The Medo-Persians and Parsees. Artfulness of theologians. They systematically break the ninth commandment. Frauds in orthodoxy. A man may use false weights innocently, but is punished, nevertheless. In theology ignorance does not justify deceit. Case in trade. Professional blindness. A law for punishing adulteration of truth is wanted. Mosaism and Zoroaster. Parsees and Christians. Moses and Zoroaster. The ancient magi. The Persians. Conflicting ideas of God in Bible. The source of the Biblical theology. Cyrus. Inquiry into the authenticity of the Avesta. The book condemned. Account of the Medo-Persian faith from Herodotus. Period of introduction of the Devil to the Bible. Summary. Comparison and contrast. Introduction to next chapter.

In every ancient, and, indeed, in every modern, faith which I have yet examined, I have been shocked with the manner in which it has been represented by interested opponents. Whether they are Romanists or Protestants, Evangelicals or Ritualists, Orthodox or Non-conformists, all our divines endeavour to prove their own tenets to be the best, by blazoning everything which is good, and veiling from sight everything which is doubtful. This being so, it is not at all surprising that Christians generally should try to exalt the religion professed by themselves over that propounded by others, whom they designate "heathens." But though it is not strange that very human partisans should act thus, it is marvellous to find that all the ardent disciples of Jesus, without an exception, that I know of, should, in their dealings with mankind, systematically break the ninth of those commandments which they assert were given by God to man, upon Mount Sinai All of them bear false witness against their neighbour, and give incorrect accounts of themselves in addition. They resemble, indeed, those Dutch merchants whom Washington Irving describes, so pleasantly, in his history of New York, who had two sets of weights, a heavy lot by which to purchase, and a light set by which to sell Such traders we call "fraudulent;" and I assert that every so-called orthodox polemic whose books I have read deserves the same epithet. Their fraud is shown by the misrepresentations that they make, both of the creed which they uphold and the one which they oppose. The heterodox and the so-called atheist may be trusted, at least, to tell the truth.

In saying this, I do not assert that everyone gives false witness knowingly, any more than I would blame a tradesman for using false scales, or weights, if he could demonstrate that he had purchased them as true, and could show that he had never tampered with them. Yet the law would punish such a man for their use, arguing that he ought to have made inquiry. In one of the large towns of Great Britain, on one occasion, a merchant, believed to be both religious and honest, sold to a broker a cargo of stuff which had no existence, and, when the delivery had to be made, the first destroyed himself, and the second was adjudged to be a culpable bankrupt, because he had taken the existence of the oil for granted, without investigation. Just so it is with ordinary divines; they assume certain statements in their own religious book to be true—they are taught to shut their eyes to the absurdities in the same volume, and to explain away, in one manner or another, everything which militates against common sense. By this plan they contrive to sell, as sterling stuff, something which is made of base material, without knowingly being parties to a fraud. In the same way a shopman may, on the word of the manufacturer, dispose of a piece of goods as wholly silk, although he has a shrewd presumption that the fabric contains a large proportion of cotton. For such individuals we have the proverb, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." But these very theologians of whom we are speaking, when they are dealing with the sacred books, ordinary customs, ritual, and the like, of other people, having a different religion to their own, are exact, in the extreme—every absurdity is exhibited ruthlessly; every legend is ridiculed; every discrepancy is magnified; and everything which betrays ignorance, or want of scientific knowledge, is paraded with inglorious ceremony. On the other hand, everything good which is to be found therein is, if possible, suppressed. A book, which was, for a long time, a standard one amongst our divines, entitled, Christ and Many Masters, is particularly open to this charge. In it there is throughout a suppressio veri, a suggestio falsi, and scarcely a page that does not bear false witness. If there were a law to punish those who adulterate or falsify "truth," our magistrates would be kept extremely busy.

As an inquiry into the realities of Buddhism has led us to the belief that the origin of Christianity may be found in the doctrines of the son of Maya, which were adopted with certain Judaic modifications by the sons of Elizabeth and Mary—so it is highly probable that what is called Mosaism has been built upon the teachings of the Persian or Median theology, said to have been founded by Zoroaster. Perhaps it would be difficult to find any modern evidence of the likelihood of this hypothesis more powerful than the fact that at the present day the Jews and the Parsees fraternize almost like brothers. The latter in England, and, I understand, elsewhere, select, when they can, the house of a Hebrew wherein to lodge, rather than that of any man of another nation. To this testimony, such as it is, we must add another which is very telling, viz., that almost every modern orthodox writer who has treated of Zoroaster, has declared that the prophet of Persia drew his inspiration from the lawgiver of Israel The priority of the latter being asserted, and the second place having been given to the former, the matter was supposed to be proved, and the Persian, after having been regarded as a copy of the Hebrew, was consigned to oblivion.

There can be little doubt, however, that the teachings of Zoroaster had more life in them than those either of the Jew or the Christian, for the Parsee always and even to the present day, and in every position of life, may lay claim to the title of nature's gentleman, which very few of the disciples of Jesus or of Moses could pretend to until very recently. The morality of these religionists is excellent. In every relation of life they endeavour to be, to do, and to think that which is right—and though there may be black sheep amongst them, the proportion of these to the main body is small In no period of their history, so far as I can learn it, have the Zoroastrians been as brutal as the Christians were so long as they had the power—nor have they ever introduced into their worship figures of men, women, or children with the apparent intention of honouring or adoring them, or the assertion that such things assisted their devotions. Being strictly monotheists, they have not split up the Godhead into three males influenced by a female who is the spouse of one and mother of a second; nor have asserted that the one great Creator is compounded of a father, a son, and a pigeon, with a woman for an intercessor with her celestial consort. Nor do the Parsees build vast temples for the Almighty to dwell in, neither do they reduce any portion of the Omnipotent to the necessity of residing in a bit of bread shut up for many a long day in a box. On the contrary, the modern followers of Zoroaster worship "the father" in spirit and in truth—not with eye service as men-pleasers, but with singleness of heart, fearing God (Col. iii. 22.), thus being, as we are told, the very men whom the Almighty seeketh (John iv. 23, 24).

The first resemblance between the Persian and the Jewish lawgiver to which we would call attention, is the mythical nature of both. The Hebrew who believes in Moses can show no other ground for his faith than a number of books which tell of Moses, his genealogy, his acts, his laws, his character, and his death. Yet when an independent inquirer subjects these books, and the accounts which they contain, to a rigid examination, he finds evidence that the writings are fabrications of a period at least a full thousand years after the era of their supposed epoch—probably more; and that all collateral testimony and all internal evidence drawn from the books themselves disprove the actual existence of Moses. To the scholar, the Hebrew lawgiver is as apocryphal or fictitious a being as Hercules, Romulus, and our own king Arthur. Nor is this belief of the critic shaken when he finds that the history of Moses is interwoven with miraculous legends—credit them he cannot; but he may pause before he determines to see in them evidence of fabrication. He cannot fairly deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because many marvellous stories were told of him, nor would a similar cause alone lead him to assert that Francis of Assisi was a mythical individual. But whichever way the careful philosophical inquirer may decide the questions at issue, he will remember that many strange stories are told of the conception, birth, and life of Zoroaster, and that the critic must mete out equal justice, both to the Jew and to the Persian. Again, impartial inquirers find themselves unable to determine, with anything approaching to accuracy, either by internal evidence or contemporary remains—the positive epoch when the tale about Moses was originated. It is true that the Bible seems to afford foundation for a chronology in a few parts, as, for example, in the historical books; but these are so completely contradicted by genealogies in other parts that we cannot trust them. After stripping away every doubtful scrap from Jewish history, all we can find is, that Moses was first talked of, familiarly, after what maybe called the Grecian Captivity of Jerusalem (see Obadiah, Ancient Faiths, &c.t Vol. ii.), and that he was said to be the author of the ceremonial, moral, and political laws which were framed for the Jewish nation, and which were assiduously taught to the Hebrews after the Babylonish captivity.

The followers of Zoroaster are equally ignorant of the real history of their prophet, and are equally unable to demonstrate the claim of the Zend Avesta to be a true account of the teaching of the Persian sage, as are the Jews to prove the antiquity of their laws and nation. Putting on one side all those which may be regarded as modern fancies, the first mention made of the Prophet is in the first Alcibiades of Plato, which we may imagine was written shortly after B.c. 412, in which year that distinguished Greek citizen negociated a treaty between Athens and Persia. Plato, when speaking of the education of the sons of the kings of Persia, says (Bohn's edition, Vol. iv., p. 344), "At fourteen years of age, they who are called the royal preceptors, take the boy under their care. Now these are chosen out from those who are deemed most excellent of the Persians, men in the prime of life, four in number, excelling (severally) in wisdom, justice, temperance, and fortitude. The first of these instructs the youth in the learning of the Magi, according to Zoroaster, the son of Oromazes—now by this learning is meant the worship of the gods—and likewise in the art of kingly government." But Herodotus, writing about B.c. 450, when giving, in Book i, c. 131, an account of the religion of the Persians, makes not only no mention of Zoroaster, but attributes to that nation a form of worship differing from what is supposed to be pure Zoroastrianism;* but he mentions—and it seems to be a significant fact, that it is not lawful for a Persian to sacrifice unless one of the Magi is present, who sings an ode concerning the original of the gods which, they say, is an incantation.

This seems to indicate that the Persian religion was then undergoing some supervision by rulers who had a different faith to that held at a later period. When we next turn to Herodotus, Book L, c. 101, we find that the Magi were one of the six tribes which composed the Medes; and we notice that Phraortes, the son of Deioces, reduced the Persian kingdom under the dominion of the Medes about B.c. 650. If, then, we regard Zoroaster as being the founder of the Magi, we must throw back his epoch considerably further than this date. But even if we accept this conquest as the era of the Parsee prophet, we find that Zoroaster preceded the first public promulgation of the Mosaic law amongst the Jews.*

When Moses was first talked about we know not, but at the time of Samuel, David, and Josiah he was unknown. We have no reason to believe that the Hebrews ever came into contact with, or ever heard of the Persians, until after the Babylonish conquest, followed by that of Cyrus; consequently, if the Jewish law first propounded contained nothing akin to the doctrines and laws of Zoroaster, and subsequent publications did so, we should naturally conclude that the last were copied. It is unnecessary to tell the student of biblical history that the Jews were for many years under the dominion of the Persians and Medes, and that Nehemiah, one of their great men, after the Babylonian captivity, was a personal, though humble, friend, of the king of Persia—i.e., if we take his account of himself for true.

Of the fact of there being two distinct doctrines respecting the Almighty in the Old Testament no scholar has a doubt. In the one, God is represented as the sole Being who rules and influences the world: whatsoever was done He was regarded as the doer of it. He had no powerful enemy who could thwart His will, no adversary who could withstand Him successfully. In the other the existence of two rival powers is distinctly recognised—Jehovah and Satan—the Aryan Mara, the tempter, who plot and counterplot against each other, and even condescend to personal wrangling. The most conspicuous example which we can give of these two doctrines is to be found in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, in which we are told that Jehovah moved David to number Israel, whereas in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, evidently written by a modern scribe, we find that Satan, the adversary, was he who incited the king to perform this deed. We see the duality of persons conspicuously put forward in the first and second chapters of Job, in which Satan is represented as being at large, not being even under the surveillance of Jehovah. See also 1 Kings xxii. 20-23, wherein we find Jehovah at a loss how to bring about a certain result, and assisted out of a dilemma by a lying spirit—who can do what the Lord could not effect! We may say that the story is a fiction, but no Hebrew dare have spoken thus of Jehovah had he ever heard of Moses and his laws.

As we cannot imagine that a revelation from God to the Hebrews would be thus changeable, we can come to no other conclusion than that the Jewish writings were of human origin, and their first doctrines modified by those of other nations to whom the Hebrews were subjects or enslaved. To this consideration we may add, that when the Israelites came in contact with the Medes and Persians, they were merely a 'posse' of slaves, a crowd of prisoners removed from their own land without a shadow of power, or any influence, and only anxious to induce those who had conquered their late masters, the Babylonians, to have pity on their misery, and restore them to beggared Jerusalem. The idea of the Hebrews gaining friends by endeavouring to induce the Persian Magi to change their faith and embrace that of the poor and probably despised Jew is preposterous. On the other hand, there would be every possible inducement for the Hebrews to study the faith of that people whose God had given them victory over the Chaldeans. See in corroboration of this Ps. cxxxvii., especially the two last verses.

We may regard the question before us in yet another light, If we are to allow that the words of Isaiah are correct, which describe Cyrus as God's shepherd (ch. xliv. 28), and as anointed by Jehovah Himself, we cannot conceive that the religion which he professed was opposed to that entertained by the Hebrew prophet. As it is morally impossible that Cyrus and his hierarchy were taught their religion by any Jew, it follows that the Persian faith can lay the same claim to inspiration as the Hebrew, if the latter were not indeed almost identical with it. If, then, we insist upon the latter being "a true revelation," we must concede the same to the former, or if we pronounce the Persian religion to be of human invention, we must pass a similar verdict upon the Jewish.

When we are upon the horns of such a great dilemma we may well pause. It is indeed almost impossible for orthodox divines to make a selection which prong of the fork is the worst. If we elect to say our belief is, that the primitive teaching of the Hebrew was God-given and a true revelation, we cannot put faith in those scriptures which tell us of a devil who fights with Jehovah, and is generally victorious. If, on the other hand, we hold that the Christian notions of the Creator and Satan are true, we must regard the Zoroastrian teaching as inspired; and the early Jewish writings as unworthy of credit—of human invention and heterodox. Theologians will probably elect to remain in a state of uncertainty on this subject. Philosophers, on the contrary, will escape from it at once by asserting their conviction that both the Hebrew and the Magian religion are wholly of human invention.*

But in the middle, or perhaps we might say upon the threshold of our inquiry, we must pause to examine into the amount of confidence which can be given to those under whose guidance we are invited to place ourselves. Such investigations are too frequently omitted. Those who have faith in the Bible usually decline to search into the grounds of their belief, and, in like manner, those who have always heard the author of the Zend Avesta quoted as trustworthy are apt to take everything which it may say as correct. To avoid this error, I have consulted all the volumes of the transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of London, and have found therein sufficient to throw the gravest doubts upon the great antiquity of the Parsee religion. It will be an useful task if I attempt to classify the evidence on each side, and to draw an inference therefrom. Our knowledge respecting the Magian religion which the Bactrian* prophet founded, is built, with the exception of the notices in Greek and Latin authors, already quoted, upon the work known as the Avesta. This is written in a language called Zand,** and there are within it parts, which are written in another tongue, to which the name of Pahlavi has been given, and from these the sacred books of the Parsees have been translated into French by Anquetil du Perron, into German by Spiegel, and into English by Haug. All these writers assume that the language referred to is Ancient Persian, and closely allied to the Sanscrit, and Haug especially endeavours to demonstrate that the Avesta, and the origin of the religion of the Parsees, must be as old as the time of the Vedas, inasmuch as the same sort of legends, the same names, and, to a certain extent, the same genii, are to be found in both. There is not absolute identity, however, for those which are spoken of as good by the Vedas are treated as bad in the Avesta. Viewed from this point, Haug assigns to the Zand volumes an age of about four thousand years, and he supports his belief by a reference to the length of time which would be required to make up the two million verses attributed to Zoroaster by some Greek author. In the conclusion that both the Zand and the Pahlavi are very ancient Persian tongues, it is stated that the majority of German and French critics agree.

But on the other hand, such orientalists as Sir William Jones, Colonel Vans Kennedy, Mr Thomas, and Mr Romer, and indeed all British oriental scholars, regard both the Zand and the Pahlavi as bastard languages, never spoken, and wholly fabricated by a comparatively modern priesthood, for the express purpose of making the holy books which they wrote comprehensible only by themselves. Such scholars show that the Zand and Pahlavi are built upon a Sanscrit, Arabic, and modern Persian model, and that the Parsee Pahlavi is very different to the Pehlevi of the Sassanian coins, and, in Vol. IV., Transactions of Royal Asiatic Society, Mr Romer supports this conclusion by a number of passages in the various languages referred to. It is also asserted that many words in the Avesta have been borrowed from the Arabic, and others from the Sanscrit tongues, possibly, also, from the Greek. Being unable, from my comparative ignorance of Eastern language, to form a decided opinion on independent grounds, all that I can say is, that it does really seem to be proved that the religious books of the Par-sees are not so ancient as they have been by many supposed to be.

The question which next arises for our consideration is, whether such volumes represent the tenets of an ancient faith, or whether they are the fabrication of men who have, possibly in the wreck of an old worship, brought about by war or other calamity, endeavoured to create a new religion out of the relics of one or more old ones. In favour of the antiquity of the Avesta are the facts that the great god, Ahura Mazdao, seems to be almost identical with the Aura Mazda of the Persepolitan inscription of Darius. But in proof of its untruthfulness as a representative of pure Persian tradition, we find the book introducing Devs and Ahuras,—the counterpart of the Devas and Asuras of the Vedas, only reversing their character—we also see Indra mentioned as a devil, whilst Siva and Mitra are introduced as Sharva and Miltra. (Haug's Essays on the Parsee, Bombay, p. 230, 1862). If, therefore, we allow that there is some of the old Zoroastrian doctrine to be found in the Avesta, we must equally grant that such teaching has been modified by hatred of a rival faith. Yet herein is another question, viz., Was the antagonism between the doctrines of the Avesta and of the Vedas contemporary with the origin of the two systems, or was the teaching of the Avesta the result of its author's coming into hostile conflict with Vedic teachers, as they possibly might have done after Alexander had opened a highway for intercourse between Persia and Hindostan?

On weighing the subject as impartially as I can, it seems to me that the Avesta contains a great deal of the Ancient Persian faith, but that it will be the safest plan for us to describe what is known of the Persian and Median faith from other sources, rather than take our information mainly from this doubtful source. Herodotus tells us of his own knowledge (B. i, c. 131, seq.), that the Persians, about b.c. 450, did not erect statues, temples, or altars—that they sacrificed on lofty hills to high heaven, the sun, moon, fire, water, and the winds, and that this had been a custom from time immemorial Sacrifice was attended by a priest or magus, and prayer and praise were offered, not for themselves alone, but for all the Persians, and especially for the king.

In about the year 521 B.c., Darius, king of the Medes, caused be made, in three languages, upon a rock at Behistun, an inscription of considerable length. The one which is in the Persian tongue has been translated by Rawlinson (Royal Asiatic Society Journal, vol 10). In it, the king acknowledges Auramazda as his god, and speaks of him as the Jews did of Jehovah. This epithet is explained by two Sanscrit roots (Op cit., vol. x., p. 68), and may be paraphrased as "The Lord or giver of life," "The great Creator," or "The Eternal," and the king in a doubtful passage refers to "the evil one" (?), who by lies deceived the rulers of certain states, inducing them to rebel, and then left them to be conquered by the Ormazd-governed Darius. In the Babylonian copy "lies" are as it were personified. Whilst in the Scythian version, translated by Mr Norris (Op cit. vol. xv., p. 144), we find the account run thus: "These are the provinces which became rebellious, 'the god of lies' made them rebel that they would subvert the state, afterwards Ormaza delivered them into my hand." The "lies," or the god of lies, we very naturally associate with the being whom we call in our time the devil, who is spoken of (John viii. 44) as a liar, and the father of falsehood, who was so from the beginning [—Greek—], and consequently regarded as coeval with the "father of light."

We next turn to such evidence as is given us in the book of Job. We select this ancient writing in consequence of the strong internal evidence there is, that it was written by some one about the period of the Achaemenian dynasty living in Persia (see Rawlinson in Journal of B. A. Soc., vol. 1, new series, p. 230). In Job we find two distinct powers spoken of, the one being the Good God, and the other Satan the opposer. The last is regularly described as if he had the power to cause war, devastation, tempest, disease, and death, for ch. ii., v. 6, lets us infer that he might have killed Job had he been so minded and God allowed the bargain, and in verse 19 of the same chapter we find him killing all the sons and daughters of the patriarch. Job clearly recognised the necessity of sacrifice for purification, for sanctification, and he seems not to have offered this upon any altar, in any temple, or with the intervention of any priest. It is clear that Job had never heard of Moses or the writings assigned to him. The persecuted patriarch and his friends all believe that punishment in this life is the result of offences committed against the Good God, but all seem to be singularly free from the idea that Satan is the cause of Job's sufferings either directly or indirectly. There is throughout the book no reference made to a preceding or a succeeding condition of man, such as obtained amongst the Brahmins, and it is doubtful whether the Persians believed in heaven or hell. When man died he was supposed to perish. Hence we conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was not prevalent at the time the story was written, and in the country where the writer of the book of Job resided. Equally unknown to that author, whoever he was, were the ideas about angels, ministers of God, or disembodied spirits. These were of Babylonian origin. We must now, to carry on the thread of the argument, recal to mind the fact that Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians, that the rulers of the united people often made that city their residence, that Herodotus tells us (B. 1, c. 135) that "the Persians are of all nations most ready to adopt foreign customs," and I may notice, in passing, that the same authority states that the two nations were scrupulously truthful, ceremoniously cleanly, and intolerant to leprosy. It is well known, moreover, that even after the commencement of our era Babylon was the chief seat of Babbinic and Talmudic lore.

When we examine into the religion of the Babylonians we find that they believed in the existence of angels—minis-, ters of the Supreme—intelligences,—unseen by man, yet powerful to act in his favour, or against him. If we rightly interpret many of the engraved gems which were executed by the Chaldees, we can only come to the conclusion that they believed in a Devil, a Typhon, or spirit of destruction.

We next must call attention to the fact that the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians, and enslaved in Mesopotamia for very many years—that they were subsequently emancipated by the Medo-Persians, and that the latter, whom from the inscription of Darius we believe to have been devout, permitted and even encouraged the Israelites to entertain the faith which they then held, and even assisted them to rebuild their temple. This permission, and the friendliness of Nehemiah with the Median monarch, seem to show a great similarity, if not an identity, between the Persian and the Jewish creeds.

If, then, we could frame any definite idea of the tenets held by the Jews before they came into contact with the Babylonians, and those which they professed afterwards, we might form a conception of what they got from the Chaldees, the Medes, and the Persians respectively. Without going very deeply into the matter, we may say that Hebrew scholars generally allow that the ideas of Satan—a power opposed to that of God, and of angels or spirits, were introduced between the captivity and the period when the scriptures were translated into Greek, and that the notion of a future life and the resurrection of the dead, was developed after the time of the Septuagint, about b.c. 277.

From the preceding considerations we draw the inference that the idea of the resurrection of the dead, of a future state of existence, in which each will be punished or rewarded for what had been done by him in his mortal condition, was not a portion of the original Median, Persian, Babylonian, or Jewish religion. A mass of circumstantial evidence has led me to believe that the idea of a Heaven for the good and a Hell for the bad, came from those who professed what we will call the Vedic or the Buddhist faith. If, in reply to this, it is alleged that it may have come from the Greeks directly, the rejoinder is simply this—that the Grecians, as Aryan colonists, brought with them only a rude notion of a futurity, which they were the medium of improving, when, through the influence of their arts and arms, they opened a highway to India both by sea and land. Those who could import into their armies such huge beasts as elephants, could far more readily import a new article of faith, if it pleased the priests.

If our reasoning is sound, we cannot, I think, regard the Avesta as a trustworthy exposition of the ancient teaching of Zoroaster. On the other hand, we must, in my opinion, consider it as a book fabricated to serve a particular purpose. In this respect it resembles our own Bible, which was composed for the glorification of the Hebrews when smarting under a series of ignominious defeats and enslavements; and then enlarged, contracted, or altered, to suit emergencies.

The following table will assist the reader to compare or contrast the religion of the Medo-Persians with that of the Hebrews in some matters:—

The Hebrews first worshipped a calf, and then a box; they believed that their God taught them to build a tabernacle first, then a temple, and to It is not the practice of the Perform altars for sacrifice. The Hebrews sians to erect statues, or temples, also believed that Elohim had one or or altars, and they charge with folly more human forms—see Gen. xviii. 1, those that do. They do not think 2, and the following chap. xix. 1—see the gods have human forms, also Gen. xxxii. 1 and 24-80, also Josh. v. 13, 14, 15, Jud. ii. 1-5.

The anthropomorphism of the Jewish Scriptures has already been referred to in Vol. I. of Ancient Faiths.

The Persians are accustomed to ascend the highest parts of the mountains, and offer sacrifice to Jupiter, calling the whole circle of the heavens by that name.

The Persians sacrificed to the son and moon, to the earth, fire, water, and the winds.

Amongst the Persians, sacrifices were attended by invocations and prayers, and were always offered up by a priest.

The Persians, next to bravery in battle, considered the greatest proof of manliness was to be able to exhibit many children.

Whoever has the leprosy or scrofula is not permitted to stay within a town, nor have communication with other Persians; and it is supposed that the infliction is caused by some offence against the deity (sun god). Herodotus, book I., chaps. 131,138.

The eldest son of the Persian king was instructed during youth in the learning of the Magi according to Zoroaster the son of Oromazes—by this learning is meant the worship of the gods—and likewise in the art of kingly government. Plato, in Alcibiades.

The Hebrews sacrificed on high places for a long period. Sacrifice in an enclosed place seems to have been adopted from the Phoenicians by David and Solomon, but not to have been popular for some centuries.

The Jewish people sacrificed to sun, moon, and some planets—had a sacred fire in the temple, and regarded clouds and wind as the ministers of God. The God that answered by fire was the one adopted by Elyah. The so-called orthodox Jews only acknowledged one God, and subsequently one devil.

The Jews neither offered invocation nor prayer at their sacrifices, and prophets and kings offered victims without priestly assistance. In later times every sacrifice was offered by a priest.

The Hebrews regarded a large family as a gift from Jehovah.

The Hebrews had the same practice; and, as we learn in the book of Job, and Deuter. xxviii, notably in the 27th verse, they deemed that botch, scab, itch, and emerods were punishments sent by Jehovah.

The royal families of Judah received no instruction, either in political matters or in religion, and were allowed to grow up and do much as they liked in regard to worship. The only power which influenced them was that assumed by some man who professed to be divinely inspired.

In a chapter of ancient faiths and notice an allegation which has that Parseeism or Zoroastriamsm has been borrowed from Jews and Christians. To this we wholly demur. Nowhere in the Avesta do we find a reference to the imminent destruction of the world, the resurrection of a dead man, his subjugating all the powers of evil, and reigning for a thousand years with his followers as kings and saints. Nowhere in the Avesta do we discover such immoral notions of God as prevailed amongst the ancient Jewish writers. Take these away from Judaism and Christianity, and then the two resemble the religions which are held everywhere by the thoughtful and the good. If there has really been any copying at all, we do not see the imitators in Central Asia but on the shores of the Mediterranean. The Jews copied from Tyre, Babylon, and Greece—Christians have taken as models Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, and even barbarians, and they have denied a once pure faith by covering it over with the ordures of heathenism. Yet we talk of others imitating us!

I propose now to examine at some length into such of the developments as have taken place in certain religious systems, for by so doing we shall be better able to judge what are those doctrines which Christians hold, in common with what they call Pagan nations, and how far those matters which are regarded as fundamental points of doctrine are in reality trustworthy. We must ever bear in mind that if we find the same set of ideas entertained amongst peoples who by no possibility can have had any communication with each other, it is only rational to believe that each race possesses those notions in virtue of their being human. Or, if desirous of avoiding this admission, the orthodox declares that every asserted fact is a copy of a precedent one, then we ask them to reconcile the legend of Hercules being begotten by Jupiter, and Jesus by the Holy Ghost, for unquestionably the story of Alcmena's son preceded that told of Mary's.

In the following chapter I shall avoid as far as possible any reference to the tales told of the conception of Jesus, for no man, however subtle he may be, can prove that the Son of Man had a certain mundane individual called Joseph for a father; all that I desire to show is, that in every nation whose history has come down to us there have been persons whose mothers have declared themselves to have been pure virgins until adopted by some god as a temporal and temporary spouse, or who, being wives, have asserted that a son who has distinguished himself in the world has been of divine procreation—an affirmation, be it observed, that can only be made in case the spouse has been manifestly unfaithful, or by some fulsome historian desirous of exalting his hero to celestial rank. There is scarcely a barbaric dynasty known, indeed, which does not claim an origin from some heavenly father, mother, or both.

There have been many hierarchs who, having felt conscious of the absurdity of making, by miraculous agency, all wonderful beings come from woman only, have consequently invented legends in which men have produced offspring without a consort. Some may be disposed to deride these tales, who can readily credit the stories of virgin mothers; but in reality there is no difference between the two sets of legends, in probability, wherever "miracles" are assumed. It would have been quite as easy for the writer of Genesis to have made Isaac come from old Abraham's bosom as from the womb of his hoary-headed wife. But the Jewish writers have never proved themselves as subtle as the Hindoos and Greeks. Instead of asserting that a man, without a woman's assistance, has borne a son—a matter capable of proof—they have declared that a woman has conceived, without the assistance of a man; an asseveration for which there cannot be any proof whatever, no not even physical, for accoucheurs know that many a female conceives by her lover's instrumentality, and bears a child, at whose birth, or rather when parturition is imminent, that part which is called "the Hymen," and is the Mosaical test of virginity, is not only unbroken, but so small in aperture, and strong in flesh, as to require operative or surgical interference before the child can come into the world. According to Mosaism these must be regarded as absolutely virgin mothers.