Part 38 (1/2)

The whole tenor of the narrative recorded by the _Matthew_ narrator is the most complete justification of the science of _astrology_; that the first intimation of the birth of the Son of G.o.d was given to the wors.h.i.+pers of Ormuzd, who have the power of distinguis.h.i.+ng with certainty _his_ peculiar star; that from these _heathen_ the tidings of his birth are received by the Jews at Jerusalem, _and therefore that the theory must be right which connects great events in the life of men with phenomena in the starry heavens_.

If this _divine sanction of astrology_ is contested on the ground that this was an _exceptional_ event, in which, simply to bring the Magi to Jerusalem, G.o.d caused the star to appear in accordance with their superst.i.tious science, the difficulty is only pushed one degree backwards, for in this case G.o.d, it is a.s.serted, wrought an event which was perfectly certain to strengthen the belief of the Magi, of Herod, of the Jewish priests, and of the Jews generally, in the truth of astrology.

If, to avoid the alternative, recourse be had to the notion that the star appeared _by chance_, or that this _chance_ or _accident_ directed the Magi aright, is the position really improved? Is _chance_ consistent with any notion of supernatural interposition?

We may also ask the question, why were the Magi brought to Jerusalem at all? If they knew that the star which they saw was the star of Christ Jesus--as the narrative states[145:2]--and were by this knowledge conducted to Jerusalem, why did it not suffice to guide them _straight to Bethlehem_, and thus prevent the Slaughter of the Innocents? Why did the star desert them after its first appearance, not to be seen again till they issued from Jerusalem? or, if it did not desert them, why did they ask of Herod and the priests the road which they should take, when, by the hypothesis, the star was ready to guide them?[145:3]

It is said that in the oracles of Zoroaster there is to be found a prophecy to the effect that, _in the latter days_, a virgin would conceive and bear a son, and that, at the time of his birth, a star would s.h.i.+ne at noonday. Christian divines have seen in this a prophecy of the birth of _Christ_ Jesus, but when critically examined, it does not stand the test. The drift of the story is this:

Ormuzd, the Lord of Light, who created the universe in _six_ periods of time, accomplished his work by making the first man and woman, and infusing into them the breath of life. It was not long before Ahriman, the evil one, contrived to seduce the first parents of mankind by persuading them to eat of the forbidden fruit. Sin and death are now in the world; the principles of _good_ and _evil_ are now in deadly strife.

Ormuzd then reveals to mankind his _law_ through his prophet Zoroaster; the strife between the two principles continues, however, and will continue until the end of a destined term. During the last three thousand years of the period Ahriman is predominant. The world now hastens to its doom; religion and virtue are nowhere to be found; mankind are plunged in sin and misery. _Sosiosh_ is born of a virgin, and redeems them, subdues the Devs, awakens the dead, _and holds the last judgment_. A comet sets the world in flames; the Genii of Light combat against the Genii of Darkness, and cast them into Duzakh, where Ahriman and the Devs and the souls of the wicked are thoroughly cleansed and purified by fire. Ahriman then submits to Ormuzd; evil is absorbed into goodness; the unrighteous, thoroughly purified, are united with the righteous, and _a new earth and a new heaven_ arise, free from all evil, where peace and innocence will forever dwell.

Who can fail to see that this virgin-born _Sosiosh_ was to come, _not eighteen hundred years ago_, but, in the ”_latter days_,” when the world is to be set on fire by a _comet_, the _judgment_ to take place, and the ”new heaven and new earth” is to be established? Who can fail to see also, by a perusal of the New Testament, that the idea of a _temporal Messiah_ (a mighty king and warrior, who should liberate and rule over his people Israel), and the idea of an _Angel-Messiah_ (who had come to announce that the ”kingdom of heaven was at hand,” that the ”stars should fall from heaven,” and that all men would shortly be judged according to their deeds), are both jumbled together in a heap?

FOOTNOTES:

[140:1] Matthew, ch. ii.

[141:1] Bible for Learners, vol. iii. p. 72.

[141:2] Vol. i. p. 145.

[141:3] See Knight: Ancient Art and Mythology, p. 52.

[142:1] Allen's India, p. 456.

[142:2] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 221.

[142:3] Ibid. p. 261.

[142:4] See Kenrick's Egypt, vol. i. p. 456.

[143:1] See Bunsen's Angel-Messiah, pp. 22, 23, 38.

[143:2] See Beal: Hist. Buddha, pp. 23, 33, 35.

[143:3] See Bunsen's Angel-Messiah, p. 36.

[143:4] Williams's Indian Wisdom, p. 347.

[143:5] See Hist. Hindostan, ii. 336.

[143:6] See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. i. p. 561. For that of Crishna, see Vishnu Purana, book v. ch. iii.

[143:7] See Ibid. p. 618.

[143:8] Thornton: Hist. China, vol. i. p. 137.