After reading this account, we think that no thoughtful man can reasonably assert that Christianity was taught in India at an early period, was widely adopted, and became the parent of Buddhism. If, in rejoinder, we are told that no writers have asserted that there were Christians in India in olden times, except in Malabar, the answer is, that these were described by those who first met with their successors as totally distinct from the Hindoos, and, consequently, neither Buddhists nor Brahmins. Moreover, we are told that they were regarded by the Holy Inquisition of Europe as heretics, and were, consequently, persecuted by the Christians (see Gibbon's _Roman Empire_, vol. viii, 355).
Rosse, in his book of dates (London, 1858), speaks of an Indian embassy to Constantine the Great, a.d. 334, and another sent to Constantius the Second, but received by Julian, A.D. 362. I cannot, however, as yet, find his authority. But Socrates, in his _Ecclesiastical History_, book i, ch. 19, about A.D. 331, speaks of a treaty which had been in existence a short time before, between the Romans and the Indians, but which had been recently violated. He also, in the same chapter, states that there were Christians amongst the Roman merchants in India--no town or locality being given, however, so that we cannot test his assertion--but that they did not then unite to worship. We find also, from the same chapter, that up to that period there were no Christian Indians known.
Coupling the foregoing fragments of history together, we may safely assert that India, generally, was Buddhist in A.D. 400, and that, according to Pliny, the Romans, or, rather, the Alexandrians, had been in yearly communication with the country, for at least three centuries, at the time of Constantine. As it appears that there were Roman merchants in India, so we presume that there were Hindoo traders resident in Egypt. The presumption is, that these were Buddhists, and that they were attended, or followed, by missionary Buddhist priests. Absolute proof of this there is none.
We now turn to Gibbon's history, and inquire into the period when monastic asceticism first began to prevail in Egypt, the necessary residence of our presumed Hindoo traffickers. We find (see _Decline and Fall_, chapter 37) that Anthony, an Egyptian, and unable to write in Greek, living in the lower parts of Thebais, distributed his patrimony, deserted his family and native home, lived amongst tombs, or in a ruined tower, then in the desert, and then in some lonely spot, near the Red Sea, where he found shade and water. It certainly seems clear that he took the son of Maya, rather than the child of Mary, as his exemplar. At and after this time, the rage for asceticism spread amongst the inhabitants of Eastern Africa as conspicuously as it had done in Oriental Asia at the time of Asoka. It is difficult to read the chapter of Gibbon's history to which we refer, and a history of Buddhism, without regarding Egypt, and her miserable ascetics, in the same light as we look upon the folks of Hindustan and Thibet. If Jesus of Nazareth had dictated such a life, surely his early followers would have been more conspicuous in their habitual mortifications than their later disciples were. The son of man--the child of Mary--"came eating and drinking," and was called "a gluttonous man and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Luke vii. 34; Matt, xi. 19). Not so the son of Maya. The Apostles of Jesus had power to lead about a wife or a sister, and they did so. Neither Paul nor Peter shunned woman's society, nor did they practise poverty; nay, they worked with their own hands, lest they should have to live on alms (2 Thess. iii. 8), and they collected money for poor saints from the wealthier brethren. There was no asceticism here, nor can we find, in any part of the New Testament, a text upon which a system of austerity can be founded.