stituent parts of salvation." And he tells you that I have "quoted several scriptures to prove that unless men have faith and repentance, &c., they cannot be saved." Now here is a very capital mistake. I have not quoted one scripture to prove that men "must merely have faith and repentance or they cannot be saved." I have quoted many scriptures to prove that men must repent, believe, and obey the Gospel, or they cannot be saved. Now the difference between my design in quoting the Scriptures, and what he says was my design, as trifling as it may at first appear, is very great.

If men must believe, repent, and obey the Gospel as free agents, then faith, repentance, and obedience are conditions of salvation; but if they must merely have faith, repentance, and obedience, in his sense, they may be passive as a stone, and may be made holy by the sole act of God, as he supposes the drunken man is made holy in the moment of death, without the least effort, desire, or thought of his own. Now I complain of him for two things; first, for representing me as quoting the Scriptures to show that men must merely have faith, repentance, and obedience, in his sense of these terms, and thereby countenancing the most awful delusion that ever prevailed in the world; and secondly, for sliding over the subject of conditions in the easy manner he has done. The subject of conditions is all important. It is important to the Univeralists, and demands their serious atten

tion; for if it be a correct doctrine, they must own that their system is false, and all who are not holy are in danger of future punishment. And I did think, after the great stress laid upon this doctrine in my lecture; after what was said of the free agency and moral powers of man as the immediate foundation of conditions; after what was urged from these, and from the command given men to repent, believe, and obey the Gospel, and of the impossibility and absurdity of supposing that moral holiness can be produced in them without their own agency-I say I did think, as reluctant as I supposed him to be to touch this subject, my opponent would have taken it up, and attempted at least to confute some of my arguments, and to point out the error in my reasoning. And I should think that an irresistible conviction of responsibility would compel him to do this; for he must know that if the doctrine of conditions be maintained, his system is defective. And I now say that this audience, the public, and especially his own congregation, have a claim upon him to do this, and to do it in this place. I should not wonder, however, if he should still evade the point, and content himself with having said that I“ call certain things conditions of salvation," which he calls "constituent parts of salvation." But does this confute, or is it a reply to what I have said upon conditions? Beside how does it appear that faith, repentance, and obedience are constituent parts of

our salvation from the penalty of the law which we have all broken?-They cannot be constituent parts here, but they are conditions; and every one who has broken the law, remains under condemnation till he performs them. I grant, and did in my lecture, that faith, repentance, and obedience are "branches of holiness" or 66 constituents" of this part of our salvation. But they are conditions also.Their being" constituent parts" does not prevent their being conditions. Repentance and faith are conditions of forgiveness or justification and regeneration; and these, together with obedience, are conditions of our continuing in a state of salvation. We are never saved till we repent and believe the Gospel; nor do we continue in a state of salvation any longer than we continue to walk by faith and obedience. This shows that repentance, faith, and obedience, are conditions of salvation.

The verbs in the apostles' commission have occasioned my opponent a great deal of trouble. He knows not what to do with them, nor how to dispose of them. He first considers the verb "believeth not" without reference to any particular time; and then concludes, if endless misery be the punishment of him that "believeth not," that the heathen and all infants must inevitably suffer it, "because they cannot believe." One word by the way, if he will have the goodness to inform us how those who "cannot believe," may, nevertheless, be unbelievers, we will acknow

ledge his conclusion to be just. He then makes an attempt, by referring the verb to a particular time, as a certain day in the thirtyfourth year of the Christian era, previous to the death of Christ; by which he arrives at the important conclusion, that it would send "Thomas" and "the whole body of the apostles" to endless misery, because they did not believe the report of the resurrection of their Master. And hence concludes there can be no conditions in salvation. He adds, with all due formality, and solemnity, as though he had driven us from all our hiding places: "As a last resort, it may be said the text means that all who do not believe in this life, shall be damned in the next." He then concludes, "if none can be saved, or made holy in the future life, except such as have a living faith in Christ, repent, and obey God in this life," that the condition of the heathen generallyidiots—and all who die in infancy, is "hopeless," for the same reason as before, namely, that though they cannot believe, yet they "die in unbelief." Now if it is clear that he has made a mistake in supposing that they may be unbelievers with respect to the Gospel, who never had it in their power to believe, then he has accomplished nothing. But unbelief is the rejecting of Christ and the Gospel; and therefore it is evident that those who never had the offer of Christ cannot be unbelievers, seeing that they cannot reject him to whom he was never offered.

But he has varied the argument a little in the case of infants, to show that moral holiness can be produced when there is no free agency or moral power. My position is this: "Moral holiness cannot be produced in man without his agency; but many men die under circumstances where they can have no agency; therefore moral holiness cannot be produced in them.

Of this he says, "We shall not take them to prove the truth or falsity of this argument; we shall only show you its consequences.Thousands die in infancy. Such can have no agency;" and "according to the argument they can have no holiness-no salvation."Here is another palpable mistake. It does not follow, because they cannot have "moral holiness," that they can have " no holiness." God may, and I always believed, does impress upon such as die in infancy a holiness adapted to their nature and capacity. But no one can infer from the case of infants that he will impress holiness upon men, that is, adults, in the same way. The cases are dissimilar. An infant has no knowledge-an adult has. An infant has no free agency—an adult has. An infant has no capacity for moral holiness* -an adult has. An infant is not a subject of command-an adult is. You cannot, therefore, reason from the case of infants to that

* I use the word holiness here in the sense of moral action.