similitude in the rites, would conclude that they had borrowed from him. But the owning Egypt for their common parent, clears up all difficulties; by accounting for that general likeness which gave birth to everyone's pretensions.

Now, in Egypt, all religious worship being planned and established by statesmen, and directed to the ends of policy, we must conclude, that the mysteries were originally invented by legislators.

The sages who brought them out of Egypt, and propagated them in Asia, in Greece, and Britain, were all kings or lawgivers; such as Zoroaster, Inachus, Orpheus,* Melampus, Trophonius, Minas, Cinyras, Erectheus, and the Druids.

They were under the superintendence of the State. A magistrate, entitled Basileus, or king, presided in the Eleusinian mysteries. Lysias informs us that this king was to offer up the public prayers according to their country rites, and to see that nothing impious or immoral crept into the celebration. (In Andoc.) This title, given to the president of the mysteries, was, doubtless, in memory of the first founder.

Though it be now apparent that the mysteries were the invention of the civil magistrate, yet even some ancients who have mentioned the mysteries, seemed not to be apprised of it, and their ignorance hath occasioned great embroilment in all they say on this subject. The reader may see by the second chapter of Meursius' Eleucinia how much the ancients were at a loss for the true founder of those mysteries: some giving the institution to Ceres; some to Triptolemus; others to Eumolpus; others to Museus; and some again to Erectheus. How then shall we disengage ourselves from this labyrinth, into which Meursius has led us, and in which his guard of ancients keep us enclosed? This clue will easily conduct us through it. It appears, from what hath been said, that Erectheus, King of Athens, established the mysteries,† but that the people unluckily confounded the institutor with the priests. Eumolpus and Musæus, who first officiated in the rites; and with Ceres and Triptolemus, the deities, in whose honour they were celebrated. And these mistakes were natural enough: the poets would be apt, in the license of their figurative style, to call the gods, in whose name the mysteries were performed, the founders of those mysteries; and the people, seeing only the ministry of the officiating priest, in good earnest believed those mystagogues to be the founders. And yet, if it were reasonable to expect from poets or people attention to their own fancies and opinions, one would think they might have distinguished better, by the help of that mark, which Erectheus left behind him, to ascertain his title-namely, the erection of the officer called Basileus, or king.

But this original is still further seen from the qualities required in the aspirants to the mysteries. According to their original institution,

* Of whom Aristophanes says, "Orpheus taught us the mysteries, and to abstain from murder," that is, from a life of rapine and violence, such as men lived in the state of nature.

And so says Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. Bibl.

neither slaves nor foreigners were to be admitted into them.* Now, if the mysteries were instituted primarily for the sake of teaching religious truths, there can be no reason given why every man, with the proper moral qualities, should not be admitted; but, supposing them instituted by the State for political purposes, a very good one may be assigned, for slaves and foreigners have there neither property nor country. When, afterwards, the Greeks, by frequent confederations against the Persian, the common enemy of their liberties, began to consider themselves as one people and community, the mysteries were extended to all who spoke the Greek language. Yet the ancients, not reflecting on the original and end of their institution, were much perplexed for the reasons of an exclusion so apparently capricious. Lucian tells us, in the life of his friend Demonax, that the great philosopher had the courage, one day, to ask the Athenians why they excluded barbarians from their mysteries, when Eumolpus, a barbarous Thracian, had established them; but he does not tell us their answer. One of the most judicious of the modern critics (Is. Casaubon) was as much at a loss; and therefore thinks the restraint ridiculous, as implying that the institutors thought the speaking the Greek tongue contributed to the advancement of piety.

Another proof of this original may be deduced from what was taught promiscuously to all the initiated-which was, the necessity of a virtuous and holy life to obtain a happy immortality. Now this, we know, could not come from the sacerdotal warehouse; the priests could afford their elysium, at the easy expense of oblations and sacrifices; for, as our great philosopher (who, however, was not aware of this extraordinary institution for the support of virtue, and therefore concludes too generally) well observes, "the priests made it not their business to teach the people virtue; if they were diligent in their observances and ceremonies, punctual in their feasts and solemnities, and the tricks of religion, the holy tribe assured them that the gods were pleased, and they looked no further few went to the schools of philosophers to be instructed in their duty, and to know what was good and evil in their actions: the priestssold the better pennyworths, and therefore had all the custom: for lustrations and sacrifices were much easier than a clean conscience and a steady course of virtue; and an expiatory sacrifice, that atoned for the want of it, much more convenient than a strict and holy life." (Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.) Now, we may be assured that an institution which taught the necessity of a strict and holy life could not but be the invention of law-givers, to whose schemes virtue was so necessary.

Schol. Hom. II. . It was the same in the Cabiric mysteries, as we learn from Diodorus Siculus, lib. v. who speaks of the like innovation made there. As to slaves, hear Aristophanes, in his Thesmophoriaz :-" Begone, ye vulgar crew, it is not fitting that slaves should hear these words."

† But the fact, their not being a Grecian, but a foreign, that is, barbarous, invention, is proved by their very name, mysteria, from the Eastern dialect, mistor, or mistur, res aut locus absconditus-(a thing or place hid).

It is now submitted to the reader whether it be not fairly proved that the mysteries were invented by the legislator to affirm and establish the general doctrine of a providence, by inculcating the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments. Indeed, if we may believe a certain ancient, who appears to have been well versed in these matters, they gained their end, by clearing up all doubts concerning the righteous government of the gods. (Sopater in Divis. Quest.)

It seems of very little importance to determine whether the mysteries were the invention of civil legislators, or of the sacerdotal order. And, in fact, in Egypt, where they were first established, the priesthood and the legislators formed but one body. This was also the case in Britain, where the Druids performed the offices of priests, and were at the same time the makers of the laws.

Tytler, in his Elements of general History, in the chapter on Egypt, says, "The functions of the sovereign were partly civil, and partly religious. The king had the chief regulation of all that regarded the gods, and the priests, considered as his deputies, filled all the offices of state. They were both the legislators and the civil Judges, they imposed and levied the taxes, and regulated weights and measures."

The title of Basileus (king) given to one of the officers in the celebrations of the mysteries, who is decorated with a crown, has doubtless caused the supposition that this character was the representative of civil temporal power. Whereas the crown was originally the ensign of divinity. In the remotest antiquity the crown was only given to gods." Leo, the Egyptian, says, it was Isis who first wore a crown, and that it consisted of ears of corn [grain] the use whereof she first taught men.

"In this most authors agree, that the crown originally was rather a religious than a civil ornament; rather one of the pontificalia than the regalia; that it only became common to kings, as the ancient kings were priests as well as princes, and that the modern princes are entitled to it in their ecclesiastical capacity rather than their temporal."—(Rees's Cycl.) The author cites no authority for his assertion that, "A magistrate, entitled Basileus, or king, presided in the Eleusinian mysteries.' But, The says, "Lysias informs us that this king was to offer up the public prayers, according to their country rites, and to see that nothing impious or immoral crept into the celebration."

Lysias, it appears, was noticed by Cicero as an orator of some repute, but he is little known as an author, and he seems, in this case, to have indulged his fancy in one of his popular orations, without possessing an absolute knowledge of the truth of his declaration, for there is no evidence of his having been initiated into the mysteries. He was, no doubt, deceived by the title given to one of the officers in these celebrations, which was very likely to be generally known.

Besides, the bishop has shown above that, "By a law of Solon, the Senate was always to meet the day after the celebration of these mys teries, to see that nothing had been done amiss during the performance." Now, if there were a magistrate appointed by the king, bearing his title,

and presiding in these celebrations as his representative, what need would there be for the meeting of the senate for the purpose here stated. Jamblichus, who, by-the-by, was a Pagan priest, and appears to be thoroughly versed in the metaphysical science of the gods, has clearly intimated who this Basileus of the mysteries was. In speaking of the one Supreme, he says, "prior to truly existing beings and total principles, there is one god, prior to the first god and king, immoveable, and abiding in the solitude of his own unity. Who is father of himself, is self-begotten, is father alone, and is truly good."-(See Taylor's Trans. p. 301.)

The original of that part of the passage particularly alluded to is proton kai ton proton Theon kai Basileus, which Gale properly translates, prior etiam primo Deo, et rege [sole.] That is, prior to the first god and king, the sun. For it is well known that the sun was the first object of adoration among all the ancient nations, and he was styled the king or governor of the world.

The Supreme God, alluded to by Jamblichus, was called in Egypt, Kneph, of whom Plutarch says, "The unbegotten Kneph was celebrated with an extraordinary degree of veneration by the Egyptian Thebans.”

As a further proof of the erroneous opinion formed by our author on this subject, an appeal may be made to the practice of royal arch masonry, which I deem conclusive in this and similar cases. Here the hierophant or high priest is the presiding officer, and the king holds the second rank, and presides only in the absence of the former. And the idea that this officer was ever the representative of an earthly monarch was never entertained by masons. No civil power has ever exercised any authority in the lodge, and although some of the royal family of England, and also of other countries have become members of the fraternity, they enter it like other men, on the ground of perfect equality. In short, the officer styled king, personates Osiris, the sun, one of the divinities celebrated in the mysteries, the second person in the pagan trinity.

It is worthy of remark, and perhaps here is the most proper place to make it, that masonry conforms to the practice of the Egyptians, in prohibiting to slaves a participation of its mystic rites. It excludes also all those who possess any bodily defect. That a benevolent society, as the masonic institution is, should make a misfortune of this kind the cause of debaring admission to its social and friendly communion, admits of no justification; no mason can give a plausible reason for it.

It is an outrage against humanity. Any one who, in fighting the battles of liberty and his country, should have lost a leg or an arm in the conflict, would in vain apply for admission into this society. Every mason has sworn not to be present at the initiation of a person thus situated. He is bound down with the adamantine chains of precedent which has often perverted the plainest principles of justice and common sense. I do not believe there is a single mason who would not wish to get rid of this rule, but the fraternity entertain a religious horror against defacing the "old land marks."―The oaths, therefore, engendered in days of darkness and superstition, must remain the same to the end of time.

138

A DISSERTATION ON THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES.

This circumstance alone is a strong proof of the origin of the order. The practice arises from a stupid adherence to the religious customs and observances of the ancient Egyptians. The mysteries, it has been seen, were deemed a sacred institution, and the most rigid investigation of character, and the severest trials were imposed upon the aspirants to its benefits. No person," says De Pauw (in his Phil. Diss. on the Egypt. and Chinese), "who was born with any remarkable bodily imperfection, could be consecrated in Egypt, and the very animals, when deformed, where never used either for sacrifice or in symbolical worship.”

The Levites among the Jews were subjected to the same rigid disci pline; no one that had the least bodily blemish could be admitted into the sacerdotal order.

"As to the admittance of the Levites into the ministry, birth alone did not give it to them; they were likewise obliged to receive a sort of consecration. Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, says God to Moses, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Then let them take a young bullock, etc. (Numbers.viii.v. 6.) Nor was any Levite permitted to exercise his functions till after he had served a sort of novitiate for five years, in which he carefully learned all that related to his ministry.

"From considering their order, we proceed to consider the manner in which the priests were chosen, and the defects which excluded them from the priesthood. Among the defects of body, which rendered them unworthy of the sacerdotal functions, the Jews reckon up fifty which are common to men and other animals, and ninety which are peculiar to men alone. The priest whose birth was polluted with any profaneness, was clothed in black, and sent without the verge of the priests' court, but he who was chosen by the judges appointed for that purpose, was clothed in white, and joined himself to the other priests. And I know not whether St. John does not allude to this custom when he says, "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot his name out of the book of life." (Rev. iii. v. 5.) They whose birth was pure, but who had some defect of body, lived in those appartments of the temple wherein the stores of wood were kept, and were obliged to split, and prepare it for keeping up the fire of the altar." (Rev. Adam Clarke's Hist. Anc. Israelites. Burlington Edit.-p. 273, 279.) There is a remarkable similarity in the institutions of the Egyptians, Jews and Freemasons. The probation of four years was required after initiation into the lesser mysteries, before the candidate could be admitted to a participation of the greater. An entered apprentice in the lodge of Freemasons had formerly to serve seven years in that grade before he could be advanced. This extra time, however, arose from the necessity of adapting the rules of the order to the craft of masonry; it being the usual period required for apprentices in that and other mechanical trades. The members of the masonic fraternity also "formerly wore white during lodge-hours, but at present the white apron alone remains."—(Smith.)