Son of God, or Lord, and root of David. In corroboration of the argument in favour of Christ's Supreme Deity, he also referred to the titles of Christ, and assumed the infinity of his power, from his capacity of doing whatever the Father has done.

In Isa. ix. 6, Jesus is called the mighty God, but my opponent will tell you this text is false. I will sustain it by another that undoubtedly refers to Jesus Christ, where he is called the Great God. It occurs in Titus ii. 13-"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." With a small alteration supported by high authority, this passage reads: "The Great God, and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ." Now Jehovah says, by Iasiah, I am God, besides me there is no Saviour; but here the apostle says, the Great God and Saviour is Jesus Christ! Moreover, we find that Jesus is called the Lord of hosts. Compare Isa. vi. 5. and John xii. 41. Indeed, we find him in the Old Testament described as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God of Israel.

Mr. Lane commenced by proposing the following questions:

1. Was the man Christ Jesus born? 2. Did the man Christ Jesus suffer? 3. Did the man Christ Jesus die?

4. Was the man Christ Jesus raised from the dead? Now, according to the proposition under debate, my opponent maintains that the man Christ Jesus is the supreme and eternal God. If this be the fact, the supreme and eternal God was actually born, was dead and buried, and raised from the dead! Who governed the world while the supreme and eternal God was dead, and laid in Joseph's new tomb? and who raised him from the dead? Does not the doctrine of my opponent involve these absurdities? The passage in Exodus iii. 1-18, cannot refer to the supreme and eternal God, for the person there described, is plainly called the angel of the Lord. But the term angel, means a messenger. Now

whose angel is the supreme and eternal God? By what means shall we understand the gentleman? At one time he tells us that God is invisible. At the very next instant, he says, the supreme God was a man seen of Abraham, and the patriarchs. That he was dead, and not dead; that he is both the supreme God, and also a son. This reminds me of the story of Ashdod, recorded in the last chapter of Nehemiah.

Prior to the Babylonish captivity, the Jews spake the unadulterated Hebrew language. But after they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, and carried away into Babylon, they mingled with the nations whither they went, and married wives of Ashdod, Moab, and Amnon. Hence it happened that when they were brought back to Jerusalem, at the expiration of the 70 years captivity, the prophet Nehemiah, under whose direction the city was rebuilt, soon perceived the corruption of language among his brethren, as a fruit of their intermarriage with the nations around them. Hence their children could not talk plain, for they spake half Hebrew and half Ashdod.

This story I have used as an illustration of the departure of the true church from apostolic truth and simplicity. The first Christians uniformly spoke of one God, and of Jesus Christ his Son, and of redemption by Jesus Christ as the apostles had taught. But, my friends, this simplicity of doctrine, and purity of language, did not long remain in the church. Ere many centuries had elapsed, the Christians too, like the Jews, were carried away captive; not by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, but by the influence and seduction of her who holds in her hand a golden cup, full of the wine of her fornications; and has on her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great.

This Christian captivity commenced a little prior to the reign of the emperor Constantine, but was greatly increased soon afterwards, when the demon of sectarianism and infallibility of judgment, took the reins of church government, and exercised entire dominion over all that could be brought under their power. While death by fire, fagot, sword, halter, and gibbet, in ten thousand

instances, marked the footsteps of these fiery defenders of the faith. Thus a self-styled orthodoxy succeeded, until the church became sunk into the lowest depths of moral turpitude; in which she remained, until the reformation commenced under Luther, and his pious co-adjutors. But no sooner had they lifted up the standard of the cross against the papal corruption and fraud of priestcraft, than the cry of heresy was reiterated against them, followed by sword, fire, and death. This is the same spirit that my opponent, and his self-styled orthodox brethren, manifest toward me and my brethren. They do not indeed pursue us with instruments of death, for a very good reason, the excellent constitution of our free country, secures to us the right of thinking for ourselves. But whether they would not resort to ancien expedients, if they possessed the power, is another question.

The pious reformers of the sixteenth century, succeeded in part to redeem the church from that state of moral darkness, and external captivity; but, alas! for us, their children have not learned to talk plain. You see, my friends, my opponent labours under this impediment of speech, he cannot talk plain!! He tells us about three co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal persons in the Godhead; about trinity, triune God, God-man, three-one-God, a two-natured Christ, eternal Son, eternal generation, all of which is in the language of Ashdod. Not one of these expressions can be found in God Almighty's book.

I will conclude at present, by asking two questions, which my opponent can answer when he arises. Is there any other God than he who dwelt in Christ? or is there any other Christ than he in whom God dwelt?

END OF THE SECOND DAY.

1

THIRD DAY.

Mr. M'Calla rose, and thus resumed the argument :My opponent has amused you with the story of Ashdod. Yes, my opponent is the only one that can speak the pure Hebrew; but you recollect my friends, that I condescended to take the received translation of the scriptures, because he knew nothing about the original. Now he comes forward and tells us we all speak the corrupt language of Ashdod, and he only speaks the pure Hebrew! But this is the way of all the Rationalists. They are the only persons under Heaven who understand the pure languages! But see, my friends, what this leads to. The boasting Rationalists-the Christians of Germany, while they profess to hold to the letter of the Scriptures, have departed into base infidelity! But they talk just like my opponent and Miss Wright. "You have a strange God, say they, one brought up with another, just as two boys are brought up, and go to school together." Thus my opponent blasphemously turns the Bible into ridicule! This is the abominable blasphemy of Thomas Paine ! But, blasphemous as this language is, my friends, this is the common language of the Christians. My opponent says the doctrine of the Trinity has been maintained by fire and death; but how different is the fact.

The doctrine of the Trinity has always been opposed by heretics, and Trinitarians have often suffered, even unto death, by the hands of their enemies. The first opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity was commenced by Simon Magus, whom Mr. Kinkade admits to have been a Christian. In which persecution hundreds of them were put to death, and multitudes cast into prison, where their situation resembled that of Jeremiah in Jerusalem. But these Christians, poor innocent creatures, they tell us they have always been opposed by the Orthodox.

Mr. M'Calla continued his vituperation, and said it was necessary, to be a Christian of the Antioch-order, to

believe in the miraculous conception, and in the resurrection of our Saviour; but this is not necessary to become a Unitarian Christian; these things are treated by the Christians as fables or legends. It is not necessary, according to their doctrine, to feel a sorrow for sin, or even to experience a change of heart. If they neither murder, nor steal horses, they are accounted good members of society. Yes, my friends, any but murderers and horse thieves, are good Christians, and freely admitted to their communion.

If there be any thing in the sacred Scriptures which, according to their judgment, is unreasonable, they account for it in this way: "The Historians were men of like passions with other men, they sometimes drank too much, and they probably wrote these things before they got sober!"

The account of Christ and Peter walking on the water, say the German Theologians, is not to be understood literally! They suppose it is probable, that when Peter saw Jesus and knew him, that he plunged himself into the sea, and swam to him. The disciples were frightened, supposing they had seen a spirit; and when Peter swam to Jesus they were so much discomposed in mind, that they thought he actually walked on the water!

When the Historian relates the account of Christ's transfiguration, we are not to understand it literally! It is not probable that Christ's garments, or his visage, was in reality changed, or that there was in reality any voice heard. But, as the Historian says, while they were on the mount, a cloud arose and covered the mount, and a flash of lightning from the cloud produced this astonishing effect on his raiment and visage; and the clap of thunder (as some of the more sober ones conjecture,) was all the voice that was heard. These are the opinions of the German Theologians, and they are brethren of the Christians. A Reverend Doctor goes even farther. He told me the death of Christ was only in appearance. Here we see the course of the Rationalists. The German Theologians have adopted the principles of Hume, and the Christians the principles of Miss Wright.