thirty-one years after the deluge; which appears probable, as it was about the period when new nations arose, owing to the confusion of tongues at Babel. And all the Chinese authors agree, that Yau, the first Emperor of the first dynasty, did not begin his reign until the year B. c. 2207. Consequently, the first Chinese Emperor could not have been Yau or Noah.

The next, and last Buddha, recorded by the Hindus is Crishnu, or Moses. It is asserted that "Goverdhana of Cashmir, who had once said that Crishnu descended two centuries before Buddha, subsequently said that the Cashmirians admitted an interval of twenty-four years, and others only twelve, between these two divine personages*." Goverdhana either intended to mislead, or his account has been very erroneously transmitted. For on this subject he could not have been deceived. He well knew that this Buddha and Crishnu were the same. The error is easily cleared up; for our author adds: "the Brahmans who assisted Abulfuzi, in his curious but superficial account of his master's empire, informed him that, if the figures in the Ayini Akbari were correctly written, a period of 2962 years had elapsed, from the birth of Buddha to the fortieth year of Akbar's reign;

which computation places his birth in the thirteen hundred and sixty-sixth year before the birth of our Saviour," answering to A. M. 2636. For 1366+1636= 4002. Now every learned Hindu knows that the secretary's account was calculated for the Cali year 4700, answering to A. M. 5600. Deducting therefore 2962 from 5600, the remainder is 2638. When this was shewn to Goverdhana, he replied with truth, that Crishnu descended two centuries before that period (2638 200 = 2438), and the Hebrew Scripture, which reckons on the year of Christ 4004, places the birth of Moses at A. M. 2433. Subsequently, when no comparison was drawn, Goverdhana, in general terms, informed Sir William Jones, that some placed his birth twelve years later, and others even twenty-four. This will be further illustrated by examining the account of the secretary of Akbar. "If, say the Brahmans, the numbers are correct." The Brahmans knew full well that they were not correct for Abulfuzi calculated on the prophetic year of 360, and the Brahmans on the Savan year of 355 days. Of course there were only seventy divine ages in the Menwantara of the secretary. But the Brahmans, multiplying by seventy-one, said, “If the numbers were correct, 2962 years had elapsed to the fortieth year of Akbar's reign, in lieu of the first. Now 2438 x 71-70=2470;

bringing the period to the fortieth year of the reign of Akbar, and placing the birth of Crishnu at A. M. 2430, which comes sufficiently near to an assertion, beyond controversy, that Crishnu and Moses were the same. We may draw a comparative statement of the Buddhas as follows:

1. Adam born B. C...4004. lived years 930. Swayambhava....4002. lived upwards of 200.

2. Enoch born B. c. 3381. lived years 365. The divine Buddha 3363

..3654.

3. Noah born B. C...2948. lived years 950.

The foregoing dates sufficiently correspond, to ascertain that the same persons were intended, although described by different names. And although the Hindus commonly make use of the word Buddha, to denote an illumination of the Deity, or prophet of the LORD, they always qualify the expression, so as to leave no doubt of the person intended. Of the Black Shepherd, Baldeus speaks as follows: "If the sea was filled with ink, the earth with paper, and all the inhabitants of the terrestrial globe were employed in writing only, VOL. I.

I

they would not be sufficient to give an exact account of all the miracles wrought by Crishnu, during the space of an hundred years, in the third period of the world, called the Dwaparajug." This missionary cannot divest himself of European ideas, when he treats of Hindu matters. No native . could have introduced either pen, ink, or paper; but the missionary does not stop there. The Hindu historians record these miracles to have lasted" for an hundred years, during the middle of the third period of the world." Now the third period was the third thousandth year of the world, which the Hindus divide into six parts; considering each thousand years as a day of Brahma. Crishnu performed his miracles during the middle of the third period of the world, the third day of Brahma; and Moses during the middle of the third thousandth year of the world. But the missionary, when he converted the Cadjan, and iron pen, into ink and paper, carried the time of Crishnu back about 1700 years, making "the third period of the world the Dwapa or third age," which commenced A. M. 700, and continued for two hundred years only. We may, then, venture to pronounce, that neither of the Buddhas celebrated by Sir William Jones, or by those who have followed him, were intended for Noah, the son of Lamech. The first was a Budha, a sage, not a prophet; Enoch, in

the race of Cain, the grandson of Adam, instead of Athothes or Mercury, whom the Goths call Woden, the grandson of Ham: and the latter was either a Tartar, or a Chinese; who, as the founder of a sect, which professed Atheism, very naturally gave offence to a people, whose religion was formed on the purest system of Ethics, founded on devotion to the Eternal God. Were it otherwise, to change the era, when the Cali age commenced, and deny the knowledge of the Hindus, relative to the antediluvian patriarchs, on the authority of four Chinese authors, said to place the birth of Foe at Y. B. c. 1027; of Foe, an impostor, the founder of a sect, who denied the existence of pure spirit, and believed nothing absolutely and really to exist, but material substance; a religion, if such it can be called, to this day spoken of by the Brahmans, who tolerate all other religions, with "the malignity of intolerant spirits;" is just as reasonable, as it would be to alter the Christian era, or to deny the incarnation of the Messiah, because Richard Brothers and Johannah Southcot, assumed the title of prophets. Does the date of the Christian era rest on the birth of these two modern enthusiasts, who appeared for the edification of the age of reason? Most certainly not. Why, then, should the era of the Cali age be regulated by the birth of the Chinese impostor Foe? Yet on no