were to reject every thing in revelation which our reason could not completely comprehend, it would become altogether useles, and the end for which it was given to us, would be entirely subverted.

That man is capable of exercising his reason to advantage, and that it is his duty thus to exercise it, in the important concerns of religion, is obvious from the language of the text, as well as from other scriptures. Our Saviour calls on those he addresses to judge of themselves; 'what is right." Now if we adopt the supposition that man is destitute of the natural or moral ability of judging correctly, we must consider our Lord as extremely arbitrary and unreasonable in his requirements; in fact, we must consider him as requireing contrary to his own instructions concerning the requisitions of God on his creatures. In the chapter from which our text is selected, Christ plainly teaches us that no more is required of us than we are able to perform; and that we shall be guilty in the sight of God in proportion to our neglect of known duties. "That servant," says he, "which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required." God himself, by the prophet, calls on us in a plain and explicit manner to exercise our reason, and promises us great blessings in doing it. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."But, I need not multiply quotations to prove the propriety and reasonableness of reasoning on this subject. I shall, therefore proceed directly to

the main object of this discourse, which is to show the unreasonableness of the doctrine of endless punishment.

In the discussion of the subject before us, there are certain principles which I shall assume as true, as they are admitted and urged by christians of all denominations. 1. That God has established a moral government in the world— 2. That men are the subjects of this government; and 3. That as subjects, all men are accountable to him for their conduct. With these principles constantly in view, the sentiment that God will punish men for their disobedience and their sins is perfectly reasonable; it is in accordance with all our ideas of right and justice. The question then before us, is not whether it is reasonable, just and right for God to punish his disobedient children; but whether it is reasonable to suppose he will do it without mercy, and without end.

The only ground on which the advocates for the doctrine of endless punishment have heretofore attempted to support this principle from reason, is that of the infinity of sin. Sin, they say, is an infinite evil; and consequently deserves an infinite, or endless punishment. This sentiment is clearly expressed by the Westminster Assembly of divines, in the following question and answer,-"What does every sin deserve? Every Sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and in that which is to come." Now if the infinity of sin can be established as a truth, then I admit the doctrine of endless punishmeut would flow from it as a natural and reasonable consequence; but on the other hand, if this principle cannot be established; and if on the contrary it can be shown that sin is finite and limited in its nature, all the support which the doctrine can derive from reason is at once taken away. Sin, it is acknowledged by

all, is the act of a finite being; and as no one ever thought of attributing infinity to any other act of man, we might rationally conclude that this, as well as all his other acts was finite.But such is the fondness of man for his own peculiar opinions, and such his anxiety to maintain them, that the clearest dictates of reason are often overlooked; and such I conceive to be the case in reference to the subject under consideration. Let us now examine the different grounds on which the advocates for the doctrine of the infinity of sin have attempted to support their systems.

1. Sin, it is contended, is infinite, because committed against an infinite God. The greater the being sinned against, and the more perfect the authority opposed by sin, the greater will be the crime. As therefore, God is infinite in all his perfections, and as his authority over man is also infinite, sin, being against this God, and in opposition to his authority, must consequently be infinite. This argument certainly appears somewhat plausible at first view; but let us examine it-let us bring it to the test of reason and see if it be not more specious than solid. Suppose this principle were to be adopted in the jurisprudence of our country, or carried into practice in the government of families.What would be the consequences which would follow ? Surely they would be such as to cause all the better feelings of the heart to revolt against them. In all civil governments, the authority delegated to rulers and magistrates by the constitution of the country, extends equally over all the subjects or citizens. But, I ask, are all these subjects or citizens alike guilty in the view of the law for opposing this authority?— This will not be contended for by any man in his right mind. On the contrary, all governments, even the most despotic, make a wide difference

in the criminality of the different individuals who may violate their laws: and while they would punish with death the man, who, in the perfect exercise of reason, should deliberately commit murder; the idiot, or the insane person who should commit the same act, would be screened from all punishment. Now if the degree of criminality which is to be attached to the actions of mankind, is to be determined by the dignity of the person or authority which is opposed by these actions, all such distinctions must forever cease; the idiot, or the insane man deserves just the same punishment for the same act, as the man who is perfectly sane; and the infant a week old should be punished with the same severity for disobeying a parent, as the child of ten years. The truth is, the degree of criminality attached to every act is determined by the actor's knowledge of right and wrong, and by the amount of injury received by the person against whom the act is directed; and not by the dignity or the authority of the person sinned against.This principle as I have already shown is recognized in all governments; it is adopted and put in practice in every family; and were it to be overlooked, or a departure from it tolerated, the most unnatural and horrid consequences would be the result.

2. It has been argued that sin must be infinite because it is the opposite of holiness. Holiness, it is said, is an infinite attribute of God; it is not capable of being divided into parts, sin is opposed to the holiness of God; not to any particular part, as there are no parts, but to the entire and perfect holiness of God; therefore it must be as infinite as the holiness itself; and so, evidently becomes at once, an infinite evil.

Without stopping to inquire whether holiness is, strickly speaking, a single and distinct attribute of God; or whether it is not, on the other

hand, a principle which attaches equality to all his attributes and perfections, which I am, for myself, satisfied is the fact; let us briefly examine the premises laid down, and the conclusion drawn from them. In order that the subject may be fully and clearly before us, I will take the liberty to lay down similar premises, and draw like conclusions from them. Wisdom and power are infinite attributes of Deity, and are incapable of being divided into parts. Folly and weakness, being the opposites of wisdom and power, are opposed to these infinite attributes of God; not to particular parts of them, for there can be no such, but to the whole and entire wisdom and power of the Most High, therefore they must be as infinite as the wisdom and power themselves; and so, evidently become at once, infinite evils. Every one must readily discover the futility and impropriety of such reasoning as this; all must fell sensible of the absurdity of speaking of infinite weaknes, or infinite folly ; and yet by the same process of reasoning, which proves sin infinite, on the ground I am now examining, we must prove the infinity of folly and weakness.

But, I shall perhaps be met here with the assertion that weakness, and folly are mere negative qualities or principles, being nothing but a a lack of power and wisdom. Let us then notice some other of the attributes of our heav

enly Father. Love, truth, knowledge, justice and mercy are also attributes belonging to him; the opposites of which are hatred, falsehood, ignorance, injustice and cruelty. Will any one contend that either of these, as they exist or operate in man is infinite? Certainly not; and yet there is the same reason for considering them in this light, as they are the opposites of the attributes of God, as there is on this ground for ascribing infinity to sin. But, says