liquor in order the more freely to sit and admire the fine old well coloured carving. That, too, was the great room at election times, where the élite of Crosswood prepared for answering the Royal Writ; for mine host was a stout Tory. And on market days when the hearty farmers gathered in to take dinner and discuss the prospects of the country, corn, and what was doing in Parliament, they were won by the aspect of the walls to drink one glass more in memory of the good old times.

The host of the George, Mr. Bampton Samuel Juniper, or "Old Juniper" as he was generally called, was quite as well worth seeing as the house itself. He was one of the heartiest old landlords tired traveller ever met; a sort of farmer-squire, who still kept the George, not in cousequence of any passion he had for being a landlord, but because in that house he was born, and it had been the scene of all his troubles and joys. When told that waterdrinking was becoming popular, he declared it to be his opinion that it would be better for England, and that he cared not if he never sold another drop of liquor. It was a sight worth seeing when Old Juniper, in spotless top-boots and red coat, rode out of his yard to follow the hounds, and few were the runs in which he was not in at the death. His favourite horse was both stout and strong, but of the two Juniper was stouter and stronger. His face was round, full, merry, and red; his nose, buried so deeply between his swelling cheeks, was so small as scarcely to be worth calling a nose; his twinkling eyes sparkled like two glow-worms set in a round of beef, and his laugh, rolling in his stomach before it was thrown out, so much pleased Abernethy who once heard it, that he declared the best thing a dyspeptic patient could do would be to sit two hours every day to hear Old Juniper laugh.

As a rule the people of Crosswood were as much behind the age in general intelligence as they were in business habits. The only sign of progress in the town was seen in the New London Spirit Vaults, which had been fitted up in the West End style. A Mechanics' Institute had been started, but it closed in the second year, through the Dissenting Ministers being upon the book committee. Each wished to get the books of his own sect purchased, and those of the others excluded. They were unanimous in prohibiting light literature, and voted for the admission of such scientific treatises only as none of the members could understand. The speedy result was complete failure, and a speedy sale. There was a silk-factory at one end of the town, a paper-mill at the other, and at these many of the young of both sexes were employed, but the inhabitants generally looked with dislike upon those who were known as "Mill hands," and treated them rather as criminals, or at least as very suspicious characters, than as honest citizens. There was no railway communication, for unanimously the inhabitants had petitioned against a proposed line, their argument being that, as their ancestors had done without it, there could be no need for any such change. Taking the town and people as a whole, they were rather of the past than the present, and although, as it will be hereafter seen, moved by the same passions as other men, they clung to the past as tenaciously as the limpet clings to its rock. And if Lester was somewhat interested by what he had seen of the old town, and rendered more desirous of learning more of its people, they were not a whit less curious about the character and views of their new rector.

LIFE AND TEACHING OF ZOROASTER.

§ 1. ANCIENT AND MODERN NOTICES.

As a general principle, it is assumed, when speaking of the Past, that each nation had a mission, a work to do in the world, which, well done, secured them an immortality; but we should find it difficult were we called upon to declare distinctly, and in each case, what that mission was. For many nations have neglected their duty, and in pride or ignorance have turned from their proper work, with the sad national result of decay, wars, and death. What was the mission of the Persians? Who can tell the work

that nation was intended to perform? We read with wonder of Cyrus, Darius, and the other Conquerors; in the pages of Herodotus we are initiated into the workings of their national life, but it seems to have had no aim beyond that of dominion, splendour, and revolution. The red men of America occupied the soil for ages, but did nothing more than moisten it with each other's blood. Doubtless a fine story could be told of the wars of the Delawares and the conquests of the Sioux, but without any noble result, in the shape of example or teaching for mankind at large. The Persians seem, upon the whole, to have been some civilised red men, for they fought and conquered, but gave no enduring results to the world.

If any exception can be made in their favour, it is in the life, work, and teaching of Zoroaster, who shines out in their hemisphere as a bright particular star, both as a man and as a moral teacher, and it is to what is known of him that we propose inviting the attention of our readers.

Preliminary to our narrative biography, it will be prudent to learn what history relates of this celebrated Persian. And first regarding the time or age wherein he flourished. This, however, is rather difficult to determine, although, according even to the best authorities, there is sufficient latitude to satisfy even the most exacting. The range of choice extends over about 6000 years. Pliny gives the authority of Eudoxus for fixing the death of Zoroaster that number of years before the birth of Plato, which, according to the accredited Biblical Chronology, would be over 8000 years ago. That date is not generally accepted, still the writers of Antiquity are unanimous in naming a time much further back than is tolerated by modern chronologists. Plutarch, in his marvellous book upon religion, "Isis and Osiris," fixes the Zoroastrian era at 5000 years before the Trojan war. Diogenes Laertius, who calls him "Zoroaster the Persian," says that, "from the magi, of whom "the chief was Zoroastres, to the taking and destruction of Troy, were 5000 "years." Thus the classic writers, who have dealt with this subject, assign him a great antiquity; but Justin, who epitomised the history of Trojus Pompeius, places him only 850 years before the Trojan war. This seems to have been a favourite era, but it is unsatisfactory, for the modern reader inquires when it occurred. That question cannot be readily answered, for several learned gentlemen have united in declaring there never was any such war, and consequently that Agamemnon, Achilles, Ajax, Priam, Hector, Paris, and Helen, are all figments of the imagination. They inform us that Troy had no existence, that the Greeks never assembled as Homer asserts, and, consequently, that the whole story is no more than a myth embodied in the noblest poetry. Without endorsing their statement, it has still to be confessed that we are wholly unable to fix the date. Grote, Thirlwall, and Niebuhr are equally uncertain about it. They can only conclude, that the story has an element of truth in it which cannot now be separated from the

incorporated fiction with any degree of certainty. Thus, according to the classic writers, Zoroaster flourished 5000 years before the Trojan war; but when that war began or ended, or whether it was ever carried on, we cannot say. Thus great is the light derivable from the said Classics on this important point. Modern criticism and research, however, is kinder, for by means of its results we are enabled to state, that the Zoroaster of our religious conceptions lived somewhere about 600 B.C.; and that the men alluded to by Pliny, Justin, Plutarch, and other Greek and Roman writers, though in some way connected with the religion of Persia, Media, and Bactria, were of a different stamp, and altogether much inferior in wisdom and power to that one who lived in the age we have just named-600 B.C.

But we must not pass thus rudely from the Classic to modern authors; between the two there lies much which it is important to know, of which, if left unnoticed, these articles would furnish only an unfair exposition. The question has been vigorously discussed as to who Zoroaster was. For instance, it has been seriously asked, When we say Zoroaster, do we not mean Moses? It has been contended by Huet, that Moses and Zoroaster are the same persons, and, in order to establish this, he cites many passages from their writings, all of which he believes to prove that they are the same in thought and forms of expression. He entertained the notion that the Persians were enriched by the Jews, who gave them their Pentateuch, when the povertystricken Persians immediately set forth to the world, that the man who had thus taught was a Persian, and named Zoroaster. This belongs to what may be called liberal criticism, because it arrives at large conclusions without requiring the aid of a single foundation fact, and, "consequently, should be widely accepted." Unfortunately, however, the name Zor-Aster means "star worshipped," and thus could not have been given to Moses. The absurdity of this Mosaic explanation was too palpable for general use; and hence, without ever troubling themselves about the facts, without ever reading the Zendavesta, other gentlemen have put forth the equally false though less astounding opinions, that he was Abraham, though called by another name by the Magi, in order to hide the theft. But looking at what is reported of the two lives, we do not find a single mark of connection. The events wholly differ, and hence that idea must equally be scouted. Others inform us that "he was a clever man, who, hired as the servant of Elisha, "discovered his master's wisdom, and, like all the Pagans,' was base enough to declare to the Persians that it was his own. A pretty theory, but, as in all the other cases, lacking everything in the shape of fact, which alone would justify us in accepting it. And when the critics declare he must have mingled with the Jews, else he would never have known what he knew, they evidently beg the whole question at issue; for may it not have been far more likely that the Hebrews borrowed from the Persians, than that the Persians followed fondly the tales of their Hebrew slaves. Indeed, we undertake to demonstrate, when the proper time arrives, that it was from the Persians the Jews obtained their ideas of early history, with their later conceptions of God,—that from the Persians they obtained the majority of their Rabbinical Fables, and that many of the ideas now forming the main staple of modern theology have no other origin or authority than that they derive from the ancient Persian teachers.

Possibly, however, this strange way of jumping over, instead of fairly meeting, and conquering, the difficulty, was suggested by the fact that the old historians speak of so many persons as Zoroaster, or of so many Zoroasters. Sir

Walter Raleigh, a man of considerable research, and unquestioned liberality, says, in his history of the world: "Of Zoroaster, there is much dispute; and no less jangling about the word and art of magic. Arnubius remembereth "four to whom the name of Zoroaster or Zoroastres was given; which by "Hermoduras and Dinun seemeth but a cognomen, or name of art, and was "as much as to say, Astronum cultor. The first, Arnubius, calleth the Bac"trian, which may be the same that Ninus overthrew; the second, a Chaldean, "and the astronomer of Ninus; the third was Zoroaster Pamphylius, who "lived in the time of Cyrus and his familiar; the fourth, Zoroaster Armenius, "the nephew of Hostianes, which followed Xerxes into Greece. Suidas "remembereth of a fifth, called Persomedus Sapiens, and Plato speaks of "Zoroaster the son of Oromasdes." Thus a brave, inquisitive Raleigh, writing his history of the world while lying in prison, pondering on the mysteries of the past while actually under sentence of death, knows not what to make of all these Zoroasters, and though never doubting the fact of such a man having lived, he evidently hesitated about naming his age and country. So also Stanley, in his ponderous volumes on "The History of Philosophy, published in 1662, some forty years after the death of Raleigh. That writer enters fully into the matter, and fishes up, out of the ancient books, all that has been said and thought of this Persian teacher, so that for the luxurious student in search of a mud-bath, nothing can be finer than Stanley's "Zoroaster and the Chaldaic Philosophy." True, indeed, that he furnishes all the Arnubian, and other suppositions, and stories and etymologies of the name, but unhappy must be the man who reads his book with the vain hope of discovering either who Zoroaster was, or what were his teachings. Bryant, too, in his "Analysis of Ancient Mythology," treats us to similar collections, which force the reader to inquire if the pea and the thimble have not been introduced into literature, with the wager that you shall not discover the man you seek. But the richest of all, either culled from the past, or conceived by any of the moderns, is the idea of the learned Dean of Norwich, Dr. Prideaux, who had the modesty to suggest that Zoroaster had been employed as a servant by Ezekiel, and hence his knowledge. It would be about as wise and as probable to suppose that Shakspere had been employed as the servant of the immortal Nahum Tate! P. W. P.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFORMATION.-XXVII.

JOHN HUSS.

Ar the time of Wycliffe's death, John Huss was about fifteen years old, having been born in the year 1369. The place of his birth was Hussinecz in Bohemia. The son of poor parents, he was early inured to labour. Nature, however, had fitted him for higher things. Early in his youth he started from his village home, to study at the University of Prague, with the view of becoming a priest. In 1396 he obtained his degree of Master of Arts, and two years after we find him lecturing to the students on theological subjects. It was probably the popularity he soon gained, and the capacity he showed in this, that led to the offer, made to him in the year 1401, to become the preacher in a chapel called Bethlehem, which had been erected by some of the wealthy citizens of Prague, with a view to supply what in the ordinary services of the Church was not frequently found, viz., practical advice and in the shape of sermons in the Bohemian tongue. Here Huss,

i

gifted with more than ordinary eloquence, and sincerely desirous of reforming the vice and immorality of his time, soon gathered round him a little community of warm and devoted friends, who, like himself, were earnest Reformers. His sermons made a powerful impression upon all who went to hear him, as the sermons of all who, as he did, preach, not doctrinal theology, but practical Christianity, ever have done. He denounced, in terms of unmeasured severity, the vices of the people-did not, however, content himself with that, but also showed them, as far as he himself saw it, the true path of morality and happiness.

The distinguishing characteristic of Huss, as a Reformer, was the thoroughly practical bent of his teachings; he attacked vice only that he might paint virtue in her true colours; he troubled himself very little about doctrine; and became a Heresiarch, not so much because he disputed the teachings of the Church, as because he hated and exposed the vice and immorality fostered by it. In him, in fact, we see another Peter Waldus; the Church repudiated him, rather than he the Church; his great sin, in her eyes, really being that, by his life and by his words, he condemned the manners of the hierarchy, and the evils which were sown and cultivated by their teaching and example amongst the laity. His popularity as preacher at Bethlehem Chapel soon attracted hundreds to hear him, and ultimately led to his being appointed Confessor to the Queen of Bohemia. Indeed, so great was his influence, that while he restricted his eloquent denunciations to the laity, the clergy themselves looked with favour upon him, and Monks, Priests, and Friars were frequently among his hearers; but when, ere long, he commenced the same course with the clergy, and denounced the abuses within the Church, these became his bitterest enemies.

In the year 1403 Sbinko was appointed Archbishop of Prague. He was one of those men (to whom in our paper of last week we alluded) who saw danger in allowing the corruptions in the priesthood to continue unreformed. He therefore looked upon the work which Huss was doing with favour, and gave him his countenance and support, in spite of the animosity of the monks and friars, and many of the clergy. As one who dared thus openly to attack the hierarchy, Huss found a friend, too, in the King of Bohemia, who bore an ancient grudge against the Church, for the part it had taken in preventing his election as Emperor. Thus countenanced by the authorities both of the Church and of the State in Bohemia, Huss continued to attack, with unsparing zeal, the corruptions of his time, as exemplified in the lives of the priests and of the people. His attacks on the hierarchy rendered his teaching acceptable to large numbers, who had become indoctrinated with the views of Wycliffe, whose writings had been introduced into Bohemia many years before, as also to those who may be looked upon as secret followers of Peter Waldus, of whom there were many in this country.

Bohemia was, of old, a land of heresy. We saw in a former article how Peter Waldus found his last refuge there, and all the efforts of the Church had been insufficient to root out the effects of his teaching. There had always been Waldenses in the land where lay the bones of Waldus. The fact of Richard II. of England having married a Bohemian Princess had drawn the two countries into intimate relations at the time when Wycliffe's popularity was at its height, and while yet he was patronised by the Court. Many of the Bohemian nobility visited England, and became acquainted with the writings and teachings of Wycliffe, and some studied at Oxford under him. This led to a close connection between the Universities of Oxford and