although it might not necessarily impugn what has been said respecting the Satanic origin, character, and influence of heathen idolatry, it would certainly compel us to admit that some gracious interference had infused into the centre of this corrupt mass a counteracting influence of truth and righteousness. It would, therefore, be most cheering to find the speculations of the learned prelate of Gloucester on this subject abundantly verified. It is with sincere regret that we are compelled to affirm that, although they are supported with all his energy and learning, his reasoning is inconclusive, and his inferences are unsatisfactory. A careful and extended inquiry completely dissipates the hopeful scheme which his ingenuity had raised. Leland, (Christian Revelation, part i, chap. viii,) by an elaborate and learned investigation, showed very clearly that the bishop's conjecture is entirely unsupported, and falls to the ground in the absence of proof.

It does not comport with the plan of this work to give even a sketch of this controversy, or of the various opinions which have been promulgated on this important and interesting subject. It will, however, be necessary to furnish some distinct idea of these heathen mysteries, and to state our opinion of their origin, object, and progressive character.

Entering upon this needful, but very difficult, part of our undertaking, it may be proper to premise, that while our space forbids great amplification, and restrains the exhibition of our views, and the production of evidence, to a limited compass; it will, nevertheless, be attempted to state the case so clearly, and to exhibit such an amount of proof, that in future this stronghold of scepticism may be deprived of its power to counteract the teaching of God's holy truth. And, as the subject is very obscure, it will be our aim to be particularly explicit.

The term "mysteries," by which in our language these sacred services and rites are designated, comes from the Greek μvorýptov, and, in its modern acceptation, imports something above human intelligence; something awfully obscure and enigmatical; anything artfully made difficult; the secret of any business or profession. This term is frequently used in the New Testament Scriptures; and, when thus employed, generally signifies those doctrines of the gospel which the Jews in preceding times did not understand, in consequence of the darkness of their religious dispensation; or those profound truths-such as the Trinity in Unity, the Incarnation, &c.—which the weakness of human reason can never adequately comprehend.

In the application of this term, however, to the sacred and occult rites of the heathen, its meaning is not so obvious. Many ingenious and conflicting conjectures, on the etymology of the term, and its application to this subject, have been offered by learned writers; but that seems most probable which derives the word from the Hebrew non-which means "any place or thing hidden or concealed." As there can be little doubt

that the occult rites to which this term was applied, were imported into Greece from Egypt and the East, and as in those regions names and distinctive terms possess a peculiar significancy and force, this sense of the word may be safely received.

On a subject so recondite and obscure as the origin of these religious rites, it might be expected that great difference of opinion would be found among the learned. This is the case in a more than ordinary degree.

One able writer insists that "the mysteries were the offspring of bigotry and priestcraft; they originated in Egypt, the native land of idolatry." "They were instituted with a view to aggrandize that order of men," (the priesthood,) "to extend their influence, and enlarge their revenues. Το accomplish these selfish projects, they applied every engine toward besotting the multitude with superstition and enthusiasm. They taught them to believe that themselves were the distinguished favourites of Heaven; and that celestial doctrines had been revealed to them, too holy to be communicated to the profane rabble, and too sublime to be comprehended by vulgar capacities.

"All the orientals, but more especially the Egyptians, delighted in mysterious and allegorical doctrines. Every maxim of morality, every tenet of theology, every dogma of philosophy was wrapped up in the veil of allegory and mysticism. This propensity, no doubt, conspired with avarice and ambition to dispose them to a dark and mysterious system of religion."-Ency. Brit., art. Mysteries.

Another and very opposite opinion respecting the origin of the heathen mysteries is given by Warburton. Instead of regarding them as invented and brought into use to promote the objects of the priesthood, he considers "that the mysteries were invented, established, and supported by lawgivers." He argues this, "1. From the place of their original; which was Egypt. This Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch, who collect from ancient testimonies, expressly affirm; and in this all antiquity concurs. Now, in Egypt, all religious worship being planned and established by statesmen, and directed to the ends of civil policy, we must conclude that the mysteries were originally invented by LEGISLATORS."

2. Secondly, it is urged that "the sages who brought them out of Egypt, and propagated them in Asia, in Greece, and Britain, were all kings or lawgivers; such as Zoroaster, Inachus, Orpheus, Melampus, Trophonius, Minos, Cinyras, Erechtheus, and the Druids.

"3. They were under the superintendence of the state. A magistrate entitled BAZIAETE, a 'king,' presided in the Eleusinian mysteries. Lysias informs us, that this king was to offer up the public prayers, according to their country rites; and to see that nothing impious or immoral crept into their celebration. This title given to the president of the mysteries was, doubtless, in memory of the first founder; to whom were joined four

officers, chosen by the people, called 'EПIMEAHTAI, or 'curators;' the priests being only under-officers to these, and had no share in the direction : for, this being the legislator's favourite institution, he took all possible care for its support, which could not be done more effectually than by his watching over it himself.

"4. But this original is still further seen from the qualities required in the aspirants to the mysteries. According to their original institution, neither slaves nor foreigners were to be admitted into them. Now, if the mysteries were instituted, primarily, for the sake of teaching religious truths, there can be no reason given why every man with the proper qualifications should not be admitted: but supposing them instituted by the state for civil purposes, a very good one may be assigned; for slaves and foreigners have there neither property nor country.

"5. Another proof of this original may be adduced from what was taught promiscuously to all the initiated; which was, the necessity of a virtuous and holy life, to obtain a happy immortality. Now this, we know, could not come from the sacerdotal warehouses: the priests could afford a better pennyworth of their Elysium, at the easy expense of oblations and sacrifices.

"6. Another strong presumption of this original is the great use of the mysteries to the state; so amply confessed by the wisest writers of antiquity, and so clearly seen from the nature of the thing itself.

"7. But, lastly, we have the testimony of the knowing Plutarch for this original; who, in his treatise 'Of Isis and Osiris,' expressly tells us, that it was 6 a most ancient opinion, delivered down from legislators and divines to poets and philosophers, the author of it entirely unknown, but the belief of it indelibly established, not only in tradition, and the talk of the vulgar, but in the MYSTERIES and in the sacred offices of religion, both among Greeks and barbarians, spread all over the face of the globe, that the universe was not upheld fortuitously, without mind, reason, or a governor to preside over its revolutions."-Divine Legation, book ii, sec. 4.

These conflicting views of the origin of the mysteries are sufficiently startling; but it will be necessary to add to their number before proceeding to investigate the subject. We are told in a modern work of great merit, "That the ancient mysteries were nothing but the impositions of priests, who played upon the superstitious and ignorant, is an opinion which, although entertained by Limburgh-Brouwer, the latest writer on the subject, certainly cannot satisfy those who are accustomed to seek a more solid and vital principle in all religious institutions that have ever had any lasting influence upon mankind. The persons united and initiated to celebrate the mysteries in Greece were neither all priests, nor did they belong to the ignorant and superstitious classes of society; but they were, on the contrary, frequently the most distinguished statesmen

and philosophers. It has been remarked, that it is far more probable that the mysteries of the various parts of Greece were remains of the ancient Pelasgian religion. The associations of persons for the purpose of celebrating them must, therefore, have been formed at the time when the overwhelming influence of the Hellenic religion began to gain the upper hand in Greece, and when persons who still entertained a reverence for the worship of former times united together, with the intention of preserving and upholding among themselves as much as possible of the religion of their forefathers. It is natural enough that they formed themselves for this purpose into societies, analogous to the brotherhood of the Church of Rome, and endeavoured to preserve against the profanation of the multitude that which was most dear to them. Hence the secrecy of all the Greek mysteries, and hence the fact that the Greek mysteries were almost invariably connected with the worship of the old Pelasgian divinities."-Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, art. Mysteries.

Again a different solution of this difficult subject is given by Mr. Faber. He first identifies the mysteries, notwithstanding the diversity of deities and names under which they were celebrated; and, having established their common origin, he proceeds: "Bishop Warburton, agreeably to his system of deducing everything from Egypt, contends that they were first invented in that country; whence, in process of time, they were carried into Greece, Persia, Cyprus, Crete, Samothrace, Lemnos, Asia Minor, Britain, Hindostan, and all those barbarous nations, wherever situated, among which we find them established.

"This theory seems to me so utterly incredible, that I feel myself altogether unable to adopt it. Whatever was the origin of the mysteries, such also must have been the origin of the whole fabric of the pagan mythology for the two are so intimately connected, that it is impossible to separate them from each other and to derive them from different sources. If, then, we subscribe to the hypothesis of Warburton, we must prepare ourselves to believe that the whole frame-work of Gentile idolatry, with the sacred mysteries attached to it, was the exclusive contrivance of the Egyptian priesthood; and that the entire human race were but servile copyists of one single nation. We must believe, not only that the neighbouring Greeks and Phenicians borrowed from Egypt, but that the most remote communities, the British Celts, the Pelasgic Scythians, the Magi of Persia, the Chaldeans of Babylon, and even the Brahmins of Hindostan, were all content to receive their theology from the same country. We must believe, too, that this universal obligation to Egypt was incurred in the very earliest ages: for, not to enter into a discussion respecting the

antiquity of Babylon, or Persia, or Hindostan, we find the orgies of Adonis, or Baal-peor, and of Astartè, or Lida, completely established in

Palestine prior to the time of the Exodus; and we observe the Greeks acknowledging that they had already received from the northern Pelasgi, or Thracians, those very mysteries which were again imported by the southern settlers from Egypt.

"The whole of this appears to me perfectly incredible. Egypt, no doubt, was a civilized and well-regulated state at a very remote period; and its established idolatry was, I believe, coeval with its very existence as a nation but, neither was it the only civilized community; nor, even if it were, would this satisfactorily account for the universal adoption of its mysteries, as well by its more immediate neighbours, as by the fardistant colonies of the extreme east, and north, and north-east. When the earth was once peopled by the descendants of Noah, and when his children had once formed distinct states in regions widely separated from each other, I can never bring myself to believe, that any single nation could communicate its own peculiar religious system to the whole world; I can never persuade myself, that all mankind with one consent forsook the worship of their fathers, merely that they might adopt the fantastic inventions of Egypt.

"How, then, are we to account for the general prevalence and identity of the pagan mysteries? and from what common origin are we to suppose them to have sprung? I undoubtedly account for the matter precisely as I account for the identity of the various systems of pagan mythology. So remarkable and exact accordance of sentiments and institutions, which may be distinctly traced in every part of the world, leads inevitably to the belief that, in the infancy of society, when as yet mankind were but few in number, all the children of Noah were associated together in one community; that, while they thus formed but one empire, a great apostasy from the worship of the true God took place; that at that period the original system of idolatrous mythology and the sacred mysteries attached to it were first contrived; and that afterward these, by the Dispersion, were spread over the world."-Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii, p. 106.

If it had been my object to exhibit to the utmost the discordance which obtains among the learned respecting this subject, I should next quote the opinion of Dr. Hales, who believes the mysteries to have had their origin. in the Hebrew feast of tabernacles, and then adds some equally strange notions from other authors: but my limits forbid an exposure of the eccentricities of scholars, which can yield no practical advantage.

It may appear a Utopian undertaking to attempt to reconcile these conflicting opinions; although it may be candidly acknowledged that elements of truth may be found in each of them. The prevalent error into which these and other eminent men have fallen seems to be that they have not only studied the subject each under different aspects, but they have also confounded changes introduced into the institution of