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 genercusly: 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 detracts ing 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 de bate 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

of the dialogue are composed by the same writer. But, Mr. D. knows from the advertisement prefixed to the dialogue, that I did not compose that part of it which I undertook to confute. For, the sentiments and arguments of Toletus were fairly quoted from Mr. T.'s publication, and properly distinguished by usual signs. It is in vain for him or any other person to insinuate that I fought with a man of straw of my own making, like some other dialogue-writers.*

3. Mr. D.'s tender plea for declining a controversial correspondence from the feelings of humanity, because he thinks Mr. T. is sufficient for me, I desire to leave, because I cannot confute. Such reasoning as this is too potent for me to attack. I therefore leave it in all its glory.

4. Mr. D. says "Philalethes, did know and is accountable for not remembering that I have

* And though Mr. T. has been unhappily influenced to complain at the beginning of his letters, that a dialogue dispute "IS IN ITS VERY NATURE UNEQUAL," and to insinuate and even to imply that I made Toletus "REPEAT IN DETACH ED PARCELS ONLY," his printed sentiments, his memory must now be refreshed with this humiliating truth, that he frankly told me when I read the dialogue to him previously to sending it to the press, that he did not wish to be more generously or fully quoted. And, I have liberty to say, that then or never was the gentleman's time to complain of being made a dialogue-party, or of partial, unequal quotations. For Mr. T. desired to examine the manuscript, and I gratefully spent a day in reading it to him in private, for the sake of suppressing every thing of a partial, unequal and personal nature. Why then does he seem to complain at so late an hour, when many of his readers do not know but he has reason for it? But the memory of man is treacherous.

expressly declared against any persons looking on their inability to believe and repent in the light of a difficulty which excuses them." This intended reproof, to say the least, does him no honour as a disputant. For, I did remember that he frequently says that the inability of sin ners is inexcusable and criminal. But what then? Does this prove that his theory is not chargeable with confounding natural and moral inability? Does Mr. D.'s barely saying, that he does not consider the sinner under a natural inability to repent immediately, prove that his theory is not guilty of the charge? By no means, as shall appear from the following considerations. For, 1. He pleads (page 42) the necessity of sinners taking sundry steps previously to repenting. 2. He pleads that this necessity is founded in the ordinary course of divine operation with them. 3. He pleads (page 43) that some sinners "Have not a competency of doctrinal knowledge, and they must apply themselves to get it, or they never will be christians.” 4. He contends that "Others must go into a more serious and prayerful consideration of things." And, 5. He boldly asserts that, "There are particular points of conviction, which from the nature of things, are of absolute necessity in order to a sinner's giving up himself

to Christ."

These are Mr. D.'s theoretic positions. Now then; if there be a necessity; if there be an absolute necessity, according to the nature of things, of sinners taking sundry steps previously to repenting, as he constantly urges,