sin clearly is eternal, or, should the phrase be better liked, is perpetuated to eternity. This, however, cannot be, for reasons of the most substantial kind.

1. If we assume that sin is eternal, we invest it with a divine attribute. It is evident that the circumstance of having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is an attribute of the Supreme Being, and it is likewise evident, that as such it cannot be ascribed to sin. If other reasons be required they are at hand. 1st. Can we suppose that to be eternal, or possessed of a divine attribute, which is in opposition to the divine nature? 2dly. No creature, as such, is or can be eternal, and can we suppose then the act of a creature, which sin is, to be invested with an attribute which does not belong to the creature itself? 3dly. Can we forget that, if sin be eternal, it is impossible for it to be expiated or removed?

I am not fond of raising the cry of heresy, or of fastening consequences on an antagonist, which he himself would disavow, but it is right for the supporters of the ordinary system to be aware, that the doctrine of eternal punishment, which involves in it the eternity and infinity of sin, leads directly to Manicheism. The heresy of Manes, like that of the ancient Magi,

that it is not by punishment, but by the revelation of the divine character, that the views and dispositions of intelligent creatures are changed, and from being natural become spiritual and divine, it follows, that, if the wicked are pun、 ished hereafter, and if no other agent than punishment is employed to effect a change, no change can take place. Continued and inceasing punishment must, in such circumstances, be attended with continued and increasing desperation and sin. Now it is not contended by the consistent advocates for limited punishment hereafter, and for the efficacy of such punishment, that any other means is resorted to in order to bring transgressors to a sense of duty, and restore them to the fold of God. This it is that, in a way of which they do hot appear to me to have been aware, stamps inconsistency, and ignorance of the hature and end of punishment, upon this system, and imparts to that of their adver saries more of the appearance of truth.

is said to have consisted in the supposition of two coeternal principles of good and evil, or, of a good and an evil Deity, who everlastingly cherish hostile feelings, and display these in overt acts, towards each other, but neither of whom is able to effect the destruction of the other. To this heresy the doctrine of everlasting punishment hereafter bears a close affinity, coinciding with it in the grand and leading circumstance of investing sin with divine attributes, and representing it consequently as the rival of Jehovah. Can it be contradicted that infinity and eternity are attributes of the Supreme Being? Besides, when it is declared that sin unless atoned for, must exist everlastingly, have those who use this language reflected that necessary existence is predicable only of God himself? Such, without any exaggeration, is the awkward predicament in which every advocate for everlasting punishment hereafter places himself-he makes sin infinite and eternal, and clothes it with necessary existence, thereby raising it to an equality with God! What did Manes ever say worse than this?

Here, however, I almost fancy my antagonists triumphantly exclaiming, "your argument, if it proves anything, proves too much-The proper inference from the fact of sin being infinite and eternal, upon your own principles, is not that sin is God's rival but is God himself-and yet if this be admitted, what becomes of the eternal life of the people of God; for if sin cannot be invested with eternity without confounding it with God, no being can be possessed of eternal life without confounding it with God." This objection, although somewhat specious and plausible, is at bottom a mere cavil. I am willing to allow, that if sin be infinite and

eternal the proper conclusion is, that it is one with God or confounded with him a fact which wonderfully confirms the preceding reasoning-but I deny the inference which my antagonists would draw from this. When I maintain that believers are one with God, I have the authority of scripture for thus expressing myself, and when I show that this astonishing and incomprehensible union results from the fact of their being possessed of the divine nature, any understanding, however feeble and unpractised, may perceive the force, necessity, and validity of my conclusion. On the other hand, that sin cannot be one with God, I have these plain and incontrovertible proofs, that it is no where in the sacred writings declared to be so, and that it neither is, nor ever was pretended to be possessed of the divine nature, but is diametrically opposed to it. Here I might stop, resting the weight of my answer to the above cavil on the simple fact, that believers are declared in scripture to be one with God, whereas no such declaration is made concerning Sin. But I proceed further and observe, that although a person may be one with God, without being confounded with him, the case is widely different with respect to a mere quality or attribute, such as sin on all hands is acknowledged to be. God's attributes, it is well known, are God himself, and therefore, if sin, however monstrous the idea, were one of these attributes, it must be confounded with God or be God himself. Thus, then, is my argument strengthened rather than weakened by the present objection, for my opponents by making sin, which is a mere quality or attribute, infinite and eternal, necessarily confound it with God himself if they object to allowing it to be God's rival

whereas in representing believers to be one with God as being partakers of the divine nature, I do no more than scripture itself, and the circumstances of the case warrant me in doing.*

2. If sin be eternal, then instead of being one of the means by which God displays his perfections, it becomes the end, scope, or ultimate design, of the divine procedure.

The doctrine of eternal punishment hereafter is founded on a gross mistake with regard to the nature of sin, and the purpose of its introduction into the world. By representing sin as eternal, it ascribes to it a quality, and invests it with an attribute, which can only belong to the end, object, or final cause, or to one of the ends, objects or final causes, which God aims at accomplishing, by all his providential and gracious dispensations. But that sin cannot be the end, object, or final cause of the divine procedure, nor any part of that end is plain for the following reasons:

1st. God, as a pure and holy being, can propose to himself no end or object, except what is good and worthy of himself. But if this be true, and who shall be found daring enough to gainsay it, then to give a permanent and everlasting existence to evil, or to that which is the opposite of goodness, cannot constitute any part of the end, object, or ultimate design of the divine procedure.

2dly. The idea of God making the eternity of evil or sin, the object, or any part of the object, of his procedure towards the human race, stands in opposition to the whole tenor and analogy of scripture, which

As to the modus existendi or manner of the existence of believers hereafter, farther than that it must imply a larger and more abundant manifestation and enjoyment of the divine character, than is conceded to them while here, I neither know, nor while in the body, can know any thing.

speaks of him as having but one end or object in view in all that he does, viz, the display of his own glory, or, in perhaps plainer and more intelligible language, of his own character and perfections. See, in in proof of this, Psalm xix 1. Luke ii. 14. John viii. 50. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27. 1 Corinth. x. 31. 2 Corinth. iii. 18, iv. 6. Galatians i. 5. Ephesians i. 6. iii. 21. 2 Tim. iv. 18. Heb. xiii. 21. 1 Peter v. 11, Rev. iv. 11, v. 12. 13. In connexion with this subject, it deserves to be remarked, that the enjoyment of eternal life, by the people of God, though inseparable from the divine object or purpose, is not directly and properly speaking, that object or purpose itself, but results from the fact, that as the divine character is to be eternally manifested, there must be persons to whom the manifestation is made; the intended manifestation thus creating the necessity for the persons, and not the persons creating the necessity for the manifestation.

Seeing then that sin is not the end, object, or final cause, which God proposes to himself in his procedure towards the human race, nor any part of it-and seeing that the only end which he aims at, is his own glory or the eternal manifestation of himself—it follows, that sin, like all creatures, and all the acts of creatures, must be merely one of the means or instruments, by which he accomplishes this end. That is, in fewer and simpler words, sin is not an end, but one of the means employed for the attainment of an end. The correctness of this statement, and its inconsistency with the idea of sin being eternal, will be rendered obvious by a consideration of the few following particulars.

1st. It being abundantly manifest, that sin is not an