retained any affinity, or if it
had been literally the same, yet it would not follow, that this Persic and
Indian Theologist was the person of whom antiquity speaks so loudly. We
read of persons of this name in different parts of the world, who were all
of them Magi, or Priests, and denominated from the rites of Zoroaster,
which they followed. Suidas mentions a Zoroaster, whom he styles an
Assyrian; and another whom he calls [Greek: Perso-Medes], Perso-Medes: and
describes them both as great in science. There was a Zoroaster
Proconnesius, in the time of Xerxes, spoken of by [939]Pliny. Arnobius
mentions Zoroastres Bactrianus: and Zoroastres Zostriani nepos
[940]Armenius. Clemens Alexandrinus takes notice of Zoroaster [941]Medus,
who is probably the same as the Perso-Medes of Suidas. Zoroastres Armenius
is likewise mentioned by him, but is styled the son of [942]Armenius, and a
Pamphylian. It is said of him that he had a renewal of life: and that
during the term that he was in a state of death, he learned many things of
the Gods. This was a piece of mythology, which I imagine did not relate to
the Pamphylian Magus, but to the head of all the Magi, who was reverenced
and worshipped by them. There was another styled a Persian, whom Pythagoras
is said to have [943]visited. Justin takes notice of the Bactrian
[944]Zoroaster, whom he places in the time of Ninus. He is also mentioned
by [945]Cephalion, who speaks of his birth, and the birth of Semiramis
([Greek: genesin Semirameos kai Zoroastrou Magou]) as of the same date. The
natives of India have a notion of a Zoroaster, who was of Chinese original,
as we are informed by [946]Hyde. This learned man supposes all these
personages, the Mede, the Medo-Persic, the Proconnesian, the Bactrian, the
Pamphylian, &c. to have been one and the same. This is very wonderful; as
they are by their history apparently different. He moreover adds, that
however people may differ about the origin of this person, yet all are
unanimous about the time when he [947]lived. To see that these could not
all be the same person, we need only to cast our eye back upon the evidence
which has been collected above: and it will be equally certain, that they
could not be all of the same aera. There are many specified in history; but
we may perceive, that there was one person more antient and celebrated than
the rest; whose history has been confounded with that of others who came
after him. This is a circumstance w