not one of them is tenable. But as this sentiment has been the principal argument in support of the reasonableness of endless punishment, it deserves some further attention. I will therefore proceed to offer some objections to the sentiment, which have not, as yet, been noticed.And,

1. If sin be infinite, all distinction in crimes, and all degrees of guilt, and criminality in sinners, are entirely done away. There can be no such thing as degrees, or parts of infinity; consequently the person who is guilty of one sin, is just as criminal as he who has committed ten thousand; and the man who should wrong his neighbor to the amount of one cent, deserves as great a punishment as the black assassin, who should enter his neighbor's dwelling at midnight, -murder the unconscious slumbering inmates, and set fire to the house. In short, every son and daughter of humanity, who has committed even what we are accustomed to term the smallest crime, must sustain the character of an infinite sinner!

2. This sentiment denies that the sinner can ever be justly and adequately punished for his sins, or even for the smallest one of them. Infinite sin deserves infinite and endless punishment; and we are told the justice of God can never be satisfied till every sinner has received his deserts. But, can this punishment ever be inflicted? and can the justice of God, on this principle, ever be satisfied? No; for until eternity shall end, this punishment can never have been endured ; and consequently, divine justice must, till then, remain unsatisfied.

3. It is a virtual denial of the final salvation of a single individual of the human family. AH have sinned; and of course, according to this sentiment, as has been already shown, have become infinite sinners, and are under an infinite

weight of guilt. Now, how can this guilt be removed! It will certainly require something superior to itself to remove it; and what can be greater? Not even God himself; for he is no more than infinite. It is in vain to talk about an infinite atonement, admitting such to have been made; for one infinity can never remove another, or counteract its operations.

4. Finally, it denies the infinity of God himself! It is an absolute contradiction in terms, to say that more than one infinite principle can exist in the universe; especially if one be opposed to the other in its nature. If, therefore, we admit that sin is an infinite principle, we must forever abandon the idea that any other principle, or even God himself, is, or can be infinite.

You will now, my respected hearers, be able to judge for yourselves, whether it is our duty as rational beings, to receive as divine truth, a principle of doctrine so entirely destitute of all foundation, and which involves so many contradictions and absurdities as that of the infinity of

sin.

And if this principle be abandoned, as I think it must be by every candid person; and if we admit that sin is finite in its nature, being the limited act of a finite creature; it must appear unreasonable in the highest degree, to attach infinite effects or consequences to it. Reason, therefore, is most clearly against the doctrine of endless punishment, in this view of our subject; for if we have arrived at correct conclusions respecting the nature of sin, we cannot reasonably believe a just God will inflict for it, a punishment so vastly disproportioned to its demerit.

Some distinguished orthodox divines of the present day appear to have become sensible of the impropriety of attempting any longer to support the doctrine of endless punishment on that of the infinity of sin; and have consequently abandoned this ground as untenable. They now

teach that men will not be punished eternally for the sins of this life; but for those they will continue eternally to commit. This, it will be perceived, is entirely abandoning the principles of the early reformers; and even of that far famed assembly, whose confession of faith and catechism are considered the standard of faith in most orthodox churches. But how do they attempt

Do

to prove the endless continuance of sin ? they appeal directly to the testimonies of divine inspiration? No; were they to do this, they would be met with express declarations to the contrary. They would there learn that, "for this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil;" and, "to take away our sins ;”—that he is the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" that "he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet;"-and surely, sin is an enemy; and finally, that death, the last enemy, the consequence and wages of sin, shall be destroyed. What then is the process of reasoning by which they attempt to establish this principle?

It is

by analogy. The sinner, say they, leaves this world unreconciled to God, and with all his sinful propensities with him; therefore, as he has sinned through this life, he will continue to sin eternally; and consequently eternally remain a subject of wrath.

Now as this is nothing but bare assertion, unaccompanied by the least evidence to support it, I might pass it by as such; and take no farther notice of it until it is proved true. But as this would be following a bad example, I will proceed to show that it is entirely groundless.

All the hopes we can have of an existence beyond the grave must rest altogether on the strength of scripture testimony. Neither reason nor philosophy were ever yet able to implant in the heart of man a hope which is "full of im

mortality;" nor to assure him that if he died, he should live again. Neither can they teach us, admitting we are to live beyond the present state of existence, what bodies or constitutions we shall possess in an immortal state. What then,

say the scriptures on this subject? The same passages which assure us we shall live again, clearly point out to us what bodies we shall have in eternity. Paul, writing to his Corinthian brethren, when speaking of death, and the resurrection to life and immortality, says, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." It was not my intention, in the present discourse, to make much use of scripture testimony, as the design of it would not lead me to that course. But, as the position I am now exaniining rests merely on assertion, without any arguments to support it: it became necessary in this instance, to have recourse to scripture, in order to obtain data on which to found an argument. From the information which the language cited gives us of the constitution of man in an immortal state, we at once discover, that in reasoning on what will be in a future existence, from what we know of the present, analogy entirely fails us. We can no more tell what the conduct of a man will be in eternity, from what we see of his conduct in this life, than we can tell what will be the motions of the butterfly, by observing the movements of the worm from which it is produced.

In this world, we have natural bodies, composed 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 déductious 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?

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