Then Friendship, with a look most kind, And balm pours in each wound. VII. When Death lifts up his fatal dart, Friendship stands ready to afford Sweet comforts drawn from Sacred Word, THE UNIVERSALIST's MISCELLANY FOR APRIL, 1797. SIN, NOT AN INFINITE EVIL. In Anfwer to the Argument in the Affirmative, communicated by N. B. See page 89. SIR, THE HE infinite evil of fin is one of the ftrongest grounds of the doctrine of endless punishment. I have often wondered that the abettors of that doctrine should rest so much on this argument: for it firikes me forcibly, that if the Scripture any where teaches the endless mifery of the wicked, a reference to chapter and verfe would weigh much heavier with most men, than all the reasoning that ever was brought forward to prove the infinite evil of fin. Also the argument itself carries no good face with it, as the Scripture no where tells us that fin is an infinite evil. I can but pity the predicament in which thofe Chriftians are, who hold the fentiment of the eternity of future punishment. It seems that at all hazards this must be maintained; but as the proof cannot be had from Scripture, it must be fought for in a circuitous VOL. I. U cuitous way; that is, by proving that fin is an infinite evil, because the object against which it is committed is infinite, and from hence inferring, that it deferves an infinite punishment; and then, as a creature cannot fupport punishment, in any other fenfe infinite, than as it relates to duration, it is farther to be inferred, that the infinity of punishment confifts in its being endless. This mode of proof, Sir, has one effect, for which I apprehend it is intended; that is, it perplexes and confounds the minds of plain Chriftians, by keeping the premises and the conclufion very far apart. It would shock the minds of most men to be told plainly, that the all-wife, good, and holy God, had permitted an infinite evil to exist. An evil which he hates, but which, notwithstanding, he hath not the will, or not the power, to make an end of. Yet this is the undisguised truth of the above reasoning. It seems to be an idea of many gocd men, that they cannot properly honour the riches of Divine grace in the forgiveness of fin, unless they ftrenuously maintain that fin is an infinite evil. But do not these men in effect destroy the exercise of that grace, for the honour of which, they would be thought to contend? For if fin be properly infinite, either in its nature, or effects; I would afk, how can it in any one inftance ever be made an end of? God himself is but infinite. If fin be infinite, it must therefore be equal to the utmost power and grace of the Deity, Now can one infinite deftroy deftroy another infinite? Muft not the conteft between two infinites be equal and endless ? Again, when our opponents talk of the infinity of fin, do they mean that all fin has infinite evil in it? If fo, then there are no degrees of guilt in finful actions, for infinity is abfolute, it admits of no degrees. Confequently, a finful word is equally infinite in its evil as the murder of a man can be. We may afk alfo what views have thofe men of atonement? In the highest poffible view of atonement, it can be but infinite. But their reafoning upon the evil of fin multiplies its infinity beyond conception. The number of the human race that have exifted is vaft, and every one of them hath finned infinitely; yea, every finful act of every one of them hath infinity in it! How little doth one infinite atonement look, in comparison of the number of the infinite fins of one finner! What is it then in comparison of all? How impoffible muft it be for Chrift to take away the fin of the world? If in anfwer to the above it be faid, it is not meant that fin is properly infinite in any fenfe, I would then afk one favour, which is, that these gentlemen would give me their idea of an infinite evil, which is in no fenfe properly infinite. For I own my incapacity to form any idea upon such a subject. But, perhaps, I fhould do injuftice to your author, if I did not pay fome respect to his arguments in particular. He owns, "That which is infinite cannot you, that poffibly proceed from a finite being: but we muft diftinguish between the act of fin and the demerit of that act." He continues, "I grant with all finful actions are finite, and must be fo, becaufe they fpring from finite beings: yet there is an infinite evil and demerit in fin, because it is committed against all poffible and infinite good." It will require no fmall addrefs to give this argument any force. Here is a creature finite in every fenfe-all his actions are acknowledged to be finite, yet he produces actions that have infinity ascribed to them! But it is faid this infinity is not in the act itself but in the demerit of the act. I have always understood it to be an indisputable rule in logic, that no effect could be greater than its caufe. But here we have a finite cause producing an infinite effect. By demerit I understand ill defert. If this be the true idea of demerit, then your author means that a finner deferves infinite ill for his fins. I have no other way of appreciating the evil of fin, but by the threatenings of God against it in his word; and this, I think, is the fhort and convincing method of eftimating it. But it lies upon our opponents to bring forward the Scriptures in which fin is defcribed as an infinite evil, or in which God hath threatened any finner with an infinite punishment. Your author goes on and fays, "As the Divine Object, against whom fin is committed, is infinite, fo muft the demerit of it be infinite alfo. And this is a neceffary |