The person who is supposed to have first formed a code of institutes for this people, is said to have been one of the Magi, named Zerdusht. I mention this, because Hyde, and other learned men, have imagined this Zerdusht to have been the antient Zoroaster. They have gone so far as to suppose the two names to have been the [938]same; between which I can scarce descry any resemblance. There seem to have been many persons styled Zoroaster: so that if the name had casually 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 Περσο-Μηδης, 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 (γενεσιν Σεμιραμεως και Ζωροαστρου Μαγου) 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 æra. 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 which has been observed by [948]many: but this ingenious