which are more likely to be neglected or forgotten as qualities of acceptable prayer, than the mediation and intercession of Christ. In the following lecture, we find it put in as a memento, at the close of an extended discussion on the prayer of faith, that "In all this, however, it is to be understood that we ask in Christ's name, and expect a gracious hearing on his account solely, as the great Mediator of the new covenant, through whom all the blessings of that covenant are bestowed." And in the conclusion of that lecture, in showing the great encouragement which the people of God have to pray, he justly remarks, that their hopes will rise "the more they can see of Jesus the great Mediator, at the right hand of God, and the stronger their reliance upon the fulness of his righteousness, and the preciousness of his blood." Here is unequivocal evidence that Professor Richards is not among those who either disbelieve the divine mediatorial character of the Redeemer, or seek to disguise what they do believe-But here is all we have found, after looking and longing for more on this essential point, in a pamphlet of 38 pages on "the Prayer of Faith" -And with the truest affection for our friend and brother, we ask him, is this enough? It is not enough for us. We wanted to see this great truth form one conspicuous feature of the discussion, and breathing its vital influence through every part-to see, standing out in bold relief, the idea that every prayer, and every petition, which is prevalent at the mercy seat on High, must be put into the hand of the great Intercessor there, to be presented by Him whom "the Father heareth always.'

How does it happen that ministers whose general orthodoxy is unquestionable, and of whose piety, even eminent piety, we canCh. Adv.-VOL. X.

not doubt, say so little of Christ? give to his offices and his work so small a space; present him to view so defectively and cursorily as they too often do, in their preaching and publications. That in this respect there is a marked and striking difference, between evangelical ministers of the present day and those, not merely of the reformation, but those who have flourished from that period down to within half a century of the present time-we think is not to be denied. Is it not attributable to a thirst which has of late years been created for philosophical speculations and investigations? So we think-This at least is the best account we can give of the unquestionable melancholy fact-melancholy indeed; for it bodes serious evil to the church of Christ. Philosophy never did, and never will, have much to do, either in converting sinners edifying saints. God has never blessed it, and never will, as an instrument of great value in promoting his cause-In defending it, philosophy may sometimes have its use.

or

But God will bless his own holy word chiefly. Let philosophy be the handmaid of that word, but never usurp the place of her mistress. If she does, (and she seems to be doing it) we may have fanaticks on one hand, and metaphysicians on the other, and true religion will lose by both. Let us return to the holy oracles of divine revelation, and draw our arguments, and quote our autho rities, from that source. Let us have more scripture and less philosophy and rhetorick, in our sermons and religious essays. Let us learn of holy Peter, John, and Paul, what is the place that the Lord Jesus Christ ought to hold in our discourses. We must do this, or see scepticism, gross doctrinal error, and a thousand fantasies of men of weak or corrupt minds, overspreading our country.

3 S

Assuredly we do not intend all this as applicable to the lectures before us. One defect, and it is almost the only one we have noticed in these lectures, has led us off into this discussion. But to notice that defect with distinctness, was with us a matter of conscience, and we mistake much if we offend the author by what we have said-But in any event to yεy papaμεν, γεγράφαμεν.

The chief object of these lectures is principally found in the second, of which we hope to give an abtract in the coming month. (To be continued.)

DEBATE ON CAMPBELLISM; Held at Nashville, Tennessee, in which the Principles of Alexander Campbell are confuted, and his Conduct examined. By Obadiah Jennings, D. D. To which is prefixed, a Memoir of the Author. By Rev. M. Brown, D. D. Pittsburgh: Printed by D. and M. Maclean. 1832. Duod. pp. 252.

It is a mortifying fact that it is often necessary to reason soberly and soundly, against such monstrous absurdity as would seem to deserve not to be reasoned with at all. Nor is there any subject in regard to which this fact is so often witnessed, as religion-the most important of all subjects. In truth, if men were to talk as absurdly on the concerns of common life, or on any topick of science, or the social interests of mankind, as they often do on religion, it would not be necessary to reason seriously with them. They would be so generally pitied, or despised, or laughed at, as to be likely to do lite tle or no mischief, and might safely be left to the correction which their own folly and nonsense would bring upon them, as a natural and unavoidable conseconsequence. But it is far otherwise in matters of religion. In regard to this, the corruption and deceitfulness of the human heart produce

so strong a bias against God's revealed truth, that to evade its influence, and escape from its requisitions, and quiet their minds under its fearful denunciations, men will embrace the most monstrous and inconsistent notions, and risk their eternal salvation on the issue. Hence, in every age of the church, such heresies have arisen, and such fanatacism has been witnessed, and both have become so popular and prevalent, that every sober mind is filled with astonishment in the review and contemplation of the facts: and hence it has often been rendered the painful duty of men of the first eminence for piety and talents, to employ their powers and efforts in counteracting errors and delusions of the day-of which, when we read, we are ready to wonder that the common sense and natural reason of mankind did not reject them without aid from argument, or even the necessity of warning.

We have been led to these reflections and remarks by the contents of the book before us; and by authentick information derived from other sources, relative to Mr. Alexander Campbell, and his controversy at Nashville, with the Rev. Dr. Jennings. Campbellism is so openly and palpably at war with the Bible, and in many respects with the plainest dictates of reason and common sense, that it seems marvellous in the extreme, that reasonable beings, with the Bible in their hands, and in a language which they can read for themselves, should be deluded by what contradicts it so plainly. Yet the melancholy truth is, that this heretical mountebank is popular and influential to a wide extent, in the southwestern part of our courtry, especially among the Baptists; and his soul-ruining system is professedly believed in and adopted, by a misguided multitude. It appears that Dr. Jennings was first led to an encounter with him, without expecting such an occurrence

to insinuate, that I abruptly broke in upon the established order of the meeting, by rising and speaking nearly an hour, &c. Whatever was the intended mode of proceeding at that meeting, 1 certainly did not understand it as designed for a familiar conversation; and that Mr. C. himself did not so understand it, or, ar least, that he did not thus conduct it, will be evident from what follows, and which, it is not supposed that any, even of his warmest friends or admirers, will venture to contradict.

When Mr. C. had thus prepared the way to hear objections, and taken his seat, a short interval of silence ensued, during which I observed Mr. C. to whisper something in the ear of his brother, (and coadjutor,) J. Creath, who had accompanied him from Kentucky, who immediately rose, and made a suggestion, as coming from himself, although it must have been evident to all that part of the audience who had noticed what had previously taken place, that the suggestion was Mr. Campbell's, which was,-that as no one appear. ed to offer any objections, he had no doubt it would be gratifying to the audience 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 "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 authenticated history. Such was his leading position; but whence did he derive his illustrations and proof? From the pure word of God, which every enlightened citizen 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 thein," 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 endeavour 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 the gospel which is con

* See Note A. in Appendix.

nected with salvation, and was productive of similar results. For he was thereby induced to leave the country of his nativity, (Ireland,) to forego all the bright prospects and advantages which were there presented to his view; in a word, to forsake all, and risk the dangers of the mighty deep, to seek a settlement in this country, with a view to the enjoyment of the privileges and advantages which he believed it was calculated to secure. And what better or higher faith could the gospel require than this, which had exerted such a powerful influence on his mind? Mr. C. next proceeded to compare, or contrast this history, and according to his views, the only true faith of the gospel, with that "mysterious faith" which had been objected to through his "brother J. Creath," and which he said was represented by the preachers of the gospel among the various sects, "as a saving grace, wrought some way in the heart by supernatural operations." In perfect accordance with the Unitarian belief, in relation to this subject, he exploded all mysteries from the religion of the Bible, and in substance, repeated a charge which he had the preceding evening, in his public harangue, made against the ministers. of the gospel of different denominations, by declaring that they denied the sufficiency of the revelation, which God had given in his word, and taught the people to believe, in direct contradiction to that word, that two other, or additional revela tions were necessary. One of these revelations, and which he intimated they assumed the power to make, was designed to remove the veil or mystery in which they represented the word of God to be involved. The other was internal, and by the same teachers represented as necessary to remove "the film from the mental eye," and without which the scriptures could not be understood.

Such were some of the most prominent sentiments and assertions of Mr. C., which led to the discussion which took place on that occasion. It was not until after Mr. C. had spoken at some length, that I had any thought of making any reply. As he proceeded in his observations, it occurred to my mind, that considering the nature and object of the meeting, if no one ap. peared 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 endeavour to fulfil, "set for the defence of the gospel," I resolved that in depend

ence 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.

In this manner Dr. Jennings was committed, as the phrase is, for the debate, of which the book before us gives an account-and which was not terminated at the time of the first conflict; but was renewed, after a short interval, spent by Mr. C. in a visit to a contiguous part of the considerable time after his return. country, and was continued for a Of this controversy Mr. C. published an account, which, as Dr. J. shows, abounds in misrepresentations and falsehoods; and which furnished another reason for mak ing publick the account of the debate contained in the pages under review.

We cannot pretend to trace the narrative of this debate in detail. We wish we had space to insert Dr. Jennings' exposure of Mr. C.'s theory of regeneration; which, it seems, is effected by plunging his disciples in water, from which they come forth-we are shocked while we write it" born of water and of the spirit." To give our readers, however, some general view of this controversy, in which Dr. J. demolishes Mr. C.'s heretical fabrick, and along with it, his character as an honest man-demolishes them with a power of argument, and a clearness of statement, which were worthy of a better occasion, and a more deserving opponentwe shall insert the entire table of contents: and as reference is made in the table to a version, or rather a perversion of the New Testa