« PreviousContinue »
after Christ, the Archimagus was forced to remove from thence into Kerman,which is a province in Persia, lying upon the Southern ocean, towards India, and there it hath continued even to this day. And to the fire temple there erected, at the place of his residency, do they now pay the same veneration as formerly they did to that of Balch. This temple of the Archimagus, as also the other fire temples, were endued with large revenues in lands: but the parochial clergy depended solely on the tithes and offerings of the people; for this usage also had Zoroaster taken from the Jewish church, and made it one of the establishments among his Magians.”
Let it be remembered, that Dean Prideaux was a prophet of their own, which forbids the slightest surmise that this account is either misrepresented or exaggerated. But, while eating the fat, and clothing himself with the wool, arising from such an establishment, he frankly confesses that it was invented by Zoroaster, concerning whom he says, p. 220_"He was the greatest impostor, except Mahomet, that ever appeared in the world, and had all the craft and enterprising boldness of that Arab.” A very good origin indeed for Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” It was surely proper, that the greatest imposition ever palmed on the world, should be the invention of one of the greatest impostors the world ever produced. As it was invented at Babylon, published at Babylon, and imported from Babylon, it is very properly called Mystery Babylon the great." After such a disclosure by one of the craftsmen, that man must be dead drunk with the wine of her fornications, who still continues to cry great is Diana of the Ephesians."
2d. Another fact is, that all sects and parties in religion, are silent about the religion of Zoroaster.
The Ecclesiastical hierarchy has met with both assault and insult from almost every sect. But in the course of our reading we have never met with any one of them who ventured to expose it as an invention of Zoroaster. Many a prayer has been made for the downfal of Mahomet and the destruction of Paganism : but who ever heard a prayer made for the destruction of Magianism or the religion of Zoroaster? But why not? Is it not because the creeds of the different sects and that of Zoroaster are very similar ? From his Lord God the Pope, down to the lowest dissenter, all firmly hold some articles invented by Zoroaster. It would not do for any of the sects to insult the clergy, by telling them that Zoroaster was the inventor of their ecclesiastical establishment. No, they could retort upon them, for if this was any argument against it, they must admit it was of equal force against such articles of their own creeds, as Zoroaster was the inventor of both. If they attacked the hierarchy with such a weapon as this they wounded themselves, and if the building fell by such an assault their own creeds must be demolished with it. The base born origin of the Mother of Harlots, must be concealed, for every grade of relationship, however distant, must share in the disgrace. Dean Prideaux loved the inventions of Zoroaster but called him the greatest impostor that ever arose, Mahomet excepted. But instead of this kind of abuse, the religious world ought to erect a monument to his memory, for to him, more than to Jesus Christ, have they been indebted for much that has been counted great, glorious, and good in religion.
3d. It has been noticed by many as a remarkable fact, that before the captivity the Jews were prone to idolatry, but after their return and ever since, have held it in great abhorrence. Is not this great change iņ the Jews, partly at least, accounted for by their
imbibing Zoroaster's opinions, which were opposed to the worship of idols ? But this I merely suggest for consideration, and leave the reader to his own reflections, on the topics which have been discussed in the present Section.
ALL THE PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHERE THE
TERM SATAN OCCURS, CONSIDERED.
The term Satan, among Christians, is as much a proper name for a fallen angel, as Peter and Paul are for two of Christ's apostles. In correction of this mistake, Dr. Campbell says, Dissert. 6. “Satan, though conceived by us as a proper name, was an appellative in the language spoken by our Lord; for, from the Hebrew it passed into the Syriac, and sig. nified no more than adversary or opponent. It is naturally just as applicable to human as to spiritual agents, and is, in the Old Testament, often so applied.” The truth of this statement we have seen, Sect. 3.
It has been alleged that the New Testament speaks more frequently and explicitly about the devil and satan than the Old. Let us see how this matter stands. The term satan occurs thirty-four times in the Old Testament, and is fifteen times rendered adversary, or by some similar word. But though it occurs thirty-five times in the New Testament, it is not once rendered by any word. It is easily perceived then, that this circumstance gives to the New Testament the appearance of teaching the
existence of such a being which the Old has not. But every
man must see, that it is a very false appearance. This false appearance is very much increased, from the very frequent occurrence of the term devil, and the plural devils, to which like the term satan, people have attached the idea of a fallen angel. But it is well known that the words daimon and daimonion, have no reference to that being Christians call the devil, but to demons or dead men deified. The reader is requested to consult Farmer, Jahn, and Dr. Campbell on this subject. It is only with the word diabolos, rendered devil, we are concerned in this Inquiry, which occurs in the New Testament thirty-six times. Excluding all the other places where the words devil and devils are the rendering of daimon and daimonion, all must see what an alteration it makes on the face of the New Testament. Even in our English version the term diabolos is sometimes rendered slanderer and false accuser, as the word signifies. Dr. Campbell, where Judas is called a devil, renders it spy,
and diabolos is rendered in a similar manner by other translators. Supposing then, that the words shaitan and diabolos, had been rendered adversary and slanderer, or by similar words, it would have been difficult to find a fallen angel under those names in the Bible. In the Old Testament the term satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to the angel of Jehovah, the evil passions of men, a piece of writing, the evil principle deified, &c. The terms satan and devil are used in a similar way in the New Testament, which we shall now proceed to show.
Matth. 16: 23. “ But he turned and said unto Peter, get thee behind me satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” See also the parallel text in Mark 8: 33. which I need not transcribe. Here our Lord does not say that Peter was possessed of satan, that he acted like him, or that he was in
fluenced by him, but positively calls one of his own disciples satan. But was Peter a fallen angel or wicked spirit? The expression “get thee behind me satan," is the same that our Lord used, Luke 4: 8. when he was tempted of the devil and satan. There is nothing at all remarkable in calling Peter satan, as David and the angel of the Lord were called so in the Old Testament. “Get thce behind me adversary,"? was highly proper language, for Peter was our Lord's adversary, not from design, but from ignorance and mistaken views, as is evident from the context, and also from the reason assigned; 6. For thou savourest not the things which be of God, but those which be of men.” The Old and New Testament writers therefore perfectly harmonise in the sense attached to this word.
Luke 22: 31, 32. “And the Lord said Simon, Simon, behold, satan hath desired to have you that he
you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Peter in the last text, was a satan or adversary, and now our Lord told him satan desired to sift him as wheat. But where in the history of Peter do we find that an evil being ever attempted to injure him? But if we consult verses 3235. and verses 54–63. of this chapter, we see that Peter was three times put through the sieve and sifted like wheat, by being three times charged with being one of our Lord's disciples, and he as often denying him. Peter's faith seemed to fail him for a season, but our Lord prayed for him that it might not entirely fail. In Psalm 109. and other places noticed in Sect. 3. we have seen that the unbelieving Jews are called a satan or adversary to our Lord. Here they showed themselves so by sifting Peter as wheat, for their opposition was chiefly against the Saviour. To assert that a fallen angel influenced the Jews,