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? 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.

It is

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.

say the scriptures on this subject?

What then,
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 examining 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 deductious 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 mmortal constitution, has also been shown to e 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 distinctior 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 siu 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 dil. ference 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 inconsis tent and unreasonable. But the difficulty does not end here; suppose a man to possess fifty one degrees of righteousness, 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 nev er 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 them, -tell me not that the affection, care and kind