« PreviousContinue »
it. To it I beg leave to refer the reader, who inclines to examine this subject. Christians must have borrowed the sense they attach to the phrase "day of judgment" from his creed, for he could not borrow it from theirs, as the chronology of the cases show. But let us hear Zoroaster, about what shall take place at the day of judgment? He says "just retribution shall be rendered to all according to their works." It cannot be denied, that this is the very sentiment and language of Christian creeds. But I ask, how Zoroaster could learn either this sentiment or its phraseology from the Old Testament? If he did, intelligent and learned orthodox men have erred greatly in admitting that this doctrine is not taught at all, or at least very doubtfully in the Old Testament. Jahn, in his Archaeology, thus writes, p. 398.-"We have not authority, therefore, decidedly to say, that any other motives were held out to the ancient Hebrews to pursue the good and avoid the evil, than those, which were derived from the rewards and punishments of this life. That these were the motives which were presented to their minds in order to influence them to pursue a right course of conduct, is expressly asserted, Isai. xxvi. 9, 10. and may be learnt also from the imprecations, which are met with, in many parts of the Old Testament.
"The Mehestani, who were disciples of Zoroaster, believed in the immortality of the soul, in rewards and punishments after death, and in the resurrection of the body; at the time of which resurrection, all the bad would be purged by fire, and associated with the good. Zend. Avesta, P. I. p. 107, 108. P. II. p. 211, 227, 229. 124, 125. 173, 245, 246. Comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14."
According to this writer, "the ancient Hebrews" were not taught the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. But he honestly tells us that the "disciples
of Zoroaster believed in the immortality of the soul, in rewards and punishments after death." It is true, the Andover translator of Jahn's work, in the paragraph preceding, inserts the following words in correction of his author. ["And although he (Solomon) no where in express terms holds up the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, informs us in chap. xii. 14. of something very much like it, viz. That God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.""] Such is the proof adduced in opposition to Jahn, of future rewards and punishments. Our readers can judge for themselves as to its conclusiveness. It leaves one serious difficulty unrelieved. How came Zoroaster and his disciples to speak so explicitly about this doctrine, if it was not clearly revealed in the Old Testament? No Christian can speak of it with more plainness than they did, if Prideaux and Jahn in the above quotations speak truth concerning them. Christians now, use their very language, in expressing their ideas on the subject. With pleasure we acknowledge our obligations to Mr. Upham, for his translation of Jahn's valuable work, and this obligation would have been much increased, had he referred us to the parts of the Old Testament from which Zoroaster could so clearly learn his doctrine and language of future rewards and punishments. Or, if he could not, account for this impostor's knowing much more about it than the inspired writers. According to Jahn's account of Zoroaster's creed, he did not believe in endless punishment. At "the resurrection, all the bad would be purged by fire, and associated with the good" was Zoroaster's belief, and this accords with the opinions of some Christians in the present day.
But, let us hear Zoroaster, about what is to succeed this day of judgment and retribution. He says"After which the angel of darkness, and his disciples,
shall go into a world of their own, where they shall suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds; and the angel of light and his disciples, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto their good deeds; and that after this they shall remain separated forever; and light and darkness be no more mixed together to all eternity." We have seen that Zoroaster's "angel of darkness," and "the devil" of Christians, are the same both as to qualities and name. Here the sameness is still more manifest, for what honest man can deny, that Christians have adopted his very sentiments and language. For example, Zoroaster's "angel of darkness" had disciples. Well, Christians say their devil has disciples. His angel of darkness with his disciples, after the day of judgment shall go into a world of their own. So say Christians concerning their devil and his disciples. His angel of darkness with his disciples, in this world of their own, "shall suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds." And do not Christians say the very same of their devil and his disciples? Every orthodox man must believe that the devil with his disciples, or all wicked men, are to suffer in a world of their own "in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds," and that "the angel of light, and his disciples, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto their good deeds and that after this they shall remain separated forever, and light and darkness be no more mixed together to all eternity." What man would be deemed orthodox, who refused to believe these things? And why not allow, that Zoroaster, the greatest impostor that ever arose, Mahomet excepted, was in these things as orthodox as they are. In these things he was orthodox long before them. There is only one
of the above articles about which they differ from him in opinion. To the honor of our orthodox brethren be it spoken, they do not say, that the disciples of the angel of light receive future blessedness as a reward for good deeds done by them here. No, they say, it is not of works but of grace, lest any man should boast. It is true, the grace whereby they save men, is rather a purchased grace, than free grace, but on this I forbear remarking.
But it is added by Prideaux-" and all this the remainder of that sect which is now in Persia and India, do without any variation, after so many ages still hold even to this day." If they hold all the above articles, "without any variation to this day," and if they are all true, as Dean Prideaux asserts, why be at so much trouble and expense to send them missionaries? The chief articles in modern Christian creeds were propagated there many ages before the Christian religion existed. If these tenets were taken from the New Testament, it is certain Zoroaster taught them long before, and Jesus Christ and his apostles had not the honor of revealing such articles of faith to the world. For example, "they believe in one Supreme God, and in Jesus Christ under the name of 'an angel of light.' They believe also in the Christian's devil, under the name of an angel of darkness.' They believe in the opposition of these two to each other, and which is to continue to the end of the world. They further believe in a resurrection of all the dead, a day of judgment and future retribution. And they believe in the everlasting happiness of all the good, and everlasting punishment of all the wicked." Pra what more do orthodox people wish them to believe, to be as orthodox as themselves? What more could missionaries teach them, to perfect their Christian creed, which they received from Zoroaster? It is true, there are some articles in the Christian creeds
of which they must be ignorant as they were not taught by Zoroaster. It does not appear that he knew any thing about hell-fire, as the place of everlasting punishment for his angel of darkness and his disciples. Nor had he learned that his angel of darkness was to be the everlasting tormentor of the wicked in this place. He was also ignorant that hell was paved with the skulls of infants a span long. His creed does not recognize, neither, that it is necessary for people to be willing to be damned for the glory of God, in order to their being saved. As to his making God the author of evil or sin, he framed his system so as to avoid this absurdity. Being damned for Adam's transgression, divine retribution, three persons in one God, and other articles of modern theological discussion, Zoroaster seems to have known no more about, than about captain Symmes' theory of the earth. It deserves the serious consideration of the whole orthodox body, whether missionaries ought not to come from Persia and India here, to examine into the innovations and additions made in the creed of their founder, the great Zoroaster. But I must leave this, and other reflections arising from the above statements to be made by the reader.
We have now noticed some of the principal articles of Zoroaster's creed, and would ask every candid Christian the following questions. Where did Zoroaster learn that under the supreme God there were two angels, one the angel of light, and the other the angel of darkness, who is the author and director of all evil? When did the supreme God delegate his Orwer to two angels, and out of the mixture of light and darkness they made all things that are? And where did Zoroaster learn, that where the angel of light prevails, there the most is good, and where the angel of darkness prevails, there the most is evil? Is it not plain, that he changed the good and evil gods.