to have been more scrupulous than that of some Christians, who say, God positively hardened Pharaoh's heart, and that he influences men to sin. To avoid this absurdity he held "that God originally and directly created only light or good, and that darkness or evil followed it by consequence, as the shadow doth the person that light or good had only a real production from God, and the other afterwards resulted from it as the defect thereof." But, we shall notice some of the articles of Zoroaster's creed, more im mediately connected with our present subject, and compare them with the articles found in Christian creeds of the present day..

1st. Zoroaster taught, that under the supreme God "there were two angels, one the angel of light, who is the author and director of all good, and the other the angel of darkness, who is the author and director of all evil." It is very evident that his "angel of darkness," answers to the devil of Christians, for they believe their devil to be the author and director of all evil. They believe he was its author at first in deceiving Eve, and has been its author and director ever since. Both moral and physical evil are ascribed to him. The resemblance between them, is not only evident as it respects the powers and qualities both are said to possess, but the very name given to them. It is well known, that Christians call their devil," the angel of darkness." Between Zoroaster's "angel of darkness," and the devil of Christians, I can perceive little or no difference. If there be any, we should be glad to see it pointed out. The Magians first deified the principle of evil, then Zoroaster changed this god into an angel of darkness, and Christians have adopted him for their devil; and lest his origin should be lost in the lapse of ages, have called him by the same. name. But the resemblance is further manifest, by considering, that the angel of light and the angel of

darkness" are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where the angel of light prevails, there the most is good, and where the angel of darkness prevails, there the most is evil; and that this struggle shall continue to the end of the world." I ask all candid Christians, if this is not what they believe concerning their devil? Is it not their faith and their phraseology, that God and the devil are in a perpetual struggle? That this struggle shall continue between them unto the end of the world, and that God finally shall overcome the devil? Who can deny all this? And what Christian man can have the face to deny that Christians have made a devil out of Zoroaster's angel of darkness, for it was impossible he could make his angel of darkness out of their devil. It is also apparent, that Christians believe as Zoroaster has taught them," that where the angel of light or the good God prevails, there the most is good, and where the angel of darkness, or their devil prevails, there the most is evil." Prideaux, considers it a great absurdity in the ancient Magian religion, that light and darkness, or good and evil were the supreme beings, without acknowledging the great good God who is superior to both." But is the absurdity much less among Christians, in holding to one supreme God, and a devil whom they make but little inferior to him? It is true, they have not two gods in name, for they do not believe in the devil as a god. But what signifies a mere name, when in fact they ascribe to him all the characteristics of a God, yea, the very same as the ancient Magians ascribed to their evil god, and Zoroaster to his angel of darkness. Their devil struggles with the true god, and is in a continual struggle with him, and is not to give it up until the end of the world. In all past ages, they say that their devil has had the ascendancy in this strug

66

gle, for evil hitherto has most prevailed. See Mr. Emerson's treatise on the Milennium.

I would suggest it for consideration, whether Zoroaster's "angel of light," is not a corruption of the Scripture doctrine concerning the Messiah. He is called the angel of the Lord, and the angel of the covenant. Between him and the seed of the serpent there is a continual struggle, and this struggle is to continue to the end of the world, when all things shall be subdued to him. But, though he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil, yea, through death to destroy the devil, this devil was not a " fallen angel," or "an angel of darkness," or "an evil god," as we shall see Section 6. Paul, 2 Cor. 11:14. seems to allude to this tenet of Zoroaster's creed, in saying, satan is transformed into "an angel of light." It is implied, that before this transformation he was angel of darkness,"which are the very expressions used by Zoroaster. See on this text, Section 5.

66 an

2d. Let us now consider, what Zoroaster says shall take place at the end of the world, and compare it with the creeds of most Christians. He says

"then there shall be a general resurrection." This article Zoroaster no doubt learned from his acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures, for the résurrection from the dead, was the ultimate hope of believers in Christ, who was promised to the fathers. At this resurrection, he says there shall be "a day of judgment." This, Zoroaster could not learn from the Old Testament, for it does not teach such a doctrine, and when he made his creed, the New was not in existence. The phrase "day of judgment," used by him, is that now used by Christians, and in the same sense as he used it. In my answer to Mr. Sabine, I examined every text in which this phrase is found, and showed, that it is not once used in the Bible, in the sense which Zoroaster and Christians have attached to

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. 26: 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. 37: 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. 12: 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 concerning future punishment. Or, if he could not, account for this impostor's knowing much more about it than the inspired writers. According to Jahn's account, Zoroaster's disciples did not believe in endless punishment. At "the resurrection, all the bad would be purged by fire, and associated with the good" was their 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,