The apparent discrepancy of the four gospels as a whole, does not prevent every narrative given in the _New Testament_--however much disfigured--having a ground-work of truth. To this, are cunningly adapted details made to fit the later exigencies of the Church. So, propped up partially by indirect evidence, still more by blind faith, they have become, with time, articles of faith. Even the fictitious massacre of the “Innocents” by King Herod has a certain foundation to it, in its allegorical sense. Apart from the now-discovered fact that the whole story of such a massacre of the Innocents is bodily taken from the Hindu _Bagaved-gitta_, and Brahmanical traditions, the legend refers, moreover, allegorically, to an historical fact. King Herod is the type of Kansa, the tyrant of Madura, the maternal uncle of Christna, to whom astrologers predicted that a son of his niece Devaki would deprive him of his throne. Therefore he gives orders to kill the male child that is born to her; but Christna escapes his fury through the protection of Mahadeva (the great God) who causes the child to be carried away to another city, out of Kansa’s reach. After that, in order to be sure and kill the right boy, on whom he failed to lay his murderous hands, Kansa has all the male newborn infants within his kingdom killed. Christna is also worshipped by the gopas (the shepherds) of the land. Though this ancient Indian legend bears a very suspicious resemblance to the more modern biblical romance, Gaffarel and others attribute the origin of the latter to the persecutions during the Herodian reign of the kabalists and the _Wise men_, who had not remained strictly orthodox. The latter, as well as the prophets, were nicknamed the “Innocents,” and the “Babes,” on account of their holiness. As in the case of certain degrees of modern Masonry, the adepts reckoned their grade of initiation by a _symbolic_ age. Thus Saul who, when chosen king, was “a choice and goodly man,” and “from his shoulders upward was higher than any of the people,” is described in Catholic versions, as “child of _one year_ when he began to reign,” which, in its literal sense, is a palpable absurdity. But in _1 Samuel_ x., his anointing by Samuel and initiation are described; and at verse 6th, Samuel uses this significant language: “... the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee and thou shalt prophesy with them, _and shalt be turned into another man_.” The phrase above quoted is thus made plain--he had received one degree of initiation and was symbolically described as “a child one year old.” The Catholic _Bible_, from which the text is quoted, with charming candor says in a foot-note: “It is extremely difficult to explain” (meaning that Saul was a child of one year). But undaunted by any difficulty the Editor, nevertheless, does take upon himself to explain it, and adds: “_A child of one year._ That is, _he was good and like an innocent child_.” An interpretation as ingenious as it is pious; and