beg leave to add, that without deserving to be called Viper or Infidel, I have as much right to consider the whole as an allegory, as he has to consider the serpent to be an ape. But here is the Doctor not believing according to the orthodox faith. Then, on his own shewing, he must be both Infidel and Viper. But God forbid that it should be meted to this Protestant heretic, as he metes to others.
The observation which Dr. Clarke has made is extremely valuable, that in the drawings of Sonnerat the serpent is not biting the heel of Cristna, but the side of the foot. This clearly shews that they are not servile copies of one another; but records of a mythos substantially the same. Had the Hindoos copied from the Bible, they would have made the serpent bite the heel, whether it were of the mother or of the son. If the author of Genesis copied from the Hindoo, in making the serpent bite the heel, he substantially, and to all intents and purposes, made him bite the foot. But the two accounts are not mutually convertible one for the other. This story of Cristna and the serpent biting his foot, is of itself alone sufficient to prove, that the mythos of Cristna is not taken from the Romish or Greek religion of Jesus Christ, because in it the mother, not the son, bruises the serpent: Ipsa contaret caput tuum, &c.[1]
In a future chapter, I shall take an opportunity of saying much more on the subject of the Indian Hercules.
CHAPTER II.
CRUCIFIXION OF CRISTNA, AND WITTOBA OR BALJII.—MOORE’S OBSERVATIONS REFUTED.—MORE PARTICULARS RESPECTING THE TEMPLE OF WITTOBA.—CRISTNA, BACCHUS, HERCULES, &c., TYPES OF THE REAL SAVIOUR.—TAURUS AND ARIES, AND ÆRA OF CRISTNA.—IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, FROM THE HISTORY OF PYTHAGORAS.
1. In compliance with the rule which I have laid down for the regulation of my conduct, critically to examine every thing relating in any degree to my subject with the most impartial severity, nothing to suppress, and nothing of importance to add, without stating the authority on which I receive it,—I now present my reader with two very extraordinary histories relating to the crucifixion. I say, fiat veritas ruat cælum. Nothing can injure the cause of religious truth, except, indeed, it be the falsities, suppressions, pious frauds, and want of candour of the priests, and of its weak and ill-judging friends. The pious frauds of the priests of all religions, imperiously demand of the philosophizing critic the most severe and suspicious examination. And whether the priests of the modern British church are to form an exception, will be a subject of inquiry in the second part of this work. In the work of Mons. Guigniaut[2] is the following passage:
