The officers proceeded in quest of such a phenomenon; but, _in the extent of their own realms, he was not to be found_! This excites the uneasiness of the king, who “having by degrees _increased his offers_ to thousands and millions of money, high titles, possessions of land and great privileges; and, at last, offering his own throne and kingdom, but still finding no instructor, _leaves his court, resolved to become private traveller, and not to rest till he has found one who could communicate to him the desired knowledge_. Having _for a length of time travelled_ through many _kingdoms_, towns, and villages, enduring hardships, he is, at last, by providential interference, led through _a delightful valley_ (which affords him subjects for consideration and recreation of mind) into a dismal forest, the habitation of frightful demons, _venomous reptiles_, and beasts of prey. “_Sekkraia_ having on the occasion come down from heaven, in the disguise of a _Raksha_, meets _Bodhesat_ (the king) in the wilderness, who fearlessly enters into conversation with him, and informs him of the object of his wanderings. The disguised deity undertaking to satisfy the king, if he will sacrifice to him his flesh and blood in exchange for the sacred knowledge, _Bodhesat_ cheerfully ascends a steep rock, shown him by the apparition, and throws himself headlong to the mouth of the _Raksha_. The king’s zeal being thus proved, _Sekkraia_, in his own heavenly form, receives him in his arms, as he is precipitating himself from the rock,” and has him initiated in the desired information.[540] Now, waiving for a moment the latter part of this legend--every word of which, however, is still chronicled in our country, though transferred by the _moderns_ to _St. Kevin_ and the _monks_--I return to add, that, on the above-mentioned stone, you will see a representation of the _ambassadors offering this caske of riches to a professor of letters seated in his “doctor’s chair”_!!! This stone itself is engraved in _Ledwich’s Antiquities_, where in his ignorance of its meaning, as well as of everything else which formed the subject of his libellous farrago, he perverts it into the _bribing_ of a _Roman Catholic priest_!--as if the priests would so emblazon themselves!--and quotes Chaucer to _prove_ the fact, when he says of one them, that-- “He would suffer, for a quart of wine, A good fellow to have his concubine”! How inconsistent is error! Elsewhere this Reverend Doctor has asserted, and, accidentally, _with truth_, that there was no such thing at all to be met with at this place, as “Christian symbols.” I wonder was he one of those who consider _Roman Catholics_ not to be _Christians_?