night thinks it should, that there is a reference here to personal predestination to eternal life, the fact is not denied; although the national predestination of the Gentiles is the point directly referred to by the apostle, yet this always contemplated, and was designed to promote the eternal salvation of individuals. But the moment we contemplate it as personal predestination to eternal life, it becomes conditional. The Gentiles were only embraced in this sense as they became believers, and upon the condition of their faith. This is plain from the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the first chapter. "That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth." So we perceive that in no sense in which the subject can be viewed, is any countenance here given to the Calvinian version of predestination.

Equally difficult will it be found to construe the passage in the eighth chapter to the Romans according to Calvinistic principles. Arminians have differed somewhat in the construction of this passage. Dr. Clarke seems to confine it to the national call of the Gentiles to gospel fellowship; in this, he followed the comment of Taylor. But Mr. Watson thinks personal election to eternal life is here embraced. We think that both national and personal predestination are included. 1. The Gentiles, as a people, because God foreknew that they would believe and embrace the gospel, were predestinated to the enjoyment of its privileges. 2. Genuine and persevering believers, because God foreknew them as such, were predestinated to be "conformed to the image of his Son." They were "called, justified, and glorified." But all this was conducted according to the regular gospel plan. Their predestination was founded upon the foreknowledge of God, which contemplated them as complying with the condition of faith as laid down in the gospel. Here, then, we can see no ground at all for the Calvinian notion of absolute and unconditional election, or predestination to eternal life, irrespective of faith or good works. We have now briefly examined those texts which have ever been considered as the strongholds of Calvinism; and think we have clearly shown that they are susceptible of a different and much more consistent interpretation. There are other passages which they frequently urge in support of their doctrine; but we deem it useless to detain longer. We have selected the principal and most difficult; and from the solutions already furnished, the proper explanation of others will be readily presented, in perfect consistency with a possible salvation for all mankind.

QUESTIONS ON LECTURE XVII.

LECTURE XVIII.

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED.

HAVING progressed so far in the investigation of the extent of the atonement, as, first, to consider the Scripture testimony in favor of the Arminian view, and, secondly, to examine some of the principal Scripture proofs relied upon by Calvinists for the establishment of their system, we would now proceed to institute a comparison between Calvinism and Arminianism, by an examination of the leading difficulculties with which each of these systems has been said, by the opposite party, to be encumbered.

I. We will notice the principal objections which Calvinists have alleged against the system of Arminianism. The following are all that we deem worthy of consideration.

1. Calvinists allege that Arminianism is contrary to FACT.

2. That it is contrary to GRACE.

3. That it is inconsistent with the DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY.

These difficulties we will present in the language of Dr. Hill, as follows:

"1. It does not appear agreeable to fact that there is an administration of the means of grace sufficient to bring all men to faith and repent

ance.

"2. The second difficulty under which the Arminian system labors is this, that while in words it ascribes all to the grace of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independent of that grace.

"3. This system seems to imply a failure in the purpose of the Almighty, which is not easily reconciled with our notions of his sovereignty."

The three difficulties above specified are more fully expressed by the same author in another place, as follow:

"1. It is not easy to reconcile the infinite diversity of situations, and the very unfavorable circumstances, in which many nations, and some individuals of all nations, are placed, with one fundamental position of the Arminian system, that to all men there are administered means suffi cient to bring them to salvation.

"2. It is not easy to reconcile those views of the degeneracy of human nature, and those lessons of humility and self-abasement in the sight of God, which both Scripture and reason inculcate, with another funda. mental position of that system, that the faith and good works of those who are elected did not flow from their election, but were foreseen by God as the grounds of it.

"3. It is not easy to reconcile the immutability and efficacy of the Divine counsel, which enter into our conceptions of the First Cause, with a purpose to save all, suspended upon a condition which is not fulfilled with regard to many."-(Hill's Lectures, ch. 9, sec. 1, and ch. 7, sec. 4.)

We know of no difficulty urged by Calvinists, as involved in the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement, meriting a serious reply, which may not properly be embraced under one or the other of the above divisions. The difficulties above described, it must be confessed, are of so grave a character, that a clear demonstration of their real existence must be a sufficient refutation of the system to which they adhere. The system of revealed truth is perfectly consistent throughout, and completely harmonious with the correct view of the Divine attributes. If, then, it can be satisfactorily shown that the Arminian system really labors under either of the above difficulties, however plausible the arguments for its support may have appeared, we will be compelled to renounce it. But we think a close examination of the subject will evince that the above objections are entirely groundless. We will examine them separately.

1. The first alleges that the Arminian system is contrary to fact. The great distinguishing feature of Arminianism, as has been exhibited in the preceding lectures, is a belief in the truth of the following position-that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as to render their salvation attainable. That this is inconsistent with fact, is argued, by the Calvinist, both from the supposed destitution of the means of grace in heathen lands, and from the great inequality in the distribution of those means in those countries where the gospel is published.

First, we will consider the subject in reference to the case of the heathen. We think it must be clear, that the objection to a possible salvation for all men, as deduced from the condition of the heathen, can only be sustained upon the supposition that the destitution of their condition is such as to render their salvation utterly impossible. Hence, Calvinists have generally, so far as they have expressed an opinion upon this subject at all, consigned the entire mass of the heathen world tc inevitable destruction. That this bold stand is assumed by all Calvinists, cannot be affirmed; for many of them hesitate to express any opinion

on the subject, and others clearly intimate that there may be, even among the heathen, some elect individuals, upon whose hearts divine grace may, in some incomprehensible manner, so operate as effectually to call and prepare them for glory. But then it must be plain, that such as assume this ground can charge upon the system of Arminianism no inconsistency with fact, in relation to the heathen, that does not pertain equally to their own system. As, therefore, the objection itself rests upon the assumed position that the heathen are necessarily precluded from the possibility of salvation, it is an obvious begging of the question. The very position upon which it depends for all its force, is what is denied. and ought first to be proved. But what entirely destroys the objection, is, that this position never has been, and never can be, proved. In relation to the heathen, we may freely admit, -1. That their privileges are far inferior to those conferred upon nations favored with the light of the gospel; and, 2. That this national distinction is fairly attributable to Divine sovereignity, which, for wise and inscrutable reasons, may dispense peculiar blessings, in an unequal degree, to different nations and communities, and even to different individuals. But the great question is, does it follow, from this inequality in the distribution of privilege, that the least favored are entirely destitute of a sufficiency of grace to render their salvation possible? This none can with safety affirm. In reference even to the heathen, the Scriptures declare that God "left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave" them "rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling" their "hearts with food and gladness." Acts xiv. 17. And again, in the first chapter to the Romans, St. Paul informs us, in reference to the heathen, that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." And in Romans, second chapter, we read, " For there is no respect of persons with God. **** For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another." In the first chapter of St. John, Christ is said to be " the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." And St. Peter declares, Acts x. 34, 35, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous ness is accepted with him." Thus, we clearly see, that, according to