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 Dr. 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 thence concluded.

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: I 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 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 Dr. 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

*So far as can be judged from the book of Dr. C. now under examination, and some others of his works, he would not have objected to this character of Christ.

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.-Beside, 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, 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 impossi

ble, 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 Dr. 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.

III. We come at length to consider the third argument of Dr. 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 end