person whom we serve, to have an infinite and eternal reward. And if so, this will mightily take off from the free grace of God so much magnified in Scripture, upon account of the exceeding greatness and eternity of those rewards, which he has there promised to his faithful servants; since these, it seems, are but a just and necessary debt to them, if they are to be rewarded at all."

I may add that if sin be infinite, it is obvious that it can neither be pardoned nor atoned for.For there is no being in the universe more than infinite, and therefore none superior to the magnitude of sin. Nor is it possible to conceive of any method by which it can be put away. The infinite obedience and merit of Christ can only equal the infinite demerit of one sin!

It has sometimes been asserted that the Scriptures support the doctrine of infinite sin, though nothing is more certain than the fact that they always speak of sin as finite, always represent it as capable of being increased, always distinguish between the greater and the less. So the Savior told Pilate that the Jewish High Priest had greater sin than Pilate himself, which would have been impossible were sin infinite. But there is one passage to which the ignorant often appeal to support the absurdity of infinite sin. In the book of Job the question is asked by one of Job's friends, "Are not thine iniquities infinite ?" But here it is worthy of remark that the word infinite has no

reference to the magnitude of sins, but simply to their number, as if the speaker had said, are not thine iniquities very numerous, without number.

..

But why pursue this absurdity farther? Men are becoming ashamed of this old logical legerdemain,and it is growing obsolete. In this country I do not know five respectable theologians who would now bring it forward, even to save the doctrine of endless punishment. True the faculty of the Oberlin Seminary is endeavouing to restore it; but the boy cannot make his dead ass stand again. Hear Prof. Finney: "Every man has some idea of the infinite. . . Every moral being knows that moral good is infinite. Every moral being has some idea of this on his mind.The good of being, then, is an infinite good; and the value to be set upon it is an infinite value.— In this sense our obligation must be limitless. If good has no bounds, our obligations to do good are boundless." That is, we have some idea of an infinite good; ergo, we are under infinite obligations to do good, and are infinitely guilty and deserve an infinite punishment if we fail! But the Professor is not always so illogical as this. In another place he says, reasonably and scripturally, "our knowledge of the good increases our obligation to exercise it. If we do not know, we are under no obligation to obey. If I know, my obligation is in proportion to my knowledge of the value of the thing. It is not the value which

God sets upon it; not the value which an angel set upon it, but it is my knowledge of its value, that regulates my obligation." According to this judicious rule, our obligations, and hence our guilt are no more infinite than our knowledge; and as we have nothing but "some idea" of infinite good, and not a perfect knowledge of it, I can but charitably hope that God will not inflict upon us more than some finite punishment, corresponding to our finite idea.

I need not add that many of the most thought, ful and judicious orthodox divines in ages past, as well as at the present time, are,and have been, utterly dissatisfied with this once popular, but fallacious argument. Archbp. Dawes,once chaplin to king William and queen Anne, says that “if it proves any thing,it proves a great deal too much.” So Archbishop Tillotson says, "This I doubt will, upon examination, be found to have more of subtlety than of solidity, in it. 'Tis true, indeed, that the dignity of the person against whom any of fence is committed is a great aggravation of the fault. For which reason all offences against God are certainly the greatest of all other; but that crimes should hereby be heightened to an infinite degree, can by no means be admitted.

Besides, that by the same reason that the least sin committed against God may be said to be infinite because of its object, the least punishment that is inflicted by God may be said to be infinite be

cause of its author, and then all punishments from God,as well as all sins against him would be equal, which is absurd." Dr. Knapp says that theologians "resort to this statement in order to explain more easily the infiniteness of the satisfaction made by Christ, and also the eternity of the punishments of hell. Whoever, they say, breaks the laws of the Infinite Being,brings upon himself infinite guilt. But this statement, taken in the strict philosophic sense [in which alone it has any meaning] is incorrect. . . . There is no infinitus reatus peccatorum-infinite criminality of sinners, nor can the object against which sin is committed be made in every case the measure of its criminality or ill-desert; certainly this cannot be done with regard to God." Dr. Dwight speaks with great caution and modesty of this argument, but yet clearly shows that he regards it as no better than a logical trick, quite unworthy of confidence. He says, "It is not my design to deny this doctrine, nor to scrutinize the arguments, by which it is usually supported. It is, however, but just to observe that neither the doctrine, nor the arguments have appeared so satisfactory to the minds of others, as they seem to have done to those by whom they have been alleged. We know nothing of infinity, but the fact that certain things are infinite. The nature of infinity we do not comprehend at all; nor form a conception of what this phraseology means. It hardly needs to be

observed, that where we have no conceptions, we can form no comparisons; and therefore can make no propositions, the truth of which can be perceived by our minds. Concerning the fact that something is infinite, we may with sufficient care argue, to some extent, successfully. Concerning the nature of infinity, I discern no manner in which such minds as ours can argue at all. But in our discussions concerning infinity, we are prone, insensibly, to blend these two things together; and often are amused with words only, when we suppose ourselves to be employed about ideas. Hence have arisen the perplexity, and the want of satisfaction, which have attended inquiries concerning this subject. I shall, therefore, not insist on these arguments, nor on the conclusion to which they conduct us,"

When we consider the nature of the doctrine of infinite sin, its glaring assumptions, the numerous absurdities it involves, and the disrespect in which it is held by multitudes of the staunchest advocates of endless punishment, who would gladly employ it if they could, I think we may safely conclude that it is entitled to no confidence, and deserves to be universally rejected as a shrewd and audacious device, introduced merely to bolster up the most abominable dogma ever be lieved or preached on earth,