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 oppos ed 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 no

tice some other of the attributes of our heav

Will

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. 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

the opposer, the objection founded on the negative quality of weakness and folly, has not been removed, but rather strengthened by the remarks last made; as it will be contended that hatred, falsehood, ignorance, injustice and cruelty, are only the want of love, truth, knowledge, justice and mercy. Very well. Prove then that sin is any thing but the want of holiness; or cease to urge its infinity from the fact that it is the opposite of God's holiness.

3. The infinity of sin has been urged on the ground of its being the transgression of an infinite law. As "sin is the transgression of the law;"if it can be proved that the law which has been given to man for the government of his conduct, is an infinite law; then, I acknowledge, the question is forever settled; and the infinity of sin must be admitted as an incontrovertible truth. On the contrary, if it can be clearly shown that the law which man violates by his transgression is finite, by a parity of reasoning it will follow conclusively that sin is also finite. But what are the arguments brought in sup ort of the position that the law of God which man violates by transgression is an infinite law? The only one which I have ever heard adduced on this point is, that this law proceeded from an infinite lawgiver. This argument, if it may be called an argument, by proving altogether too much, de, feats itself. For if we contend that this law must necessarily be infinite, because it proceeded from God; then, in order to be consistent, we must admit that every being, and every thing which has proceeded from him is infinite; that we ourselves, as we owe our existence and every thing we have and are to him, are infinite beings; and not only ourselves, but every insect in the dust, yea, and every plant and shrub which springs from the earth is also infinite; which would amount very nearly to an infinite absur dity.

This is not the only, nor the greatest difficulty attendant on the supposition of the infinity of the law. We may rationally inquire if finite beings can be justly amenable to an infinite law? Reason will at once answer this question in the negative. The law of God is a reasonable law; it is addressed to moral beings, who are supposed to be capable, not only of understanding, but of obeying its requirements. If then, this law be infinite, all its requirements must be infinite; and as all the faculties of man are finite and limited, it follows that these requirements are altogether above his faculties, either to understand or to obey. Where then would be the justice in the infliction of an infinite penalty on man, for not conforming to a law which is infinitely above his comprehension ? Every rational person must at once discover the impropriety of this principle. But, should it still be contended that this law is infinite, I would ask, can such a law be violated or broken? I acknowledge I am unable to form any clear views of an infinite law; but if any such law does or can exist, I conceive it must be that by which God governs the material universe; by which he guides the sun, the stars, and the planets in their regular orbits, and preserves eternal order and harmony throughout the immensity of his works. Now admitting this law could be violated, what would be the consequence? Original chaos, and eternal night would take the place of every thing fair and beautiful which we now see and admire in creation. Then would the

earth unbalanced from her orbit fly, Planets and suns rush lawless through the sky; And ruling angels from their spheres be hurl'd Being on being wreck'd, and world on world; Heav'ns whole foundations to their centre nod, And nature tremble to the throne of God."