which they speak, in different ages and countries; and, consequently, that which ought only to be regarded as a peculiar and local feature, has been spoken of as a general and prevailing characteristic.

It will, however, now be necessary for us to give the view of the origin, object, and character of these institutions, which we have formed after a careful consideration of all these opinions.

1. As to their origin, the argument of Mr. Faber appears to be irresistible. The learned writer in Dr. Smith's Dictionary may as reasonably contend for the origin of the mysteries in Greece,—although it is notorious that they previously existed in Egypt,-as Warburton can for their Egyptian origin, when their early prevalence and general identity cannot be denied. Whatever, precise period, therefore, may be fixed on as having produced these strange ceremonies, it must be placed before the Dispersion, in order to account for their general prevalence.

2. The most curious and important section of the inquiry, however, respects the object or design which led to the establishment of a religious ceremonial, that spread so widely, and exercised such an immense influence over the world throughout succeeding ages. On this point it does not become me to speak positively; yet it seems probable that, by carefully reviewing a few particulars, some definite information may be obtained even on this recondite topic.

It appears that in all these mysteries there is mention made of a certain sacred ark. 66 Apuleius mentions the ark of Isis; and describes it as containing the sacred symbols which were used in the mysteries: he also exhibits Psychè as deprecating Ceres by the silent orgies of the ark of that goddess. Plutarch, in treating of the rites of Osiris, speaks of the sacred ark which his long-robed priests were wont to carry, and which contained within it a small golden boat. Pausanias notices an ancient ark which was said to have been brought by Eurypylus from Troy, and within which the sacred image or symbol of Bacchus Esymnetes was enclosed he likewise mentions certain arks as being ordinarily dedicated to Ceres, who was worshipped in conjunction with Bacchus, just as Isis was in conjunction with Osiris. Eusebius informs us, that, in celebrating the mysteries of the Cabiri, the Phenicians used a consecrated ark. Clemens says that a similar ark was employed in the orgies of the same Corybantic Cabiri, who were venerated in Mount Olympus; that it contained an indecorous symbol of Bacchus; and that it was conveyed by the Cabiric brethren themselves into Etruria, where the mystic use of it was likewise adopted. This author speaks also of the ark of the Eleusinian Ceres, and is very particular in noticing its contents. Theocritus, in describing the mysteries of Bacchus as celebrated by the three Lena, Ino, Autonoë, and Agavè, the three representatives of the triplicated great mother,―fails not to specify the sacred ark, out of which they take the

hidden symbols that were used in the orgies."-Faber's Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii, p. 119.

Further proof to the same effect might be produced respecting the use of the ark for these sacred purposes in Greece, Rome, Babylon, India, and Britain. This important element may, therefore, be considered as fully established.

The question, then, is," as Mr. Faber very pertinently puts it, “What are we to understand by this so generally reverenced ark?" This learned writer supplies an elaborate answer, in accordance with his theory of heathen idolatry; and satisfactorily establishes the fact, that this sacred ark, as used in the mysteries, was employed in significant reference to the Deluge, and the great father and mother who were there preserved. On one point, however, I think it necessary to suggest an extension or emendation of this learned author's views. I cannot divest myself of the belief that the ark devised for the purpose of this idolatry and these heathen mysteries, was the original or first sacred ark. If it has been established that the cherubim of Eden were appointed for a purpose similar to that to which the cherubim were applied in the Mosaic sanctuary; (Patriarchal Age, pp. 143-148;) and that, throughout all patriarchal times, the faithful had a place of worship, a seat of the divine presence, a depository for sacred emblems of the patriarchal faith, and an oracle; (Hebrew People, pp. 525, 526, 528, 529;) then it is, to say the least, extremely probable that the origin of the mysteries, in the outset of postdiluvian idolatry, was not the invention of a new ceremonial of sacred things, but a perversion of an old and pure service.

Intimations of this may be discovered in the evidence which has been already given. For instance, in the extract from Plutarch's description of the rites of Osiris, he speaks of the "sacred ark:" but this is not, as in many other instances, the symbol of the ark of Noah; on the contrary, it contained a small golden boat, which was evidently intended to serve that purpose.

It seems, therefore, that the measure which led to the establishment of the mysteries was a virtual repudiation of the old pure patriarchal faith, and the adoption of a scheme of idolatry which deified the great father and mother, as reappearing in Noah and his wife, and then triplicated in the persons of their children; and that the mysteries were an adaptation of the sacred patriarchal worship to this idolatry.

It is not to be expected that any particular solution of this difficult subject will be received with favour, or commend itself to general acceptance; especially as the most ample collection of evidence which could be exhibited, must, from the nature of the subject and the character of the testimony, fail to furnish that absolute proof which the mind requires, in order to rest with implicit reliance on the certainty of the thing.

All, therefore, that can be hoped, and which, indeed, the nature of the subject seems to admit, is, to supply such a solution as shall meet all the requirements and difficulties of the case. It has been already shown that none of the schemes to which we have alluded, although propounded by men of eminence, have done this. It is, for instance, vain to furnish the most plausible account of the origin of the mysteries derived from the relative influence of Hellenic and Pelasgian doctrines in Greece, when it is an incontestable fact, that essentially the same ceremonies previously obtained in Egypt. It is equally futile to argue, with Warburton, for their Egyptian origin, when, from their prevalence in such remote countries as India and Britain, it must be seen that they could not have emanated from any single nation, but must have originated prior to the Dispersion. No arguments can be satisfactory which ascribe these sacred services to any particular class, whether priests or statesmen, when it is undeniable that both these classes, as well as the most profound philosophers, took a deep interest, and felt a vital concern in the maintenance of their sacred character. Nor is it possible to make the more correct theory of Faber meet all the requirements of the case. To suppose the ark of the mysteries to have had no other prototype than the ark of Noah, is irreconcilable, not only with the fact that in some instances the symbols of the ark of the Deluge are found separate and distinct from the sacred chest of the mysteries, but also with this most important circumstance, that the sacred ark of the Hebrew tabernacle, which could have had no reference to the Deluge, was almost identical with those found in ancient Egyptian sculptures of religious ceremonies.

I am desirous to subject to the same test which I have applied to other schemes, the solution which I have suggested.

1. We find a sacred ark used in the mysteries of almost every (if not every) ancient people. This ark not only is, in many instances, shaped like a ship, a boat, or a lunar crescent, but, in many others, has additional figures and emblems of this kind, while the body of the ark itself is almost an exact copy of the Hebrew ark of the tabernacle. (Kitto's Cyc. of Bib. Lit., art. Ark.) Again: let the population of the world at the time of the Dispersion be fairly considered, and whether we refer to the evidence afforded by the general identity of all heathenism, or the Scriptural account of the patriarchal times, it must be believed that the service and worship of God were conducted publicly, intelligently, and by the offering of sacrifice in or before a place sacredly set apart as the dwelling of God. To ascribe the origin of the mysteries to a corruption of this service, is, therefore, to obtain the countenance of all antiquity to the probability of our theory.

2. It is not intended here to expand the hints which have been given respecting the sin of Nimrod in his effort to make himself the religious, as

well as the political, head of the new world. It can, however, scarcely be doubted by any who will carefully peruse the voluminous evidence collected by Faber, that the establishment of postdiluvian idolatry was effected by the deification of Noah and his sons, as reappearances of the great father, to the end that the aspirant himself might also claim divinity as a descendant from them, most probably in the character of the promised Seed. If such was the fact, what means could have more certainly carried out such a project successfully, (and carried out we know it was,) than making those sacred services of patriarchal worship which, from the rapid increase of population, must have become select, accessible only to a few, who had entered into the ambitious and profane purpose; and then ingrafting on all its sacred things, doctrines, and rites, a refined and elaborate, but corrupt and debasing idolatry?

3. It will be obvious that the ascription of special sacredness to these religious rites would allow ample opportunities for the changes sought, and at the same time would have invested these new rites and doctrines with peculiar and important influence. Nor is it easy to conceive how else a whole people could be led into such serious errors. It is, however, certain, that in all ages the introduction of fatal errors respecting religion has been covered with combined prescriptions of secrecy and mystery.

4. It must be admitted that this idea of the origin of the mysteries perfectly accounts for the essential identity, and, at the same time, national diversity, which they exhibit. Having had one common origin, they were all framed on the same principle and pattern: but alterations in the detail of names, rites, and ceremonies, would be afterward introduced, harmonizing them severally with the diverse peculiarities of national mythology.

5. This theory of these sacred heathen rites is no less important in respect of their object than with reference to their origin. If it had been desirable here to quote detailed particulars, both these points might be amply sustained and illustrated. This will, however, be more suitably done when we come to consider the religion of the several nations in separate chapters. Still it may be proper to remark, that much confusion has been introduced into the subject by learned writers speaking of the origin and object of the mysteries from the aspects which they present in a particular nation. It is very conceivable that they might have been introduced into Greece in a very different manner from that in which they were first produced at Babel; and that priests and legislators might, in different countries and ages, have made them subservient to their own purposes. The view we have taken, therefore, corrects what is erroneous, and harmonizes what is sound, in the several conflicting theories which have been propounded under limited and local impressions of the subject. 6. Yet although this is not the place to insert in detail the various

ceremonies which were incorporated into the mysteries of ancient nations, it is necessary to give some idea of the general character which they exhibited, and of the ruling elements which everywhere distinguished them.

The mysteries were sacred sacrifices and ceremonies which took place at night, or in secret, within some sanctuary, into which the uninitiated were not permitted to enter.

There were several particulars essential to these religious services, and common to them in all countries.

(1.) There were always objects of worship. The mysteries were, in fact, always a secret worship of some particular deity or deities. In Egypt, Isis and Osiris were adored; in the Grecian Eleusinian mysteries, Demeter and Persephone; in those of Thebes, Bacchus; and in other places other divinities were the centres and objects of these select and secret rites. In each and every case, these orgies were celebrated in honour of some deity whose praises were the special business of the officiating hierophant. This precisely harmonizes with our view of their origin in the deification of Noah and Nimrod.

(2.) Another essential to the celebration of the mysteries was, the use of sacred utensils. We have already observed, the principal of these was an ark or chest, containing sacred articles which, it seems, were generally exhibited in the mysteries. Apuleius mentions the ark of Isis as containing secret symbols. Plutarch, treating of the rites of Osiris, says that the ark contained a golden boat. Pausanias notices an ancient ark, within which the sacred image or symbol of Bacchus Esymnetes was enclosed. Clemens says, that a similar ark was employed in the orgies of the Corybantic Cabiri, and that it contained an indecorous symbol of Bacchus. Numerous other instances might be cited from classic authors; but these are sufficient to show that sacred arks, containing religious symbols, were common in different countries in the celebration of the mysteries.

(3.) A third requisite for these secret services was a recital, by the hierophant, of ancient traditions, with their interpretation.

Warburton has employed his mighty genius and learning to show that the doctrines taught in the mysteries were the human origin, death, and sepulture of the heathen gods,-the real unity of the Deity,-and the necessity of a holy life.

The sense in which the learned prelate understands these points, and the consequences which he has drawn from them, have been ably controverted by Leland and Faber. Yet, to a great extent, these writers are obliged to admit the accuracy of the data upon which the bishop reasons, however successfully they have overturned his inductions.

It seems, then, to be an undoubted fact, that the mysteries taught the origin of the hero-divinities of postdiluvian idolatry. Whether, as War