In contemplating the different, and often contradictory, circumstances of the religion of the ancient Persians, it is impossible not to observe the striking similarity both of its doctrine, and discipline or practices, to those of their Eastern neighbours of India, on one side; and their Western neighbours, the Christians of Europe, on the other. That religion appears to have been a connecting link in the chain, and probably in this point of view it will be regarded by every unprejudiced person, when all the circumstances relating to it are taken into consideration. Like almost all the ancient systems of theology, its origin is lost in the most remote antiquity. Its foundation is generally attributed to a sage of the name of Zoroaster, but in order to reconcile the accounts given of him with any thing like consistency, or with one another, several persons of this name must be supposed to have lived.

The first dogma of the religion of Zoroaster clearly was, the existence of one Supreme, Omnipotent God. In this it not only coincides with the Hindoo and the Christians, but with all other religions; in this, therefore, there is not any thing particular : but on further inquiry it appears that this great First Cause, called Ormusd or Oromasdes, was a being like the Gods of the Hindoos and of the Christians, consisting of three persons. The triplicate Deity of the Hindoos of three persons and one God, Bramha the Creator, Vishnu or Cristna, of whom I shall soon treat, the Saviour or Preserver, and Siva the Destroyer; and yet this was all one God, in his different capacities. In the same manner the Supreme God of the Persians consisted of three persons, Oromasdes the Creator, Mithra the Saviour, Mediator, or Preserver, and Ahriman the Destroyer. The Christians had also their Gods, consisting of three persons and one God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Psellus informs us, Oromasdes and Mithras were frequently used by the Magi for the tÕ Qeion, or whole Deity in general, and Plethro adds a third, called Arimanius, which is confirmed by Plutarch, who says, "That Zoroaster made a threefold distribution of things, and that he assigned the first and highest rank of them to Oromasdes, who, in the oracles, is called the Father; the lowest is Arimanes; and the middle to Mithras, who, in the same oracles, is called the second mind. Whereupon he observes, how great an agreement there was betwixt the Zoroastrian and the Platonic Trinity, they differing in a manner only in words."*

Porphyry, in his treatise, de Antro Nympharum, says, "… Wherefore, from the authority of Eubolus, we may well conclude also, that notwithstanding the Sun was generally worshipped by the Persians as a God, yet Zoroaster and the ancient Magi, who were best initiated in Mithraick mysteries, asserted another Deity, superior to the Sun, for the true Mithras, such as was the maker and father of all things, or of the whole world, whereof the Sun is a part. However, they also looked upon the Sun as the most lively image of the Deity in which it was worshipped by them, as they likewise worshipped the same Deity symbolically in fire, as Maximus Tyrius informeth us; agreeable to which is that in the Magic Oracles; All things are the offsprings of one fire; that is, of one Supreme Deity. And Julian, the Emperor, was such a devout Sun worshipper as this, who acknowledged, besides the Sun, another incorporeal deity, transcendant to it. The first kind of things (according to Zoroaster) is eternal, the Supreme God. In the first place (saith Eusebius) they conceive that God the Father and King ought to be ranked. This the Delphian Oracle (cited by Porphyrius) confirms :—Chaldees and Jews wise only, worshiping purely a self-begotten God and King."

To destroy, according to the Vedantas of India and Sufis of Persia, that is, the soFoi or wise men of Persia, is only to regenerate or reproduce in another form; and in this doctrine they are supported by many philosophers of our European schools. We may safely affirm, that we have no experience of the actual destruction,—the annihilation of any substance whatever. On this account it is that Mahadeva of India, the destroyer, is always said to preside over generation, is represented riding upon a bull, the emblem of the sun, when the vernal equinox took place in that sign, and when he triumphed in his youthful strength over the powers of hell and darkness : and near him generally stands the gigantic Lingham or Phallus, the emblem of the creative power. From this Indian deity came, through the medium of Egypt and Persia, the Grecian mythos of Jupiter Genitor, with the Bull of Europa, and his extraordinary title of Lapis—a title probably given to him on account of the stone pillar with which his statue is mostly accompanied, and the object of which is generally rendered unquestionable by the peculiar form of its summit or upper part. In India and Europe this God is represented as holding his court on the top of lofty mountains, In India they are called mountains of the Moon or Chandrasichara; in the Western countries Olympuses. He is called Trilochan and has three eyes. Pausanias tells us that Zeus was called Triophthalmos, and that, previous to the taking of Troy, he was represented with three eyes. As Mr. Forbes* says, the identity of the two Gods falls little short of being demonstrated.

Mr. Hastings, one the most early and liberal patrons of Sanscrit literature in India, in a letter to Nathaniel Smith, Esq., has remarked how accurately many of the leading principles of the pure, unadulterated doctrines of Bramha correspond with those of the Christian system. In the Geeta, (one of the most ancient of the Hindoo books,) indeed, some passages, surprisingly consonant, occur concerning the sublime nature and attributes of God, as well as concerning the properties and function of the soul. Thus, where the Deity, in the form of Cristna, addresses Arjun : "I am the Creator of all things, and all things proceed from me,"—"I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things; I am time : I am all-grasping death, and I am the resurrection : I am the mystic figure OM ! I am generation and dissolution." Arjun in pious ecstacy exclaims, "Reverence ! reverence ! be unto thee, a thousand times repeated ! again and again reverence ! O thou who art all in all ! infinite in thy power and glory ! Thou art the father of all things animate and inanimate ! there is none like unto thee."*

… The divinity is frequently characterized in that book, as in other Sanscreet compositions, by the word OM, that mystic emblem of the Deity in India. The ancient Brahmins, as well as the Buddhists, of India, regarded this word with the same kind of veneration as the Jews did the word IEUE, which they never pronounced except on certain very solemn occasions. This is what is meant by the fourth commandment, which we render, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy god" (but which ought to be Ieue thy God) "in vain." As a pious Jew will not utter the word Ieue, so a pious Hindoo will not utter the word Om. It is the duty of the Jews and Hindoos to meditate on the respective words in silence, and with the most profound veneration.

… Hesychius, also Suidas in voce, interprets the word OMF to be Qeia clhdwn, the sacred voice, the holy sound—and hence arose the omFaloj, or place of Omphe. But its real meaning is still further unravelled by explaining it as OM FH, the enunciation of the mysterious OM of Hindoo theology, the sacred triliteral AUM, but often written as it is pronounced, OM.

… I find the oracle or Divina vox at Delphi called Omphalos, and the word Delphi or DelFmj means the female generative power; and in front of the temple of Delphi, in fact constituting a part of the religious edifice, was a large Phallus or Linga, anointed every day with oil. This, taken all together, shews very clearly that Omphale means the oracle of the generative (androgynous) power of Om. … The Aum of India, as might well be expected, is found in Persia, under the name Hom, and particularly in the mountains of Persia, amongst the Arii, before they are said to have migrated, under Djemchid, to the South. As usual, we get the North-east, for the origin of things.*

Bacchus was called Omestes, explained the devourer. This is in fact the Om-Esta,* of Persia. "Ista-char, or Esta-char, is the place or temple of Ista or Esta, who was the Hestia `Ejia of the Greeks, and Vesta of the Romans." This Persian ista or esta, is the Latin ista and est, he or she is; it is also Sanscrit, and means the same as the Jah of the Hebrews. Bacchus, at Chios and Tenedos, was also called Omadius. This is correctly the God, or the holy Om.

Ænon or 0"�3 oinn, where John baptized, was called by a figure of speech only Ænon, or the fountain of the sun. The literal meaning was, The Fountain of the Generative Power.

The name of the son of Noah was .( Hm, called Ham. The name of the solar orb was %.( Hme the feminine of .( Hm. It appears to me that from misapprehension, the Ham of Noah has been confounded with the Ham, or Hm or Om of Egypt—the Jupiter Ammon or Amon, the God with the Ram's head, adored at the ƒejon Omane. The word .( Hm, the patriarch, and the word %.( Hme, the Sun, being the same, were the cause of the mistake. … I know no reason for believing that the son of Noah was deified—a mere fancy of modern priests; but I have many reasons for believing that Amon was the Sun as the generating power, first in Taurus, then in Aries. "Belus, Kronos, Apis, were solar symbols, and Nonnus ranks Amon with these : … Amon was clearly understood by the mythologists to represent the Sun in Aries."* Sir W. Drummond has given many other satisfactory reasons for Amon being the Sun : then how absurd is it to go farther ! All difficulties are easily explained by attending to the circumstance of the fundamental doctrine, that, in fact, all the Gods resolve themselves into the Sun, either as God or as emblem of the Triune Androgynous Being.

Thus we have several clear and distinct meanings of OmFaloj. It was mitis, begnignus. It was the male generative power, as Falloj. As Omphale, it was the female generative power, the wife of Hercules, and the navel of the Earth or Nabbi. It was also the prophetic voice of the benignant Om. We shall see by and bye how it came to have all these different meanings. Before we conclude this work, we shall find a similar variety arising from other names connected with this subject, and in particular it should be recollected that we have found the Indian Creeshna or Cristna calling himself Om.

I believe by almost all the ancients, both Jews and Gentiles, the Supreme Being was thought to be material, and to consist of a very refined igneous fluid; more like the galvanic or electric fire than any thing with which I am acquainted. This was also the opinion of most of the ancient Christian fathers. This was called the anima as feminine, or spiritus as masculine—and was the (&+ ruh of the second verse of Genesis, which Parkhurst calls breath or air in motion, (Isaiah xi. 4,) an incorporeal substance, and the Holy Spirit. From this comes the expression to inspire, or holy inspiration. The word Ghost means spiritus or anima. This was often confounded with the igneous fluid of which God was supposed to consist; whence came the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost. (Matt. iii. 11.) These were absurd refinements of religious metaphysicians, which necessarily arose from their attempts to define that of which they had not the means of forming an idea. I should be as absurd, if I were to attempt to reconcile their inconsistencies. In the above examples of the different names for the Holy Ghost, a singular mixture of genders is observable. We see the active principle, fire, the Creator and the Preserver, and also the Destroyer, identified with the Holy Ghost of the Christians, in the united form of the Dove and of Fire settling on the apostles. Here we have most clearly the Holy Ghost identified with the Destroyer, Fire.

Mr. Worsley says, "This doctrine was of very great antiquity, and generally received by all the Gothic and Celtic nations. These philosophers taught, that the Supreme God, Teut or Woden, was the active principle, the soul of the world, which, uniting itself to matter, had thereby put it into a condition to produce intelligences or inferior gods and men. This the poets express by saying that Odin espoused Frea, or the Lady, by way of eminence. Yet they allotted a great difference between these two principles. The Supreme was eternal, whereas matter was his work, and of course had a beginning. All this was expressed by the phrase, Earth is the daughter and wife of the universal Father. From this mystical union was born the God Thor-Asa Thor, the Lord Thor. He was the firstborn of the Supreme, the greatest of the intelligences that were born of the union of the two principles. The characters given him correspond much with those which the Romans gave to their Jupiter. He, too, was the thunderer, and to him was devoted the fifth day, Thor's-dag; in German and Dutch, Donder dag, thunder day. The common oaths of these people mark the same origin. They swear by donder and blexen, thunder and lightning. Friday took its name from Frea, Frea's-dag; as Wednesday did from Woden, Woden's-dag. This was the name which the old Saxons gave to the son of the Supreme, thence Tuesday. Thor, being the firstborn, was called the eldest of the sons : he is made a middle divinity, a mediator between God and man. Such, too, was the Persians' God : for Thor was venerated also as the intelligence that animated the sun and fire. The Persians declared that the most illustrious of all the intelligences was that which they worshiped under the symbol of fire. They called him Mithras, or the mediator God. The Scythians called him Goeto-Syrus, the Good Star. All the Celtic nations were accustomed to worship the sun, either as distinguished from Thor, or as his symbol. It was their custom to celebrate a feast at the winter solstice, when that great luminary began to return again to this part of the Heavens. They called it Yuule, from Heoul, Helios, the sun, which to this day signifies the sun in the language of Bretagne and Cornwall: whence the French word Noel.

Dr. Pritchard, in his analysis of Egyptian Mythology, (p.271,) describes the Egyptians to have a Trinity consisting of the generative, the destructive, and the preserving power. Isis answers to Seeva. Iswara, or "Lord," is the epthet of Siva, or Seeva. Osiris, or Ysiris, as Hellanicus wrote the Egyptian name, was the God at whose birth a voice was heard to declare, "that the Lord of all nature sprang forth to light." Dr. Pritchard again says, (p.262,) "The oldest doctrine of the Eastern schools is the system of emanations and metempsychosis." These two were also essentially the doctrine of the Magi, and of the Jews, more particularly of the sect of the Pharisees, or, as they ought to be called, of the Persees.*

Plutarch* says, "Zoroaster is said to have made a threefold distribution of things: to have assigned the first and highest rank to Oromasdes, who, in the oracles, is called the Father; the lowest to Ahrimanes; and the middle to Mithras; who, in the same oracle, is called ton deutefon Nqn , the second Mind." As Mr. Maurice says,* Plutarch, born in the first century, cannot have copied this from a Christian forgery. Besides, he expressly says that it is taken from the oracles—herein going very far to confirm the genuineness of the oracles; indeed, he actually does confirm it, in those parts where the quotations are found.

… In the Pythagorean and Platonic remains, written long anterior to the Christian æra, all the dogmas of Christianity are to be found. Witness the Dhmiqfgoj or Zeuj Basileuj; the deutefoj Qeoj, or second God; deutefoj Nqj, or second Mind; the Miqfaj mesithj, or mediatorial Mithra; and gennhtoj Qeoj, or generated God, begotten not made. Again, the yuch cosmq, or soul of the world; i.e. the (&+ ruh or spiritus, of Osiris and Brahma, in loto arbore sedentem super aquam, brooding on the waters of the deep; the qeioj Logoj, or divine Word, berbum, which Jesus announced to his mother that he was, immediately on his birth, as recorded in the Gospel of his Infancy.*

Macrobius,* in his Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, (a work of Cicero's,) which he explains by the great principles of the philosophy of the Pythagoreans and the Platonists, has given in the clearest manner, in his account of the Trinity of the Gentiles, a description of the Triad or Trinity of the orthodox,—the triple distinction of God the Father, of his Logos, and of the Spiritus, with a filiation similar to that which exists in the theology of the Christians, and an idea of their unity inseparable from that of the Creator. It seems, in reading it, as if we were listening to a Christian Doctor, who was teaching us how the Spiritus proceeds, and the Son is engendered from the Father, and how they both remain eternally attached to the Paternal unity, notwithstanding their actions on the intellectual and visible world. ... He says that the three first links of this immense chain are the Father, his Logos, Nqj, Mens, and Anima or Spiritus Mundi; or, in the Christian phraseology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the principles of all things, and placed above all created beings. After this he goes on to explain, in exact Christian style of language, the manner in which the spirit proceeds, and in which the son is begotten—engendered by the Father.

The following extract from Mr. Faber's work on the Origin of Heathen Idolatry, exhibits a pretty fair proof how very general was the ancient doctrine of the Trinity among the Gentiles:—"Among the Hindoos we have the triad the of Brama-Vistnou-Siva, springing from the monad Brahm : and it is acknowledged, that these personages appeared upon earth at the commencement of every new world, in the human form of Menu and his three sons. Among the votaries of Buddha we find the self-triplicated Buddha declared to be the same as the Hindoo Trimurti. Among the sect of the Jainists, we have the triple Jina, in whom the Trimurti is similarly declared to be incarnate. Among the Chinese, who worship Buddha under the name of Fo, we still find this God mysteriously multiplied into three persons, corresponding with the three sons of Fo-hi, who is evidently Noah. Among of that Tartars of the House of Japhet, who carried off into their Northern settlements the same ancient worship, we find evident traces of a similar opinion in the figure of the triple God seated on the Lotos, as exhibited on the famous Siberian medal in the imperial collection at Petersburgh : and if such a mode of representation required to be elucidated, we should have the exposition furnished us in the doctrine of the Jakuthi Tartars, who, according to Strahremberg, are the most numerous people of Siberia : for these idolaters worship a triplicated deity under the three denominations of Artugon, and Schugo-tangon, and Tangara. This Tartar God is the same even in appellation with the Tanga Tanga of the Peruvian's : who, like the other tribes of America, seem plainly to have crossed over from the North-eastern extremity of Siberia. Agreeably to the mystical motions so familiar to the Hindoos, that the self-triplicated great Father yet remained but one in essence, the Peruvian suppose their Tanga-tanga to be one in three, and three in one: and in consequence of the union of Hero worship with the astronomical and material systems of idolatry, they venerated the sun and the air, each under three images and three names. The same opinions equally prevailed throughout the nations which lie to the West of Hindostan. Thus the Persians had their Ormusd, Mithras, and Ahriman : or, as the matter was sometimes represented, their self-triplicating Mithras. The Syrians had their Monimus, Aziz, and Ares. The Egyptians had their Emeph, Eicton, and Phtha. The Greeks and Romans had their Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto; three in number though one in essence, and all springing from Cronus, a fourth, yet older God. The Canaanites had their Baal-Spalisha or self-triplicated Baal. The Goths had their Odin, Vile, and Ve : who are described as the three sons of Bura, the offspring of the mysterious cow. And the Celts had their three bulls, venerated as the living symbols of the triple Hu or Menu. To the same class we must ascribe the triads of the Orphic and Pythagorean and Platonic schools : each of which must again be identified with the imperial triad of the old Chaldaic or Babylonian philosophy. This last, according to the accounts which is given of it by Damascius, was a triad shining throughout the whole world, over which presides a Monad."*

The school of Plato has been generally looked to for the origin of the Christian Trinity , but as we have seen, it would be more correct to look to the oracles of Zoroaster. … There can be no doubt that the Heathens adored the Trinity before the Christians, and did not copy it from Christianity. If either copied, the Christians must have copied from their Heathen predecessors. But all this has a strong tendency to prove, that what Ammonius Saccas said was true, namely, that the religions of Christianity and the Gentiles were the same, when stripped of the meretricious ornaments with which the craft of the priests had loaded them.

Link to Volume I - Book IV.