ology in the view of discerning minds, by frankly and openly pleading that the only dif ference between saints and sinners lies in degree. For, who can see any generical difference between the obedience of saints and sin ners, if the obedience of both is conformity to the moral law? Who can discern the difference between a holy action, and an action which is right in matter and manner both? And what mortal can display the difference between "The earnest desires, prayers and endeavours" of sinners "after the saving graces and blessings of the spirit" and the earnest desires and prayers of saints after the same things!

12. His construction of the humble publican's acceptable prayer, plainly discovers his pressing and extreme need of scripture to support his theory of duty destitute of holiness. For though Christ evidently chose a parable containing a contrast of characters, with professed design to display the beauty of humility and the deformity of hypocrisy; though Christ presented the publican clothed with deep humility and sincerity, and the Pharisee clothed with nothing but pride and hypocrisy, yet Mr. T. takes liberty to say, that the PubLican's "Returning from the temple justified, is no proof that he went up to it in that state; but the story rather leads us to think that he there sought and first obtained this mercy." But, I

* Our cuthor says, (p. 127) "Natural principles waked up by the motives of God's word, and the influences of his Spirit, frequently give rise to earnest desires and prayers after its saving graces and blessings."

wonder what Mr. T. sees in the story which makes him think so: and I beg leave to think differently till he gives a reason for his thoughts.

13. His construction of the parable of the prodigal son is equally notable and memorable. For he says, "It is very plain that there was a train of serious inquiry in the prodigul, previous to his happy resolution of returning to his father; that he was led into this train by the concurring influence of divine providence and grace; that he acted a reasonable and incumbent part in entertaining and pursuing those reflections, which is conveyed in the expression of his coming to himself."

This is truly singular. For Christ does not deliver the parable to inform us how good the prodigal was before he was converted, but how bad: Not how serious, reasonable and incumbent a part he acted while he was distracted, or before he came to himself; but how unreasonable, undutiful and wicked a part he acted till he came to himself. Mr. T. treats him as a reasonable, thoughtful, serious character, in that very stage of his conduct where Christ treats him as a distracted, undutiful monster. The fact is this, according to the parable, that upon coming to himself, or being converted, he resolved to return and unreservedly submit to his father: and not that there was any goodness in him before he was converted, or any reason in his conduct when he was distracted. If Christ does not mark his conversion by saying, "When he came to himself; I wish to know what part of the parable does mark his conversion. For

T

the parable makes him a distracted vile wretch till he came to himself; and ever after this, it makes him a reasonable, penitent and dutiful son, whom the father met and embraced with all the fondness of a most affectionate and forgiving parent.

14. As many instances of his misapplying scripture have been noted in the course of the preceding sections, I will mention but one more. The apostle's meaning, he says, in these words, "Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble," is plainly this: "Thy belief, in this instance, is right and therefore good of its kind." Page 131, But who can soberly and impartially believe that James approved and commended the faith of sinners in any respect, by comparing it with the faith of devils? For nothing can be more obvious than that he made the comparison to reprobate and not to approve their faith in any respect.

This is a just view of Mr. T.'s method of handling scripture to support his theory. And whether the scripture will justify these constructions of scripture the judicious and impartial reader must determine.

My reply to Mr. T.'s defence against the dialogue is concluded. Whether I have quoted him generously: whether I have looked his arguments in the face: whether I have invalidated his reasoning and supported my own objections against his theory in a word, whether my reply be candid and pertinent and calculated to promote the cause of truth, is

now cheerfully submitted to men of discernment who read debates for the sake of light and truth, rather than to gratify a captious detracting spirit. My venturing it abroad precludes the propriety of any laboured apology, respecting the method or style. But, I honestly ask the candour of all who have patience to read it. For it is no doubt defective in many respects. Agreeably to what was dropped in the first section, I have only to desire my BROTHER T. and every other reader to compare what I have advanced with the bible and to treat it according to the spirit there inculcated. For to the word of God and not to the partial feelings of men who cannot endure sound doctrine, I make my appeal; and from this endless source of instruction I hope to derive any needful defence of my theory. If I know my own heart, truth, and not victory, is my governing motive in the controversy..

In fine, may the Spirit of God inspire our minds with knowledge and our hearts with love and put a period to this interesting debate in that manner which shall most advance the prosperity of the Redeemer's Kingdom.

SECTION XVI.

The publick having considered Mr. Dana as Mr. Tappan's partner in this dispute, in consequence of the time and pointed contents of his publication, I was obliged to take some notice of it in the dialogue. And, as Mr. D. has openly made himself a partner by his appendix to Mr. T.'s reply to the dialogue, I am now obliged to make it the subject of a number of strictures.

1. In a very soft and grateful manner he styles me Brother, with whom he hopes " To live and die in the bonds of friendship." Upon this I have only to remark, that it has the appearance of ardent friendship. But,

2. In the next breath he unhappily forgets himself, and attempts a sneer respecting the mode of my reply. For though Mr. D. and Mr. T.had made a publick debate necessary; yet, instead of accepting my proposal to terminate it by an open correspondence, Mr.D. is pleased to call me a challenger, and says, "What if a dif ferent mode should suit better? suppose, since there are such authorities for it, I should prefer the new mode of answering by dialogue? all can see the singular advantage this might give one for managing a debate." Here the good gentleman attempts to make the publick believe that I took undue advantage of Mr. T. by introducing him into a dialogue. But, he might with honour to himself have suppressed the insinuation. For controversial dialogues are approved and sufficiently authorized by men of reading and candour, even when the several parts