sacred traditions, and to whom the first book of Genesis probably belongs, no bloody sacrifices ever prevailed. With Cristna, Hercules, and the worshipers of the Sun in Aries, they probably arose. The second book of Genesis I think came from the last. No doubt the practice took its rise in the Western parts of the world, (after the sun entered Aries,) even among the followers of the Tauric worship, and was carried to a frightful extent. But the prevalence of the practice, as stated by Mr. Faber, is exaggerated. It never was practised by the followers of Buddha, though they have constituted, perhaps, a majority of the inhabitants of the world.
I believe the history of Cain and Abel is an allegory of the followers of Cristna, to justify their sacrifice of the firstling of the flock—of the Yajna or Lamb in opposition to the Buddhist offering of bread and wine or water, made by Cain and practised by Melchizedek.
9. Dr. Shuckford has satisfactorily shewn that the sacrifices and ceremonies of purification of the Heathens, and of Abraham and his family and descendants, were in fact all identical, with such trifling changes as distance of countries and length of time might be expected to produce.[1] Moses can hardly be said to have copied many of his institutions from the Gentiles. The Israelites had them probably before the time of Moses. The prohibition of marrying out of the tribe was one of these. The custom was evidently established by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their wives.—But to return to my subject.
How many Zoroasters there were, or whether more than one, it is difficult to determine; but one of them was thought by Hyde, as we have already shewn, to have lived in the time of Darius Hystaspes; but whether he really lived then or not is of no consequence, except that the account given of him shews what the religion of the Persians at that time was. Sir W. Drummond thinks he really lived much earlier, as does also Mr. Moyle.[2] He is said to have been deeply skilled in the Eastern learning, and also in the Jewish Scriptures. Indeed, so striking is the similarity between his doctrines and those of Moses, that Dean Prideaux is almost obliged to make a Jew of him: and this he really was, in religion. But why he should abuse him, and call him many hard names it is difficult to understand. He does not appear to have formed a new religion, but only to have reformed or improved that which he found.
The following is Dean Prideaux’s account of the religion of Zoroaster: “The chief reformation which he made in the Magian religion was in the first principle of it; for whereas before they had held the being of two first causes, the first light, or the good god, who was the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, who was the author of all evil; and that of the mixture of those two, as they were in a continued struggle with each other, all things were made; he introduced a principle superior to them both, one supreme God who created both light and darkness, and out of these two, according to the alone pleasure of his own will, made all things else that are, according to what is said in the 45th chapter of Isaiah, ver. 5—7.—In sum, his doctrine, as to this particular, was, that there was one Supreme Being, independant and self-existing from all eternity; that under him 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; and that these two, out of the mixture of light and darkness, made all things that are; and that they 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; that this struggle shall continue to the end of the world; that then there shall be a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein just retribution shall be rendered to all according to their works: after which, the angel of darkness and his disciples shall go into a
N 2
