the trinity and infinite sin are guilty of a violation of the most plain and acknowledged rules of argumentation. They introduce two propositions, both of which are assumed, and attempt to prove each one true by the other. If the infinity of sin be the point in dispute, the infinite sacrifice which has been made to atone for it is represented as an undeniable evidence of the correctness and truth of the position. On the other hand, in attempting to prove the essential divinity or Godhead of the Son, we are told it was absolutely necessary he should be truly God, as well as man; otherwise he could not have made that infinite sacrifice which was necessary to atone for sin.

But let us enquire, has an infinite atonement been made for sin? To this question I am sensible there are many who would, without the least doubt or hesitation, return an affirmative

answer.

This sentiment has long been taught and received as a principle of divine truth; it is plainly expressed in the language of many eminent divines, and by none, perhaps, more clearly than by the learned and pious Dr. Watts. In his hymns, which have long been used in most christian churches, and some of which are of unrivalled excellence and beauty, we find the following language,--When God, the mighty Maker died,' -Behold! a God descends and dies,'-' the groans of an expiring God,'- and crucified my God;' with much more of the same import. Now admitting all for which the most zealous trinitarians ever contended respecting the nature

of Christ-that he is the true and essential Deity -the uncaused and eternal Jehovah-how, I ask, can the doctrine of an infinite sacrifice for sin be substantiated? Can self-existence suffer and die? Can we admit that he who is the source and fountain of life, and 'who only hath immortality could ever cease to exist? Was the whole universe, during the time while Omnipotence lay crushed beneath 'death's iron hand,' without an upholder, and moral governor?These questions must be answered in the affirmative yes, and these answers must be proved true-before the doctrine of an infinite atonement for sin can be established as a principle of divine truth. But, in order to obviate this difficulty, and give a degree of plausibility to the sentiment, we are told that our saviour, although he was truly and essentially God, was also really and properly a man; that he had two distinct and seperate natures, the divine and the human; and that it was the human, and not the divine nature, which suffered and died on the cross. Where then is the idea of an infinite atonement in the death and sufferings of Christ? It has gone-vanished like the mist before the the beams of a mid-day sun. Many attempts, it is true, have been made in all ages since the introduction of the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian system, to explain this intricate subject; by alledging that in consequence of the intimate connexion of the divine and human natures in Christ, his human nature suffered in a much greater degree, and that these sufferings were far more valuable and meritorious in the

sight of God, than would have been the case had it not been for this union of natures. But after all, as it cannot be admitted that the divine nature in Christ could be in the least degree susceptible of suffering, these explanations have only served, either to perplex the mind, by filling it with a jargon of unintelligible mysteries; or to show more clearly the absurdity of the sentiment.

All this difficulty in understanding the doctrine of atonement would be removed at once, if people would but attend to the plain, simple language of the New Testament on this subject, where the word atonement is found once, and once only. The passage where it occurs is Rom. v: 2, and the apostle there says, 'And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.' He does not inform us that he and his believing brethren had received the virtues or the benefit of the atonement, but the atonement itself. In other passages, the same word in the original occurs, and is rendered reconciliation; and in every passage where it is found, it evidently refers to man, and not to God, as the party who receives, or is affected by it. This is the plain, scripture doctrine of atonement or reconciliation; and this atonement is what every true christian receives and enjoys by faith in his Redeemer. In the death of Christ, he beholds a wonderful display of God's unchanging love to perishing sinners; and through the blood of the everlasting covenant,' he becomes 'reconciled to God.' I have now examined every ground on which

the doctrine of infinite sin can possibly be maintained; and I think shown conclusively that not one of them is tenable. But as this sentiment has been the principal argument in support of the reasonableness of endless punishment, it deserves some further attention. I will therefore procced to offer some objections to the sentiment, which have not, as yet, been noticed.And,

1. If sin be infinite, all distinction in crimes, and all degrees of guilt and criminality in sinners, are entirely done away. There can be no such thing as degrees, or parts of infinity; consequently the person who is guilty of one sin is just as criminal as he who has committed ten thousand; and the man who should wrong his neighbor to the amount of one cent, deserves as great a punishment as the black assassin, who should enter his neighbor's dwelling at midnight, murder the unconscious slumbering inmates, and set fire to the house. In short, every son and daughter of humanity, who has committed even what we are accustomed to term the smallest crime, must sustain the character of an infinite sinner!

2. This sentiment denies that the sinner can ever be justly and adequately punished for his sins, or even for the smallest one of them. Infinite sin deserves infinite and endless punishment; and we are told the justice of God can never be satisfied till every sinner has received his deserts. But, can this punishment ever be inflicted? and can the justice of God, on this principle, ever be satisfied? No; for until eter

nity shall end, this punishment can never have been endured; and consequently, divine justice must, till then, remain unsatisfied.

3. It is a virtual denial of the final salvation of a single individual of the human family. All have sinned; and of course, according to this sentiment, as has been already shown, have become infinite sinners, and are under an infinite weight of guilt. Now, how can this guilt be removed? It will certainly require something superior to itself to remove it; and what can be greater? Not even God himself; for he is no more than infinite. It is in vain to talk about an infinite atonement, admitting such to have been made; for one infinity can never remove another, or counteract its operations.

4. Finally, it denies the infinity of God himself! It is an absolute contradiction in terms, to say that more than one infinite principle can exist in the universe; especially if one be opposed to the other in its nature. If therefore, we admit that sin is an infinite principle, we must forever abandon the idea that any other principle, or even God himself, is, or can be infinite.

You will now, my respected hearers, be able to judge for yourselves, whether it is our duty as rational beings to receive as divine truth, a principle of doctrine so entirely destitute of all foundation, and which involves so many contradictions and absurdities as that of the infinity of sin. And if this principle be abandoned, as I think it must be by every candid person, and if we admit that sin is finite in its nature, being the limited act of a finite creature, it must appear