Zoroaster, or Zoradust? Of the latter I can make nothing; but of the former, which is the name by which he was generally called in ancient times, Mr. Faber (I think) has made Astre, Zur, or Syr. Here is the star or celestial body Syr or Sur, which we shall presently find, is, without any great violence, the celestial body, the Bull or the Sun. Hence we arrive at an incarnation of the Deity, of the Sun, or of Taurus—a renewed incarnation. This accounts for the antiquity assigned to him by Plato, and for the finding of him again under Darius Hystaspes. In short, he is a doctrine, or a doctrine taught by a person. He was the founder of the Magi, who were priests of the religion of the Sun, or of that Being of whom the Sun was the visible form or emblem.
Dr. Hyde, after allowing that the religion of the Persians was originally the same with that of Abraham, and that it fell into Sabiism, says, he thinks that it was reformed by him. He adds, that the ancient accounts call it the religion of Ibrahim or Abraham. The idea of its reformation by Abraham, seems to be without any proof. However, we may safely admit that it consisted in the worship of the one true God, or of the sun, merely as an emblem; and, that it was really reformed and brought back to this point, from which it had deviated, by some great man, whether he were Abraham or Zoroaster; as that of the Jews was, from the worship of Apis or the Calf, by Moses. Hyde says, they had a true account of the creation of the world,[1] meaning hereby the account in Genesis. This may be very true if the religion of the Jews came from Persia, and was, in fact, identically the same. How, indeed, could it be essentially different, if, as Dr. Hyde believed, they both worshiped the same God, with nearly the same ceremonies?[2]
There can be no doubt that the Persians and Assyrians had their religion originally from the same source; but that the latter, in the time of Cyrus, had degenerated into idolatry, from which the former were at that time free. This greater purity was probably owing to the reformation which is related by several authors to have been effected by Zoroaster, by whom it had been brought back to its first principles. It had probably degenerated before his time as much as that of the Assyrians. The authorities in proof of the fact of some one having reformed the Persian religion, are so decided as to make it almost unquestionable.
7. Notwithstanding the general similarity between the two religions, there are several particulars in which they so pointedly differ, after the time of Moses, that unless the reason of the difference could be shewn, they might be thought to invalidate the argument already adduced. But as we happen to know, in most cases, the precise reasons for the difference, this very discrepancy rather tends to confirm than to weaken the argument, as they are, in fact, for particular reasons, exceptions to a general rule.
When it is said that the religions of the descendants of Abraham and of the Persians were the same, considerable allowance must be made for the peculiar circumstances in which they were then placed, and in which they are viewed by us. We see them in records or histories, whose dates are acknowledged to be long after the time of Abraham, written by persons, strangers, probably, to the religion and language of both these nations. The Persians have a sacred book, called Sohfi Ibrahim, or the book of Abraham, but which ought to be called the book of the wisdom of Abraham.[3] The Jews also have a sacred book, called the book of Moses, and the first of which, known to us under the name of Genesis, is called by them ראשית rasit, or the book of wisdom. Now, supposing them to have been the same in the time of Abraham, we may reasonably suppose considerable changes and additions would be made,[4] to both religions in the space of five or six hundred years, merely from the natural effects of time: but besides this,
