could never be executed? Then add to the idea of Infinite Holiness and
Infinite Wisdom, the idea of Infinite Power and Infinite Love, and I
think you will find yourself involved in a series of contradictions
which you will be glad to see dissolved as an ugly dream.

But now, supposing that man, not being infinite in his nature, cannot
commit an infinite sin, is it not reasonable to think that a less
punishment than an infinite one would suffice even eternal justice?
Suppose, for instance, that God had cut off the first human pair when
they sinned, and thus have prevented this hideous tale of mourning,
lamentation, and woe, would not that suffice? For us to be debarred
forever from existence and consciousness--would not that suffice? Well;
the Infinite One had that alternative. But He did not resort to it.
Would He not have resorted to it if He foresaw that His choice lay
between eternal extinction and eternal fire, for the great majority of
our race? Would the eternal joy to which He foresaw that a few of the
race would attain, compensate for the eternal woe which He foresaw would
be the fate of the great majority? A thousand times No. The fact that
we, with our poor, limited powers, can see that there was a way of
averting unutterable and everlasting woe from even one soul, is a strong
argument that there is no everlasting woe. Let us beware of imputing to
God that which we can see might have been honorably avoided, and that
which we would shrink in horror from doing ourselves! Think this matter
over seriously, and see where it will land you.

But then, what is the use of suffering at all? Surely, God foresaw that
there would be a great deal of temporary suffering in this world. Why
did He not prevent it?

Well; having disposed of the idea of eternal suffering, it remains for