470 
MYSTRR Y. 
thofe things are true ? Does he believe any thing at all 
with refped to the manner of them ? Nay, is not his urg¬ 
ing that it is myfterious and incompreheniible a demon- 
ftration, that he himfelf knows he can believe nothing 
■particularly about it ? It is yet more ftrange to talk of 
myfterious precepts than of unintelligible dodrines ; for 
laws that are not underltood can, moll certainly, never be 
obeyed. “ It is indeed very lurpriling,” as this author 
proceeds, “ that mankind, in all ages, have been fo fond 
of myfteries. That the crafty and deligning, who make 
a gain of the credulity of the multitude, Ihould ufe all 
their art and interefl to propagate them, is indeed natural 
■enough ; but why fhould the more honeft and dilinterefted 
part of the people plead fo zealouily for them ? Whence 
comes it to pafs, that, when they choofe to fee their way 
plain before them in all ether cafes, they Ihould affed to 
be without light in matters of religion ? Religion is of 
valtly greater importance than the common affairs of life, 
and this they readily acknowledge ; and yet they feem to 
like it the better, the lefs they underftand it. Such a 
condudl is very unaccountable, becaufe there can, one 
would think, be no motive to it. Myfteries yield neither 
pleafure nor profit. For as, with refped to the works 
of nature, all our pleafure arifes from the perception of 
beauty, harmony, and ulefulnefs ; and, however we may 
imagine innumerable fecret beauties which we have not 
difcovered, yet until they are known they afford no real fa- 
tisfadion, nor can we reap any advantage from them ; it 
is juft the lame with refped to myfteries in religion ; we 
can neither be delighted nor profited by them, becaufe 
we do not underftand them ; i. e. in other words, they 
are really nothing at all to us. Nay, we cannot fo much 
as admire them ; becaule admiration neceflarily fuppofes, 
that we have a knowledge of the grandeur, or of the 
worth and excellency, of the objed. The utmoft that 
can be faid therefore is, that we are confounded and puz¬ 
zled. 
“ However, if this were all, a man would only prove 
himfelf a weak (and might at the fame time be an innocent) 
enthufiaft, by luppofing things that are, in truth, nothing 
to him, to be important parts of revelation. But, when 
myfteries are propagated with zeal, and impofed on con- 
fcience; when, for the fake of what is allowed to be in- 
comprehenjible, the plain and indifpenfable obligations of 
tuftice and charity are infringed and violated, (of which 
the hiilory of the Chriitian church, in almolt every age, 
affords many flagrant examples,) it is then our duty to 
oppole an error which makes religion contemptible, and 
itrikes at the foundation of Chrillianity, and, indeed, of 
all good morals. I ftiall only add, that there is a great 
difference between a myftery and a direct abfurdity and 
contradict ion, fuch as tranfubftantiation and other dodri nes 
which have been fcreened under that more venerable 
name; for myfteries are only things that we certainly 
know nothing at all of, the other things we certainly know 
to be falje ;—the former we only do not underftand, the 
latter we' fee camwt be underltood.” Folter’s Sermons, 
sol. i. ferm. 7. 
Although we may reafonably be required to believe, 
on the unqueftionable evidence of divine tellimony, doc¬ 
trines which we cannot adequately comprehend and fatif- 
fadorily explain, and to comply with precepts, as rules of 
condudl on the authority that enjoins them, the delign 
and ufe of which we do not clearly perceive, at leaft, when 
they are firft propofed, we can never admit the rant, as 
Dr. Watts has properly called it, of Tertullian, Credo, 
quia impo/Jiliile eft; “I believe becaufe it is impoflible 
nor undertake to vindicate the language of the celebrated 
lord Bacon, who (ays that “ we muft not fubmit the myf¬ 
teries of faith to our reafon ;” or to concur with an emi¬ 
nent prelate (the late Dr. Hurd) in his defeription of 
certain dodlrines “ at which reafon (lands aghaft, and 
faith herfelf is half confounded,” and which, according 
to the expreffion of another pious bifliop (Beveridge) 
0 would be ridiculed as abfurditics, if they were not to 
bp adored as myfteries.” 
MYS'TF.RY, f. [miftere, old Fr.] A kind of ancient 
dramatic reprefentation.—Dramatick poetry, in this and 
mod other nations of Europe, owes its origin, or at leaft 
its revival, to thofe religious (hows, which in the dark 
ages were ufually exhibited on the more folemn feftivals. 
At thofe times they were wont to reprefent, in the 
churches, the lives and miracles of the faints, or fome of 
the more important ftories of Scripture. And, as the mod 
myfterious fubjeds were frequently chofen, fuch as the 
incarnation, and refurredion of Chrift, &c. thefe exhibi¬ 
tions acquired the name of miracles and myfteries. Bp. 
Percy on the Orig. of the Eng. Stage. 
Monf. Sifmonde de Sifmondi juftly aferibes the inven¬ 
tion of the myfteries, the firft modern efforts of the dra¬ 
matic art, to the French ; but the inference which he 
draws from it, that this was owing to the great dramatic 
genius of that people, muft excite a fmile in many of his 
readers : for, certainly, if there ever was a nation utterly 
and univerfally incapable of forming a conception of any 
other manners or charaders than thofe which exift among 
themfelves, it is the French. The learned author is right, 
however, in faying that the Myftery of the Paftions, and 
the moralities performed by the French company of play¬ 
ers, laid the foundation of the drama in various parts of 
Europe, and alfo fuggefted the firft probable hint of the 
plan of the Divine Comedy of Dante. 
In France, all dramatic pieces were indiferiminately 
called “ myfteries,” whether a martyr or a heathen god, 
whether St. Catharine or Hercules, was the fubjed. In 
that country, the religious myfteries, often called “ Pi- 
teaux,” or “ Pitoux,” were very fafliionable, and of high 
antiquity, though not more ancient than thofe of the 
Englifh. The French myfteries were chiefly performed 
by the religious communities. In France, as well as in 
England, it was cullomary to celebrate the feaft of the 
boy-bifliop, during which moralities were prefented, and 
ftiows of miracles, with farces and other (ports. 
Mr. T. Warton, in the fecond volume of his Hiftory of 
Englifh Poetry, has introduced fome difeuflions with re¬ 
gard to the probable caufes of the rife of the myfteries. 
“ About the eighth century,” he fays, “ trade was prin¬ 
cipally carried on by means of fairs, which bailed feveral 
days. Charlemagne eftablilhed many great marts of this 
fort in France; as did William the Conqueror, and his 
Norman fucceifors, in England. The merchants, who 
frequented thefe fairs in numerous caravans or companies, 
employed every art to draw the people together. They 
were therefore accompanied by jugglers, minftrels, and 
buffoons ; who were no lefs interelled in giving their at¬ 
tendance, and exerting all their ikill, on thefe occafions. 
As now but few towns exifted, no public fpedacles or po¬ 
pular amufements were eftablilhed ; and, as the fedentary 
pleafures of domeftic life and private (ociety were yet un¬ 
known, the fair-time was the feafon for diverlion. In 
proportion as thefe fhows were attended and encouraged, 
they began to be fet off with new decorations and im¬ 
provements ; and the arts of buffoonery, being rendered 
itill more attractive by extending their circle of exhibi¬ 
tion, acquired an importance in the eyes of the people. 
By degrees the clergy, obferving that the entertainments 
of dancing, mufic, and mimicry, exhibited at thefe pro- 
traded annual celebrities, made the people lefs religious, 
by promoting idlenefs and a love of feftivity, proferibed 
thefe (ports, and excommunicated the performers. But, 
finding that no regard was paid to their cenlures, they 
changed their plan, and determined to take thefe recrea¬ 
tions into their own hands. They turned adors ; and, 
inftead of profane mimicries, prefented ftories taken from 
legends in the Bible. This was the origin of facred co¬ 
medy. Mufic was admitted into the churches, which 
ferved as theatres for the reprefentation of holy farces. 
The feftivals among the French, called “ La Fete des 
Foux, de l’Ane,” &c. and “ Des Innocens,” at length 
became great favourites, as they certainly were not more 
capricious and abfurd than the interludes of the buffoons 
at the fairs. Thefe are the ideas of a judicious French 
4. writer, 
