Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

God, and ought to be worshipped as such, he referred to the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he said, Christ is called God, and all the angels commanded to worship him.

Mr. Lane thus replied:-My friends, I feel much pleased that my opponent is coming over to my views on this subject. He has made two long extracts from Justin Martyr, to prove that Christ existed with the Father before the world was. This sentiment, my friends, I always believed. That Christ existed before the world was, with the Father, and that the Father created the world by Christ, are doctrines of the Bible. But his being with God, does not prove him to be the very God, with whom he then was.

دو

My opponent has, during this debate, quoted the words of Christ, "I and my Father are one,' as proof incontrovertible, that he was really the supreme and eternal God!! But before we admit this as proof, we will examine it. Let us then inquire, Can it be probable or possible for the eternal God to have a Father? But Jesus says, he and his Father are one. Now, whatever Jesus may be, this text declares, that he had a Father, with whom he subsisted in unity of design and co-operation.

My opponent has told us how much the orthodox and their doctrine, have been opposed in all ages. How severely they have been oppressed. But where they possessed the power, what have they done? Who hung the Quakers in Boston? Who banished the Baptists? Who made the Blue Laws of Connecticut? And who burned the poor Salem witches? But my opponent has told us, that the Christians in the West are few in number; notwithstanding he forgot himself, and told us before he got through, that the Christians had a stone church in a certain place, where he had to preach in the woods.

In the reference of my opponent to Stephen, he has been unsuccessful; for the word God is not in the ori

ginal Greek and it is evident that Stephen could not believe Jesus to be the supreme God, for he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of this God; and, doubtless, he saw as clearly as my opponent, or any other man from Kentucky.

END OF THE THIRD DAY.

NOTICE TO THE READER.

This abridged account of this day's controversy, being the third of the debate, will appear very compressed, and perhaps, be considered incomplete and defective; but we have restrained the report to those particulars which had some bearing on the subject of discussion; being persuaded that mere disputation, about the credit or influence of sects or persons, can have no good or abiding tendency, to promote charity or religion among mankind, which is the great object we ever ought to keep in view. This day's debate was peculiarly unhappy, on account of the animosities, party spirit, and altercations, wanderings, and unnecessary digressions from the proper investigation of the question, which should have occupied much more of the debaters' attention

FOURTH DAY.

Mr. Lane opened the debate in this manner :— -My friends, you easily perceive that the course taken by my opponent, for the past three days of this discussion, has been only abusive and evasive. He has seldom, during the three days, named the question, or adduced proof directly, or indirectly, of the truth of the proposition he has agreed to sustain. He has spoken to us about the German theologians, the Unitarians of England, and the Shakers; but he seems to be afraid to appeal to the Bible, for he knows his doctrine will not stand the test. My opponent would represent me as a believer in a material God, and two-thirds of the Christians as without grace. But why does he continue to repeat unwarrantable assertions, and load us with every disgraceful epithet? You see, my friends, it is because he is destitute of argument. He laboured yesterday to prove that Christ was the Son of God: this is just the doctrine I came here to maintain. But he told us also that Christ was the eternal Son of God; yet the book no where says that he is the eternal Son, for that would be eternal non

sense.

My opponent tells us, he believes in that part of his Confession of Faith, which teaches that the two natures of Christ were so united as never to be divided; that there are three persons, or personal distinctions, in the deity, and yet he is only one being. Now, if I understand the gentleman, he means that they are one in the same sense that Cicero the orator, Cicero the philosopher, and Cicero the statesman, was one. If this be the sense in which he believes them to be one, I ask, if there would be any propriety in saying, Cicero the orator sat down at the right hand of Cicero the philosopher? Or if Cicero the orator was killed, would either Cicero the philosopher, or Cicero the statesman, continue to live?

My opponent has quoted Heb. i. 8, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!!" as a plain declaration that

Jesus Christ is the supreme and eternal God.

But why did he not read the connexion? the reason is, because he dare not. I will read it. The context informs us, that Jesus Christ obtained his name by inheritance; that is, he obtained his name from his Father. But does my opponent believe, that the supreme and eternal God inherits his name from another? If so, will he inform us who were the predecessors of the supreme God?

For the sake of argument, I have admitted the text as it stands in our translation, but I firmly believe the text should read, "God is thy throne for ever and ever."

Mr. M'Calla observed:-My opponent has found another passage which is not translated, to suit him. Yet you will remember he knows nothing about the original! The passage, I know, is very much opposed to his doctrine. But that in our present translation, it is correctly rendered, can be supported by unquestionable authority. But you see, my friends, this blasphemer would take from us our divine Saviour. Here Mr. M. related a story about a certain old woman, who went to hear a certain famous Doctor preach. The sentiments advanced by the preacher, were such as affected her even to tears. He observed her weeping, and addressed her in the language of our Saviour to Mary, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She instantly rejoined, in the language of Mary, "Because thou hast taken away my Lord, and I know not where thou hast lain him." God smote the heart of this blasphemous preacher, and for a moment, he turned his back on his congregation, and wept bitterly.

You

I did not say, as my opponent has asserted, that twothirds of the Christians were destitute of grace. know, my friends, that I never said any such thing. But you must understand my opponent by contraries; when he tells you that I said so, you must understand him to mean, that I did not say so. To say that twothirds of the Christians are destitute of grace, would be to admit that some of them have grace; which I should be very sorry to admit-for how can they have grace when

they deny the Lord, that bought them-when they impugn the inspiration of the sacred scriptures, and call the writers drunkards! They are all Materialists and Atheists, as much as Frances Wright.

Mr. M'Calla then commented on the eighth chapter of Proverbs. He said it was clearly taught in that chapter, that Jesus Christ, who is there designated by the appellation Wisdom, was from eternity. Notwithstanding the blasphemous and ridiculous manner in which my opponent sneers at the idea of one God being brought up with another!

Mr. M'Calla then alleged the first chapter of the Hebrews, as evidence of the two natures; the pre-existent and glorious person of the Son, and the subsequent incarnation of this divine person, who, notwithstanding the objections of his opponent, was truly man. And the whole nature of man he understood to be implied in the phrase, "Son of Man."

Mr. Lane replied thus: My opponent seems to think it would be a very wicked thing to allow that any of us have grace; there is probably a reason for this. He does not believe that there is a fulness in Christ for all; and as the Presbyterians are numerous, he thinks there is no more than will suffice for them.

I

I did not say that the Son of Man was not a man. do not doubt this; but I do say that because Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it does not follow that he is that God whose Son he is. There is not logic enough on this side of the Blue Licks to prove it!

My opponent tells you because I cannot believe that the first chapter of Hebrews contains any proof that the man Christ Jesus is the Supreme and Eternal God, that I am an infidel and a blasphemer. Now, whoever the person was of whom Paul makes mention, it is certain that he had a God, for it it is said to him, "therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. If the passage just quoted refers to the Supreme and Eternal God, let me ask, if

« AnteriorContinuar »