Will the day of judgment begin with the blessed millennium?

Aff. 1723.

Is Christ, before the day of judgment, a perfect Saviour?
Neg. 1724.

Did Christ, as a man, after his ascension receive from God a revelation of the day of judgment?

Aff. 1724.

Are the saints in heaven more happy than if they had never sinned?

Aff. 1725.

Should anything that contradicts reason be admitted into articles of faith?

Are all the attributes of God, so far as he himself is concerned, one and the same?

Does the happiness of God, no less than that of his creatures, depend on virtue?

Aff. 1729.

Is it essential to a divine revelation that it should contain nothing which is contradictory to reason?

Aff. 1729.

Will the different dispositions and affections which lead men in this life to various pursuits, afford them special enjoyment in the heavenly life?

Aff. 1730.

Is the trinity of persons in the Deity revealed in the Old Testament? Aff. 1730. Neg. 1738.*

Do the punishments of hell consist more in deprivation than in sensation [magis in damno quam in sensu]?†

Aff. 1730.

Did the fruit prohibited to Adam naturally vitiate the condition of his body?

Aff. 1731, 1749.

Will a friendship formed on earth be lost in heaven?

Neg. 1731.

*This negative was expunged, and the affirmative was inserted, after the order of exercises had been printed, by vote of the President and Tutors on the morning of Commencement Day. See Quincy, Hist. of Harv. Univ., vol. ii. pp. 23-25.

† A distinction was made by the Schoolmen between that future punishment which consists simply in the pains of loss, and that which involves the pangs of actual suffering. The former was thought to be chiefly spiritual; the latter, physical. In hell individuals are doomed to pœna æterna damni et sensus; in purgatory they suffer pana temporalis damni et sensus; in the "limbus infantium" they endure pana damni æterna; in the "limbus patrum" they experi ence only pœna damni temporalis.

Is it in any degree necessary to salvation to believe every text of Scripture?

Neg. 1731.

If Adam had not sinned, would original righteousness have been communicated to his descendants?

Aff. 1731.

Were the angels created in a state of probation?

Aff. 1732.

Was Christ a mediator before he assumed human nature?

Will the damned be punished for sins which they have committed in hell?

In order that there may be a just distribution of rewards, must those who are equally sincere be equally rewarded?

Neg. 1735.

Is the second person of the Trinity called the Son of God solely with respect to his mediatorial office?

Neg. 1737.

Is it necessary for men to believe any Christian doctrine, on which conduct in no way depends?

Neg. 1737.

Will there be a millennium for the saints on earth before the last resurrection?

Aff. 1737.

If a man is born deficient in one limb, will he be deficient in the same limb on the day of the resurrection?

Neg. 1738.

Have the faculties of men which were depraved by sin been restored by the Redeemer?

Aff. 1738.

Was sin in the world before the fall of Adam?

Aff. 1738.

Can any power except the omnipotence of God terminate the existence

of the soul of a brute animal?

Neg. 1740.

Was the use of words and letters originally revealed by God?

Aff. 1741.

Will a shaking of the whole earth immediately precede the general conflagration?

Aff. 1741.

If Adam had remained in a state of innocence, would he have been translated to heaven?

Aff. 1741. Neg. 1772.

Did God from eternity decree the fall of Adam, as well as the reprobation of the ungodly?

Aff. 1742.

Is reason adequate to investigate the doctrine that sin deserves eternal punishment?

Neg. 1742.

Are there distinct orders among the angels, and have they distinct offices?

Aff. 1747.

Will the blessed in the future world, after the last judgment, make use of articulate speech, and will that be Hebrew ?

Aff. 1747. Edward Bass.*

Do discords and disputes sometimes arise among the good and evil angels on our account?

Aff. 1753.

Do those who are justified with God confess that they are properly worthy of eternal punishment?

Aff. 1754.

Would any evidence of the truth of the Christian religion remain, if the doctrine of transubstantiation were admitted?

Neg. 1755.

Is despair an essential part of the punishment of hell?

Aff. 1756.

Is it consistent with divine justice that the human race should be subjeeted to death for the sin of one man?

Aff. 1758, 1769.

Does the falling of the rain prove a Providence?

Aff. 1758.

Will a comet be the cause of the world's final conflagration?

Aff. 1759.

Does an immutable decree destroy human freedom?

Neg. 1766. Josiah Quincy.†

Are the elect, before they obtain faith in Christ, just as liable to condemnation as all others?

Aff. 1767.

Can God's justice be vindicated, if a future state is denied?
Neg. 1768.

*He was the first bishop of the Episcopal Church in Massachusetts, and was consecrated in 1797.

This theological question was assigned to Josiah Quincy, Jr., eminent both as a speaker and writer in the period just preceding the Revolution, and "aptly called the Boston Cicero." He delivered also on the same day an English oration, the first ever spoken at these academic exercises, on the subject of Patriotism. As in the case of Warren, a simple Mr. (which he received also from Yale College) stands against his name in the Quinquennial Catalogue, and both died in the same year, 1775.

Is immortality merely a privilege, and by no means a prerogative, of the human soul?

Aff. 1772.

Would oaths have been necessary if the human race had remained in its original condition?

Neg. 1788.

Dr. GEORGE E. ELLIS spoke of the disuse of other than the English language at public occasions in Cambridge, and related an amusing anecdote of Governor Lincoln's difficulties in preparing the address (in Latin) as chief magistrate of the Commonwealth at the inauguration of President Quincy in 1829, which was, he thought, the last performance in that tongue.

Mr. ELLIS AMES exhibited a warrant issued by Governor Hancock in 1781, empowering three justices of the peace in Bristol County to apprehend and commit to jail any persons whom in their judgment the safety of the Commonwealth required to be restrained of their personal liberty. Mr. Ames mentioned this as an instance of the despotic measures sometimes adopted by the freest governments, and related the history of this legislation.

The earliest statute he had found was an act of the General Court, approved by the Council, May 10, 1777, entitled "An act for taking up and restraining persons dangerous to this State." The preamble of this act set out that Whereas, at a time when the public enemy have actually invaded some of our neighboring States, and threaten an invasion of this State, the safety of this Commonwealth requires that a power be somewhere lodged to apprehend and imprison any persons whose enlargement is dangerous to the community. The first section of the act provided that the Council (then the only executive power of the State) might from time to time. issue their warrant, directed to a sheriff or his deputy, to cause to be apprehended and committed to jail any person whom the Council should deem the safety of the Commonwealth required to be restrained of his personal liberty, or whose enlargement within this State was dangerous thereto. And the sheriff or his deputy was authorized and empowered, by the same section, to require aid and assistance in executing the same. By the second section, the sheriff or deputy sheriff was empowered to break open by day or by night any dwelling-house in which he should suspect any person required to

be apprehended by such warrant to be concealed. By the third section it was enacted that the person apprehended and imprisoned, as aforesaid, should be continued in prison without bail or mainprise until he should be discharged therefrom by order of the Council or of the General Court. And by section fourth this act was to be in force for the term of one year from May 10, 1777.

At the May session, 1778, of the General Court, an act reviving and continuing the first-mentioned act was passed. The preamble of this act recited that the first act "has been found very useful and beneficial." The act was continued. in force until June 20, 1779.

At the May session of the next year, the same act was revived and continued until June 20, 1780. The preamble of the new act again recited that "said act has been found useful and beneficial."

An act was approved by Governor Hancock, Feb. 14, 1781, entitled "An act in addition to an act entitled 'An act for taking up and restraining persons dangerous to this State."" The preamble set forth that "Whereas, at the time the said act was made, the power and authority for executing the same was vested in the Council of the then State, but now by the new constitution of this Commonwealth such power is and ought to be vested in the Governor and Council"; also, "that many difficulties may occur in prosecuting complaints to the Governor and Council for offences committed in parts remote from the seat of government, so that said act, without an addition thereto, will not answer all the good purposes designed by the same."

The act of Feb. 14, 1781, then provided, in the first section, that the Governor and Council should be vested with all the power and authority in executing the aforesaid law which the Council of the then State had at the time the said law was made. The next section enacted that the Governor should be requested, with the advice of the Council, to appoint three justices of the peace (one of whom at least should be of the quorum) in each county, who should be vested with the same authority in their respective counties in causing to be apprehended and committed to jail any person or persons by warrant under their hands aud seals, and directed as aforesaid, as was by this act delegated to the Governor and Council. And the same penalties were to be incurred for disobeying the warrant of such justices as were provided in the aforesaid act in case of disobedience to the warrant issued by the then Council. By section third, said justices, if they caused per