dostan, and all those barbarous nations, wherever situated, amongst 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 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 Brahmans 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, coæval 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 far-distant 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 thus they 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 afterwards these, by the Dispersion, were spread over the world."*

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 at length 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 an 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

* " 'Pagan Idolatry," vol. iii. p. 106.

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 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. 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 Phoenicians 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 Lenæ, Ino, Autonoë, and Agave, 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."*

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

*FABER'S "Pagan Idolatry," vol. iii. p. 119.

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;* 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;† then it is, to say the least, extremely probable that the origin of the mysteries, in the outset of post-diluvian 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 re-appearing 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 * "Patriarchal Age," pp. 169–174.

"Hebrew People," pp. 169-171, 173.