ing Mis'r, overfet all our conclufions: he denied, that the Brahmans of his country were generally furnamed MISR, as we had been informed; and faid, that the addition of MISRA to the name of VA'CHESPETI, and other learned authors, was a title formerly conferred on the writers of miscellanies, or compilers of various tracts on religion or fcience, the word being derived from a root fignifying to mix. Being asked, where the country of Misr was, "There are two, he an“swered, of that name; one of them in the west "under the dominion of Mufelmáns, and an“other, which all the Sáftras and Puránas men"tion, in a mountainous region to the north of Ayodhyà:" it is evident, that by the first he meant Egypt, but what he meant by the second, it is not eafy to afcertain. A country, called Tirubut by our geographers, appears in the maps

between the north-eastern frontier of Audh and the mountains of Nepal; but whether that was the Tirút mentioned to father MARCO by his friend of Betiya, I cannot decide. This only I know with certainty, that Mifra is an epithet of two Brahmans in the drama of SACONTALA', which was written near a century before the birth of CHRIST; that fome of the greatest lawyers, and two of the finest dramatick poets, of India have the fame title; that we hear it frequently in court added to the names of Hindu parties; and that none of the Pandits, whom I have fince

1

confulted, pretend to know the true meaning of

66

the word, as a proper name, or to give any other explanation of it than that it is a furname of Brahmans in the weft. On the account given to Colonel KYD by the old Raja of Crishnanagar, concerning traditions among the Hindus, that "fome Egyptians had fettled in this country," I cannot rely; because I am credibly informed by fome of the Raja's own family, that he was not a man of folid learning, though he poffeffed curious books, and had been attentive to the converfation of learned men: befides, I know that his fon and most of his kinsmen have been dabblers in Perfian literature, and believe them very likely, by confounding one fource of information with another, to puzzle themselves, and miflead thofe with whom they converse. The word Misr, fpelled alfo in Sanfcrit with a palatial fibilant, is very remarkable; and, as far as Etymology can help us, we may fafely derive Nilus from the Sanferit word nila, or blue; fince DioNYSIUS exprefsly calls the waters of that river "an azure ftream;" and, if we can depend on MARCO's Italian verfion of the Rámáyan, the name of Nila is given to a lofty and facred mountain with a fummit of pure gold, from which flowed a river of clear, feet, and fresh water. M. SONNERAT refers to a differtation by Mr. SCHMIT, which gained a prize at the Academy of Infcriptions," On an “On an Egyptian Colony efta

blifhed in India:" it would be worth while to examine his authorities, and either to overturn or verify them by fuch higher authorities, as are now acceffible in these provinces. Iftrongly incline to think him right, and to believe that Egyptian priefts have actually come from the Nile to the Gangà and Yamuna, which the Brábmans moft affuredly would never have left; they might, indeed, have come either to be inftructed or to instruct; but it seems more probable, that they visited the Surmans of India, as the fages of Greece vifited them, rather to acquire than to impart knowledge; nor is it likely, that the felffufficient Brahmans would have received them as their preceptors.

Be all this as it may, I am perfuaded, that a connexion fubfifted between the old idolatrous nations of Egypt, India, Greece, and Italy, long before they migrated to their several settlements, and confequently before the birth of MOSES; but the proof of this propofition will in no degree affect the truth and fanctity of the Mosaick Hiftory, which, if confirmation were neceffary, it would rather tend to confirm. The Divine Legate, educated by the daughter of a king, and in all respects highly accomplished, could not but know the mythological fyftem of Egypt; but he must have condemned the superftitions of that people, and defpifed the fpeculative

abfurdities of their priests; though fome of their traditions concerning the creation and the flood were grounded on truth. Who was better acquainted with the mythology of Athens than SOCRATES? Who more accurately versed in the Rabbinical doctrines than PAUL? Who poffeffed clearer ideas of all ancient aftronomical fyftems than NEWTON, or of scholaftick metaphyficks than LOCKE? In whom could the Romish Church have had a more formidable opponent than in CHILLINGWORTH, whofe deep knowledge of its tenets rendered him fo competent to dispute them? In a word, who more exactly knew the abominable rites and fhocking idolatry of Canaan than Moses himfelf? Yet the learning of those great men only incited them to feek other fources of truth, piety, and virtue, than thofe in which they had long been immersed. There is no shadow then of a foundation for an opinion, that MOSES borrowed the first nine or ten chapters of Genefis from the literature of Egypt: ftill lefs can the adamantine pillars of our Chriftian faith be moved by the refult of any debates on the comparative antiquity of the Hindus and Egyptians, or of any inquiries into the Indian Theology. Very refpectable natives have affured me, that one or two miffionaries have been abfurd enough, in their zeal for the converfion of the Gentiles,

to urge,

66

"that the Hindus were even now al"moft Chriftians, because their BRAHMA', VISHNU, and MAHE'SA, were no other than the "Chriftian Trinity;" a fentence, in which we can only doubt, whether folly, ignorance, or impiety predominates. The three powers, Creative, Prefervative, and Destructive, which the Hindus exprefs by the triliteral word O'm, were grofsly afcribed by the first idolaters to the heat, light, and flame of their mistaken divinity, the Sun; and their wifer fucceffors in the Eaft, who perceived that the Sun was only a created thing, applied those powers to its creator; but the Indian Triad, and that of PLATO, which he calls the Supreme Good, the Reason, and the Soul, are infinitely removed from the holiness and fublimity of the doctrine, which pious Chriftians have deduced from texts in the Gofpel, though other Chriftians, as pious, openly profess their diffent from them. Each fect must be justified by its own faith and good intentions: this only I mean to inculcate, that the tenet of our church cannot without profaneness be com pared with that of the Hindus, which has only an apparent resemblance to it, but a very dif ferent meaning. One fingular fact, however, muft not be suffered to pafs unnoticed. That the name of CRISHNA, and the general outline of his story, were long anterior to the birth of