so understand it. He declares the dividend of credit for defeating
Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible.

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sort
of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the
Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good
thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others for the performance
of that good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the
Republicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in that
good work, and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he
would? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground that he
performed a good act which was never expected of him? He says I have a
proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that
perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the
lost sheep which went astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of
the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his
shoulders and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more
rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found than over
the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour
in this parable, thus: "Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing
in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just
persons that need no repentance."

And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent.
Let him not come up here and say: "I am the only just person; and you are
the ninety-nine sinners!" Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of
the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans
grant his forgiveness.

How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in