A catachumen is a candidate for baptism, or a person who prepares himself for receiving it. Towards the end of the first century, Christians were divided into two orders, distinguished by the names of believers and catachumens. The latter as contra. distinguished from the former, were such as had not yet been dedicated to God and Christ by baptism, and were, therefore, admitted neither to the public prayers, nor to the holy communion, nor to the ecclesiastical assemblies. As they were not allowed to assist at the celebration of the eucharist, the deacon dismissed them, after sermon, with this formula, proclaimed three times, "Ite catachumeni missa est." (Rees.) "Missa is derived from mitto to send. Missa has been used for missio. Ite missa est or missio est. You may all return home." (Bailey.)

"Quod norunt fideles, what the faithful know. These words, or, as expressed in Greek, isasin oi pemuemenoi, formes what may be called the watch-word of the secret, and occur constantly in the fathers. Thus St. Chrysostom, for instance,-in whose writings Casaubon remarked the recurrence of this phrase, at least fifty times, in speaking of the tongue (comment. in Psalm 153,) says, 'Reflect that this is the member with which we receive the tremendous sacrifice,-the faithful know what I speak ofs Hardly less frequent is the occurrence of the same phrase in St. Augustin, who seldom ventures to intimate the eucharist in any other way than by the words Quod norunt fideles." (Travels in search of a Religion, Phila. ed. p. 82.)

This precaution needs no apology when referring to religious rites, which if exposed, would subject 'its votaries to punishment.-"It was, says the same writer, "in the third century, when the followers of Christ were most severely tried by the fires of persecution, that the discipline of secrecy, with respect to this (the Eucharist) and the other mysteries, was most strictly observed." "A faithful concealment (says Tertullian) is due to all mysteries from the very nature and constitution of them. How much more must it be due to such mysteries as, if they were once discovered, could not escape immediate punisment from the hands of man."—(Ibid. p. 73.)

The persecuted, when they obtained the majority, became the persecutors, and the Druids of England were under the same necessity of concealing their dogmas and rites, as the Christians formerly had been. But what excuse have the masons of the present day for making a mystery of the same rites when not in danger of persecution? There can be no pretext for retaining a secret, when the cause that gave it birth no longer exists. Besides, the masons do not profess the doctrines of paganism, they merely repeat the ceremonies, parrot-like, without any regard to or knowledge of the original intention.

That the mysteries were invented, established, and supported by lawgivers, may be seen,

From the place of their original; which was Egypt. This Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch, who collect from ancient testimonies, expressly affirm; and in this, all antiquity concurs; the Elusinian mysteries, particularly, retaining the very Egyptian gods, in whose honor they were celebrated; Ceres and Triptolemus being only two other names for Isis and Osiris."

Mr. Le Clerc owns, that Plutarch, Diodorus, and Theodoret have all said this; yet, the better to support his scheme in the interpretation of the history of Ceres, he has thought fit to contradict them. Yet he in another place, could see that Astarte was certainly Isis, as Adonis was Osiris; and this, merely from the identity of their cere

monies.

Hence it is, that the universal nature, or the first cause, the object of all the mysteries, yet disguised under diverse names, speaking of herself in Apuleius, concludes the ennumeration of her various mystic rites, in these words—“The Egyptians skilled in ancient learning, worshipping me by ceremonies perefectly appropriate, call me by my true name, queen Isis."

But the similitude between the rites practised, and the doctrines taught in the Grecian and Egyptian mysteries, would be alone sufficient to point up to their original: such as the secrecy required of the initiated; which, as we shall see hereafter, peculiarly characterized the Egyptian teaching; such as the doctrines taught of a metempsychosis, and a future state of rewards and punishments, which the Greek writers agree to have been first set abroach by the Egyptians;* such as abstinence enjoined from domestic fowl, fish, and beans, (see Porphyrius De Abstin,) the peculiar superstition of the Egyptians; such as the Ritual composed in hieroglyphics, an invention of the Egyptians. But it would be endless to reckon up all the particulars in which the Egyp tian and Grecian mysteries agree: it shall suffice to say, that they were in all things the same.

Again; nothing but the supposition of this common original to all the Grecian mysteries can clear up aud reconcile the disputes which arose amongst the Grecian states and cities concerning the first rise of the mysteries; every one claiming to be original to the rest. Thus Thrace pretended that they came first from thence; Crete contested the honor with those barbarians; and Athens claimed it from both. And at that time, when they had forgotten the true original, it was impossible to settle and adjust their differences: for each could prove that he did not borrow from others; and, at the same time, seeing a 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 every one'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

Timæus the Locrain, in his book of the soul of the world, speaking of the necessity of inculcating the doctrine of future punishments, calls them Timopiai xenai, foreign torments; by which name both Latin and Greek writers generally mean Egyptian, where the subject is religion."

Zoroaster, Inachus, Orpheus, Melampus, Trophonius, Minos, Cinyras, Erectheus, and the Druids.

They were under the superintendence of the State. A magistrate, intitled 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' Eleusinia, 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 inclosed? 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 honor they were celebrated. And these mistakes were natural enough: the poets would be apt, in the licence 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 priests, 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, neither slaves nor foreigners were to be admitted into them. Now if

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.

Schol. Hom. Il. 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."

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 that great philosepher 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 priests sold 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 conveniant than a strict and holy life.-(Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.) Now we

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.)

may be assured, that an institution, which taught the necessity of a strict and holy life, could not but be the invention of lawgivers, to whose schemes virtue was so necessary.

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 sacredotal 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, he 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 mysteries, 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 representa