right; if not, he is certainly wrong. Actions, small in themselves, may be so connected with other actions, or may excite actions which are founded principally in other causes, so as to have a tendency beyond their own natural power. For instance, a small match touched to a magazine of powder, will explode the whole; but if the principles of explosion were not in the powder, the tendency of the match would as soon set a mill-pond on fire, as the magazine of pow der. Sin is a finite action, when viewed in relation to the sinner, who acts only on finite principles, because he is a finite being. This Elder P. acknowledges. Now let us look for the tendency. "It is calculated," says he, "if not restrained, to subvert all good from the universe." If sin cannot extend beyond its natural power, which our opponent acknowledges to be finite, it is not possible for it to subvert all good from the universe, even if it be not restrained. A finite cause cannot subvert an infinite principle. Nor is it possible for sin, in its most unrestrained career, to effect the Deity at all, in its tendency. The infinite perfection of the Deity knows no weakness on which sin can light to subvert it. It is not the magazine of powder that suffers explosion by the touch of iniquity. It must be utterly beyond sin in its tendency, and not at all exposed by it. The mischief of sin then, in its tendency, redounds wholly to the creature. He and his companions, by its evil tendency, are made the only sufferers.

But

To say that what is finite in degree is infinite in its tendency, is making an infinite effect from a finite cause, than which nothing can be more absurd. absurd as the position is, it is the one which Elder P. has assumed upon which to build the essential divinity of Christ. His arguments, therefore, however good in themselves, will fail of their intended force, till the ground on which they are founded are better established. But before we proceed further in these remarks, we will attend to the following quotation.

"Admitting," says he, "Jehovah to be infinitely

amiable, uniting in himself every possible perfection, being the centre and source of all good; opposition to him must be infinitely criminal. Sin consisting of the transgression of the law, which is a transcript of the moral image of God, and, therefore, holy, just, and good, must be considered proportionably sinful. If this be the nature of moral evil, if it rise in opposition against every manifestation of the divine character, we must suppose that if the capacity and strength of the sinner would admit of it, he would frustrate every purpose, and defeat every design of Jehovah; and although he fail through lack of strength, yet God looks upon him equally criminal, as if he had succeeded." Page 65.

Elder P's. idea of the sinner's frustrating every purpose and defeating every design of God, if he were able, must be founded, it appears, on a very unfavorable opinion of mankind, or on the basis of a false theory. We never heard of any person that wished to wrest the government from his Maker, except those who have been educated in the belief of particular election and reprobation, and the fears of endless misery. That instances of particular hatred to God, among such people, may be found, we do not dispute. But in other cases, tho sin be in opposition to God and goodness, it operates in its desire, tendency, and design, in its own finite sphere, without ever lifting a thought at the throne of God. Elder P's. idea of man's criminality in the sight of God, is to us like pronouncing sentence of execution on a child for the murder of a man, because if it were strong enough, it would kill him. It is no excuse because the child has neither power of body or intellect. It is just as criminal in the sight of a wise and intelligent court, as if it possessed those faculties in a degree, equal to the accomplishment of such design. Absurd as this similitude may appear, it fails only of equally pointing out the absurdity of Elder P's. idea of the manner in which God reckons the criminality of transgressors. with his Maker forms no comparative equality to a

Man

child with a man. Yet he thinks God looks upon man as equally criminal, as if he had defeated every design of his, and frustrated every purpose. Thus he labors to maintain one absurd idea to support another.

Elder P. in maintaining that Christ offered himself an infinite sacrifice for man to make an infinite atonement for infinite sin, has another difficulty to encounter. He does not contend that the divinity itse.f suffered. It was then only the sufferings of humanity for a short time that made the infinite atonement. But to the sufferings of humanity he attaches infinite merit, because the humanity of Christ was connected with his divinity. Yet if the sufferings of his humanity did not effect the divinity, tho connected with it, what more importance can we attach to them than to the sufferings of Christ as properly the only begotten Son of God, the Son of God in a peculiar sense? We cannot possibly conceive what advantage the Trinitarian views of atonement can have over the Unitarian, in point of merit, so long as none of them pretend that the real Divinity suffered.

But after all, in pleading for an infinite atonement, they give it no preponderance over sin; for this they account infinite. This balance of power on the side of atonement and sin, may well render the salvation of men doubtful, and is, no doubt, the fittest hypothesis to support the doctrine of endless misery. Elder P. however, believes in particular election and reprobation, and the final perseverance of the saints. The saved are fixed in the decree of heaven and must be saved; the reprobate are excluded, and cannot be saved. As the salvation of the elect is wholly of God; so is the reprobation of the non-elect. As the saved have no praise for being saved; so we should conclude the damned ought not to be blamed for being damned. But almost every electioner endeavors to blame them, notwithstanding their fate is fixed and unavoidable.

We have now brought to a close what we calculated to offer on Elder P's "Sketch" of his life. Many

parts of the book which we deem exceptionable we have left unnoticed; nor have we called the attention of the public to all the arguments on the topics, which we have had under consideration. But we have endeavored to notice the most important and objectionable. If we have been successful in pointing out the mistaken views of those arguments which we have noticed, we presume no particular embarrassment will arise in consequence of those which we have not noticed. If unsuccessful, more labor would be equally useless. Whatever may be the views of different persons on the subjects herein treated, we have only to add further, that we have endeavored to act a friendly part, and add our mite with a view to promote the cause of truth.

FROM T. B. ON 2 COR. ii. 15, 16.

The reader will be able to gather from the following extract from T. B's letter, his ideas on the above named passage of scripture, which by comparing with ours, page 174, of this volume, he will discover wherein we differ, and judge for himself which appears the most scriptural and rational.

EXTRACT.

"We are exhorted by the Apostle, the author of the words under consideration, to present our bodies a living sacrifice unto God, which is our reasonable service; and because God has been so merciful to us.― Rom. xii. 1. Now this we cannot do without becoming dead to sin and alive to holiness or righteousness. It appears that the preaching of the true ministers of Christ is calculated to effect this moral change, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God; and so be a sweet savor anto God, in both them that are already in a saved state, and in them that are in a perishing condition. To the one they are instrumental in increasing their faith and piety, and so become a savor of life unto life; to the other they are instrumental in working convic

tion in the mind, and so producing death to sin, till they become dead to sin; and then they are prepared to receive the truth in love of it. Then their preaching would become a savor of life to them, after being thus changed, as is described in Rom. vi. 11, 12. This is the only death the sinner can experience; in which it can be truly said God delights, according to my understanding of the scriptures. It is written that God delights not in the death of the sinner; but that he should turn and live. Therefore he has provided so many ways or means of grace to bring us to him. This is the only way in which they can be a sweet savor unto God of death unto death, unless we take the Hopkinsian ground, which involves the character of God in such darkness, that I dare not admit the thought as true.”

REMARKS.

The views of our brother, T. B. were anticipated in our former piece, with our objections, in the following sentence: "If we say death unto death means the destruction of death, the idea does not well comport with their perishing or being lost, neither would it seem to form a proper antithesis to the idea of life unto life." All we wish to add to this subject, is to set the meaning we meant to convey in our former piece, if possible, in a more clear point of light. For we have reason to conclude from the above communication, that it has, in some measure, been misunderstood. It was not our object to maintain that the death of the sinner is well pleasing to God; neither could we suppose it to be the meaning of the apostle. And if this deduction followed of unavoidable consequence from our explanation, it would equally follow that we were in the dark on this subject. As was before stated, we do not suppose that the death of the sinner is well pleasing to God; but that which is a sweet savor to God, might prove salutary to one and unsalutary to another. All this would follow in consequence of the qualified or unqualified state of the recipient. Food which is calculated for the suste