tions, he had no doubt it would be gratifying to the audi ence to hear him (Mr. C.) discuss, more fully, a subject, which he had but very cursorily noticed the previous evening, viz. "that mysterious faith," about which so much was said, adding at the same time, that it was alleged by some there were many mysteries in the gospel, and gave as an instance what he called, "the mystery of the five points," alluding to the points of doctrine concerning which the Calvinistic and Arminian churches are divided in sentiment. Thus was the solemn farce introduced and attempted to be played. Mr. C. himself, does not say that objections were proposed by, but "through brother J. Creath;" whilst he is careful not to inform the public by whom, what he calls "objections, &c." were thus proposed. Whilst he selected his own subject, he evidently, wished that it might appear, as though he had been called upon to discuss a subject proposed by another.

After Mr. C. had thus suggested his own subject, and through his brother J. Creath," had called up himself to discuss it, apparently, in obedience to the call, not however in the manner of one about to enter upon 66 a familiar conversation," but in the usual style of his public harangues, he rose, and entered upon a discussion of the nature of that faith which he alleged the gospel required, and attempted to show, how, or wherein, it differed from that "mysterious faith," to which he had, in the manner before mentioned, proposed objections. After having stated, what indeed he truly alleges I did not deny, that testimony, and faith, or as I would rather in the abstract, say, belief, are correlative terms, he told us that his fundamental position in relation to the faith which the gospel requires, or that belief which is " to the saving of the soul," was, that, in its nature, it is purely historical, consisting in the belief of a few simple facts, and not doctrines, that there neither was, nor could there possibly be, any difference between that belief of the gospel, which is requisite to the salvation of the soul, and that credence which we usually, with readiness, yield to any other well authenti

cated history. Such was his leading position; but whence did he derive his illustrations and proof? From the pure word of God, which every enlightened christian will admit to be the only legitimate source of proof in relation to such a subject? Not at all. Mr. C. in this, his first speech, did not, according to my recollection, direct the attention of his audience to a single passage of scripture, with a view to confirm or establish what he advanced. Whether he was prevented from appealing to the word of God in support of his position, by the recollection that it is therein written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," I shall not undertake to determine. But certain it is, that he resorted to a resource for illustration and proof of his position, which, if it be not as infallible as the oracles of divine truth, is at least of very high authority, in his own estimation, viz. Himself. It cannot be denied that " Egomet," "ipse," "Magna pars fui," and his own experience, are very prominent in all the writings and public exhibitions of Mr. C. Not his religious experience,* for of this he seems to know nothing; nor does it ever engage his attention, except it be as the subject of ridicule and contempt.

Do any ask, what other than religious experience could be adduced in illustration of one of the most important subjects connected with the Christian religion? I reply, that I know of no distinctive appellation whereby Mr. Campbell's experience, to which he alluded, may be recognized; but I will endeavor to describe it, as nearly as I can recollect, in his own language. In confirmation of his doctrine he proceeded to state, that in his youth he had read "three histories," one of Asia, one of Africa,, and one of these United States. That he believed them all; of this he was assured. But his belief of the other two, had not the same effect upon his mind, and did not lead to the formation and execution of purposes, in any degree, like his belief of the history of this country. That his belief in this history, was fully equal to the faith of * See note A in Appendix.

the gospel which is connected with salvati productive of similar results. For he wa duced to leave the country of his nativity, forego all the bright prospects and advar were there presented to his view; in a word all, and risk the dangers of the mighty dee settlement in this country, with a view to th of the privileges and advantages which he was calculated to secure. And what bett faith could the gospel require than this, whic ed such a powerful influence on his mind? proceeded to compare, or contrast this hist cording to his views, the only true faith of with that "mysterious faith" which had bee through his "brother J. Creath," and which represented by the preachers of the gospel various sects, 66 as a saving grace wrought s the heart by supernatural operations." In cordance with the Unitarian belief, in rela subject, he exploded all mysteries from the re Bible, and in substance, repeated a charge w the preceding evening, in his public hara against the ministers of the gospel of differen tions, by declaring that they denied the suffic revelation, which God had given in his word the people to believe, in direct contradiction t that two other, or additional revelations were One of these revelations, and which he inti assumed the power to make, was designed to veil or mystery in which they represented t God to be involved. The other was internal same teachers represented as necessary to re film from the mental eye," and without whic tures could not be understood.

Such were some of the most prominent sen assertions of Mr. C. which led to the discuss took place on that occasion. It was not unti C. had spoken at some length, that I had any making any reply. As he proceeded in his ob

it occurred to my mind, that considering the nature and object of the meeting, if no one appeared to contradict his statements, so far as they were incorrect, and to detect and expose his sophistry, that it would probably appear in the view of many, as though truth had "fallen in the street." Perceiving, moreover, that the Methodist brother, who was expected to have entered into a discussion with Mr. C. was not present, and believing that I, who was providentially, and to myself unexpectedly, present, was, by the sacred office which I endeavor to fulfil, "set for the defence of the gospel," I resolved that in dependence on promised grace, I would rise in vindication of "the truth as it is in Jesus."

Accordingly, after Mr. C. had concluded his observations, it was alleged, in reply, that there was a well founded distinction between mysteries and mysticism. That whilst all enlightened, evangelical Christians, of every denomination, reject the latter as unscriptural and absurd, they do not explode the former, believing as they do, that the scriptures speak so distinctly, not only of things in their nature more or less mysterious, but of mysteries, that none can mistake in this matter, who do not shut their eyes against the clear light of revelation.

That neither do they believe, as do Unitarians, and as does Mr. C., that the word mystery is used, in the NewTestament, in no other sense than that of a thing kept secret and hid from our understanding until it be revealed to us; but that they believe the mysteries spoken of in the word of God to be of two kinds. One kind is such as would never have been known without revelation; but when revealed, may, in a good measure, be explained and understood. Such is the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins "for Christ's sake," the resurrection from the dead, and of eternal life in a future world. Thus Paul, in the conclusion of his epistle to the Romans, speaks of "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations

for the obedience of faith." That the other sort of mysteries are those, which when reavealed to us, we know the existence or reality and certainty of them, but cannot comprehend them, or the manner of their existence. Such is the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, or the union of the divine and human natures in one person. Thus the same apostle, in his first letter to Timothy, declares: "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh," &c. In like manner, the same inspired writer, in his epistle to the Ephesians, justly calls the spiritual union between Christ and his church, which he illustrates by the union between husband and wife, a great mystery." Thus we know that the mystery of godliness, or that of the Word made flesh, and the mystery of the spiritual union between Christ and all his true disciples, so that they are said to be "members of his body and of his flesh and of his bones," not only exist, but that they are, beyond all controversy, great; nevertheless, we cannot comprehend them, or explain how they exist.

66

It was then urged that the term mysterious, as used by Mr. C. and his "brother J. Creath," whether it was designed to be understood in this latter sense, or whether it was intended to be viewed as synonimous with the word mystical, had no just application to faith as held by evangelical christians of different denominations. That it was true they all concurred in the utter rejection of the doctrine, that all the faith which the gospel, or its Author, required, is merely a historical belief of the facts recorded in the New Testament. And for the obvious reason, that they do not believe, according to the best view which they can take of the scriptures, that this mere historical belief constitutes that faith whereby a sinner is justified, and finds "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." It is, indeed, a favorite position with Mr. C. that there is but one kind of faith spoken of in the word of God; and it is true, that as there is but " one Lord," so there is but " one faith" that is genuine in its nature, or saving in its character; but it is also true that the