In the above paper there occur the following unwarrantable statements: 1. Mr. Lane penned the challenge to Mr. M'Calla; 2. Mr. M'Calla drove Mr. Lane to acknowledge that God is a material being; 3. Mr. Lane was sometimes a Socinian, and sometimes a Materialist ; 4. The judges ordered Mr. Clough to come down!

To all concerned, we are authorized to state, that the challenge was penned by a Methodist preacher, and not by Mr. Lane; that the opinions of Elder Lane are not Socinian, nor accordant with the doctrine of Materialism ; and consequently an Eye Witness is guilty of gross misrepresentation, clothed in the language of Pharisaic pride, and mock humility, which constitute the utter disgrace of religious pretensions.

We do not essentially dissent from the affirmative, that at the end of the first day, Mr. Lane "proclaimed a prospective victory." In one of the speeches delivered on that day, he furnished all the argument and evidence necessary to establish the negative of the proposition which he undertook to maintain; and as Mr. M'Calla continually avoided a pertinent discussion of the subject, Mr. Lane was necessarily compelled to much repetition, in order to excite his opponent to come to the question which, from all appearance, Mr. M'Calla felt his inability to discuss in a proper manner.

The reader must not expect to find in the following narrative, every minute argument alleged by the dispu tants, in support of their favourite opinions, concerning the person of our Lord; nor ought they to expect, that this historical sketch should contain the very words and phrases employed by the speakers, in their discussions; for these, we are persuaded, would not have been always preserved by themselves, had they prepared their discourses for the press. But as the Report is compiled from extensive notes, taken by different persons during the debate, we presume it will not fall short of the end contemplated; which is to give the public a fair and impartial account of this interesting controversy. If on the part of him who maintained the affirmative, there should appear a substitution of abusive and uncharitable language, instead of fair and pertinent reasoning, the reader

is requested not hastily to ascribe it to the prejudice or partiality of the writer, for he is not conscious of having had respect to persons or arguments, either as moderator or reporter. His sole object has been to present to all concerned, an impartial account, exhibiting the whole strength of the arguments adduced by both parties, in such manner as, he flatters himself, would be approved, for fidelity and accuracy, by those who were present at the public discussion. If, therefore, the reader should find that on some occasions the discourses of the controvertists contain little that can be considered as pertinent, argumentative, or conclusive; the deficiency must be ascribed to its proper cause, as it cannot be considered the duty of the historian to create, or polish the facts of which he treats; but rather to present them as they really subsist, to the mind of the reader. This is our apology where, in the following pages, little is said concerning the discourses, or arguments of one of the speakers. Nor does the writer conceive, that a faithful discharge of his duty required him to omit all that he believed to be deficient in force of argument, or inapplicable to the occasion. If, therefore, some of the speeches seem to have contained but little that is appropriate to the subject, or to manifest an acrimony of feeling or expression unbecoming the Christian character and temper, their admittance into the pages of this report must be ascribed to the writer's desire to preserve the prominent features of the discussion.

The object of this narrative is not to fatigue the reader with a relation of heterogeneous matter and irrelevant disputations that have no bearing on the subject, but to preserve such a selection as may produce in the minds of readers, the same effect which the several speeches made on the hearers, at the time they were delivered. To accomplish this end, is the design of the writer, and in accordance with the desire of the public's sincere and obedient servant,

ISAAC C. GOFF.

THEOLOGICAL DEBATE.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Philadelphia, Oct. 29, 1830.

MR. LANE,—I have, this day, received intelligence of the meeting at Milford, and of your public and general challenge there, in the following words, viz. "I challenge any man of the great leading sects, in our country, to debate publicly with me, the following points :My opponent is to prove, that the Lord Jesus Christ is, really, the Supreme God, and that he is also, man-the two natures being united in one person. I will prove, that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the eternal God." I understand, that you have signed this challenge with your own hand. It appears, therefore, not to be a hasty production, but one, the import of which you have well weighed. It is directed to "any man of the great leading sects in our country." You, doubtless, consider the Presbyterians of the General Assembly to be one of the great leading sects; and can be easily informed in your own neighborhood, that I am a man of that body. Your challenge, then, is directed to me, in common with other men of the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational, Baptist, or Methodist societies. After prayer, and mature deliberation, I accept your invitation. Permit me, however, merely to propose, that the subject of discussion be in the form of a plain question, of which you can take the negative, and I the affirmative, as follows:-"Is the man, Christ Jesus, the Supreme and Eternal God?" This embraces every idea suggested in your two propositions, and would, therefore, be acceptable to you, if I mistake not. This, however, is left to your discretion. I am willing to meet you on the very words of your challenge, if you prefer them. An answer, as soon as convenient, would oblige W. L. M'CALLA.

Mr. M'Calla,

New York, November 4, 1830.

DEAR SIR,-Yours, of the 29th ult. was received on the first instant, late in the evening; but being under an engagement in New York, which rendered it necessary for me to leave Milford early on Tuesday morning, I have not found it convenient to return an answer till this late period. My challenge, on the evening of which you speak, was given in the following words, viz. :—“ I challenge any minister, of acknowledged abilities, in good standing, in any of the popular sects, to debate with me, publicly, the following questions:

1st. "Is God a trinity of three persons? He to take the affirmative, and I the negative. In opposition to which I will prove, that there is but one God, the Father.

2. "Is Christ the Supreme and Eternal God? He to take the affirmative, and I the negative. In opposition to which, I will prove, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." On the next morning, the Reverend Gentlemen, who were present the preceding evening, called upon me, to know if I would put my name to the above challenge. I answered in the affirmative. They then proposed to alter the phrase, "Trinity of persons ;" and substitute, in its stead, "personal distinctions," to which alteration I objected, urging, among other reasons, that it was not the language of their Confessions of Faith. I then offered to meet them on the doctrine of the trinity, as expressed in the language of their Confessions of Faith; to which they objected. One of the Reverend Gentlemen then wrote the challenge mentioned in your letter, which I afterwards signed, as they would agree to nothing else. Having thus given you an outline of the history of this challenge, I will now answer directly to your letter. I am willing, Sir, to meet you on the plain question, in your own language, viz. : Is the man, Christ Jesus, the Supreme and Eternal God ?"—you taking the affirmative and I the negative.

WM. LANE.

RULES OF CONFERENCE,

Adopted and signed this 7th day of December, 1830, in Milford, New Jersey, by Wm. Lane, and W. L. M'Calla.

1. The proposition for discussion shall be the following, viz. "Is the man, Christ Jesus, the Supreme and Eternal God?"

2. The discussion shall be moderated by five men : each of the parties choosing two, and these four choosing a fifth, who is not to be a member of any church, and who is to be considered the President of the Bench.

3. The Bench is not to decide the merits of the question, nor the weight of argument, nor the ultimate length of the debate; but they are to keep order, and settle points of order according to these written rules.

4. The parties shall be entitled to alternate addresses of thirty minutes.

5. The discussion to commence on the first Tuesday of December, 1830, at the Christian Church, in Milford, New Jersey, at 10 o'clock, A. M. and continue to three o'clock, P.M. and so on, from day to day, until the parties are satisfied.

6. The debate shall be opened by one party in the first morning, and by another the second morning, and so on, from day to day, until the parties are satisfied; so that the closing speech of days and of sessions, shall be alternated with perfect fairness.

7. If one party waives his right to speak, the other may occupy his time; and if one withdraw from the debate, the other may proceed until he is satisfied.

8. Though tradition may be pleaded, the sacred scriptures are to be considered the inspired, and, of course, the infallible standard of truth, from which there is no appeal.

9. Exparte publications are to be deprecated; but on this subject the parties are to be left to their discretion, as American freemen should be.