Warburton, tells us, not only that the Eleusinian mysteries, but the Samothracian and Lemnian, disclosed the error of polytheism. But Leland saith, "All that can be gathered from these two passages, is, not that the error of the vulgar polytheism was taught in the mysteries, but only that the chief of the gods vulgarly adored, had been taken from the human race into heaven. But Cicero, who mentions this, neither gives it as his own opinion, nor represents it as the doctrine of the mysteries, that they were not to be regarded as gods on that account, nor worshipped. On the contrary, in one of these passages, he plainly approves the deification of famous and excellent men:and the worship of such deities, he expressly prescribes in his book of laws:" Lib. ii. c. 8. p. 100. and c. ii. p. 115. Edit. Davis. Leland saith, p. 198. "Nor do I believe any one passage can be produced from all Pagan antiquity, to shew that the design of the mysteries was to undeceive the people as to the vulgar polytheism, and to draw them off from the worship of the national gods." All the ancients who have spoken of the mysteries, have represented them as instituted for the purpose of bringing the people to a greater veneration for the laws and religion of their country. "Some of the heathen, indeed, p. 199. were sensible, that if it was once allowed that their gods had been of human extraction, this might be turned to the disadvantage of the public religion. Hence it was, that the Roman pontiff, Scævola, was for having it concealed from the people, that even Hercules, Esculapius, Castor, and Pollux, had been once mortal men, lest they should not regard and worship them as gods. And Plutarch, De Isid. et Osir. speaking of those who represented some of the gods as having been originally famous men, saith, "This is to overturn and dissolve that reli"gious persuasion, which hath taken possession of the minds of ❝ almost all men from their birth: It is to open a wide door to "the atheistical crowd."-But, saith Leland, page 200. "What"ever Plutarch and some others might think of it, those who "conducted the mysteries seem to have been of another mind. "For if they taught the initiated in the greater mysteries, that "the gods commonly received had been once men, it is rea"sonable to suppose, that they took care the public religion "should not suffer by it, by letting them know, that notwith"standing this, they ought now to be regarded as gods, and to ❝ have that worship rendered to them, which ancient tradition "and the laws required."

Next, with respect to the mysteries being instituted to teach the doctrines of Providence, and of a future state, by that representation of rewards and punishments in the life to come, which was made in the shews of the lesser mysteries, Leland observes, page 193. That the virtues rewarded and vices punished in the shews, being those which more immediately affected society, these representations might be intended by the legislators and civil magistrates, to produce good effects for the benefit of the state. Nevertheless, saith he, "some eminent pagans seem not to have entertained very advantageous thoughts of the mysteries, with regard to their moral tendency;" particularly Socrates, who always declined being initiated. "It is true, he is introduced in Plato's Phædo, as giving a favourable interpretation of the design of the mysteries." For he saith concerning those who instituted them, that they were no mean persons; and that they taught, that whosoever went to hades without being expiated, would lie in the dirt, or filthiness; but that those who went thither purged and initiated, would dwell with the gods. The purification here referred to, seems to have been the ritual purification prescribed in the mysteries; concerning which, see Potter's Antiq. vol. i. p. 355. This purification, Socrates supposed, was intended to signify that the soul must be purified by virtue : But he does not say this was declared in the mysteries. To pass, however, from that circumstance, if Socrates spake of the mysteries at all, considering the veneration in which they were held by the people, and the support which they received from the magistrates, he could not speak of them otherwise than he did. Nevertheless, as Leland observes, "his neglecting to be initiated, is a much stronger proof that he had no good opinion of the mysteries, than any thing which can be produced to the contrary."

Leland proceeds, page 202. to examine the proofs produced by Warburton, to shew, that the doctrine of the unity, or of the one God, the Creator and Governor of the world, was taught in the mysteries, and was the añopinτov, or great secret in all the mysteries throughout the Gentile world. The proofs of this, are, first, two passages of Clemens Alexandrinus, and one of Chrysippus. But all that can be gathered from them, Leland saith, is, that the mysteries treated of the nature of the gods, and of the universe. In these passages, there is not one word to shew that the doctrine of the unity was taught in the mysteries. Nor is the passage produced from Strabo more ex

press. It is true, he saith, The secret celebration of the mysteries preserves the majesty due to the divinity ; and, at the same time, imitates its nature, which hides itself from our senses. But by the divinity, Leland thinks Strabo does not understand one Supreme God, as distinguished from inferior deities; but the divinity to whose honour the mysteries were celebrated. Accordingly, he immediately after mentions Apollo, Ceres, and Bacchus, as the deities sacred among the Greeks'; to each of which, according to the prevailing theology, divinity was ascribed. The third testimony is from Galen, who, speaking of the benefit which would arise, not only to the physician, but to the philosopher who labours to investigate the universal nature, by considering the parts of the human body, says, Those who initiate themselves here, have nothing like it in the Eleusinian, or Samothracian mysteries. Now, though Leland allows that Galen, in this passage, intimates, that the divine nature was treated of in the mysteries, he observes, that he saith nothing from whence we can form a judgment, whether the mysteries were designed to instruct men in the unity; or what kind of doctrine they taught: only that it was not to be compared to that which might be learned from considering the human body.-The fourth testimony is a passage from Eusebius, which, because some terms employed in the mysteries are used in it, is brought by Warburton to prove that the doctrine of the unity was taught in the mysteries. But this Leland thinks strange, as the contrary appears from the passage itself, where Eusebius expressly saith, "For the Hebrew people "alone, was reserved the honour of being initiated into the "knowledge of the true God, the Creator of all things, and of "being instructed in the practice of true piety towards him," page 205.-The fifth testimony is a passage from Josephus, than which, Warburton saith, nothing can be more explicit. But Leland is not of his opinion. In his discourse against Apion, Josephus shewed, "that the Jews enjoyed advantages for ac"quiring the knowledge and practice of religion, superior to "other nations." Wherefore, as the Gentiles boasted greatly of their mysteries in that respect, Josephus, who, in all his works, was careful not to give offence to the Gentiles, saith nothing to the disparagement of their mysteries; but supposing them to be as holy as they would have them to be, he observes, that they only returned at certain seasons, and were solemnized for a few days: Whereas, the Jews, by the benefit of their sacred rites and laws, enjoyed all the advantages pretended to be

in these mysteries, through the whole course of their lives. Leland adds, "It is observable, that Josephus doth not enter on "the consideration of the nature and design of these mysteries, "nor of the doctrines taught in them, though he is very plain " and express in his account of the principles of the Jews, par"ticularly relating to the one true God, the sole cause of all " existence."

But though Leland rejects the testimonies produced from ancient writers, as insufficient to prove that the doctrines of the unity, of providence, and of a future state were taught in the mysteries, he acknowledges that the hymn of Orpheus, which Warburton hath quoted from Clem. Alexandr. is much more to his purpose, if it could be depended upon; because in it the doctrine of the unity is plainly asserted. This hymn, Warburton endeavours to shew, was the very hymn which was sung to the initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries by the hierophant, habited like the Creator. But Leland saith, p. 207. It doth not appear from Clement, that that hymn made a part of the mysteries. "He takes notice indeed of a poem made by Orpheus on the "mysteries, and which he supposes to have contained an ac"count of the mysteries, and of the theology of idols. He also "mentions the hymn in question, which he supposes likewise "to have been composed by Orpheus, and which contained a "quite contrary doctrine. But he doth not mean that this "hymn was a part of that poem, in which Orpheus gave an "account of the mysteries. He rather seems to have considered "it as a distinct poem, composed by Orpheus afterwards, in "which he supposes him to have recanted the doctrines he had "taught in the former." To shew this, Leland appeals to Clement's account of the hymn, which is as follows: "The "Thracian hierophant, and who was at the same time a poet, "Orpheus the son of Eager, after he had opened, or explained "the mysteries and the theology of idols, introduces the truth, "and makes his recantation; singing, though late, a truly holy << song. Here," "saith Leland, "Clement seems plainly to op66 pose these verses to the account which Orpheus had given of "the mysteries, and makes them in effect a recantation of the "whole theology of the mysteries, which he calls the theology "of idols." But it is to be observed that Clement represents him as late in making this recantation, and singing this holy song, Leland adds, "I do not well see upon what ground Clement

could say this, if that very song made a part of the mysteries,

" and was sung by the hierophant himself, at the very time of "the celebration of the mysteries, and before the assembly was "dismissed. For in that case, the verses were sung in the pro" per season in which they ought to have been sung, according ❝to the order of the mysteries." Leland further observes, that Warburton, to shew that the hymn referred to belonged to the mysteries, and made the most venerable part of them, translates the latter part of the passage from Clement thus: The sacreds then truly begin though late, and thus he enters on the matter. But Leland affirms that there is nothing in the original, answering to these words in his translation, The sacreds then truly begin: Farther he saith, page 208. "This hymn of Orpheus is very justly suspected; as would have appeared, if the whole had "been produced. It is only the first part of it, which is cited "by Warburton from Clement's admonition to the Gentiles. "But it is given more largely by the same Clement in his Stro"mata; and at still greater length by Eusebius, who quotes it "from Aristobulus, a Jewish peripatetic philosopher, who pro❝duces it to shew, that Orpheus and the Greeks, took their "doctrine of God the Creator of the Universe, from the books "of Moses."

As a direct confutation of Bishop Warburton's doctrine concerning the mysteries, Leland saith, chap. ix. page 223. If the design of the mysteries had been such as Warburton represents it," it is inconceivable that the ancient Christian writers "should have so universally exclaimed against them, as War"burton acknowledges they did." Many of them had been converted from heathenism to Christianity, and some of them no doubt had been admitted both to the lesser and to the greater mysteries. And therefore being well acquainted with the nature and design of the mysteries, "if they knew that in the "mysteries, men were brought under the most solemn obli"gation to a holy and virtuous life; and that the secret doc"trine taught in the greater mysteries, was intended to detect "the error of polytheism, and to turn men from the worship of "idols, to the one true God, they must have had a good opinion "of these mysteries, as, so far at least, coinciding with the de"sign of Christianity." How then came they, in discourses addressed to the heathens themselves, "frequently to speak of "the mysteries in terms of the utmost abhorrence, as impure "and abominable, and as rather tending to confirm the people " in their idolatry, than to draw them off from it. The making