Mr. Editor—I have thought that a concise account of this debate might not be unacceptable to your readers. It is a mortifying fact, that this city has become FAMOUS—or rather INFAMOUS for the prevalence of deism and atheism among her citizens. This has been produced in a good degree by the efforts of an old gentleman by the name Olmsted. Since his residence here, which has been for about four years, he has been untiring in his exertions to sow the seeds of moral death in this community. He has organized his converts into a band, that operates systematically. He has written a book, which is not exceeded by Tom Paine's Age of Reason, for scurrility and ridicule. The old gentleman is as artful as the old DESTROYER himself; by which means he has obtained an immense influence over the minds of the young men of this place.
The circumstances which gave rise to the debate were as follows: The Rev. James Smith, during a visit in this city, delivered a few discourses on the dangerous tendencies of infidelity, addressing himself particularly to the youth. This induced a committee of infidel gentlemen to address a written challenge to Mr. S., to meet their champion, Mr. O., in a public debate. Mr. S. by the advice of many intelligent friends of truth, accepted the challenge. The time arrived, and the discussion commenced. All was anxiety and interest. The house was crowded, even the aisles and windows, with attentive hearers. They arranged to speak alternately, one, two hours each night, and the other a half hour; so the debate continued two hours and a half each night. From the representation of Mr. O's talents, learning, and preparation, we were made to tremble for the results; but we were not a little disappointed to find the old gentleman fall far below his fame....
He asserted that the Jews did not believe in a future state of existence, until after the Babylonish captivity; that they borrowed their doctrines of the immortality of the soul from the nations among whom they were dispersed—that the Jews believed in a plurality of gods—that St. Paul was the author of Christianity—that Christianity encourages polygamy. To prove this last position, he quoted Paul's directions to Timothy: "Let a bishop be the husband of one wife." And to crown the mass of absurdities, he endeavored to prove that the blessed Jesus was a base impostor.
We found Mr. Smith well prepared for the contest. He had his arguments systematically arranged—had written them all, and read them well. He proved to a demonstration, the GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY and INSPIRATION of the Old Testament Scriptures. His arguments were interesting and convincing. His arguments on the New Testament were equally happy, and if possible, more convincing. The conclusion of every inquirer after truth, must have been, that the champion of deism was signally defeated, and his cause left bleeding on the field. I doubt not but the defeat would have been more complete, had Mr. S. omitted some of his personal allusions, and had he suppressed his natural inclination to sarcasm. Indeed his blasts of sarcasm were truly WITHERING. His opponent, finding that he could not cope with him in this respect, retreated, and took shelter under the sympathies of his audience.
Yours, &c.,
One of the Hearers.
THE
CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE
CONTAINING
A FAIR STATEMENT AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION
OF THE
LEADING OBJECTIONS URGED BY INFIDELS
AGAINST THE
ANTIQUITY, GENUINENESS, CREDIBILITY AND
INSPIRATION
OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES;
ENRICHED WITH COPIOUS EXTRACTS FROM
LEARNED AUTHORS.