of adults. I am exceeding sorry, therefore, that he did not "take time to prove the falsity" of my argument, if it were in his power to do it. He has left undone the very thing he ought to have done. Had he proved the "falsity" of my argument, he had accomplished much; but as it is, he has effected nothing.

He has, however, made another attempt to show that God produces holiness in men without their agency, by referring to the case of St. Paul; and this case is all he has to obviate the difficulty growing out of the tenses of the verbs in the apostles' commission, as applied to the last moment of the unbeliever, "He that believeth not shall be damned." We will first hear him on the tenses of these verbs. To show that the tenses of these verbs are the same, and that the damnation does not follow, but is at the same time with "believeth not," he has recourse, first, to a criticism on the Greek word rendered "believeth not." He "It is not a verb, but a participle; says, and this not in the present, but in the aorist tense. This tense does not determine the time precisely; it is variously used; and the time must be determined by the connection." Now let us see what this criticism amounts to. "The Greek word rendered 'believeth not,' is not a verb, but a participle." But does not the participle imply time, as well as the verb from which it is formed? It does. But "the aorist tense does not determine the

time." Then doubtless it may be the present time. "The time must be determined by the connection." Well, by the connection, and by the aorist, expressing what is always true, it is proved to be in the present time. The conclusion, therefore, is the same from his own criticism, as from the English version. But he contends that these words, "He that believeth not," have "allusion to the future," and says, "If they have not, then they must be rigidly confined to the time present when they were spoken: in which case all who did not believe at that moment must be damned endlessly," on my principles; and then gives me my choice "either to contend for a fact which will destroy the hopes of all, or admit that the explanation he has given is correct." I will choose neither, as he shall see.

The horns of this dilemma are not so formidable as my opponent thinks them to be. A fact which never seems to have come into his mind, and which will remove his difficulty at once, is this: the disputed text, "He that believeth shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned," is a statute or law of the kingdom of Christ; and whenever the Gospel is preached, comes to all mankind, through all successions of future time, in the same way. This law, which, we will say, was first given in the thirty-fourth year of the Christian era, has remained the same down to the present day, and will so continue to the end of the world. Thus it is in all statutes.

They regard crimes of the present time only; and because punishment follows crime, or is subsequent thereto, it is expressed in the future. And while time passes on, and one generation succeeds another, the law remains the same, and its meaning is expressed in the same tenses, both in regard to crime and punishment. And to say otherwise would introduce confusion and absurdity into our laws, and into all legal proceedings. Who could

ever be punished if the law forbid crime only in the future indefinite time, and not in the present? Thus it was under the law of Moses. The statute against murder said, "He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Here the first verb is in the present time, the second in the future, the same as in the disputed text. And the same precisely is the case with the laws of this commonwealth. Take an example in the law of murder.— The statute against murder says, (whatever the words may be, this is the spirit and meaning of the statute,) "He that committeth murder shall be hung for it." Here observe the first verb is in the present time; the second, in the future. Now, says my opponent, "these words, 'he that committeth murder,' have allusion to the future, or they have not." If they have, then our brother's criticism avails nothing, and we may safely say that no man who committeth murder, in the present time, shall be hung for it, but only he who shall hereafter commit murder. If they have

not reference to the future, then they must be rigidly confined to the time present when the law was made; in which case all who had not committed murder at that moment must for ever afterward be exempt from the gallows, notwithstanding all the murders they may afterward commit.

This, if I can understand my opponent, is his own argument applied to a different case. But as I wish to make this subject plain to every one of my hearers, I will submit the following illustration :—

A rebellion breaks out in the United States, and thousands are involved in the guilt of it. The president issues his proclamation, and says, "You see what you have done, and you must know that there is no hope of your final success, but if you go on in this course you must all be hung without remedy. But I have no pleasure in your death—I had rather you would repent and live; and I will pardon you if you will throw down your arms, and return to your duty. And to this end I give you a space to consider and repent. He that believeth (that is, submitteth to) this proclamation, shall be saved: but he that believeth not, shall be hung." In the mean time he sends out his ministers and the heads of departments, in every direction, to publish his proclamation, and to use entreaty and admonition with the rebels. Many believe, are pardoned, and restored to all the privileges of citizenship; and these unite their

efforts with the ministers and heads of departments in trying to persuade the other rebels to believe and submit also. But some are offended at all this ado, zeal, and importunity; and having a mortal prejudice and hatred against the president and government of the United States, and wishing to live without the restraints of law, begin to speculate upon all these things in the following manner :

Surely rebellion is no very great crime; and these ministers and heads of departments must be a class of weak and superstitious beings to make such a stir about it, and the necessity of being converted to the president and government, and to obedience to the laws. Wherein does it appear that we are not as good as those hypocrites who make such a noise about loving and supporting the government? We support our families, and pay our debts, and what more is required? Others say it is unreasonable to suppose that they shall be hung merely for refusing obedience to a government they did not like. They insist upon it that there is no proportion between the sin of rebellion and hanging. Hanging is a disgraceful and cruel death. And is the

president such a tyrant as to delight in an act of cruelty that would disgrace even Nero? No, the president is a merciful man and the father of the people of these states. And whoever heard of a father hanging his own children, unless he were crazy? Beside, punishments are intended to reform those who