins, relative to the 
 concealment of some Hindoo manuscripts, which told against Chris- 
 tianity, by a bishop. It is impossible that any prelate could sup- 
 press all of the many manuscripts kept with such religious care by 
 the natives ; or secure the co-operation of the Brahmanical oppo- 
 nents of the Bible in keeping such statements quiet. Moreover, 
 from the first entrance of the English into India, unbelievers were 
 proclaiming the evidences which its religion afforded against the 
 Cliristian faith. They failed to produce many, and have been 
 beaten out of these. As we have said, Mr. Higgins was one of the 
 last of his class, and Mr. Graves has attempted to reanimate a 
 corpse. 
 
 He also quotes Moor's Pantheon, an interesting but antiquated 
 work, published in 18 10, which he says contains the portrait of 
 "The Crucified Chrishna." Mr. Moor is of a different opinion. 
 He says: 
 
 •*The subject is evidently the crucifixion; and by the style of workman- 
 ■sliip, is clearly of European origin, as is found also by its being in duplicate. 
 These crucifixes have been introduced into India, I suppose, by Christian mis- 
 
ii8 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 sionaries. * * They are well executed, and in respect to anatomical ac- 
 curacy and expression, superior to any I have seen of Hindoo workmanship." 
 
 I have the picture before me as I write, and in spite of Mr, 
 Higgins's attempt to prove that Moor was wrong, and Mr. Graves's 
 exaggerated endorsement of Mr. Higgins, must agree with the 
 author. This picture was one of two brought to Mr. Moor by a 
 native, but Mr. Higgins says that the book contains others, copied 
 from the rock temples, that abound in India. These he holds to 
 be of great antiquity. On the contrary, these temples are of Budd- 
 hist construction, and therefore comparatively late ; that at Ele- 
 phanta, near Bombay, being ascribed to the fifth century after 
 Christ. They afford no support to the pre-Christian Krishna 
 theory. 
 
 In this connection, and before dismissing Mr. Higgins, I may 
 remark that Mr. Graves quotes him as alleging that the current 
 versions of the sufferings of Prometheus are garbled, and that he 
 was crucified. It is enough to say that the ancient Greek poet,. 
 Hesiod, says that Prometheus was liberated by Hercules ; and that 
 wfEschylus represents that the Centaur Cheiron, was mortally wounded 
 by Hercules, and sent to Prometheus's place in Tartarus. There 
 are other variations in these two narratives, and there are still 
 other versions, but in none of them does the crucifixion come in. 
 Mr. Higgins's word is of no weight against the classical writers, 
 who, of course, had no Christian prejudices to gratify. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 119 
 
 THE ESSENES. 
 
 Having disposed of the general issue, and shown that Mr. 
 Graves has not shaken a single vital position, but has only proved 
 himself more ignorant than I thought him, I pass to the Essenes. 
 He is evidently much fluttered about the misquotation of Gibbon's 
 note, and promises a correction. A Httle later he takes courage 
 from the assurance of a certain citizen of Richmond that he is 
 correct in his belief that Gibbon agrees with him. Were this 
 true it would not justify the garbUng of a passage, and he will de- 
 rive no comfort from the text to which the note refers. That text 
 says of the reception of Christianity at Alexandria, " It was at first 
 embraced by great numbers of the Therapeutae or Essenians of 
 the Lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its 
 reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The austere life of the 
 Essenians, their fasts and excommunications, the community of 
 goods, the law of celibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the 
 warmth — though not purity— of their faith, already offered a very 
 lively image of the primitive discipline." 
 
 This, coupled with the declaration of the note that Basnage 
 has *' demonstrated in spite of Eusebius and a crowd of modern 
 Catholics that the Therapeutae were neither Christians nor monks," 
 is in accordance with the latest views, drawn from the Talmuds and 
 other ancient Jewish writings, which correct the impressions based 
 on Philo and Josephus — Eusebius being a mere copyist of the 
 former, who lived two hundred years before him. 
 
:i2o Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 The Essenes were Pharisees of the Pharisees; men who held 
 most exaggerated notions of the Mosaic ritual, and were divided 
 into degrees or castes. 
 
 The Therapeutae were of the same stock as the Essenes of 
 Judea, but clung more lightly to the law, and were affected by the 
 Greek philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, so widely diffused in 
 Egypt. Both practiced, however, elaborate washings, and other 
 rites. 
 
 They mainly resembled the Christians in the points in which 
 the latter resembled their Jewish brethren, and Mr. Graves's sixty 
 points of coincidence cannot stand against the testimony of history, 
 and the reproofs by the Apostle Paul of the Galatians for keeping 
 days, etc., the censure of those who forbade marriage, and the 
 general spirit of the New Testament. Undoubtedly Essenism, 
 like other Jewish theories, influenced the early church, but it was 
 not identical with it. 
 
 MR. Graves's original quotation. 
 
 I said that no modern writer of eminence except Thomas De 
 
 Quincey identifies the Essenes and the Christians, but Mr. Graves 
 
 is determined to make the most of him. We quote : 
 
 " Heai- what the world's authority, the New American Cyclopedia, says 
 about him (DcQuincey). It says, 'Mr. DeQuincey (Mr. Graves spells the 
 word De Quincy) identified the Essenes as being the early Christians. That 
 is the early Christians were known as Essenes. Such iestimo7iy comi77g from 
 such a soiure is entitled to much Tueight^ 
 
The Gospels not Brahman ic. 121 
 
 The words which I have put in these single quotation marks, 
 
 since they are inchided in a citation from Mr. Graves, are credited 
 
 by him to volume i, of the Cyclopedia. This is a mistake, but it 
 
 is of little consequence, since the work is ranged alphabetically. 
 
 But the Cyclopedia says something quite different — here it is : 
 
 •' De Quincey has sought to identify them (the Essenes) with the early 
 Christians, who, surrounded by dangers, assumed the name and mode of life 
 ■of the Essenes as a disguise.'' 
 
 There is not a word about the testimony being of much weight, 
 and I supposed your compositor might have included in quotation 
 marks what was only added by Mr. Graves, but further reading does 
 not allow this explanation. Either Mr. Graves has been deceived 
 by some unscrupulous writer from whom he took these quotations 
 -at second-hand, or he has been guilty of a contemptible forgery. 
 He adds : ' ' The Cyclopedia tells us Dc Quincy's testimony is en- 
 titled to much credit." Abstinence from tobacco and stimulants 
 ■does not always insure truthfulness. I begin to think that his 
 misrepresentation of Gibbon was not so purely accidental. Even 
 if it were, there is not the same palliation, for Mr. Graves expressly 
 -says he owns the Cyclopedia, and, if so, he certainly ought to have 
 looked for himself. 
 
 Then we are not satisfied with his explanation of his slander 
 
 .against the Apostle Paul. The verse he did not quote is a part of 
 
 the statement. In the Greek original, which is not divided into 
 
 verses, the connective kai (and) has a small letter at the beginning. 
 
 16 
 
Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Besides in the verse he did not cite, the apostle indignantly repudia- 
 tes the doing evil that good may come. Does this not include lying 
 for the alleged glory of God ? If Mr. Graves has the least particle 
 of honesty he will expunge from his volumes this several times 
 reiterated falsehood. 
 
 IRENAEUS DISAPPOINTS MR. GRAVES. 
 
 Having grossly libeled an apostle, we cannot expect that Mr. 
 Graves should be very careful to avoid misrepresenting a father of 
 the church. He says that Irenaeus, whose name he spells Ireneus, 
 denies that Christ was crucified. "This learned and pious 
 bishop," he says, ''declared upon the authority of the martyr Poly- 
 carp, who claimed to have got it from St. John and the elders of 
 Asia, that Christ was not crucified, but lived to the age of fifty." 
 This is " important if true^"' for Irenaeus was the great opponent of 
 the heresies of the day. But it is, at least, one-half false. He be- 
 lieved that Christ lived until fifty, from an erroneous interpretation 
 of the words of the Jews (John viii. 57), ''Thou art not yet fifty 
 years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" He argued that as Christ 
 bore the sins of all men. He must have had a personal experience of 
 all the ages of human life. Yet no one held more fully than he to 
 the reality of his Master's death, and that on the cross. I quote 
 from his treatise against the Heretics : 
 
 "They [the heretics] maintain that the Lord, too, performed such works- 
 simply in appearance. We shall refer them to the prophetical writings and 
 prove from them both that all things were thus predicted regarding Him^ 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 123 
 
 and did take place undoubtedly, and that he is the only son of God. And 
 what shall I more say? It is not possibl-e to name the number of the gifts 
 which the church [scattered] throughout the whole world has received from 
 God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and 
 which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles." 
 
 I think Mr. Graves has had enough of the testimony of 
 Irenaeus. 
 
 HOW MR. GRAVES TREATS THE BIBLE. 
 
 As a critic of the Bible Mr. Graves is decidedly and disreputably 
 original. He is so bitter against it, that he accepts every wild 
 story that may serve his purpose ; finds difficulties and contradic- 
 tions where no one else has espied them, and hence obscures the 
 real points of which shrewd unbelievers have availed themselves. 
 There are questions of interpretation yet to be settled ; passages the 
 harmonizing of which is not easy, if possible. Yet they do not 
 affect the general truthfulness of the work, render any doctrine 
 doubtful, or do more than disappoint human curiosity. The Bible 
 is translated into plain old Saxon English. There are words used 
 which time has rendered coarse. Offenses are described about 
 which people do not talk in good society. They are never, how- 
 ever, described to gratify prurient desires or a debased taste, but 
 recorded as matters of fact and warning, just as they enter into 
 secular history or mto the records of a legal tribunal. The existence 
 of such facts and crimes cannot be ignored. We all know of them, 
 and a book which guides men's conduct must notice them. If there 
 
124 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 is any complaint to make it solely relates to the translation, and a 
 modernized one is now in preparation. The Bible describes the 
 gross misconduct of some men, whom, on the whole, it pronounces 
 good. They are to be judged by the standard of their day, not of 
 ours, and the candor of the statements is strong proof of the truth 
 of the narrative. If the Old Testament tells what was done by the 
 Patriarchs or Israelites, it does not necessarily justify their acts, 
 even when it fails to reprobate them. The deeds are often suffered 
 to speak for themselves. 
 
 Mr. Graves is indignant that I should say he denounces the Bible, 
 and quotes two or three passages from his volumes, in which he says 
 the Bible contains "much that is beautiful in thought and expres- 
 sion;" again, that "there is scarcely a book or even a chapter in 
 the whole Bible that does not evince a spirit of religious devotion, 
 and an effort for the right; and the prophets often breathed forth a 
 spirit of the most elevated poetry." Still further, he says, "the 
 Bible is a very useful book in its place," and he has " no objection 
 to urge against the Bible, but only to the improper use to which it 
 is apphed." This is all very well, but is hardly consistent with 
 other and much more forcibly urged declarations. 
 
 In his list of the Leading Positions of his "Bibles," he ex- 
 plains the alleged existence of several thousand errors in the Chris- 
 tian Bible, by saying that ' ' it originated at a period when the moral 
 and religious feelings of the nation which produced it co-operated 
 with the animal propensities instead of an enlightened intellect. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 125 
 
 Again, he says, " as the Christian Bible is shown in this work to 
 inculcate bad morals, and to sanction, apparendy, every species of 
 crime prevalent in society in the age in which it was written, the 
 language of remonstrance is frequendy employed against placing 
 such a book in the hands of the heathen, or the children of Chris- 
 tian countries, and more especially against making the Bible the 
 foundation of our laws, and the supreme rule of our conduct." In 
 the body of the work these ideas are developed at length. 
 
 Two hundred alleged instances of obscene statements in the 
 Bible are cited in figures ; the Jehovah of the Bible is set down as 
 an angry, malevolent being, unworthy of reverence. The mere 
 reading of the history of Moses, it is held, will weaken the natural 
 and instinctive love of honesty, justice and morality, unless he is 
 strongly fortified by nature against moral corruption. The patriarchs 
 and prophets are handled far from gendy. Under distinct heads, 
 we are told that the Bible sanctions murder, theft, war, intem- 
 perance, slave-holding, polygamy, licentiousness, wife-catching, as- 
 sassination, and so on. 
 
 Finally, to sum up, though I have not nearly exhausted the 
 catalogue of complaints, Mr. Graves says, " we see not how to es- 
 cape the conviction that the Bible has inflicted, and must necessa- 
 rily inflict, a demoralizing influence on society, where it is read 
 and believed. It is morally impossible for any person to read and 
 believe a book sanctioning, or appearing to sanction, so many 
 species of crime and immorality without sustaining more or less 
 
126 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 moral and mental injury by it." The italics are Mr. Graves's .1 
 will leave the reader to decide whether he is a practical believer in 
 the doctrine that consistency is the vice of ignoble minds, or 
 whether, knowing the Bible to be so atrocious a book, he has in 
 two or three places highly recommended it. 
 
 alleged contradictions, etc. 
 
 It would be amusing were it not sad and revolting to see how 
 every verse and clause is twisted and tortured to make out a con- 
 tradiction or an absurdity. I will give a few specimens : 
 
 ''As Eve was pronounced 'the mother of all living,' when 
 they were no human beings in existence, but she and Adam, the in- 
 ference seems to be that she was the mother of herself, her husband 
 and all the animal tribes." As if her prospective place of mother 
 of all human beings, was not the obvious meaning. An impostor 
 would not have been guilty of the stupidity which Mr. Graves im- 
 agines; an idiot could not have written the narrative in which it 
 appears. " Methuselah's time was not out till ten months after the 
 flood began, according to Bible chronology. Where was he dur- 
 ing these ten months?" As if the book of Genesis recorded the 
 month of the great antediluvian's birth. 
 
 There are no end of '' scientific" objections to the biblical nar- 
 ratives of the creation and deluge, which are wonders of malignant 
 absurdity. Mr. Graves knows as much of natural science as he 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 127 
 
 does of Oriental literature, and that is merely to seize on whatever 
 he thinks will tell, caring not at all whether it be true or false. 
 Thus he finds a " contradiction" between the threat to Adam that 
 ■in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die and his subsequent long 
 life, as if it were sure that the "death" threatened meant physical 
 dissolution. There is a contradiction between the sensible pro- 
 verbs that advise the answering of a fool according to his folly on 
 some occasions and not answering him on others; injunctions, both 
 of which are constantly put in practice by sensible people. There 
 is contradiction between the different uses of the word tempted, in 
 its literal sense and in that of trial. There is a contradiction be- 
 tween Christ's command to the disciples to baptize all nations, and 
 Paul's statement that his special duty was not to baptize but to 
 preach. 
 
 It is useless to multiply the citations of these quibbles. They 
 reflect no credit on Mr. Graves, or rather on the pamphlet from 
 which he has borrowed most or all of them, and which, as I have 
 before said, has been thoroughly exposed and answered by Mr. 
 Haley. I have given enough examples to show the precious stuff 
 of which the ' ' Bible of Bibles" is composed. 
 
 THE MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS. 
 
 My critic does not like my computing the children destroyed 
 by Herod, at a dozen. He never heard of such a small number. 
 
128 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Yet the tradition reckoning them by thousands, is a senseless legend 
 of the Greek church. Bethlehem was a small village, and the 
 number of male cliildren under two years, not four as Mr. Graves 
 has it, in it and its vicinity, which is the meaning of *' coasts," obso- 
 lete in this sense, would be a fair number. Let Mr. Graves reckon 
 from some little Indiana hamlet. I have good authority for this 
 conclusion, viz : Smith's Bible Dictionary unabridged edition, a 
 very scholarly work. Moreover, I have that which may suit Mr. 
 Graves better, the testimony of the American Cyclopedia, under the 
 title Herod. It says: 
 
 "The event (the massacre) is recorded only by one evangelist (Matthew 
 ii, iC), and being confined to the neighborhood of a single village, may natur» 
 ally have passed unnoticed by Josephus amid the many more general atroci- 
 ties of his (Herod's) government." 
 
 CHRISTMAS. 
 
 This will do for the massacre of the innocents. As for the 
 selection of the twenty-fifth of December as Christmas day, it is of 
 very little consequence whether the actual date of Christ's birth is 
 taken or not, since the fact must be matter of speculation. The 
 church did not agree upon the matter until the fourth century. Sir 
 Isaac Newton held the opinion that the winter solstice was chosen 
 because most of the feasts, for which there is no direct New Testa- 
 ment authority, were originally fixed at cardinal points of the year 
 — as other feasts had been before them — and that the first Christian 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 129 
 
 calendars having been so arranged by madiematicians at pleasure, 
 without any ground in tradition, the Christians afterwards took up 
 what they found in the calendars ; so long as a fixed time of com- 
 memoration was solemnly appointed they were content. It is the 
 spirit of the commemoration, not chronological exactness, that is 
 important. It is of no possible consequence whether the Mithraic 
 festival or the Roman Saturnalia coincided in time or not. 
 
 SOME BIG AND LITTLE BLUNDERS. 
 
 There are some minor topics I must briefly notice, for Mr, 
 Graves has rampaged over the whole theological and historical 
 field, in search of weapons to assail me. He has for the most part 
 picked up boomerangs which have recoiled on himself. For 
 example, he says he knows that Apis was not a savior properly so- 
 called, for he learned when a boy that Apis was the Latin for a 
 bull. I have always thought that Taurus was the word, while Apis 
 is a modification of Hapi, or the hidden. After this specimen of 
 Egyptological lore it is not surprising to be told that "most of the 
 doctrines of Christ and the whole code of the Jewish theocracy was 
 taught " on the banks of the Nile. I do not know whether most to 
 admire the author's information or grammar. (See Note.) 
 
 Note. — In this letter as originally published, I contented myself in the assertion of a well 
 known fact. Were Mr. Graves right, he would find himself in the dilemma of claiming 
 that the religions of Egypt and India were identical, since he maintains that they are both 
 reproduced in Christianity. Lest, however, I may seem to regard my own authority as 
 
 17 
 
I-70 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 sufficient, I will quote from James Freemans Clarke's "Ten Great Religions," an 
 interesting, valuable, and rigidly orthodox work, a passage which concisely sets forth 
 what other authorities maintain more in detail: 
 
 " Of Egyptian theology proper, on the doctrines of the gods, we find no traces in the 
 Pentateuch. Instead of the three orders of deities we have Jehovah ; instead of the images 
 and pictures of the gods we have a rigid prohibition of idolatry; instead of Osiris and Isis, 
 we have a Deity above all worlds and behind all time, with no history, no adventures, no 
 earthly life.-'- =:'• His (Moses') severe monotheism was very different from the minute 
 characterization of Gods in the Egyptian Pantheon. - - Nothing of the popular myth of 
 Osiris, Isis, Horus and Typhon is found in the Pentateuch ; nothing of the transmigration 
 of souls, nothing of the worship of animals, nothing of the future life and judgment to 
 come, nothing of the embalming of the bodies and ornamenting of tombs. The cherubini 
 among the Jews may resemble the Egyptian sphinx ; the priests' dress in both are of 
 white linen; the urim and thummim, symbolic jewels of the priests are in both; a quasi 
 hereditary priesthood is in each, and both have a temple worship. But here the_ parallels 
 cease. Moses left behind Egyptian theology, and took only some hints for his ritual from 
 the Nile. There may perhaps be a single exception to this statement. According to 
 Bru^sch and other writers, the papyrus interred with the mummy contained the 
 doctrine of the divine unity. The name of God was not given, but instead the words Nuk 
 Pu Nuk—" I am the I am." If this be so the coincidence is certainly very striking. 
 
 To this we may add that the discussion was equally startling. Moses taught God's 
 unity to all, while monotheism was a secret doctrine in Egypt ; the grossest idolatry being 
 permitted and even encouraged among the masses. It is a fact, not very consoling to those 
 who hold that religion, like everything else, passes by evolution from lower to higher forms, 
 that the ancient primitive faith of Egypt, like that of Chaldea, Phoenicia and Syria, was 
 monotheistic. IM. de Rouge, after quoting various early Egyptian attestations of the divine 
 unity, asks: 
 
 "Were these noble doctrines the product of ag^s? Assured'r-y not, for they existed 
 more than two thousand years before the Christian era. On the contrary, polytheism of 
 which we have pointed out the sources, developed and progressed without interruption 
 to the times of the Ptolemies. More than five thousand years ago the hymns to the unity 
 of God originated in the valley of the Nile - - and we see in the later period Egypt 
 sunk in the most frightful polytheism." 
 
 M. Mariette in his account of the Museum of Boulac, after bearing equally strong 
 witness to the original monotheism of the Egyptians, adds : "But Egypt did not know how 
 to remain on this sublime height." While Egypt and the other countries with which the 
 Jews maintained intercourse, yielded completely to the idolatrious spirit, the less pohshed 
 Israelites, after many backslidings finally became thoroughly monotheistic. Why did they 
 succeed where their more refined neighbors failed ? Why, we may further say, were they 
 the only nation of antiquity to conquer the tendency to polytheism ? The answer must be 
 found in the system they were taught, not in any moral or intellectual virtue of their own. 
 We may add that Mr. Graves finally discovers that Apis is the Latin for bee, and not lor 
 bull, but this has nothing to do with the Egyptian divinity. 
 
 Again he tells us that " the history of Hadrian, a Roman em- 
 peror (who was born 76 A. D.), proves that the name of Chrishna 
 was known more than 500 years before the time Bentley assigns for 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 131 
 
 the story." As Bentley's date was A. D., 600, it would make 
 Krishna a contemporary of Hadrian, and so post-christian. But 
 Mr. Graves confounds Hadrian with the historian Arrian, his con- 
 temporary, to whose mention of Alexander's knowledge of an In- 
 dian hero named Krishna — not the incarnation — I referred in my 
 last article. I have not yet discovered a Bermuda in Burmah, nor 
 how Ixion's punishment in hell could be the crucifixion of a savior^ 
 and do not object to the printing of "Col." for Cardinal being 
 alleged a mistake to the typographer. The ignorance showed 
 itself in the declaration that " Col." or Cardinal Wiseman was ''ten 
 years a missionary in India." He claims to have discovered in his 
 Cyclopedia the identity of Eros, the God of Love, and Esus or 
 Hesus, the warlike divinity of the Druids. This is untrue. The 
 Cyclopedia only describes Eros as the Greek eq[uivalent of the Latin 
 Cupid. 
 
 As for Robert Taylor, I did not affirm that he "repented." I 
 am afraid he never did. I said he '' recanted," and he did this at 
 least twice. In early life, after deserting the pulpit, and finding in- 
 fidelity did not pay, he pubUshed an humble confession in Latin in 
 the London Times, which his own brother affirmed was inspired by 
 mercenary considerations. Later he was known as the "Devil's 
 Preacher," and later still, I quote from recollection a brief sketch, 
 written, I think, by the late G. Vale, he quarreled with Richard 
 Carlile, declined to be called reverend any longer, and after marry- 
 ing, became a physician. The account referred to, says he died in 
 
132 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 France in 184S. If my memory does not fail me this is a mistake^ 
 for 1843, ""^ which year Dodsley's Annual Register records his 
 death. I was told on high authority that his career as a ''Chris- 
 tian," which he claimed to be after his marriage, was by no means 
 creditable, and that he was a victim of intemperance. 
 
 I can see no difficulty in reconciling the Pauline statement that 
 Christ was seen by five hundred disciples at once, with that of Acts 
 that one hundred and twenty believers were gathered about the 
 eleven at the time a successor to Judas was elected. If Roman 
 Catholic missionaries were surprised at the parallelism of their 
 religious uses to those of the East when they visited it, in the six- 
 teenth and seventeenth centuries, this does not involve the fact that 
 those similarities had existed for countless ages. The Nestorians sent 
 priests all through India and China before the seventh century of 
 the Christian era. As for the spelling of Eastern words, there are 
 various systems, to no one of which I have rigidly adhered. I 
 only object to the attempt to make capital for a theory by approx- 
 imating the word Krishna to Christ. 
 
 I believe I have now noticed not only the main features of Mr- 
 Graves's paper but his most trifling quibbles ; with the exception of 
 allegation that a crucifix fastened to an Irish round tower is of 
 Oriental origin, solely because there are two animals at its feet, one 
 supposed to be a sheep, the other an elephant. I have the picture, 
 but the elephant is not there, It is a nondescript beast, most like 
 a tapir, but really to be certainly identified with no living thing. I 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 133 
 
 should decide there was perhaps more artistic stupidity than Ori- 
 ental influence here. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I must now leave Mr. Graves and his books. I have not 
 quoted the ribaldry the latter contain respecting the incarnation 
 and other subjects deemed specially sacred by Christians, nor have 
 I examined the ''criticisms" of the Scriptures with elaborate minute- 
 ness." The task would be endless, for the volumes are tissues of 
 misrepresentations from beginning to end; sometimes stupid, and 
 always bitter. Many, I might say most, are so weak that they 
 refute themselves and there are none which cannot be found 
 answered in works accessible to nearly all. My purpose has been 
 to strike deeper; I have destroyed the foundation on which the 
 pretentious superstructure has been erected 
 
 I have shown that all the "coincidences," save those which the 
 ■constitution of the human mind makes a part of all religions, are 
 post-Christian; and that there has been no borrowing or imposition 
 on the part of the church. I have shown also that Mr. Graves is 
 incompetent to decide between authorities, and blundering and dis- 
 honest in those he uses. He may be a good neighbor and an 
 honest man in his daily walk. He declares himself such, and I 
 have no reason to disbelieve him. But he is the exact reverse in 
 controversey. He is mentally and morally jaundiced. I do not 
 
134 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 wish to be severe or use rough words. Yet, if a quack, who should 
 kill people by the reckless administration of drugs, of whose nature 
 he is uninformed, should be held to strict account, is not a man 
 culpable who endeavors to settle questions that concern man's im- 
 mortal destiny while ignorant of the evidences of the doctrines he 
 pretends to teach ? I have no right to call in question Mr. Graves's 
 sincerity, yet I trust I have convinced him that he had better study 
 other books than those of Higgins and Taylor, before publishing 
 more volumes, and that those already in print, need much in the 
 way of excision and modification. If he will study with a desire to 
 learn the truth, not to make an argument, he may get new light, 
 and change his position, much to his good. This I sincerely hope 
 he may do. 
 
 J. T. P. 
 Cincinnati, February 22, 1879. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 135 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Where there are two legitimate ways of reaching the same 
 end, it often happens that neither has a monopoly of advantages. 
 By reproducing my letters on Mr. Graves's works essentially as they 
 were first puWished, I have escaped the possible dullness of ab- 
 stract disquisition. Moreover, by leaving him to be his own advo- 
 cate, I have avoided the imputation of misrepresenting him. On 
 the other hand, I have sacrificed the unity which a recasting would 
 have assured, and have not supplied the accumulations of evidence, 
 omitted through regard for the limits of a newspaper' s space. Some 
 of the authorities not cited are valuable, if not absolutely es- 
 sential. A controversialist on paper, like a soldier on the field, 
 likes to find himself thoroughly supported. It is specially pleasant 
 to be helped from the other side. 
 
 Thus an admission by M. D. Conway, a man who discovers 
 the traces of Oriental influences where few others can perceive 
 them, has a peculiar interest. In replying to a criticism of his 
 lecture on *' Oriental Religions," which appeared in the Cincinnati 
 Gazette oi October 22, 1875, ^^^ explains his silence regarding the 
 alleged parallelisms between Krishna and Christ by saying that he 
 
136 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 did not consider them " of much if any importance in comparative 
 mythology/' Even Mr. Graves in a moment of apparent forget- 
 fulness, confesses that ''the Vedas don't say a word about this god" 
 (Krishna) which is a long step toward acknowledging what I have 
 claimed. 
 
 It is also deserving of notice that Professor Whitney, of Yale 
 College, who stands at the head of American Orientalists, and is 
 eminent the world over, while holding Mr. Bentley's astronomical 
 processes in no respect, agrees with his general results, and utterly 
 repudiates the theories upon which Mr. Higgins has established his 
 system of cycles and incarnations. He says that " the clear light 
 of modern investigation has forever dispelled the wild dreams of 
 men Hke Bailly, who could believe India to have been the primi- 
 tive home of human knowledge and culture." He adds: 
 
 " It has been declared by Weber, the most competent of Indian scholars 
 to pronounce upon such a point, and without contradiction from any quarter, 
 that no mention even of the lesser planets, is to be found in Hindu litera- 
 ture until the modern epoch, after the influence of foreign astronomical science 
 began to be felt. If, then, we find such a science making its sudden appear- 
 ance in India at so late a period, we cannot help turning our eyes abroad to 
 see whence it should have come. Nor can we long remain doubtful as to 
 where it originated." 
 
 Having awarded Colebrooke the credit of first suggesting the 
 idea, Professor Whitney shows that there are not only Western ideas 
 but Greek words in the very centre and citadel of the Hindu 
 science. Even the Surya Siddhanta, or Siddhanta of the Sun, re- 
 vealed by that luminary to a demi-god, and ages ago handed down 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 137 
 
 to man as an inestimable astronomical boon, purports in some manu- 
 uscripts to have had the Romaka City, or Rome, for its place of 
 ** materialization." Professor Whitney coincides with Mr. Burgess, 
 who shared with him the work of translating the famous treatise, 
 in declaring the Surya markedly post-Christian, fixing on the date 
 of 572 as most probable. He enforces his conclusions by solid 
 arguments, for which we have no room. They may be found in 
 detail in his paper on the Lunar Zodiac in the second series of his 
 Oriental and Linguistic Studies. 
 
 Buddha has of late been an object of so much interest to 
 thoughtful persons on account of the healthful look of many of his 
 precepts, in spite of their wretched atheistical back-ground, that I 
 ought, perhaps, to have considered his history more at length in my 
 letters. I was writing for Mr. Graves, however, and so only aimed 
 to controvert the claim that Buddha's supernatural birth was the 
 prototype of that of Christ. This has been urged by others than 
 my late opponent, as a support to the theory that the opening 
 chapters of Matthew and the Buddhi3tic traditions are only different 
 versions of the same legend. I may repeat, therefore, the statement 
 that there is no positive proof of the exact correspondence of the 
 existing Buddhistic writings with their alleged originals. Further, 
 we know that there are two sets, the northern and southern, the 
 one more extravagant than the other ; and that those we have are 
 often confessedly translations and revisions. Max Mueller argues 
 indeed, the probability that many of the works, dating in their 
 18 
 
138 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 present form no further back than the fifth century of the Christian 
 era, are faithful reproductions of the primitive versions or of those 
 accepted as canonical at the great council, held about midway be- 
 tween the death of Buddha and the birth of Christ. This conclu- 
 sion is not universally accepted, and is likely to be true only in 
 part. Buddha's sayings may have been transmitted with only slight 
 modification, but five hundred years afford ample time for the 
 growth of personal legend. 
 
 Mr. Beale, translator of a curious life of Buddha from the 
 Chinese, admits that all is dark and confused in Buddhistic chro- 
 nology before the fifth Christian century. The Chinese work is 
 itself a translation, and was made from a revised edition of its 
 original — as Mr. Beale infers, two or three hundred years after the 
 latter's first appearance, possibly before, possibly after the Christian 
 era. This makes a pretty fragile and many-linked chain of guess- 
 work rather than evidence. The book furnishes some curious 
 coincidences, but many more glaring discrepancies between the 
 story of Buddha and the gospel narrative. If Buddha, like Christ, 
 was born of a virgin, his mother, Maia, died seven days after the 
 birth of her child. She was transparent during her pregnancy; 
 was a princess, not a maid in humble life. She lavished splendid 
 gifts, and had been to a grand entertainment just previous to the 
 journey during which she gave birth to a son, in a garden not in a 
 stable. In the life of Buddha there is little that corresponds with 
 that of Christ, except his going about and preaching. There is a. 
 closer parallel between his asceticism and that of John the Baptist. 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 139' 
 
 He died a natural death, at an advanced age, while Christ was 
 crucified before reaching thirty-five years. 
 
 When we compare the style of the Buddhistic narrative with that 
 of the Evangelists, the contrast becomes still more marked. That 
 of the former reminds one forcibly of the' apocryphal gospels with 
 Oriental embellishments. There is in more than one point, a 
 near relationship of incident, and a decided affinity throughout. 
 We know from the church fathers of the fourth century, who had 
 heard of Buddha, and were not startled by any of the claims made 
 for him, that Christianity had been diffused through India two 
 centuries or more earlier. There is even reason for believing that 
 it had very numerous professors all over the peninsula down to the 
 fifth century. This was the very period when Buddhism had cul- 
 minated there, only to be overpowered, a few centuries later by the 
 Vishnuite sects, as the latter undeniably borrowed New Testament 
 honors for Krishna, so the former would not be content that the 
 Western missionaries should boast divine honors for their master 
 which Buddha did not possess. If there were any appropriations, 
 it is obvious that the. Buddhists were the borrowers. There is no- 
 thing in pure Buddhism that requires a supernaturally born child. 
 The Old Testament, on the contrary, whether regarded as inspired 
 or not, contains predictions of the advent of such a being, and the 
 Christian faith largely rests upon these prophecies. The super- 
 natural forms, the natural garb of the Jewish Messiah, while the 
 phenomena of Buddha's birth hang round him like borrowed 
 feathers, and such they undoubtedly are. 
 
140 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Were we even to admit, what cannot be proved, that traces of 
 these legends are to be found in pre-Christian Buddhistic treatises, it 
 would be more natural to suppose that the words of Isaiah had 
 reached India — as they seem to have reached Persia — at this early 
 date, than that the same specific ideas should have risen in two in- 
 dependent localities. This'remark applies, of course, only to pre- 
 dictions of a supernatural birth, not to all the events accompanying 
 it. I have shown the possibility of borrowing on the part of the 
 Buddhists, the lack of evidence of any early native origins for their 
 legends, and the improbability that Jewish Christians should go to 
 India for conceptions which the sacred books of their own land 
 supplied. The case appears plain, though it is the universal fashion 
 of skeptics to make the Bible the debtor when there is any coinci- 
 dence between its statements and the Ethnic traditions. Granting 
 that it is merely a human composition, is its originality not entitled 
 to the same presumption as that of writings, certainly its inferior 
 in literary merit ? 
 
 Thus much for Buddha; I should like to quote from Whitney 
 additional testimony respecting the late origin of the Zend Avesta 
 as we have it, but it would merely confirm what I have cited from 
 Hardwick. 
 
 I have made it evident, as far as Mr. Graves and others of his 
 school are concerned, that however gross and multiplied ''pious 
 frauds " may be, impious ones far exceed them in number and de- 
 cree. When Robert Taylor, for example, professes to give all the 
 
The Gospels not Brahmanic. 141 
 
 historical corroborations of the New Testament, he artfully begins 
 by quoting wild mediaeval legends and fabrications, putting 
 Tacitus and other early witnesses into the obscurest corner and dis- 
 crediting them when he has placed them there. Such dishonesty 
 recoils on the man who practices it. Mr. Graves is guilty of some- 
 thing of the same kind, though in a case of less importance, where 
 he cites a religious paper's praise of ''those so-called infidels," 
 the early abolitionists, as an indorsement of the self-denial and 
 virtues of skeptics generally. 
 
 These skeptical cavilers are so lynx-eyed also for flaws in the 
 sacred history tliat they often fall into one pit while digging another. 
 Thus M. Soury, a prominent French rationalist, while attempting 
 to prove the story of Joseph in Egypt, to be largely a romance, in 
 referring to the seizure of his coat by Potiphar's wife, thoughdessly 
 remarks that this was doubtless the one of many colors, which 
 Jacob had given him. M. Soury forgot that the garment had been torn 
 in pieces and dipped in blood by the brethren who sold its wearer 
 into slavery. This stupidity of a man who professed to have studied 
 Genesis from a highly philosophical standpoint, is amusingly ex- 
 posed by his able reviewer Father Vigouroux. Mr. Graves has 
 blundered as absurdly, and often less innocently, and the same is 
 true of far abler champions of the destructive school. Their great- 
 est mistake however, is their belief that they have made a clear 
 path for themselves. Granting that they have overcome some dif- 
 ficulties, they have raised still more formidable ones. 
 
142 Sixteen Saviours or One. 
 
 Conceding that they have identified Christ with the heathen 
 divinities— what then ? The historical affiHations of the Old and 
 New Testaments became unaccountable, and the total difference in 
 the outcome of Christianity and its kindred systems is equally 
 beyond explanation. I am writing for thoughtful men of ordinary 
 acquirements, not for scholars, to whom my plainness and minute- 
 ness may seem unnecessary and tedious, and may therefore be ex- 
 cused for repeating what many Jiave said before me, viz : That 
 there is no one hypothesis which will account for all the data of the 
 New Testament history, except that which assumes the credibility 
 of its authors. 
 
 Neither myth nor tendency can overcome the testimony of the 
 undisputedly genuine Pauline epistles; enthusiasm and imposture 
 are equally unsatisfactory, and a combination of any two or three 
 of these, is like the mixing of an acid with an alkali. When the 
 critics have done their best or worst to discredit the documents, 
 there still remains, as Mill has said, the conception of the man 
 Christ Jesus, the like of which could never have entered the im- 
 agination of Jew, Greek, or Roman, 
 
 J. T. P. 
 
Appendix. 143 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The notice taken by Mr. Graves of the foUowmg letters to the 
 -editor of the Telegram seem to justify their insertion here. The 
 communication of Prof. Swing, deserves reproduction on its own 
 merits. 
 
 A CARD FROM PROF. SWING. 
 
 To the Editor of the Richmond Telegram : 
 
 Your number of the 6th instant, contains such a long and care- 
 ful analysis of Mr. Graves' book, entitled ''The Sixteen Crucified 
 Saviors," that I wish to thank not only the writer of such an article, 
 but also the editor who, in these days of '■•wicked editors,'' was 
 willing to give so many columns to an essay indirectly upon the 
 merits of the Founder of the Christian religion. The essay has so 
 gratified my heart that I feel much like asking you to admit one 
 word more into your paper ; for speech causes more speech. 
 
 J. T. P. tempered his review with mercy, for after having shown 
 that Mr. Graves had made up a poor collection of saviors, and 
 might as well have assembled a hundred as to have found and 
 
144 Appendix. 
 
 labeled only sixteen, the gifted writer might have contended that if 
 the man of Nazareth were the sixteenth of a group or the six 
 hundredth, that would only show how anxious man every where has 
 been, in all times, to find some one who could come able and 
 willing to lead the heart up out of the vale of sorrow. The logical 
 deduction from Mr. Graves' premises is not that Christ was a pre- 
 tender, but that man will always seek a great deliverer so long as he 
 may think that no adequate one has come. The '' Sixteen Saviors'' 
 would be only sixteen forms which the longing to escape from sin 
 and sorrow and death has assumed up to this date of human 
 misfortune. Could Mr. Graves penetrate to the interior of Africa, 
 he would find negro tribes looking back or forward to one of these 
 mighty ones, and should he pass a summer with the Indians of 
 Lake Superior, he would there learn that those children of the 
 woods are expecting a chief to come who shall make the Indian 
 return in triumph to displace the English and the French. 
 
 When Mr. Graves has found his score of "Saviors," he has not yet 
 come anywhere near the conclusion he announces ; but, on the 
 opposite, he has only shown how the human family has always felt the 
 need of some one who might become a connecting link between 
 this life and a better one ; but of the question whether man has 
 found that link, or will soon find it, he does not so much as touch 
 the outermost margin. It might be a pleasant task, or at least a 
 long and interesting task, should Mr. Graves follow the Hebrew 
 race alone, and mark how many deliverers that people thought they 
 
Appendix. 145 
 
 saw in the centuries after Isaiah, but if, after such a study, he 
 should come to us with the conclusion that because of many errors 
 in such vision, therefore, the Hebrews never at last gave birth to 
 any divine leader, we should be compelled to assure him that he 
 was guilty of a non seqiiitur. A child that has become separated from 
 its mother in a London street will see that mother in a hundred 
 women, now here and now there, and will run toward now this one 
 and now that, with new assurance and new joy, but the cold looker- 
 on must not, after witnessing a few mistakes of the child, come to 
 us with the conclusion that the child had no mother in the outset. 
 After the litde crying one had blundered over ''sixteen mothers," 
 the question would remain untouched as to where the real parent 
 might be concealed. "J- T. P." having made havoc of Mr. 
 Graves's data, might thus make equal havoc of his conclusion. 
 
 The Christian confesses that the whole human race has been 
 perfectly swept over by a perpetual wave of opinions and beliefs 
 about a God ; that in this tumult all shapes, moral and physical, of 
 a Deity have been elaborated; but logic cannot deduce from these 
 " Sixteen Gods," or sixteen million gods, the conclusion that the 
 universe did not come from an intelligent Creator. In a similar 
 manner the human race has been swept all over, in both space and 
 time, by hopes and even visions of a deliverer; and, as out of 
 many false images of a god, there came, at last, not atheism but a 
 more true Father in Heaven. So up from a hundred dreams and 
 embodiments of a Messiah, there may have come at last, and in 
 19 
 
146 Appendix. 
 
 Belhelem, a true Messenger from a higher rcahn. The book of 
 Mr. Graves will show only how often human love and imagination 
 will perceive a hero of liberty long before the real one comes ; will 
 find outlines of a Deity before they can give much of a definition 
 of the Jehovah ; and will show how an unhappy and mortal race 
 passing in tears to a grave will often think it has found a friend and 
 be often disappointed. But upon the question whether Jesus of 
 Nazareth was, at last, this divine Friend, the volume contains no 
 argument which need disturb for an instant the belief of the 
 Christian. Yours, David Swing. 
 
 Chicago, Feb. 10, 1879. 
 
 A CARD FROM HENRY WARD BEECHER. 
 To the Editor of the Richmond Telegram : 
 
 The paper containing your reply to several skeptical works 
 came duly, and I read the matter with great interest, thinking all 
 . the while it ought to be published and circulated as a tract, or, thin 
 book. It might, should that be done, be made a little fuller on some 
 points, that men who have not seen the books replied to, might have 
 the statements more fully set forth, before you reply. 
 
 I hope that Providence may direct you to a continuous work in 
 this direction, for which you seem eminently fitted. I am ,dear sir, 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Henry Ward Beecher. 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., Feb. 10, '79. 
 
 . THE end. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 I. Introduction — Infidelity among the masses 5 
 
 II. Letter to Mr. Graves — The Krishna legend post-Christian 
 
 in its perfected form and in its coincidence with the 
 Gospel Narrative — Hindoo astronomy recent and bor- 
 rowed from abroad — Buddha historical, and not super- 
 natural—The Zend Avesta — Mr. Graves's errors in 
 mythology and philology 1 1 
 
 III. Mr. Graves's Reply and subsequent modifications and 
 
 corrections, i ^(5 
 
 IV. Rejoinder to Mr. Graves. — The positions of the first 
 
 letter reaffirmed — Fresh blunders of Mr. Graves in his 
 defense exposed, and his discreditable treatment of the 
 Bible set forth 105 
 
 V. Postscript — Additional constructions of the letters — Appen- 
 
 dix — Views of Prof. Swing and the Rev, Henry Ward 
 
 Beecher 135 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 >'- • w^j^B 
 
 
 
 
 l^'^I^H 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^^l 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^^^H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■>';^^^^H 
 
 
 
 
 ''^H 
 
 
 
 
 ( ^^^^H 
 
 
 
 
 '^T'^^^^l 
 
 
 
 
 :^| 
 
 
 
 
 ;,^H 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 ;',^^^^H 
 
 PRINTEDIN U.S.A. 1 
 
 ^r'- 
 
 •-';. A 
 
 
 
 
-t,:«^','.:.;\^.'-;.-i'>;t ■ ■■■; 
 
 
 
 * » ' »i • I .1-' V t » ^ . 
 
 -^'.'>' 
 
 
 '*^/; 
 
 i:^ ^^v^:J 
 
 
 
 i.' 
 
 fA 
 
 
 &•-■.:■ •?.;* -:■■''% ,' •^••,\5V-'':rii4«J> X>««#'P',/ •■■• ■' ■ 
 
 ^f^J"'' ■•"■■■■ 
 
 [vv-r- 
 
 ;^i»^ 
 
 ?.Ebi