Chapter 4: Dr. C’s Arguments Against Endless Punishment

That the endless punishment of the damned is inconsistent with justice, is positively and abundantly asserted by Doctor C. and other advocates for universal salvation. Whether the arguments which the Doctor offers to prove the injustice of endless punishment, be conclusive, is the subject of our inquiry in this chapter.

Before we proceed to this inquiry, it seems necessary, to explain the meaning of the proposition — That the endless punishment of the damned is consistent with justice.

I do not find that Doctor C. has any where given us a definition of his idea of justice, or of a just punishment, which is certainly a great omission. The Chevalier Ramsay gives the following definition of the divine justice: "Justice is that perfection of God, by which he endeavors continually to make all intelligences just." But with the same reason he might have defined the divine mercy to be, not that perfection in God, by which he is himself inclined to the exercise of mercy to the miserable; but that by which he endeavors to make all intelligences merciful: and the divine love to be, not that perfection in God, by which he loves his creatures, but that by which he endeavors to make other intelligences exercise love. By this definition of justice a human judge, who wrongs every man, whose cause is brought before him, and yet endeavors to make other men just, is a just judge.

The word justice is used in three different senses. Sometimes it means commutative justice, sometimes distributive, and sometimes general or public justice. Commutative justice respects property only, and the equal exchange and restitution of it. Distributive justice is the equal distribution of rewards and punishments, and it respects the personal rights and demerit of the person rewarded or punished. General or public justice respects what are called the rights of a community, whether a city, state, empire, or the universe. This kind of justice requires the public good; and whenever that is violated or neglected the public is injured. This last use of the word justice, though very frequent, yet is an improper use of it; because to practice justice in this sense, is no other than to act from public spirit, or from love to the community, and with respect to the universe, it is the very same with general benevolence.

Now when we inquire, whether the endless punishment of the wicked be consistent with justice, no man will suppose that the word justice means commutative justice; because the inquiry has no respect to property. Nor is the word to be understood to mean general or public justice. It is indeed an important inquiry, whether the endless punishment of a man dying in impenitence, be consistent with the general interest of the universe; but this is not the subject to be considered in this chapter. The question to be considered in this and in one or two succeeding chapters, is, whether to inflict an endless punishment on a man dying in impenitence, be an act of distributive justice, or be a treatment of him by his judge, correspondent and no more than correspondent or proportioned to his demerit, to his crimes, or to his moral conduct and personal character. This is a question entirely different from the following; Whether the infliction of an endless punishment on a sinner dying in impenitence, be subservient to the good of the universe? A punishment or calamity inflicted on a person may be subservient to the public good of a community, yet not be deserved by him on account of his personal crimes. It was for the good of the Roman republic, that Regulus should return to certain death at Carthage; yet he did not deserve that death; it was not correspondent to his moral character. On the other hand, many a villain has by his atrocious crimes deserved death; yet by reason of his power, his connections, or the peculiar circumstances of the state, it could not, consistently with the public good be inflicted on him. So that in a variety of instances public justice or the public good is promoted by private or distributive injustice; and distributive justice would be productive of public injury or damage. And in some cases the public good may be promoted by a proceeding, which, though not in the distributive sense unjust, yet is not according to distributive justice. An innocent person may choose to be made the subject of sufferings, in the stead of a criminal. Therefore though the sufferings which he chooses to endure, be inflicted on him, no injustice is done him. For will it be [reconstructed: pretended], that this proceeding is according to strict distributive justice, which requires the criminal to be punished and not his substitute. Yet it may promote the good of the community, or secure it from great detriment by a relaxation of its laws and government; as in the well known instance of Zaleucus, who put out one of his own eyes, to support the authority of the law against adultery, which his own son had violated.

On the whole, when we inquire whether the endless punishment of the damned be consistent with justice, the word justice means distributive justice. This, as has been already observed, respects the personal merit or demerit of the man rewarded or punished. A man suffers distributive injustice when he is not treated as favorably as is correspondent to his personal conduct or character. On the other hand, he has justice done him, when he is treated in a manner correspondent to his personal conduct or character. A just punishment then is that which is proportioned or correspondent to the crime punished. But it may be further inquired, when is a punishment proportioned to the crime punished? To this the answer seems to be, when by the pain or natural evil of the punishment, it exhibits a just idea of the moral evil or ruinous tendency of the crime, and a proper motive to restrain all intelligent beings from the commission of the crime.

Further to elucidate this matter, let it be observed, that any crime, by relaxing the laws and by weakening the government, is a damage to the community; and deserves just so much punishment, as, by restoring the proper tone of the laws, and proper strength to the government, will repair that damage. The chief evil of any crime, on account of which it principally deserves punishment, consists in the relaxation of the laws and government of the community in which the crime is committed. For example, the chief evil of theft is not that a certain person is clandestinely deprived of his property. His property may be restored and he may in this respect suffer no damage. Still the thief deserves punishment. If a man be defamed, the chief evil is not that the person defamed is injured by the loss of his reputation. His reputation may, by a full confession of the defamer or by other means, be restored. Still the defamer may deserve punishment. If a man be murdered, the chief evil is not that the man is deprived of his life, and his friends and the community are deprived of the benefit of his aid. His life may have been a burden to himself, to his friends and to the community; or he may by divine power be raised from the dead. Still, in either case, the murderer would deserve punishment.

The true reason, why all those criminals would, in all those cases, deserve punishment, is, that by their respective crimes they would weaken the laws and government of the community, thereby would break in upon the public peace, good order, safety and happiness; instead of these would introduce confusion and ruin; and thus would do a very great damage to the community. Therefore, they would respectively deserve just so much punishment, as by restoring the tone of the laws and government, would re-establish the peace, good order, safety and happiness of the community, and thus would repair the damage done to the community by their crimes. A punishment adequate to this end exhibits by the natural evil of it, a just idea of the moral evil of the crime, and a proper motive to restrain all from the commission of it: it is therefore duly proportioned to the crime, is correspondent to the conduct of the criminal, and is perfectly just.

The passages in which Doctor C. declares positively, that the endless punishment of the wicked would be unjust, are very numerous; but his arguments to prove that it would be unjust, are, so far as I can find, very few. As this is a capital point in the present controversy, it was to be expected, that he would go into a formal consideration of it, and give us his reasons methodically and distinctly. Instead of this, in all the various parts of his book in which he declaims most vehemently on the subject, there are very few in which I find an attempt to argue. These are as follows: An eternity of misery swallows up all proportion: or though there should be some difference in the degree of pain, it is such a difference, I fear, as will be scarce thought worthy of being brought into the account, when the circumstance of endless duration is annexed to it. The smallness of the difference between those in this world, to whom the character of wicked belongs in the lowest sense, and those to whom the character of good is applicable in the like sense, renders it incredible, that such an amazingly great difference should be made between them in the future. The difference between them, according to the common opinion, will be doubly infinite. For the reward and punishment being both eternal, they must at last become infinite in magnitude. How to reconcile this with the absolutely accurate impartiality of God, is, I confess, beyond me. It does not appear to me, that it would be honorable to the infinitely righteous and benevolent governor of the world, to make wicked men everlastingly miserable. For in what point of light soever we take a view of sin, it is certainly in its nature a finite evil. It is the fault of a finite creature, and the effect of finite principles, passions and appetites. To say therefore, that the sinner is doomed to infinite misery, for the finite faults of a finite life, looks like a reflection on the infinite justice, as well as goodness of God. I know it has been often urged, that sin is an infinite evil, because committed against an infinite object; for which reason an infinite punishment is no more than its due desert. But this metaphysical nicety proves a great deal too much, if it proves anything at all. For according to this way of arguing, all sinners must suffer the utmost in degree, as well as in duration; otherwise they will not suffer so much as they might do, and as they ought to do: which is plainly inconsistent with that difference the scripture often declares there shall be in the punishment of wicked men, according to the difference there has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds.

These, I think, are the passages in which Doctor C. offers his most plausible and strong, if not his only, arguments, to prove, that endless punishment is not consistent with justice; and the arguments here offered are these three only — That endless punishment implies such a different treatment of the smallest sinners and smallest saints, as is out of all proportion to their respective characters; it is therefore incredible, and not reconcilable with the justice and impartiality of God. That endless punishment is out of all proportion to the demerit of sin, as the latter is finite, the former infinite. That endless punishment, on account of the infinite evil of sin, as committed against a God of infinite glory, implies, that future punishment is infinite in degree too, and therefore that the punishment of all the damned is equal.

1. That endless punishment implies such a different treatment of the smallest sinner and smallest saint, as is out of all proportion to their respective characters; it is therefore incredible, and not reconcilable with the justice and impartiality of God. On this I observe,

1. That there is an infinite difference between the treatment of two persons, one of whom is sent to endless misery, the other not, is readily granted. But that the one, who is sent to such a punishment, is treated unjustly, is not granted; and to assert, that he is treated unjustly, is to beg and not to prove the thing in question.

2. That of the two persons now supposed, one should be treated according to his demerits, and the other by the "boundless goodness of God," should be exempted from that punishment, to which, by his demerit, he is justly liable, is nothing incredible or unjust. Surely the gracious exemption of one man from that punishment, which he deserves, renders not the punishment of another unjust, which would otherwise be just.

3. As there is no injustice in the case now stated, so neither is there any partiality in it. There is no partiality in the conduct of the Supreme Magistrate, who condemns one criminal according to his demerit, and pardons another criminal equally guilty. But partiality is then practiced, when of two real and known criminals, one is condemned by the judge; the other cleared, on the pretense, that he is innocent. So that this whole argument from the incredibly different treatment of the smallest sinner and smallest saint, whose characters are so nearly on a level, so far as it supposes the different treatment to be incredible, on account of the endless punishment of the sinner, is a mere begging of the question. It takes for granted, that the sinner does not deserve an endless punishment. So far as it supposes the different treatment to be incredible, on account of the infinite reward or happiness bestowed on the saint, it supposes, that God in his infinite goodness, cannot bestow an infinite good on a creature, who in his own person is entirely unworthy of it. It also supposes, that if ever God pardon any sinner, he must pardon all, whose demerits are no more than that of the man pardoned; otherwise he is partial: and for the same reason, that if ever he condemn any sinner, he must condemn all those, whose characters are equally sinful with that of the man condemned. But it is presumed, that these sentiments will be avowed by no man.

2. The next argument is: that endless punishment is out of all proportion to the demerit of sin, as the former is infinite, the latter finite — as this is a matter of great importance in the present dispute, it requires our particular attention. How then does Doctor C. make it appear, that sin is a finite evil? By these several considerations, that it is the fault of a finite creature — during a finite life — and the effect of finite principles, passions and appetites; the sum of which is, that it is impossible for a creature, in a finite duration, to commit an infinite crime; or which is the same thing, a crime which shall deserve an endless punishment. As to this let it be observed,

1. That if it be impossible for a creature, in a finite duration, to commit a crime which shall deserve an endless punishment, it is as really against what Doctor C. holds, as against the opposite system. He says, if the next is a state of punishment intended to satisfy the justice of God, it is impossible all men should be finally saved: that is, if in the next state a punishment be inflicted, which satisfies justice, all men will not be saved. But a punishment, which satisfies justice is a perfectly just punishment. It is therefore just, that some men should finally not be saved; or it is just, that on account of their sins, they be without end excluded from salvation. And what is the endless exclusion of a sinner from salvation on account of his sins, but an endless punishment inflicted for the fault of a finite creature, committed in a finite life, and the effect of finite principles, passions and appetites? This passage of Doctor C. is a plain and full concession both of the justice of endless punishment, and of the infinite evil of sin.

That sin is an infinite evil, or an evil deserving an endless punishment, is implied in all those passages also, in which Doctor C. asserts, that the salvation of all men, and even of the damned, after they have suffered all which they ever are to suffer, is the fruit of boundless and inexhaustible goodness, infinite indulgence and love, etc. In his argument that the punishment of the damned is disciplinary, he says, that God must in the other world, as well as this, be disposed to make it evident, that he is a being of boundless and inexhaustible goodness. It is plain by the connection, that the Doctor means, that the deliverance of the damned, in consequence of a punishment, which is conducive to their good, is an act of boundless and inexhaustible goodness.

But that the goodness of that act of deliverance is not greater than the evil or punishment from which it delivers, will be conceded by all. There is goodness in delivering a man from the tooth-ache; but no man will pretend, that this is an act of boundless and inexhaustible goodness. To deliver from the misery of a thousand years torment in hell, is an act of far greater goodness. But this is not an act of boundless and inexhaustible goodness. Nor is any act of deliverance worthy of these epithets, unless it deliver from an evil, which is boundless and inexhaustible. Doubtless the act of God in delivering a sinner from the punishment of hell is called an act of boundless and inexhaustible goodness with respect to the greatness of the benefit conferred by that deliverance, and not with respect to the inherent and essential goodness of God. If the latter be Doctor C's meaning, what he says is no illustration of the divine goodness in delivering a sinner from the pains of hell: he might have said the same concerning the deliverance of any person guilty or innocent, from the tooth-ache, or from the prick of a pin. He says, that God in the other world, as well as this, must be disposed to make it evident, that he is a being of boundless and inexhaustible goodness. But if the deliverance of a sinner from the pains of hell be not a boundless benefit, it does not make it evident, that God is a being of boundless goodness. If it be a boundless benefit, the evil delivered from is boundless. If therefore the deliverance of the damned from the torments of hell, be an act and a proof of boundless and inexhaustible goodness, as the Doctor holds, the evil from which they are delivered, and to which they are exposed by the divine law, is boundless and inexhaustible. But they are not by the divine law exposed to a greater punishment than they justly deserve: therefore they justly deserve a boundless [illegible] inexhaustible punishment: of consequence sin, by which they deserve this punishment, is a boundless and inexhaustible or an infinite evil.

Again, Doctor C. in the words of Mr. Whiston, says, "Many, or all of them," [the damned] may possibly be recovered and saved at last, by the infinite indulgence and love of their creator. The same observations, which were made in the preceding paragraph, are applicable here. It cannot be the meaning of Doctor C. that the recovery of the damned is in no other sense a fruit or proof of the infinite indulgence and love of their Creator, than the recovery of a person in this life from the smallest disease, or calamity; or the deliverance of even an innocent being from some slight evil. A less degree of indulgence and love, than that which is infinite, would be sufficient for these recoveries, or deliverances. And if nothing short of infinite indulgence and love can recover the damned, then their recovery is a proof of infinite love. Now what can be a proof of infinite love, but the bestowment of an infinite benefit? And no benefit consisting in recovery from evil is infinite, unless the evil, from which the recovery is made, be infinite. But if the evil from which the damned are supposed to be recovered, be infinite, sin, by which they are exposed to that evil, must itself be an infinite evil.

If here it should be objected, that the damned are not indeed delivered from wrath, by boundless goodness and infinite love; but that boundless goodness and infinite love are exercised in their admission to the positive happiness of heaven only: I entreat the reader to observe, that in the former of the two passages last quoted, Doctor C. is speaking of God's making evident his boundless and inexhaustible goodness, by pitying sinners, and punishing them in order to their benefit, or by the deliverance of the damned, in consequence of a disciplinary punishment. In the other, he is speaking in the words of Mr. Whiston, concerning the recovery of the damned — but for a more full answer I beg leave to refer the reader to page 13, where this same objection has been stated and considered.

That sin is an infinite evil, is implied in what Doctor C. holds concerning annihilation; he says, If the foregoing scheme should be found to have no truth in it — the second death ought to be considered as that which will put an end to their existence both in soul and body, so that they shall be no more in the creation of God. By this it appears that the Doctor held, that endless annihilation would be no unjust punishment of sin. But endless annihilation is an endless or infinite punishment. It is an endless loss of not only all the good which the man at present enjoys; but of all that good which he would have enjoyed throughout eternity, in the state of bliss to which he would have been admitted, if he had never sinned. This in an endless duration would amount to an infinite quantity of good. Annihilation therefore is an infinite punishment both as it is endless, and as the quantity of good lost is infinite: and Doctor C. in allowing that endless annihilation would be no more than a just punishment of sin, allows, that sin deserves an infinite punishment, or that it is an infinite evil, though it is the fault of a finite creature, in a finite life, and the effect of finite principles, passions and appetites. If therefore it be a difficulty hard to be solved, that a finite creature, in a finite life, should commit an infinite evil, meaning a crime which may be justly punished with an endless punishment; it is a difficulty that equally concerned Doctor C. as myself; and it was absurd for him to object that to others, which lay equally in his own way.

It may be objected to these observations, that endless annihilation is not an infinite punishment, because it may be inflicted on even an innocent person. God having once communicated existence is under no obligation to perpetuate it; but for wise ends may without injury suffer even the most holy of his creatures, after the enjoyment of existence and of good for a season, to drop into their original nothing. To this it may be answered; that this objection equally proves, that annihilation is no punishment at all, as that it is not an infinite punishment. When an innocent creature is suffered in sovereign wisdom to drop into non-existence, this is not only not an infinite punishment, but is no punishment at all. A punishment is some evil brought on a person, in testimony that his conduct is disapproved by the author of that evil. This is not the case in the annihilation of the innocent person now supposed. Therefore it equally follows from the possible annihilation of an innocent creature, that the annihilation of the wicked would be no punishment at all, as that it would not be an infinite punishment. Annihilation is an infinite loss, and in that sense, an infinite evil, to an innocent person, as well as to one ever so guilty. But as it is not inflicted on the [illegible], in testimony of disapprobation, it is not a punishment. On the other hand, if it be inflicted at all on the wicked, it is inflicted in express testimony of the divine abhorrence of their conduct, and therefore is a punishment: and any punishment, which is an infinite evil, is an infinite punishment.

To illustrate this, let the following example be taken. A parent having begun the most liberal and advantageous education of his son, may for wise reasons, entirely drop, without any injustice to his son, the course of education, which he had begun, and may suffer him to grow up in comparative ignorance. This would not only not be a very great punishment of his son, but no punishment at all. Whereas, if he should treat his son in the same manner, from the motive of testifying his displeasure at some trifling levity or childish inadvertence, it would be both a real and a very great punishment: and though it would consist in a loss or privation, yet it would be a much greater punishment than the infliction of a very considerable positive pain. In like manner, though annihilation may be inflicted in such a manner, as to be no punishment; yet when it is inflicted with the declared design of exhibiting the divine displeasure at sin; it is a far greater punishment, than a very great and long temporary misery. That annihilation is an evil, no man will deny, who allows that existence and happiness are good. And if it be an evil, it is an evil equal to the good lost by it, taking into view the continuance of that loss; and as this is infinite, final annihilation is an infinite evil: and whenever it is inflicted in testimony of disapprobation of the conduct of the sinner, it is an infinite punishment.

Doubtless Doctor C. was of the opinion, that annihilation may be a punishment, as it was his belief, that if his scheme of universal salvation be not true, the wicked are to be annihilated. He would doubtless have allowed, that annihilation will not be brought on them in testimony of the divine approbation of their conduct. Nor can it be supposed to be the fruit of perfect indifference in the divine mind, with respect to their conduct. It must therefore be a testimony of divine disapprobation, which constitutes it a punishment. And as it is an infinite evil, of course it is an infinite punishment.

Perhaps it may be further said, in opposition to what has been now advanced, that the meaning of those who assert, that sin does not deserve an infinite punishment, is not, that sin does not deserve an endless privation, or negative punishment; but that it does not deserve an endless positive punishment, consisting in positive pains or torments. If the objection be thus explained, it comes to this merely, that sin does indeed deserve an endless punishment, and so is truly and properly an infinite evil, in the sense in which any of us hold it to be an infinite evil: but it is not such an infinite evil, as to deserve so great an endless punishment, as endless positive pain and torment. But this stating of the objection entirely shifts the ground of the dispute: granting, that an endless punishment is justly deserved by sin, it denies, that so great a degree of punishment, as endless positive misery, is deserved by it. Endless annihilation is equally and as truly an endless punishment, as endless torment. Nor is there any ground of objection to the one more than to the other, on account of any difference in duration, or that in which alone the infinity consists. But the ground of objection to endless misery, rather than to endless annihilation, is, that it is a greater, more dreadful, and more intolerable punishment; or a greater punishment in degree.

Besides, not every degree of endless pain is a greater evil or punishment, than endless annihilation. No man will pretend, that any slight pain continued to eternity, is so great an evil, as endless annihilation and the endless loss of all enjoyment and existence.

On the whole, as the state of the argument before us, is now wholly shifted; as it is granted by the objector, that sin deserves an infinite or endless punishment, but not so great an endless punishment, as is implied in some degrees of endless pain; every thing for which we contend, as to the duration of future punishment, is granted. It is not pretended by the advocates for endless punishment, that sin deserves an infinite degree of endless punishment. Nor do they pretend to determine the degree of punishment, which it deserves. It becomes all to leave that to God, who alone is able to determine it. The advocates for temporary punishment will not pretend to determine the degree of temporary punishment, which sin deserves. The degree of future punishment is not the subject of the present dispute. I might now therefore fairly dismiss the further discussion of the infinite evil of sin, as on account of the concessions already mentioned, wholly impertinent to the present dispute. But wishing to relieve what difficulties, and to throw what light on the subject, I can, I proceed to observe,

Perhaps it may be yet further pleaded, that the opposers of the infinite evil of sin mean, that sin does not deserve such an endless positive misery, as is worse than non-existence. As to this, besides that it makes the subject of the dispute to be wholly the degree of punishment, and not the duration of it; it may be remarked, that it is granted in this plea, that it would be just, if all the wicked, who die in impenitence, were annihilated. Annihilation therefore is the punishment deserved by the least sinner, who dies in impenitence; and those, whose guilt is more aggravated, deserve a greater punishment; and as some are inconceivably greater sinners than the least, they deserve an inconceivably greater punishment than annihilation. Again, as the least sinner deserves annihilation, so he deserves that degree of positive pain, or that mixture of pain and pleasure, which is equally undesirable, or equally dreadful as non-existence. Therefore those, who are inconceivably greater sinners than the least, deserve that degree of positive endless pain, which is inconceivably worse and more to be dreaded, than non-existence, or than that mixture of pain and pleasure, which is equally to be dreaded as non-existence. Therefore from principles conceded by Doctor C. it clearly follows, not only that all sinners deserve an endless punishment, but that all sinners, except those of the very lowest class, deserve that degree of endless misery, which is worse than non-existence; and which is not only an infinite evil, but an evil doubly infinite, as the loss is infinite, and the positive misery exceeding all the good enjoyed, being endless, is infinite too.

2. The argument of Doctor C. now under consideration, "If it prove any thing, proves a great deal too much," as it supposes, that any crime can justly be punished for no longer time, than was consumed in the perpetration of the crime. That this is implied in the argument, will appear, if we consider, that if it be once allowed, that a crime may be punished for a longer time than was consumed in the perpetration of it, the whole argument, that a creature cannot, in a finite life, commit such sin, as shall deserve an endless punishment, must be given up. If a man may in one day commit a crime, which deserves a punishment to be continued for a year, who will say, that he may not in one day commit a crime, which shall deserve a punishment to be continued for two years, for ten years, or during his life? Therefore in determining the duration of the punishment, no regard at all is had to the time taken up in the perpetration of the crime. And if no regard be had to this, there is no absurdity in supposing, that the crimes of a finite life may deserve an endless punishment. To say, that there is an absurdity in it, supposes, that in adjusting the punishment, a regard is always to be had to the time taken up in the perpetration of the crime; which is contrary to known fact, as well as to the deduction just now made. Nay, it implies, as I before observed, that no just punishment can be continued for a longer time, than was consumed in the perpetration of the crime. The mere duration of punishment is of no importance or consideration, unless the whole punishment be excessive. Therefore perpetual imprisonment is inflicted for crimes, which are perpetrated in a very short time.

By the same argument, by which Doctor C. undertakes to prove, that sin does not deserve an endless punishment, any man may undertake to prove, that it does not deserve a punishment to continue for ages of ages. The Doctor's argument is, that sin deserves no more than a temporary punishment, because it is committed in a finite duration. With the same strength of argument it may be said: Sin deserves not a punishment of ages of ages, but a punishment of no longer duration, than seventy years, because it is committed in the space of seventy years. It is manifest, that when a punishment of ages of ages is inflicted on the sinner, no regard is had to the time consumed in the perpetration of sin. And if it be just to inflict a punishment in one case, without regard to the time consumed in the perpetration of sin, why not in another? If because sin is the fault of a finite life, it does not deserve an infinite punishment; then because it is the fault of a life of less duration, than that of ages of ages, it does not deserve a punishment which is to continue for ages of ages. Or how will Doctor C. prove, that sin, the fault of a life, which is to continue only seventy years, deserves a punishment, which is to continue for ages of ages? I presume he will not pretend to prove it by any proportion between the duration of seventy years and that of ages of ages; but merely by revelation. From the same source of evidence, we undertake to prove both the reality and justice of endless punishment. And it is as ineffectual to object to our proof of endless punishment, the disproportion between an infinite and a finite duration, as it is to object to his proof of a punishment of ages of ages, the disproportion between the duration of ages of ages, and that of seventy years. I grant that the disproportion between infinite and finite duration, is greater, than that between ages of ages and seventy years. But, when the time consumed in the commission of a crime is not at all regarded, let the disproportion be what it may, nothing can be concluded from it.

If it be still pretended, that a regard to the time consumed in the commission of sin is had, in determining the duration of its punishment — ask what regard is had to it? If the duration of the punishment may at all exceed the time consumed in the commission of sin, how much may the former exceed the latter? To say there is an infinite disproportion between a [reconstructed: finite] life, and an endless eternity, affords no satisfaction. So there is a very great disproportion between a life of seventy years, and ages of ages. And if on the principles of Doctor C. an endless punishment be more unjust than that of ages of ages, is not the latter on the same principles really unjust? If not, then a punishment, the duration of which is greatly disproportionate to the time consumed in the commission of the crime, is still just: and who will undertake to fix the degrees of disproportion between the duration of the punishment, and the time consumed in the commission of the crime, which are consistent, and which are inconsistent with justice? And let a reason be given, why it is not as really unjust to inflict a punishment, the duration of which is greatly disproportionate to the time spent in the commission of the crime, as to inflict a punishment, the duration of which bears no proportion to the time spent in the commission of the crime. Why would not the same argument from the disproportion of the duration of the punishment, to the time spent in committing the sin, prove, that Adam was unjustly punished, in that he was condemned to eat bread in the sweat of his face, all the days of his life, for the sin of eating the forbidden fruit, which was doubtless finished in a very short time? Also, that David was unjustly punished, in that the sword never departed from his house, because of his sin in the matter of Uriah?

If a finite creature, in a finite time, cannot commit an infinite evil, or one which deserves an endless punishment, it will follow, that even our Lord Jesus Christ himself, if he be a real creature, though the first born of every creature, cannot, if he were disposed, commit an infinite evil. Yet as he created and upholds all things by the word of his power, he doubtless has power to annihilate all things. Now I ask, whether if Christ should annihilate the whole created system, himself only excepted, it would be a finite or an infinite evil? If the answer should be, that it would be a finite evil, I would ask again, whether it would not be as great an evil to the universe, as the endless misery of one sinner, provided he deserves that misery. I make this proviso, because we do not plead for endless punishment on any other supposition, than that it is just: and if it should be said, that the endless punishment of a sinner is an infinite evil, because it is unjustly inflicted, this would be a begging of the question: it would also follow, that on the supposition of the justice of the endless punishment of the sinner, it is not an infinite evil, and therefore there is no foundation for the objection now under consideration, that sin a finite moral evil is punished with an infinite natural evil or punishment. Besides, that the endless annihilation of the created system would be an infinite evil in the very same sense, in which the endless punishment of the damned is an infinite evil, is evident from this consideration, that the punishment of the damned is not pretended to be infinite in any other respect, [reconstructed: than] in duration. In the very same respect the endless annihilation of which we speak, is infinite.

If the answer to the question just proposed, should be, that the annihilation of the created system would be an infinite evil; the consequence is, that an infinite evil may be caused or committed by a finite creature, in a finite time.

Possibly it may be further objected, that if our Lord Jesus Christ be a mere creature, he had no power in himself to create the universe; but created it by a divine power communicated for that purpose: and that if he should annihilate it, he must do it by the same communicated power. Therefore Christ himself has it not in his power, to effect an infinite evil. But we are to observe, that if Christ was a proper intelligent moral agent in creation, that work is his work, and properly to be ascribed to him, as properly as any actions of men are to be ascribed to them. It is allowed on all hands, that all men have received all their powers of action from their creator; yet no man will dispute, whether these actions be the proper actions of men, or whether the effects produced by these actions be imputable to them, as their proper causes. Therefore with at least as great truth and propriety is Christ, even on the supposition that he is a mere creature, the proper cause of all his works, whether of creation or annihilation, as men in general are the causes of their works. He cannot possibly be more dependent for his powers, than we are for ours. Nor is it of any importance to the subject now under consideration, whether Christ had originally the power of creation and annihilation, or whether it was communicated to him afterwards. A power given by God at one time, is as really given by him, as if it were given at another time.

In the argument against the infinite evil of sin, that a finite creature cannot commit an infinite evil, in a finite time; the finitude of the time is either essential to the validity of the argument, or it is not. If it be essential, it implies, as was before observed, that no crime can deserve to be punished for a longer time, than was consumed in the commission of the crime. If the finitude of the time be not essential to the argument, but the meaning be, that a finite creature cannot at all commit an infinite evil, because he is a finite creature, it will follow, that if the whole system of intelligent creatures were to revolt from God, and to continue in their revolt to an absolute eternity, it would be but a finite evil.

Objection: The time never can come, at which the system of creatures shall have continued to an absolute eternity, in their revolt from God. Though therefore we suppose that the whole created system should revolt, it is absurd to suppose, that they shall have continued in their revolt to an absolute eternity: and therefore it is impossible, that the whole created system should have committed an infinite evil. Answer. For the same reason it is impossible, that a creature should have been punished to an absolute eternity. The longest punishment to which any suppose the wicked are doomed, is in no other sense infinite, than that in which the revolt which has been supposed, may be infinite. If then the wicked be not doomed to an infinite or endless punishment; sin is not, on any scheme, punished with an infinite punishment; and then the whole objection of punishing a finite evil, with an infinite punishment, falls to the ground.

But this whole argument, founded on the finitude of the life and of the capacity of the sinner, was virtually given up by Doctor C. in that he believed, that endless annihilation would be a just punishment of sin: though the duration of the punishment in this case, would infinitely exceed the time consumed in the commission of sin.

3. We come at length to consider the third argument of Doctor C. against the justice of endless punishment, which is, that endless punishment, on account of the infinite evil of sin, as committed against a God of infinite glory, implies, that future punishment is infinite or to the utmost in degree, as well as duration, and therefore that the punishment of all the damned is equal, which is both absurd and contrary to scripture. This I take to be the argument intended in the latter part of the last quotation made in the beginning of this chapter. On this it is observable, that though a sinner, on account of the infinite evil of sin as committed against a God of infinite glory, deserve and shall suffer an endless punishment; it by no means follows, that he deserves or will suffer that punishment which is infinite in degree too, or which is to the utmost degree in which any sinner is punished. All that follows from the infinite evil of sin is, that it deserves an infinite punishment; and an endless punishment is an infinite punishment, though it be not to the utmost in degree. Therefore, when Doctor C. says, According to this way of arguing, all sinners must suffer to the utmost in degree, as well as duration, otherwise, they will not suffer so much as they ought to do; he merely asserts what he ought to have proved. Therefore he fails in his attempt to fasten on the doctrine of the infinite evil of sin, the absurdity that the punishment of all the damned will be equal. He might as well have argued, that because all saints shall receive an infinite or an endless reward; the reward of every one will be to the utmost in degree, and the reward of all will be equal.

Or if the meaning of this argument be, that the wicked will all be punished equally, not because they will suffer an endless punishment, but because they all sin against the same infinitely glorious object, and therefore their sins are all equal: the answer is, that the consequence by no means follows from the premises. Though it be true, that the wicked all sin against the same God, and on that account all deserve endless punishment, yet it no more follows from there, that they all deserve the same punishment in degree, than if a number of subjects should rebel against the same excellent Prince, it would follow, that they are equally guilty, and all deserve an equal punishment.

The expression, infinite evil of sin, seems to be very offensive to some gentlemen. They seem to conceive that it means as great an evil or crime, as it is possible for a man to commit, the moral turpitude of which can in no respect be increased. This idea of the infinite evil of sin is very different from that which is entertained by those who hold, that sin is an infinite evil. All they mean is, that sin is in such a sense an infinite evil, that it may be justly followed by an endless punishment. It no more follows hence, that the moral turpitude of any particular sin can not be increased, than that the endless punishment of it cannot be increased; or than that the endless happiness of the saints in heaven cannot be increased. Indeed, neither the happiness of heaven, nor the misery of hell can be increased in duration: nor can the turpitude of sin be so increased, as to deserve a greater duration of punishment, than that which is endless. But as both the happiness of heaven and the misery of hell, though endless, may be increased in degree; so may the turpitude of sin be so increased, as to deserve a greater degree of punishment.

When it is said, that if the evil of sin be infinite, it is as great as possible, and so all sins are equal; it seems to be implied, that all infinites are equal in all respects, than which nothing is more false. An infinite line, an infinite superficies, and an infinite solid, are all infinites, and they are all equal in one respect or dimension, that of length. But a line though truly infinite in length, is not in the dimension of breadth equal to an infinite superficies. Nor is a superficies, though truly infinite in the two dimensions of length and breadth, equal in depth to an infinite solid. To apply this, sin may be infinitely aggravated with respect to the object against whom it is committed, and in that respect it may be incapable of an increase of aggravation. Still it may not be infinite with respect to the degree of opposition, or virulence and malignity to the object, against whom it is committed.

By the infinite evil of sin therefore is meant, that sin truly deserves an endless punishment, as it is committed against an infinitely glorious object, against God himself, his authority, his law, his government; and as it enervates the laws, violates the peace and safety of his kingdom, introduces confusion and ruin, and would actually ruin entirely that kingdom, and the happiness of all who belong to it, were not measures taken by God to prevent its natural effect. In this respect it is infinitely evil, and in this respect, in which it is infinitely evil, the evil of it cannot be increased, because the object against which it is committed, cannot be greater, more important, or more excellent; and in this respect all sins are equal. But by the infinite evil of sin, is not meant an evil, which deserves an infinite degree of punishment; or an act of opposition to God and his kingdom, which is infinitely virulent or malicious. In this respect the evil of sin may be increased, and in this respect all sins are by no means equal. The evil of any one sin is not so great, but that on the whole it may be increased, as the happiness of heaven is not so great, but that on the whole that may be increased.

Though the turpitude of sin is infinite with respect to the object opposed, yet it is not infinite as to the degree of opposition. If a subject rebel against the most excellent sovereign on earth, his crime is, in respect to the object, as great as he can commit in rebellion against a temporal prince; because by supposition he cannot be the subject of a better temporal prince, and therefore he cannot rebel against a better. Yet this rebellion may be more aggravated by greater degrees of opposition, abuse or insult to this same excellent prince.

What has been now said concerning the infinite evil of sin, has been in the way of explanation, and in answer to Doctor C's objections. The positive proof, that sin is an infinite evil, has been so largely and ably given by others, that the reader will allow me to refer him to them.

Thus I have particularly attended to the arguments brought by Doctor C. to prove, that the endless punishment of the wicked would not be just. I shall now proceed to a more general consideration of the justice of endless punishment consisting in misery, and to some arguments in proof of it. The first argument to which I wish to direct the attention of the reader, is, that if endless punishment be the curse of the divine law, or the punishment threatened in the divine law, as the wages of sin, or as the proper punishment of sinners; undoubtedly it is just. It is impossible, that a God of perfect and infinite justice should threaten an unjust punishment. I am indeed aware, that it is not a conceded point, that endless misery is threatened in the divine law: I therefore purpose to attempt the proof of it. The curse of the divine law is either endless annihilation, or it is that misery which the wicked in fact suffer in hell, or it is some temporary misery of greater duration than that which is actually suffered in hell, or it is endless misery. These several hypotheses shall come under consideration in the following chapters.

But before I proceed, it may be proper to explain in what sense I use the word law, in this inquiry concerning the curse of the divine law. By the divine law, I mean not merely any positive, revealed law, as that given to Adam concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil: but what Doctor C. calls "the moral law of God," and the law of works, as requiring perfect, actual, indefectable obedience. The Doctor allows, that "he" [Adam] was, without all doubt, under strict indispensable obligations to obey every command of God, wherein it should be made known to him — and must have rendered himself obnoxious to the righteous resentments of his God and king, had he expressed any disregard to any of them. This he speaks concerning the moral law, as may be seen by the context. And doubtless as Adam was obligated to obey "every command" of the moral law, and in case of disobedience, was obnoxious to the righteous resentments of God, the same is true of every other man. The righteous resentment of God for disobedience to this law, is that very curse of the law, from which Christ has redeemed his people, and which is the proper object of our present inquiry. By law taken in this sense, Doctor C. abundantly holds, that no man can be justified. By law, the apostle sometimes means law in general, both the law written in men's hearts, and in the books of revelation — sometimes — the Mosaic law in special. But whether he understand by it natural or revealed law, or law including both; works done in conformity to it, when mentioned with reference to justification, he always sets aside as totally insufficient for the procurement of it. Here the Doctor tells us in what sense he uses the word law, which is the same in which I use it, in the present inquiry: and as he asserts in this context, and in very many other passages, that no man, "Jew or Gentile," can be justified on the foot of law taken in the sense just explained; of course all men are condemned by the law, and the punishment to which the law condemns all, is the curse of the law; or the curse of the law is that punishment to which the moral law condemns every man who transgresses it.