An infinite law would be equal to God himself; for he is no more than infinite; and it may well be questioned whether it is in the power of Jehovah to produce any principle equal to himself. That "the law of the Lord is perfect" is not only a scriptural, but a rational principle. Its require ments are all perfectly adapted to the capacity and condition of all its subjects; and its penalties are all suited to their proper ends. But there is a wide difference between perfection and infinity; a principle or thing may be perfect in its kind, as perfect love, or a perfect piece of machinery, and yet fall very far short of infinity. Hence, we are exhorted to be "perfect, even as our farther which is in heaven is perfect; " but no one would ever think we can become infinite.

4. There is one other ground on which the infinity of sin has been argued, viz. the infinity of the atonement. Had not sin been infinite, it is ́said, there could have been no necessity for an infinite sacrifice to atone for it. Here I would observe that the advocates for the doctrines of the trinity and infinite sin are guilty of a violation of the most plain and acknowledge rules of argumentation. They introduce two propositions both of which are assumed, and attempt to prove each one true by the other. If the infinity of sin be the point in dispute, the infinite sacrifi ce which has been made to atone for it is represened as an undeniable evidence of the correctness and truth of the position. On the other hand, in attempting to prove the essential divinity or Godhead of the Son, we are told it was absolutely necessary he should be truly God, as well as man; otherwise he could not have made that infinite sacrifice which was necessary to atone for sin.

But let us enquire, has an infinite atonement been made for sin? To this question I am sen

sible there are many who wonld, without the least doubt or hesitation, return an affirmative answer. This sentiment has long been taught and received as a principle of divine truth; it is plainly expressed in the language of some most eniment divines; and by none, perhaps, more clearly than by the learned and pious Dr. Watts. In his hymns, which have long been in the use in most christian churches, we find these expressions, "When God, the mighty Maker died; "Behold! a God decends and dies" "groans of an expiring God; and "crucified my God; with many others of the same import. Now admitting all which the most rigid trinitarian ever contended for-that Christ was the true and essential Deity, the uncaused and eternal Jehovah; how, I ask, can the doctrine of an infinite sacrifice or atonement be substantiated? Could self-existence suffer and die? Can we admit that he who is the source and fountain of life, and "who only hath immortality" could sease to exist? These questions must be answered in the affirmative, and they must be proved true, before the doctrine of an infinite atonement for sin can be established as truth. But in order to obviate this difficulty, we are told that our Saviour, although he was truly and essentially God, was also really and properly man,—that he had two distinct and separate natures, the divine and the human; and that it was the human, and not the divine nature, which suffered and died on the cross. Where then, is the idea of an infinite atonement in the death and sufferings of Christ? It has gone,vanished like the mist before the beams of a inid-day sun. Many attempts, it is true, have been made in all ages since the introduction of the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian system, to explain this intricate subject; by aledging that in consequence of the intimate con

nexion of the divine and human natures in Christ, his human nature suffered in a much greater degree, and that these sufferings were far more valuable and meritorious in the sight of God, than would have been the case had it not been for this union of natures. But after all, as it cannot be admitted that the divine nature in Christ, could be in the least degree, susceptible of suffering, these explanations have only served, ether to perplex the mind, by filling it with a jargon of unintelligible mysteries; or to show more clearly the absurdity of the sentiment.

All this difficulty in understanding the doctrine of atonement would be removed at once, if people would but attend to the plain, simple language of the New Testament on this subject; where the word atonement is found once and once only. The passage where it occurs is Rom. v. 11, and the apostle there says, "And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." He does not inform us that he and his believing brethren had received the virtues or the benefit of the atonement, but the atonement itself. In other passages, the same word in the original occurs, and is rendered reconciliation; and in every passage where it is found, it evidently refers to man, and not to God, as the party who receives it, or is affected by it. This is the plain, scripture doctrine of atonement or reconciliation; and this atonement is what every true christian receives and enjoys by faith in his Redeemer. the death of Christ, he beholds a wonderful display of God's unchanging love to perishing sinners; and "through the blood of the everlasting covenant," he becomes "reconciled to God."

In

I have now examined every ground on which the doctrine of infinite sin can possibly be maintained; and I think shown conclusively, that

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.

All

3. It is a virtual denial of the final salvation of a single individual of the human family. have sinned; and of course, according to this sentiment, as has been already shown, have be come 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