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 seet 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." Pray, 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 power 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

of the ancient Magian religion into two angels, and called one the angel of light, and the other the angel of darkness? But does a change of names alter the nature of things? But I ask further, where did Zoroaster learn, that at the resurrection, there is to be "a day of judgment" wherein just retribution shall be rendered to all according to their works? And where did he learn, that after the resurrection and day of judgment, "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?" Brethren, from what divine source did this arch impostor learn all these articles of his creed?-1st. Was it from the Old Testament scriptures? This you will not affirm, for intelligent orthodox men allow, that it does not contain such articles. If it does contain them, then, you can find them there as well as Zoroaster, and we call on you to prove them from this book. 2d. Did Zoroaster learn such articles from the New Testament? This was impossible, for it was not in existence for more than six hundred years after the days of Zoro3d. Did Zoroaster learn them from God, when he pretended God spoke to him out of the midst of the fire? This cannot be affirmed unless you admit him to be a true prophet of the Lord. But he is declared the greatest impostor which ever arose, Mahomet excepted. 4th. Did Zoroaster invent these articles of his creed? No other alternative is left, but to admit this, or prove that he derived them from the Old Testament, or by special revelation from God. If he invented them, then he was the author of some of the principal articles of your creeds. This we think is indisputable. 5th. Do you say, your articles, so similar to his creed, were neither derived from him, nor from the Old Testament, but entirely from the New? This will not do, for even allowing

aster.

such articles to be clearly taught in the New Testament, it is evident Jesus Christ and his apostles hadnot the honor of first revealing them to the world.— Zoroaster the arch impostor had revealed them, and published them all over the East, six hundred yearsbefore Christ appeared. If such articles are found in the New Testament, Jesus Christ and his apostles were indebted to this impostor for inventing them. Should you say, that Jesus Christ and his apostles derived these articles from God by immediate revelation, permit me then to ask, who revealed them to Zoroaster six hundred years before the Christian era? Did God reveal them to him? If he did, why not allow him to have been a true prophet of the Lord? And why not frankly own, that Jesus Christ and his apostles did not first reveal such articles of faith to the world, but that God first revealed them through his great prophet Zoroaster? Perhaps you may say, such articles were communicated by inspiration to Christ and his apostles, and it is on their authority that you believe them. Beware, I beseech you, of taking this ground, for this is saying, Zoroaster, a notorious impostor, invented articles of faith, which, six hundred years after their invention, God sanctioned as divine revelation. Was God indebted to an impostor for suggesting to him a religious creed suited to the Christian dispensation? For the honor of God, of Christ, and his apostles, yea, for the honor of Christianity, we hope you will not assert this. If Zoroaster learnt such articles of his creed from a divine source, it must have been from the Old Testament. But few will be found who will assert that it contains them, for this ground is abandoned by some orthodox intelligent men, and their defence is drawn from the New Testament. But if their defence can be made from the Old, we request the dif ferent articles be distinctly taken up and proved from