your neighbour. And can you do these things under a profession of religion?

If you undertake causes for your clients which you know you cannot possibly succeed in, as you say, then it is clear that, for the sake of mammon, you set yourself against God, against truth, law, justice, and equity; and would reduce a family to poverty for a little ill-gotten wealth. "He that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool." If your conscience be clear of these things, you needed not have brought them forth; and, if guilty, your conscience will make a faultering answer at the great tribunal.

You still persist to include the whole profession in the bondage of iniquity.' I deny the charge. My book is written against the Arminians; and if it contains any thing against your profession, it is delivered in the Saviour's way, without restriction. "Wo unto you, lawyers." He doth not say, Wo unto some; nor, Wo unto all; those words are left out: but, "Wo unto you, lawyers;" wo unto them whom the wo may con

cern.

'I shall experience the satisfaction that arises from an upright heart.' This is a great thing for a lawyer to say; and, for my part, I am slow of heart to believe. Besides, telling your readers that you have had a dialogue with me is a falsity; and ripping up the sins of my youth, and speaking

falsely about them, is slander. Lying and slander ing do not proceed from the good treasure of an upright heart.

'That unlawful advantages are not peculiar to professors of law, any more than to those of the gospel,' will not be easily credited; though a mere profession of the gospel will never change the heart or practice of one that is given to extortion, but a real possession of the grace of the gospel will.

The law is founded on reason.' I always thought that law was founded on truth; but, as for reason, she sometimes calls evil good, and good evil; and puts darkness for light, and light for darkness, Isa. v. 20; and often contradicts truth. I am inclined to think that your code of reason's laws, and yourself too, will be arraigned and tried by laws founded on truth; and by the God of truth, whose judgment is according to truth: which are things that few carnal reasoners care to hear of, and which, with great violence, they often reason against.

'There is an etiquette to be observed, which,' to such an one as myself, may seem absurd and ridiculous, and a violation of reason and truth; and yet perfectly consistent with both, and with justice too: for, from the vicissitudes of the times, and occurrences of new circumstances, fictions have for a long time been thought necessary, and allowed of in many cases.' This is a strange paragraph! but I understand it; and have no doubt

that at times you find these things necessary in some occurrences of new circumstances; such as, when a villanous plaintiff aims at the reputation or property of his neighbour, and the injured defendant produces a number of stubborn facts to vindicate his right and expose the villain; then it becomes necessary to have recourse to etiquette and fiction, in order to puzzle, perplex, and involve the subject; to furnish an advocate with a thousand arguments, which serve to baffle a simple and honest witness; enrage the defendant, that he may hastily utter something to be caught at, which may serve to confound the jury, weary the judge, and multiply extra fees; which is the attorney's end and the client's wo.

The Saviour's similitudes and lawyers' fictions, in your opinion, are nearly synonymous. No; in my opinion, they widely differ. The Saviour's similitudes have, or have had, existence, but lawyers' fictions never had. The Lord's similitudes convey truth; lawyers' fictions convey lies. The Saviour's similitudes instructed the people; lawyers' fictions blind and confound them. Christ conveyed spiritual treasure to the heart; the lawyer draws treasure fom the pocket. Christ fed the mind; the lawyer pinches the belly. Jesus saves the soul; the other often starves the body. Therefore the Lord's similitudes and your fictions are no more synonymous than Pharaoh's fat and lean kine: one class fed on their common food, and looked well; the other devoured their fellow kine,

but never looked the better. The one fed on grass, and throve; the other on flesh, and starved.

But do, sir, explain the ambiguous phrase, etiquette; for you are a barbarian unto me. It is like speaking into the air: you may speak well, but I am not edified; and is it not better to speak one word to edification, than ten thousand in an unknown tongue?

6

You tell me there is an etiquette to be observed, which, to a man unversed therein,' as you presume me to be, may seem absurd and ridiculous, and a violation of reason and truth, and yet consistent with both.' If it be any thing that lies within the compass of natural reason and truth, why should I be so unversed therein? And, if consistent with the principles of reason and truth, why should it appear to me absurd, ridiculous, and a violation of both? Either I must be destitute of common sense and reason, or else etiquette must be something that goes beyond the common abilities given by the God of nature. I always thought that human learning sprung from the abilities which God gives to men; but according to you, it is otherwise; for there is something in ctiquette consistent with reason and truth, that to a man of truth and reason may seem absurd, ridiculous, and a violation of both. You should let such words alone, unless you understand them. It exposes a man's ignorance to bring in a word that in its genuine original signification means simply a note or ticket. on a bag, as Boyer's French Dictionary informs

every schoolboy, and then to couple it with fictions. A ticket is one thing, a lie is another: however, the tickets in the lawyer's bag are generally contrived to take the notes out of his client's money-bag; and so far the allusion is more applicable than the writer himself seems to have been aware of.

mys

However, though I understand not the tery of fiction, it is plain from this piece of yours, that it has been exploded by some who have understood it for you tell me that Fictions were formerly termed an abuse of law; but, from the vicissitudes of the times, and occurrences of new circumstances, they have been a long time thought necessary, and allowed.' Times are changed indeed, if abusive fictions are become necessary! Either the ancients had more conscience, and less duplicity; or else modern wisdom has made them fools, by consecrating their abuse to a necessary good. To be plain: the term fiction, in opposition to fact, means a lie; and fact, in opposition to fiction, means the truth. I am inclined to think this is a jargon peculiar to yourself. Gipsies have their own gibberish; and every juggler has his own dialect, which serves to puzzle the wise, confound the ignorant, and blind the judicious. A fiction may be necessary to muddle a man's brains, and plunder his purse; but there is no call for it to bring iniquity to light, condemn the wicked, or justify the righteous. Therefore the ancients in terming it an abuse of law, shew their honesty;