45: 24, but, as he does not attempt to controvert the criticism I offered, it remains in all its force. Bear in mind, my main position was not that the verb was in the third person singular, and better agreed with a noun. in the singular number; but my more prominent reason was the use made by the apostle of this passage. He quoted it as applicable to the judgment-seat of Christ, where not only life everlasting but also eternal punishment was to be dispensed. My other main reason is, that the text itself em braces not only those who hear his voice and submit to him, but his enemies, who are to be "ashamed,” and “confounded." He says I made out a case very easily in regard to the continued punishment of the impenitent, by my explanation given of this verse. I admit it, because God prepared it for me; that is what makes it so easy for me. I concede to my brother superior talents and a profound education. God has made it out, therefore; it is easy for me. I have only to take reason and the Scriptures-I have only to read that sacred book, and on almost every page I find passages which teach me this fearful truth.

He asks us, when we go home-he asked me, when I go home, to take up my little child, if I have one, look in its face, and say if I can see any picture or likeness of the devil there. This he says on the subject of depravity. My brother probably has not looked at the meaning of the word depravity: it means, simply, destitution. Destitution of what?

[The lights in the room here went out suddenly, which circumstance caused Mr. Wescott to conclude before his time was out. He merely could add the following few words:-]

By depravity-human depravity-and even if I were to use the term total depravity, which I have not, and probably shall not-we simply mean that the heart is, by nature,

destitute of that love of holiness which is God's due, and which was lost by the fall of Adam. If, therefore, I look in the face of my child, and watch it as it grows,—as its mental and moral faculties are developed-I will find in it no principles leading to the love of holiness, the love of God, the love of the service of God. These must be implanted by grace-Divine grace alone-that, in brief, is what I mean by depravity and natural sinfulness.

7

SIXTH EVENING.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. GOODRICH.

REV. DR. SAWYER.-I am afraid my learned friend is not quite orthodox in the important doctrine of depravity. He defines that term to mean "want of goodness." He gives it no positive character; but you know that the confessions of faith lay it down as implying an averseness to all that is good, and an inclination to all that is evil. I have here what I suppose to be the confession of faith in Baptist churches, and the doctrine is laid down in broader terms than he has presented. They say that man was created in a state of holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which, all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint but choice, being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, and wholly given to the gratifications of the world, and of Satan, and of their own sinful passions, and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defence or excuse.' That is the doctrine of depravity. My brother hesitates a little about calling it total depravity. I agree to that, but it is not orthodox. Let us have total depravity, and in the oldfashioned way, strong and clear, so as to be intelligible. I doubt whether that is the doctrine of the Bible. I remember when our Saviour was on earth, and his disciples would repel those who brought little children to him, he forbid

147 them thus-"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He could have said they were totally depraved, if he thought so-but if He thought so, how could He say-“ Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then He says to His disciples, "Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." I think the Bible is not very clear on the doctrine of total depravity.

My brother quoted several passages to show why he could not be a Universalist, such as wicked shall perish," "The hope of the hypocrite shall "The expectation of the perish," "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death." If he had only told you what kind of expectation and hope the wicked and the hypocrites have, I think you would see that there was no great calamity in the same perishing. The hypocrite hopes to get along in hypocrisy, his hope is one opposed to God, and all His moral government, therefore it should not, and will not endure, but perish. The wicked hope to succeed in their wickedness, though God's holy and eternal will is against it. My brother tells us that Judas had a very severe sentence pronounced against him: "good were it for that man if he had never been born." My brother said

But this is an

"better," but our Saviour said "good." expression which the learned look on as having been a proverbial one among the Jews, and applied in a great many instances where there was no reference whatever to the future. There is no reason to suppose that our Saviour had any whatever in this instance. He spoke of the condition of Judas, into which he threw himself by a great transgression; his terrible misery, the gnawing of his conscience, and all those consequences which we see recorded in the scripture as following him till the very moment of his death. Dr. Adam Clarke, who is a very orthodox authority, has

gone over this subject with great learning and candor, and he came to the conclusion that, in the scriptures there was no evidence of Judas' ultimate damnation; and this was a second examination, because, in one passage he speaks of it as a certainty, but afterwards comes to the conclusion I have mentioned, having gone over the matter more largely.

My learned opponent still insists, with great pertinacity, that if sin and misery are consistent with the moral government of God here, they must be so in the future: if allowed to-day, he thinks they must be allowed to-morrow, and through all eternity. Now, I am aware how important this position is to my brother, because, if he gives it up, he is gone entirely. I do not wonder that he clings to it; yet I do wonder that he does not see the intrinsic absurdity of the position. Why, are we persuaded that the suffering which is consistent with the fleeting condition of to-day, must be consistent with love and goodness throughout all eternity? It is consistent with love and goodness that we should be born infants, without knowledge and without virtue; but would it be consistent that we should remain so? Would it be consistent that we should remain throughout all eternity without any increase of knowledge, or of power, or of goodness? It is consistent with the attributes of God that good men should suffer much here, in this world, from sickness, and the opposition of their fellowmen, and the oppression of the wicked, and in various ways. Take the instance of Job, and others recorded in the scriptures. Is it consistent with the goodness of God that such hopelessness and misery should attach to the wicked throughout eternity? So it must be if my brother's argument be correct. It was consistent with the infinite wisdom and goodness of God that our Saviour should suffer on the cross, the object of mockery to his enemies; and that he should die a bitter and agonizing death—a death of