PREFACE.

PERHAPS we owe to the religious community some apology, for unavoidable and unexpected delay in presenting this Report for their information, relative to the management and result of this public debate, of which they have had various and somewhat discordant accounts through the medium of the newspapers. But as these notices which have been offered to the public, have been prepared and inserted in the public prints by the zealous and interested friends of the parties, they have, perhaps, been too partial to give a fair and just impression of facts as they really occurred, during the four memorable days of the discussion at Milford. The public are, therefore, requested to give the following Report a careful perusal, and we doubt not that they will form a more accurate opinion, than that which they may have been induced to adopt by several of the incorrect and sectarian rumours, that have been artfully put into circulation to forestall public sentiment. At the anxious solicitude of Mr. M'Calla's friends, none will be surprised, when they read the following Report of the Debate. All who felt friendly to his side of the question, doubtlessly perceived the propriety of his premature withdrawal from the scene of action, and the importance of redeeming his fallen honour, by a last effort to anticipate the effects of an impartial Report, on the feelings and opinions of the religious world.

The first notice that appeared in the public papers after the abrupt close of the discussion, claimed the laurel of fame for Mr. M'Calla, both as to manner and matter. The friends of Mr. Lane never indulged the hope, that he should appear in the flowers of rhetoric and classical allusion, an equal to the far-famed champion; but in

matter they now feel and believe, as they previously hoped, that Mr. Lane would not yield to the talents nor arrogance of his assuming opponent.

As Mr. M'Calla's friends continued to circulate in the public papers, these preposterous and disguised reports, endeavouring thereby to prejudice and prepossess the public feeling, it was thought necessary to give some precaution to the readers of the newspapers, through which the misrepresentations had been diffused; and, accordingly, the following LETTER was addressed to the Editor of the "Northampton Whig," in which paper the first of these exulting and bombastic notices made its appear

ance:

Alexandria, Jan. 22, 1831.

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just,
But his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."

Solomon.

Mr. Editor,-In looking over your paper of the 12th ultimo, I find an article purporting to be a history of the recent theological discussion at Milford, between Messrs. McCalla and Lane. That this article contains a libel upon the faith of Mr. Lane, and a respectable body of professed Christians with whom he stands connected, is too obvious to every impartial person who has become acquainted with the sentiments of the people, to require even one testimony in evidence.

It is stated in the article referred to, that Mr. Lane belongs to a sect calling themselves Christians, and who deny the divinity of our Saviour. That Mr. Lane, or the society to which he belongs, denies the divinity of our Saviour, is not true. As a denomination of Christians we believe, and as ministers we have always taught, that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God," the only begotten Son of God;" "the only name given under heaven or among men whereby we can be saved." In short, that he is the divine INSTRUMENT, by whom God the Father made the world, redeems man, and will finally judge the secrets of all hearts. That Jesus Christ is not the author of the creation, redemption, and final judgment; but the mediate cause by whom God

the Father effects these great works, we think is a doctrine which was established by Mr. Lane, to the entire satisfaction of a very great majority of the people, by_proof incontrovertible. That there is but one God the Father, (not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,) according to the plain declaration of the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 8, 6, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we approach this one God, is a doctrine urged by Mr. Lane, founded upon arguments that Mr. M'Calla did not meet, and arguments that we believe no trinitarian can answer.

It is further stated in that article, that " Mr. M'Calla's triumph was complete, both as to matter and manner!" If your informants were present during the four days' discussion, is it possible that their senses so much deceived them? At the close of the fourth day, after numerous ineffectual efforts on the part of Mr. M'Calla to sustain his proposition, he publicly gave up the debate. The Hon. Cornelius Ludlow, (president of the board of mo derators,) then asked the question, “Mr. M'Calla, do you relinquish the debate?" Mr. M'Calla rejoined, "I do for ever!" The president then publicly an. nounced that Mr. M'Calla had relinquished the debate, and according to the rules of discussion, Mr. Lane had a right to proceed until he was satisfied. your informants understand, to be a complete triumph" for Mr. M'Calla! Possibly your informants understood the shout, "the great Mr. M'Calla, the champion of the trinitarians, is completely beaten by a boy!" to be an important note in the song of Mr. M'Calla's triumph.

66

But this

But when the streets of the little village rang with "the Trinity is down," and one of Mr. M'Calla's moderators threatened to prosecute the people for celebrating his defeat, did your informants understand all this to be but the lofty notes of applause amidst which Mr. M'Calla was bearing off the palm of victory!! If a complete triumph" produced such death-like paleness as sat upon his countenance, while he pressed his way from the field of action, with large drops of sweat following hard upon each other down his visage, the ominous index of disappointment, we have reason to doubt

whether he could have possibly survived the impending defeat.

Your informants said truly, that Mr. Clough, of the same denomination of Mr. Lane, challenged Mr. M'Calla to a disputation of the same subject, (which challenge was given on the morning previous to the opening of the late discussion,) and that Mr. M Calla did accept it. But if they had told the whole truth, they would have informed you also, that Mr. M'Calla, at the close of the fourth day, after publicly reading Mr. Clough's challenge and his acceptance, told the audience he could not meet Mr. Clough assigning as a reason, that Mr. Clough had smiled. The whole congregation, almost without exception, had smiled repeatedly during the discussion; but in none was the act considered unpardonable but in Mr. Clough. The fact is, it is generally believed, that Mr. M'Calla dare not meet Mr. Clough upon that subject. As an evidence of this, Mr. M'Calla was there publicly branded a coward by Mr. Clough!! But this, proba. bly, was only another laurel in the judgment of your informants, for their unmatched disputant; and, indeed, I am unable to conjecture what, in their estimation, could have tarnished the glory of his "splendid triumph!”

ONE OF THE MODERATORS.

We whose names follow, being present during the whole discussion between Messrs. M'Calla and Lane, do hereby certify that the above is a fair representation of the debate, and its termination.

JOHN DUCKWORTH.
SIMON CLOUGH.

We cannot commit the following Report to the public, without noticing a communication to the Philadelphian, a religious paper published at Philadelphia, by the connexion to which Mr. M'Calla belongs. The language and spirit of that communication, are such as ought to