posed of the grosser elements of matter; in the world to come we shall have spiritual bodies. In this state of being, our bodies are corruptible; in the next, they will be incorruptible. Here, we are weak and comparatively helpless; there, this weakness will be succeeded by power sufficient for all purposes. Now, by reason of our fleshly lusts and passions, we are often led into such courses of life as render us dishonorable; then, all our faculties will operate together in such a manner as to render us glorious. These are plain and natural deductions from the language of the apostle; and I now ask, is it reasonable to suppose, with such constitutions, and in such a condition, that men will continue eternally to sin?

די

I have now, I believe, examined every ground on which the believers in endless punishment have ever attempted to support the idea of its reasonableness; there may be others, but if so I am unacquainted with them. We have seen that the long cherished notion of the infinity of sin is without foundation; and on bringing it to the test of reason, (and its advocates have never attempted to support it by the scriptures,) it has vanished like the 'baseless fabric of a vision,' The endless continuance of sin, in a spiritual and immortal constitution, has also been shown to be contrary to the clearest and plainest dictates of sound reason; and thus the whole foundation on which the reasonableness of this sentiment is or can be predicated is entirely gone-it has crumbled into dust.

I might now, perhaps, with propriety, dismiss

the subject, having shown that the doctrine under consideration has no foundation in reason; but I wish to present one other view of it, in which its opposition to reason must be apparent to all who will allow themselves to exercise their reason upon it. Rewards and punishments, in order to be reasonable, must be apportioned to the merit or demerit of those who are their recipients. Now if an infinite and eternal distinction is to be made in the condition of mankind, in a future state of existence, and if this distinction is to be founded on the characters which the different individuals form and sustain in this life, does not reason clearly show that this distinction is altogether disproportionate to the difference which exists in the characters of men in this world?

In order to illustrate the subject more fully let us suppose virtue and vice, or righteousness and sin, to be divided into one hundred degrees each; and that the dividing line in the characters of men is fifty. Between eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, and eternal condemnation in hell, in the common acceptation of the terms, there is the greatest imaginable, not to say infinite difference. Reason, therefore, will teach us, that a person, in order to be justly entitled to the kingdom of heaven, should possess the whole hundred degrees of virtue or righteousness; and on the other hand, for a person to be justly subjected to the endless suffering of hell, he should possess, or be guilty of all the degrees of sin; or in other words, that he should be wholly sinful, without the least mixture of

goodness in his whole character; and unless this distinction-this total difference in the characters and conduct of men does exist, that system which awards to human righteousness eternal life, and to the wickedness of men interminable wo, is manifestly inconsistent and unreasonable. But the difficulty does not end here; suppose a man to possess fifty one degrees of rigteousness, and forty nine of sin; as he stands on the favorable side of the dividing line, he would according to the system under consideration be entitled to eternal life. How, or when is he to receive his punishment for his forty nine degrees of guilt? As it is denied that sin is punished in this life, is it not clear that he will eternally escape the punishment which he justly deserves? On the other hand, we may suppose a man possesses fifty one degrees of sinfulness, and forty nine of righteousness; as he is on the unfavorable side of the line, he would of course be consigned to remediless wo. When will he receive the just reward for his righteousness? And I would inquire further, how can it be said that God renders to these two individuals, or to either of them, according to their deeds?

But to this it will probably be answered, all men, while in a state of nature, and before experiencing the influence of divine grace on their hearts, are altogether sinful in the sight of God, destitute of all true righteousness or goodness; and consequently, God regards all their conduct as well as their character with disapprobation; that the influence of this grace is

such as to effect a radical and entire change, not only in the outward conduct, but also in the affections of those who feel its operations; so that those who before this change were altogether sinful, and vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,' now become vessels of mercy,' prepared for eternal felicity. Now this again is an entire assumption of facts-a bare assertion unaccompanied with any proof, either from revelation, reason, or experience. This sentiment is not only unfounded in scripture and reason, but it is directly contrary to what we see and know to be truth. Search among the children of men-go to those countries where the light of the gospel has never shone-where the name of the Saviour was never heard,—and you cannot find an individual who is entirely destitute of all goodness-in whom none of those pure and amiable affections which God himself has implanted in the human heart is never exercised. And O, tell me not these are all sinful in the sight of him who gave themtell me not that the affection, care and kindness of parents for their children are unholy and sinful, and tell me not that the gratitude, love, and obedience of children to their parents are odious in the view of Him who has commanded them, although they operate in the bosom of an unregenerate heathen. On the other hand, look at those who profess to have passed through this great and marvellous change, even those who have been truly regenerated by the influence of God's spirit; are any perfect in good works? Are there any who possess or exercise

no unholy passions or propensities? No; not one. And is sin committed by a regenerate person less odious in the sight of God than if it were committed by one who never enjoyed the light of divine truth? To suppose this would be to reverse all our ideas of propriety, and to disregard the maxims and instructions of our Redeemer.

The truth is, in the human character there is every gradation and degree of virtue and vice, from the most perfect Christian, to the most abandoned wretch who disgraces humanity. These degrees and gradations are very numerous, and consequently minute; and such is the nature of human actions-so various are the springs from which they flow, that it is often difficult to tell

'Where ends the virtue or begins the vice.'

As the man who should claim heaven and immortal felicity, for even the most perfect righteousness of which human nature is capable would be altogether more unreasonable in his demands than the laborer, who, for one day's services, should claim a rich estate; so it is equally unreasonable and absurd to suppose that a frail, finite mortal can deserve the pains of an endless hell for the sins of this transitory life; or that a God of infinite justice and mercy will inflict those pains on his dependent children.

The doctrine of endless, unmerciful punishment, is not, like that of the trinity, and some other kindred absurdities, one of those doctrines which its advocates contend is above the reach