CHAPTER II.

ORIGIN, NATURE, AND OBJECT, OF THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES; ABRIDGED FROM BISHOP WARBURTON'S DIVINE LEGATION OF

MOSES; WITH NOTES AND REMARKS, POINTING OUT THEIR IDENTITY WITH FREEMASONRY, ETC.

It is proper to premise, that the author uniformly refers to the works of the writers which he quotes, and generally gives the passages in the original language in which they were written. His quotations from the Eneid, the Metamorphosis of Epuleius, and some other works, given in the Latin language, are here rendered into English. A few Greek passages in his work are also given in translation, and all Greek terms are put in Roman characters for the benefit of the general reader.

An abstract of the author's remarks, introductory to his treatise on the Mysteries, is first given, as follows:

So inseparable, in antiquity, were the ideas of law-giving and religion, that Plutarch, speaking of the preference of atheism to superstition, supposes no other establishment of divine worship than what was the work of the legislator. "How much happier would it have been, says he, for the Carthagenians, had their first law-giver been like Critias or Diogoras, who believed neither gods nor demons, rather than such an one as enjoined their public sacrifices to Saturn."

But here it will be necessary to remind the reader of this previous truth, that there never was in any age of the world, from the most early accounts of time, to this present hour, any civil-policied nation or people who had a religion, of which the chief foundation and support was not the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments; the Jewish people only excepted. This I presume, our adversaries will not deny. Mr. Bayle, the indulgent foster father of infidelity, confesses it in the fullest manner, and with the utmost ingenuity; "all the religions of the world, whether true or false, turn upon this grand pivot, that there is an invisible judge who punishes and rewards after this life, the actions of men, both of thought and deed. From thence it is supposed the principal use of religion is derived," and thinks it was the utility of that doctrine which set the magistrate upon inventing a religion for the state. "It is the principle motive that incited those who invented it." (Dict. Crit. and Hist. Art. Spinoza Rem. E.)

The Egyptians were the first people who perfected civil policy, and established religion: they were the first too, who deified their kings, law-givers and public benefactors. This was a practice invented by them, who in process of time, taught the rest of the world their mystery.

The attributes and qualities assigned to their gods, always corresponded with the nature and genius of the government. If this was gentle, benign, compassionate and forgiving; goodness and mercy were most essential to the deity; but if severe, inexorable, captious or unequal, the very gods were tyrants; and expiations, atonements, lustrations, and bloody sacrifices composed the system of religious worship.

Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust,
Whose attributes were rage, revenge and lust,
Such as the souls of cowards might conceive,
And formed like tyrants, tyrants would believe.

The first step the legislator took, was to pretend a mission and revelation from some god, by whose command and direction he had framed the policy he would establish. In a word, there is hardly an old lawgiver, on record but what thus pretended to revelation, and the divine assistance.

The universal custom of the ancient world was, to make gods and prophets of their first kings, and law-givers. Hence it is, that Plato makes legislation to have come from God, and not from man.

Aristotle, in his maxims for setting up, and supporting a tyranny, lays this down for one "to seem extremely attached to the worship of the gods, for that men have no apprehension of injustice from such as they take to be religious, and to have a high sense of providence. Nor will the people be apt to run into plots and conspiracies against those, whom they believe the gods will in turn, fight for, and support." And here it is worth noting, that, anciently, tyrants, as well as law-givers gave all encouragement to religion; and endeavored to establish their irregular wills, not by convincing men that there was no just nor unjust in actions; but by persuading them that the privilege of divine right exempted the tyrant from all moral obligation.

Porphyry quotes an express law of Draco's concerning the mode of divine worship. "Let the gods and our own country heroes be publicly worshipped, according to the established rites; when privately, according to every man's abilities, with terms of the greatest regard and reverence; with the first fruits of their labors, and with annual libations." Andocides quotes another of Solon, which provides for the due and regular celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Athenæus does the same. And how considerable a part these were of divine worship, and of what importance to the very essence of religion, we shall see hereafter.

This principle is beginning to be understood, and acted upon, by some of our leading patriots in the American republic.-Edit,

The second step the legislators took to propagate and establish religion, was to make the general doctrine of a providence, with which, they prefaced and introduced their laws, the great sanction of their institutes.

Thus Zaleucus begins his preface: "Every inhabitant whether of town or country, should first of all be firmly persuaded of the being and existence of the gods: which belief he will be readily induced to entertain, when he contemplates the heavens, regards the world, and observes the disposition, order, and harmony of the universe; which can neither be the work of blind chance, nor of man. These gods are to be worshiped as the cause of all the real good we enjoy. Every one therefore should so purify, and possess his mind, as to have it clear of all kinds of evil; being persuaded that god is not honored by a wicked person, nor acceptably served, like miserable man, with sumptuous ceremonies, or taken with costly sacrifices, but with virtue only, and a constant disposition to good and just actions."

And much in the same fashion does Charondas introduce his laws. In imitation of this practice, Plato likewise, and Cicero both preface their laws with the sanctions of religion. And though these two great men were not, strictly speaking, law-givers in form; yet we are not to suppose that what they wrote in this science, was like the dreams of the sophists, for the amusement of the idle and curious. They were both well practised in affairs, and deeply conversant in human nature; and they formed their speculative institutes on the plan, and in the spirit and views of ancient legislation; the foundation of Plato's being the Attic Laws, and the foundation of Cicero's the Twelve Tables.

Plato makes it the necessary introduction to his laws, to establish the being and providence of the gods by a law against sacrilege. And he explains what he means by sacrilege, in the following words; "Either the denial of the being of the gods: or, if that be owned, the denial of their providence over men; or, thirdly, the teaching, that they are flexible, and easy to be cojoled by prayer and sacrifice." And afterwards: "It is not of small consequence, that what we here reason about the gods, should by all means be made probable; as, that they are; and that they are good; and that their concern for justice takes place of all other human considerations. For this, in our opinion, seems to be the noblest and best preface that can be made to a body of

Plutarch, in his treatise of Isis and Osiris, remarks, that "In Crete there was a statue of Jupiter, without ears. The Cretians judging it fit that he who is the ruler and lord of all things, should hear no one."--See Taylor's Translation Jamb. p. 248. Edit.

laws. In compliancy with this declaration, Cicero's preface to his laws -is conceived in the following terms: Let our citizens then be, first of all firmly persuaded of the government and dominion of the gods; that they are the lords and masters of the world; that all things are disposed by their power, direction, and providence; and that the whole race of mankind is in the highest manner indebted to them; that they are intimately acquainted with every one's state and condition; that they know what he does, what he thinks; with what disposition of mind, and with what degree of piety he performs the acts and offices of religion; and that, accordingly, they make a distinction between the good and evil.”

And then follow the laws themselves; the first of which is conceived in these words: "Let those who approach the gods, be pure and undefiled; let their offerings be seasoned with piety, and all ostentation of pomp omitted: the god himself will be his own avenger on transgressors. Let the gods, and those who were ever reckoned in the number of celestials, be worshipped and those likewise, whom their merits have raised to heaven: such as Hercules, Bacchus, Esculapius, Castor, Pollux, and Romulus. And let chapels be erected in honor to those qualities, by whose aid mortals arrive thither, such as reason, virtue, piety and good faith."-De Legg. lib. ii. c. 8.

Institution of the Mysteries.

The next step the legislator took, was to support and affirm the general doctrine of a providence, which he had delivered in his laws, by a very circumstantial and popular method of inculcating the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments.

This was the institution of the mysteries, the most sacred part of pagan religion and artfully framed to strike deeply and forcibly into the minds and imaginations of the people.

I propose, therefore, to give a full and distinct account of this whole matter and the rather, because it is a thing little known or attended to: the ancients who wrote expressly on the mysteries, such as Melanthius, Menander, Hicesius, Sotades, and others, not being come down to us. So that the modern writers on this subject are altogether in the dark concerning their origin and end; not excepting Meursius himself; to whom, however, I am much indebted, for abridging my labor in the search of those passages of antiquity, which make mention of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and for bringing the greater part of them together under one view.-(Eleusinia: five de Cereris Eleusina sacro.)

To avoid ambiguity, it will be proper to explain the term. Each of the pagan gods had, besides the public and open, a secret worship paid unto him; to which none were admitted but those who had been selected by preparatory ceremonies, called initiation. This secret worship was termed the Mysteries.

But though every god had, besides his open worship, the secret likewise; yet this latter did not every where attend the former; but only there, where he was the patron god, or in principal esteem. Thus when in consequence of that intercommunity of paganism, which will be explained hereafter, one nation adopted the gods of another, they did not always take in at the same time, the secret worship or mysteries of that god; so, in Rome, the public and open worship of Bacchus was in use long before his mysteries were admitted. But on the other hand, again, the worship of the stange god was sometimes introduced only for the sake of his mysteries: as, in the same city, that of Isis and Osiris. Thus stood the case in general, the particular exceptions to it, will be seen in the sequel of this dissertation.

The first and original mysteries, of which we have any sure account, were those of Isis and Osiris in Egypt; from whence they were derived to the Greeks, under the presidency of various gods, as the institutor thought most for his purpose; Zoroaster brought them into Persia, Cadmus and Inachus into Greece at large, Orpheus into Thrace; Melampus into Argis, Trophonius into Baotia, Minos into Crete; Cinyras into Cyprus, and Erechtheus into Athens. And as in Egypt they were to Isis and Osiris; so in Asia they were to Mithras, in Samothrace to the mother of the gods, in Baotia to Bacchus, in Cyprus to Venus, in Crete to Jupiter, in Athens to Ceres and Proserpine, in Amphissa to Castor and Pollux, in Lemnos to Vulcan, and so to others, in other places, the number of which was incredible.

But their end, as well as nature, was the same in all; to teach the doctrine of a future state. In this, Origen and Celsus agree, the two most learned writers of their several parties. The first, minding his adversary of the difference between the future life promised by Chris tianity, and that taught in paganism, bids him compare the Christianwith what all the sects of philosophy, and all the mysteries, among Greeks and Barbarians, taught concerning it: and Celsus, in his turn, endeavoring to show that Christianity had no advantage over Paganism in the efficacy of stronger sanctions, expresses himself to this purpose; "But now, after all, just as you believe eternal punishments, so do the