was ever a child born? If so, who was his Father? Can a child be his own father?

2. This person was a son given.

Does my opponent believe that the supreme God was ever a Son given? If so, of whom was he, the Son, and who possessed the supreme and eternal God, so as to have the right to dispose of him as a gift?

3. It is here predicted by the prophet, that the ment shall be upon his shoulders.

governThis presupposes that the government had not before been upon his shoulders. Now does my opponent believe, that there ever was a time when the government was not upon the shoulders of the supreme and eternal God? Was not his government delegated? and could the eternal God require a delegated power?

4. His name shall be called, &c.

It does not say, he was always Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God. Can these titles prove any thing? On the contrary, we contend, that they can, no more prove Jesus Christ to be the supreme and eternal God, than the names Lion, Lamb, Rock, Vine, Root, or Star, prove him to be a Lion, Lamb, or Root. We admit that the Father hath highly exalted the Son, and "given him a name which is above every name." But we read that, "the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." Besides, in numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments, the name God is given to rulers, kings, and mighty conquerors. Now, God has given to Christ a name above every name, because he is the proper Son of the invisible God. He, therefore, inherits his name from his Father. Whatever Jesus Christ is, he derived his existence, and all that he has, from his Father.

5. This same person, who is called the mighty God, is to sit on the throne of his Father David, to order and establish it. Here again I ask, does my opponent believe, that David was the Father of the supreme and eternal God?

6. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this. The Lord of hosts was the Father of this child; Jehovah gave this Son, and "set him on his holy hill of

Zion;" he gave him his names-he placed the government on his shoulders. Therefore, in all this, the Son was subject and inferior to the Lord of hosts, his heavenly Father.

Fere Mr. Lane read from THOMPSON'S GOSPEL HISTORY, the following extract:

"The Divine Unity, is a doctrine written, as with sundeams, on the ethereal heavens, inscribed on the shining stars, and revolving planets; and is alike the conclusion of the philosopher, and the opinion of the peasant. Nothing but the basest superstition could ever have effaced this sentiment from the human mind. Being an eternal truth founded on the nature and reason of things, it must ever be the deduction of unperverted midns.

This doctrine is equally supported by the testimony of scripture. Open the book of the law, what saith it? I, Jehovah, am your God. Thou shalt have no other. Consult the prophets. Jevovah by them declares there is no other God: I know not any. Hear Jesus himself. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; Him only shalt thou serve. This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God. Ask the apostles. They also tell you, there is but one God, even the Father. In one word, from the first communication of the Deity, till the whole volume of revelation was sealed, the uniform language of Gods' messengers has been, Jehovah the Creator of the universe, is ONE; there is no other God but HE."

The following criticism on those texts in which Jesus is called God, according to the opinion of Mr. M'Calla, is taken from THOMPSON'S SYSTEMATICAL THEOLOGY.

"Isa. xi. 6, is frequently adduced as a proof that Jesus is called the mighty God. But the Hebrew text might have been translated, The mighty God shall call him a Wonderful Mediator, Father of his Age, and the Prince of Peace. The Greek scholar will do well to consult the Vatican Septuagint, where the word God, is wanting. It is also left out in Luther's Bible. If this reading be correct, all the controversy about the application of the term God, to Jesus, is for ever set at rest. I believe it impossible to produce a text from the Bible, where Jesus is called God absolutely."

Rom. ix. 5.-God over all. Trinitarians imagine that this is an appellation of Christ, but with what authority will soon appear. The punctuation of this verse has occasioned much controversy and obscurity. Every able commentator, however, knows that the original copies were not pointed at all. Michaelis justly observes, 66 many obscurities have been occasioned by a false method of punctuation, and every commentator should remedy this by occasional alteration, and not servilely to adhere to the present arrangement. These things being admitted, the fourth and fifth verses form a grand climax, and should be read thus: Israelites to whom belong, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service, the promise, the fathers, the Christ according to the flesh, the God over all, blessed be his name, for ever. Amen.

In this translation I have followed Harwood, Whitby, and Slichtingius, names that will always be dear to the church of God and sacred literature. Many of the ancient fathers strictly denied that Christ was God over all, as the common reading in our translation would suggest, which shows that they did not read the passage with the same punctuation or construction found in the English Testament. From Waterland's Vindication, it is abundantly manifest, that Dionysius, Justin, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tatian, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, all asserted that there was a time in which the Son was produced by the Father; consequently they never imagined him to be God over all. Moreover, Athanasius himself, contra Sabel: affirms that Jesus is not the Father, nor as the Sabellians say, the only God, all the holy scriptures testify. And again, contra Gentes, he says, 'he who is the true God, is the Father of Christ.'

1 John v. 20. To paraphrase this passage of true religion, says Dr. Doddrige, is quite enervating the force of scripture; and taking a liberty with plain words by no means to be allowed. It is an argument for the Deity of Christ, which almost all who have written in its defence, have urged: and which, I think, none who have opposed it, have ever appeared to answer.' The whole strength of the Dr.'s argument consists in referring the

pronoun, this, to Christ, the nearest antecedent. Let us apply his reasoning to a similar case, 2 John 7. Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus the Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and antichrist. Now according to Doddridge's mode of reasoning, to refer the singular pronoun, this, to the remote and plural antecedent, deceivers, is taking a liberty with plain words, by no means to be allowed.' By the rule adopted in the reasoning of the Dr. and others, whereby they would prove that Jesus is the true God, they can prove him to be a deceiver and antichrist; which, indeed, he must have been, had he pretended to be what they erroneously call him. In both places, the pronoun, outos, this, which usually belongs to the proximate, must be preferred to the remote antecedent the deceiver, and antichrist is he who confesses not that Jesus is come in the flesh, or that he was a real man. The true God is that being, the knowledge of whom Jesus taught his disciples.

Some moderns,' says Dr. Clarke, 'refer the pronoun, this, to Christ, who is mentioned immediately before; but others, with all the ancients, and more agreeably to John's style, John xvii. 3, understand it of God the Fa ther, who is also mentioned a little before. The construction is not difficult. We know that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, ton alethinon Theon, the true God: (So the most and best MSS. have it, in like manner as John xvii. 3.) and we are in him that is true, i. e. the true God; for the construction of the words manifestly require them to be understood of the same person; by, or through, his son Jesus Christ, (agreeably to the Bishop's Bible in the time of Henry the Eighth.) This is the true God and eternal life. No writer, before the time of the council of Nice, interprets the words, this is the true God, concerning Christ; and how they were understood in the fol. lowing age, appears from the manner in which Epiphanes argues: 'Christ,' says he, ought to be acknow. ledged the true God, though not so called by St. John.' Dr Whitby adopts this manner of explaining this pas sage, and says, 'thus the disciple well accords with his

Master, and only teaches what he had learned of him.' John xvii. 3."

Mr. M'Calla then proceeded to establish the affirmative of the proposition, by arguments drawn from the titles given to Christ.

1. The name Lord. This title he endeavoured to prove, belonged, in its proper application, to the one. Jehovah, the supreme and eternal God. Thus Isaiah represents Jehovah as saying "I am the Lord, this is my name, and my glory, that is my glorious name, I will not give to another." Notwithstanding, Paul informs us that Christ is the Lord from heaven, and that he who was crucified by the Jews, was the Lord of Glory.

Here Mr. M'Calla read Exodus, third chapter, to the 18th verse, where the Angel is called Lord God; and observed, that Mr. Kinkade admitted that this applied to Jesus Christ, but supposes that he was only an exalted God. This Mr. M'Calla considered

idolatry and blasphemy.

Fonding to

2nd. The title God, which he thought to be ascribed to Christ in the most unqualified sense, in those passages where Christ is called the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the true God, and God manifest in flesh. These names, and the passages in which they occur, he considered sufficient proof that Jesus is the supreme God, as certainly as the passages which he had formerly adduced, do prove him to be a man.

To establish the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, he cited the Evangelist Luke, to testify that Christ was both the Lord and Son of David; and also the testimony of the Evangelist John, that Jesus is both the root and offspring of David. Moreover, having alleged a number of passages to prove that the term flesh is often synonymous with man. He thence inferred, that as Christ is called by the Apostle the Son of David, according to the flesh, he must have been truly man. Thus Mr. M'Calla

endeavoured to demonstrate the two natures of Christ, from the appellations Son of Man, or Son of David, and