M Y S r . 
Mystery, in fcripture-language, is ufed with fome 
latitude. Sometimes it denotes any thing not to be 
known without divine revelation. It is alio ufed to de¬ 
note the fecret things which God has difcovered by his 
minifters, the prophets, Jefus Chrift, and the apoitles. 
Dr. Campbell, in his “ Preliminary Difl'ertations,” ob- 
ferves, that, after the moft careful examination of all the 
paffages in the New Teftament in which the Greek word 
fjt,vri)%iov occurs, and after confulting the ufe made of the 
term by the ancient Greek interpreters of the Old, and 
borrowing aid from the practice of the Hellenift Jews in 
the writings called Apocrypha, he can find only two lenfes, 
nearly related to each other, which can llriclly be called 
fcriptural. The firlt and leading fenfe of the word is ar¬ 
canum, a fecret, any thing not diiclofed, not publifhed to 
the world, though perhaps communicated to a felefl num¬ 
ber. This is totally different from the current fenfe of 
the Englifh word myftery, or fomething incomprehenfihle. 
In the former acceptation, a thing was no longer a my fiery 
than wliilft it remained unrevealed ; in the latter, a thing 
is equally a myftery after the revelation as before. To 
the former we apply, properly, the epithet “ unknown 
to the latter, we may, in a great meafure, apply the term 
“ unknowable.” Thus, that God would call the Gen¬ 
tiles, and receive them into his church, was as intelligi¬ 
ble, or comprehenfible, as that he had once called the 
defcendants of the patriarchs, or as any plain propofition, 
or hillorical fa£l. Yet, whilfl undifcovered, or, at lealt, 
veiled under figures and types, it remained, in the fcrip¬ 
tural idiom, a myltery, having been hidden from ages 
and generations. But, after it had pleafed God to reveal 
this his gracious purpofe to the apoftles, by his fpirit, it 
was a myltery no longer. The terms communication, re¬ 
velation, manifeflation, connefted with that of myftery, 
and bearing relation to it, plainly fliow the import of the 
term to which they are applied. This is a point that 
feems to be univerfally acknowledged by the learned, and 
therefore, it is merely neceflary to refer the judicious 
reader, for further proof of it from the New Teftament, 
to the following pail'ages, viz. Rom. xvi. 25, 26. 1 Cor. ii. 
7, 8, 9, 10. Ephef. i. 9. iii. 3, 5, 6, 9. vi. 19. Col. i. 26, 27. 
in all which it will be plainly perceived, that the apoftle 
treats of fomething which had been concealed forages, 
but was then openly revealed ; and not of any thing in 
its own nature dark and inconceivable. According to 
the ufage of the LXX, w’e fhall find that, in the prophecy 
of Daniel, (ii. 18, 19, 27, 30, 4.7. iv. 9.) the word of y.vz- 
occurs not fewer than nine times, anfwering always 
to the Chaldaic Nl“l, raza, “ a thing concealed,” and 
ufed in relation to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which was 
become a “ fecret” even to the dreamer himfelf, as he 
had forgotten it. In the common verfion it is uniformly 
rendered fecret, and it is found connected with the verbs 
yvu^a, 1and aTroxaXvTrlv, in a manner fimilar to 
the ufage of the New Teftament already noticed. In the 
apocryphal writings, the word yof/ipov frequently occurs 
in the fame fenfe, and is ufed in reference to human le- 
crets, as well as to divine. Indeed, in the New Tefta¬ 
ment the word is not confined to divine fecrets. Thus, 
the apoftle, fpeaking of the antichriftian fpirit, fays, 
(2 Theft', ii. 7.) The myftery of iniquity doth already work ; 
“ The fpirit of antichriil hath begun to operate ; but the 
operation is latent and unperceived.” Both the gofpel 
of Chrift and the fpirit of antichrift are equally, denomi¬ 
nated myftery, or fecret, whilfl they remained concealed. 
In the New Teftament the word fometimes bears an¬ 
other meaning. It is fometimes employed to denote the 
figurative fenfe, as diftinguiflied from the literal, which is 
conveyed under any fable, parable, allegory, fymbolical 
aftion, reprefentation, dream, or viiion. In this cafe the 
term is ufed comparatively; the meaning being obfcure 
compared with the literal fenfe. To this import of the 
term our Lord probably refers (Mark, iv. 11.) when he fays 
to his difciples, “To you it is given to know the myftery 
of the kingdom of God ; but to them that are without, 
all thefe things are done in parables.” The apoftles were 
v Vol. XVI. No. 1127. 
VERY. 469 
let into the fecret, and got the fpiritual fenfe of the firrri- 
litude, whilfl the multitude amul'ed themfelves with the 
letter, and learched no further. In this fenfe is 
ufed Rev. i. 20. xvii. 7. and Ephef. v. 32. 
Dr. Campbell obl'erves, that the earlieft perverfion of 
this word yvrvgiov from its genuine and original fenfe, a 
“ fecretf’ or fomething concealed, was the application 
of it to denote fome folemn and facred ceremony. What 
led to this ufe of the term was a refemblance in one par¬ 
ticular between fome rites of Chriftian worfhip and thole 
performed by Heathens in honour of their deities, and de¬ 
nominated, from their fecrecy, myfleries. Although thofe 
ceremonies to which we refer, and which were pradlifed in 
the Chriftian church, were efl'entially different from all 
Pagan rites, yet they fo much refembled the latter, in the 
exclufion of the multitude, as to give the Heathens occa- 
fion to ftyle them the Chriftian myfleries. The term would 
probably be firft applied, in this fenfe of it, to what was 
called in the primitive church “ the Eucharift,” or as it 
is now denominated “ the Lord’s lupper,” and afterwards 
extended to “ baptifm,” and other lacred ceremonies. The 
name feems to have originated with the Heathens, and in 
procofs of time was adopted by Chriftians themfelves. 
Onepaflage has been mentioned in which the word yofv^ioi/ 
feems to have been ufed in the modern fenfe of the Eng¬ 
lifh w'ord myftery, and to denote fomething which, though 
revealed, is inexplicable, and, to human faculties, unin¬ 
telligible. The words are, Without controverfy, great is 
the myftery of godlinefs, See. 1 Tim. iii. 16. which, as they 
occur in our verfion, differ from the reading of the two 
moft ancient verfions, the Syriac and the Vulgate, and 
fome of the oldeft MSS. The purport of this fentence is 
conformable to the fenfe above given of the term yi/ry^ov ; 
and it is plainly this ; “ Great unqueftionably is the di¬ 
vine fecret, of which our religion brings the difcovery,”&c. 
A popular preacher of the lall century, after obferving 
that a myftery, in the feripture fenfe of it, is a thing that 
natural reafon could not dilcover, and, confequently, 
which mull have been unknown if God had not revealed 
it, neverthelefs acknowledges, that of this kind there are 
feveral doflrines in the Chriftian religion: before the re¬ 
velation was given, they were myfteries ; but ceafe to be 
myfleries now they are revealed. To this purpofe he cites 
Mark, iv. 11. Rev. xvi. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 51. Hence this 
writer infers, that myfteries, i. e. things wdiich reafon 
cannot difeover, and which are not revealed, are, accord¬ 
ing to the language of Scripture (Dent. xxix. 29.) the fe¬ 
cret things that belong to God, and what we have nothin^ 
at all to do with ; or, in other words, though certain things 
are parts of our religion that were myllerious, it is not our 
duty to believe or pra&ife any thing that is ftill a myfterv.. 
To believe dodlrines that are ftill myllerious is to believe 
without ideas, to believe what we know nothing of; but 
this, in the nature of the thing, is impoftble. We may in¬ 
deed, he allows, believe that there is fame general truth 
contained in propofitions which we do not underftand ; and 
fo far our faith may be rational, becaufe we know what we 
believe; but of the propofitions themfelves, we can be¬ 
lieve nothing ■particularly, becaufe we underlland nothin^ ; 
nor can greater dilhonour be done to the infinite wifdotn 
of God than by luppofing that he has made it a part of 
our religious obligation only to believe in general, that 
there is fome truth difguifed under unintelligible terms, 
to which we have no ideas. For this is making no revela¬ 
tion at all, but leaving things in abfolute darknefs. And, 
if we examine the dodlrines of the Chriftian religion, we 
fhall find in fa£t, fays this writer, that they are plain and 
eafy truths ; and that, as we cannot in reafon, we are not 
obliged by revelation, to carry our faith one jot beyond 
our underftanding. If it fhould be laid, that we cannot 
account for the manner of God’s creating the world, or 
for the manner in which he exills every-where, of the ge¬ 
neral refurreftion, and the like, this author replies, that 
it is no part of our religion to account for it. “ Where 
the myftery begins, religion ends.” Does the moft warm 
and forward enthufiaft pretend to believe more than that 
6 D thofe 
