46S 
MYSTERY. 
origin the myfteries of the Egyptians,- Phoenicians, Greeks, 
and Etrufcans, and indeed all other fimilar inftitutions 
throughout the world. But it does not appear from any 
liiftorical records, that this defign was ever declared and 
avowed in their original appointment; and we know, 
that the names and illuftrious deeds of the heroes of an¬ 
tiquity were commemorated, with profelfed intentions, 
by feftivals, games, facrifices, hymns, and other fuch in¬ 
ftitutions, obfervedin honour of them. 
Dr. Leland, in particular, has very accurately examined 
the origin and ends of the inftitution of myfteries. Ac¬ 
cording to this writer, they feem to have been originally 
defigned to tame and civilize the rude and barbarous 
people, to form and polifli their manners, and by (hows 
and reprefentations, which were fitted to ftrike the ima¬ 
gination, to bring them to a greater awe and veneration 
for the laws and religion of their country ; which, among 
the Pagans, was always regarded as a neceflary ingredient 
in a virtuous chara&er. On this account they are highly 
commended by Cicero, de Leg. lib. ii. cap. 14. as they 
tended to reclaim men from a rude and favage life; and 
they were called initia, becaufe they furniftied the firft 
principles of a human and civilized life. But, whatever 
was the original intention of thefe myfteries, there is 
great reafon to apprehend, that, upon the whole, they 
proved rather detrimental than advantageous to the caufe 
of virtue; and the corruption of them feems to have been 
owing to a fundamental defeft in their original conftitu- 
tion. Dr. Leland farther examines whether, and how far, 
the myfteries were defigned to deteft the error of poly- 
theifm, and to inftruft the initiated in the knowledge of 
the one true God. With refpedl to this point, he main¬ 
tains, that the whole evidence, produced by bifliop War- 
burton, amounts only to this; that in the myfteries the 
initiated were inltru&ed that the popular deities had been 
once men ; but no proof is brought, that the a.vroppr)T<x. 
overthrew the vulgar polytheifm, the worfhip of dead 
men: nay, the inftitutors of the myfteries, whilft they 
taught the initiated that the gods, commonly received, 
had been once men, took care that the public religion 
ftiould not fuffer by it, by letting them know, that, not- 
withftanding this, they ought to be regarded as gods, 
and to have that divine worfhip and honour rendered to 
them, which ancient tradition and the laws required. 
The Chriftians, indeed, argued from the hiftory of the 
heathen gods to difprove their divinity: and this was 
probably the reafon why the myftagogues were very care¬ 
ful, in their entrance on the celebration of the myfteries, 
that no Chriftian ftiould be prefent at them. 
Dr. Leland farther contends, that the dodtrine of the 
unity was not taught in the myfteries. With this view 
he examines the teftimonies adduced by the bifliop, which, 
■he fays, afford no fufficient evidence that they taught the 
do6trine of the unity. Befides, there is great reafon to 
think, that the notion given of the Deity in the myfteries 
was not very right and juft : and moreover, if they had 
taught juft notions of God, thefe could be of no great 
ufe, becaufe they taught this part of the fecret doftrine 
of the myfteries to very few perfons. It is farther urged, 
that the legiflators and civil magiftrates, who firft infti- 
tuted the myfteries, and who regarded not truth but 
utility, could never, in good earneft, attempt to draw the 
people off from that polytheifm, which they themfelves 
had encouraged for the eftablifhment and welfare of the 
ftate, and to keep the people under a greater veneration 
for the laws. And the myfteries feem to have been de¬ 
figned, not to difeard the worfhip of the deities, to whom 
they were appropriated, but to add a greater folemnity 
to it. To which it may be added, from fail and expe¬ 
rience, that though the myfteries were generally cele¬ 
brated in almoft all the heathen nations, and efpecially 
throughout the whole Roman empire, no effect of them 
appears in turning any of the people from their polytheifm 
or idolatry: nor is it conceivable, if the delign of the 
myfteries were as laudable as Dr. Warburton reprelents, 
that the ancient Chriftian writers ftiould have fo univer- 
fally exclaimed againft them. Many of tliefe had been 
converted from Heathenifm to Chriftianity, and, while 
they were Heathens, had been initiated into both the lefs 
and greater myfteries; fo that they were thoroughly ac¬ 
quainted with their nature and defign. If they had 
known that the myfteries obliged thofe who were initiated 
to lead a virtuous and holy life, and that they were de¬ 
figned to overturn polytheifm, and to profelyte men from 
the worfhip of idols to that of the one true fupreme God, 
they muft have had a good opinion of them ; and, in their 
apologies for Chriftianity, they would naturally have been 
induced to fpeak favourably of them. Whereas, in dif- 
courfes addrefled to the Heathens themfelves, they fre¬ 
quently fpeak of the myfteries in terms of the greateft 
abhorrence, as impure and abominable, -and as tending 
rather to confirm the people in their idolatry than to draw 
them from it. On this occafion it will be fufficient to 
feleft the teftimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who was 
a man of learning and probity. From the accounts which 
he gives from his perfedt knowledge of them, it appears, 
that the reprefentations made in the myfteries were agree¬ 
able to the fables of the poets and mythologifts, concern¬ 
ing Jupiter, Bacchus, Ceres, Proferpina, and other deities; 
that in the Eleufinia facra, they celebrated the rape of 
Proferpina, the lamentations of Ceres, her wanderings in 
queft of her daughter, her congrefs with Jupiter, and 
f applications to him, with feveral other particulars which 
were both riduculous and obfeene. He calls thofe who 
brought thefe myfteries from Egypt into Greece, “ the 
fathers of an execrable fuperftition, who fowed the feed 
of wickednefs and corruption in human life;” and faj-s, 
“ the myfteries were full of delufion and portentous re¬ 
prefentations, calculated to impofe upon the people.” 
He concludes his account of them by faying, “ thefe are 
the myfteries of atheiftic men. I may rightly call thofe 
atheifts, who are deftitute of the knowledge of him who 
is truly God, and moft impudently worfhip a boy torn 
in pieces by the Titans, a woman lamenting, and the 
parts which modefty forbids to name.” And he repeats 
it again, that “ they are ignorant of God, and do not ac¬ 
knowledge that God who is, or really exifts.” Eufebius 
tranferibes and approves this defeription of the myfteries 
by Clemens. The account which Arnobius, who had 
been a learned Pagan, gives of the myfteries, particularly 
of the Eleufinian myfteries, celebrated at Athens, coin¬ 
cides with that of Clemens. 
In order to evade the force of thefe teftimonies, the 
learned prelate obferves, that the ancient Chriftian writers 
bore a fecret grudge to the myfteries for their injurious 
treatment of Chriftianity at its firft appearance in the 
world ; but this apology intimates, that the myftagogues 
and managers of the myfteries did what they could to 
uphold the common polytheifm and idolatry; and that 
this was the caufe of their enmity to Chriftianity. They 
reprefented the Chriftians as atheifts, becaufe they de¬ 
claimed againft the worfliip of the publicly-adored deities. 
Whereas if the defign of the fecret doftrine of the greater 
myfteries had been to detect the error of the vulgar poly¬ 
theifm, and to teach the initiated that the popular deities 
were really no gods, the charge might have been retorted 
upon themfelves. Nor is if fufficient to allege with the 
bifliop, that the ancient fathers of the church, after all 
which they laid againft them, ftudioufly and formally 
transferred the terms, phrafes, rites, ceremonies, and dif- 
cipline, of thefe odious myfteries, into our holy religion ; 
for the Chriftians, though they did not conlider them as 
defigned to detedl and overthrow the popular polytheifm, 
but the contrary, were fully apprized of the veneration 
that was generally paid to them, and therefore applied to 
their own ufe the terms made ufe of in thofe myfteries, 
the better to gain upon the Heathens, and to fliow that 
Chriftianity did in reality effedt that which the Pagan 
myfteries vainly pretended to do. Leland's Advantage and 
JSecefUy of the Chriftian Revelation , vol. i. c. 9. 
Mystery, 
