created something for eternal perdition to the praise of His Justice.' It is repugnant to His Justice because it affirms that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation without having the least regard to righteousness or obedience; the proper inference from which is, that God loves such men far more than His Own Justice.' Finally it is repugnant to God's Goodness since it is a doctrine which definitely states that God willed to damn, and that He might be able to do this, He willed to create; although creation is the first egress (or going forth) of God's goodness towards His creatures. How vastly different are such statements as these from that expansive goodness of Cod by which He confers benefits not only on the unworthy, but also on the evil, the unjust, and on those who are deserving of punishment; which trait of Divine Beneficence in Our Father, Who is in Heaven, we are commandel to imitate (Matt. v 45).'

Calvinism then, in its sternest developments, was for Arminius incompatible with the Divine Nature. What did he propose to put in its place? My own sentinents on Predestination,' he says, 'I will now declare'; aid he states them as being comprised within four divine decrees.

I. The first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which He decreed to appoint His Son Jesus Christ for a Mediator, Redeemer, Saviour, Priest and King; Who might destroy sin by His own death, night by His obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by His own virtue.

2. The second precise and absolute decree of Ged, is that in which He decreed to receive into favour those who repent and believe, and, in Chris:, for His sake and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin and under wrath all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to camn. them as aliens from Christ.

3. The third divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have such administration instituted, (1) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both to His mercy and His severity, and (2) according to Divine Justice by which He is prepared to adopt whatever His wisdom may prescribe, and to put it into execution.

4. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which He knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through His preventing grace, believe, and, through His subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before-described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, He likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.'

Such are the doctrines put forward by Arminius, and an examination of them reveals clearly the great difference between his teaching and the Calvinism he was opposing. It is obvious that he was not refusing to accept Predestination in every shape or form. His statements shew that he believed firmly that God does foreordain the destinies of men. That idea is as essential a part of his system as it is of Beza's. But the great difference between them is that whereas for Beza God's predestinating decree (to life or to destruction) was the first and the determining item in His relations with mankind, moving Him to create, causing Him to bring it about that man should sin, Arminius saw that such a theory when worked out logically, by involving God directly in the origin of sin really declared Him to be the author of sin. Consequently he shifted the decree of God regarding the destiny of man from the frontal position it occupied in the Calvinistic conception of predestination, to a position subsequent to the first sin and

the fall of man. That is to say, in the Arminian scheme of predestination, God is not conceived as ordaining that man should sin in order that His eternal decree of salvation or reprobation should be carried out; but as dealing with man as already fallen and sinful and ordaining for sinful man a plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Arminius draws a vital distinction between the idea of God causing the Fall, and that of God permitting the Fall. The former he rejects as entirely contrary to the Divine Nature; the latter he freely acknowledges and admits as a necessary conception. For God, he says, has given man in creation a free-will. Consequently He could not prevent man sinning without infringing on human liberty. But to permit is not necessarily to cause. Permission is cessation from the act of hindering. There is a distinction between God permitting sin, and God being the efficient cause of sin. God wills the permission, not that which is permitted. Permission is a middle act between willing and not willing, and is the part of a quiescent will. In this way Arminius avoids involving God in the origin of sin. Sin comes from man and is his own choice. God did not decree that man should sin; but He could not decree that man should not sin, for to do that would be to rescind His own appointment to man of free-will. It would be to act in a manner contrary to Himself, which is impossible since God is immutable.

The Arminian scheme so far then, was that God created man in a state of original righteousness, intending him to remain in that state, but not making it impossible for him to fall out of it if he chose. Man did fall, through disobedience to God, and consequently lost the salvation which had otherwise been his. God thereupon planned to restore man to a state of salvation, and His plan was to appoint Jesus Christ His Son as Saviour. Salvation was to be through Jesus Christ to all those who repented and believed in Him and who persevered to the end. Impenitent persons and unbelievers by virtue of their rejection of Christ automatically condemned themselves to separation and no share in His Salvation.

This, it will be apparent, is in striking contrast to the Calvinistic theory that God first chose certain persons to be saved, and then created mankind and caused man to sin, in order that by His mercy He might save those whom He had already predestined to salvation, and by His justice. condemn those whom He had in like manner predestined to condemnation.

Were this the whole of Arminius' teaching regarding Salvation, it would be quite unoriginal, and would merely denote in Arminius an adoption of the mildest form of Calvinism, known as 'Infralapsarianism' in the place of the sterner Supralapsarian' theories he had learnt from Beza. But the distinctive features in Arminianism and those which were condemned at the Synod of Dort are the doctrines regarding grace and the foreknowledge of God. Some idea of these can be gathered from the 'four divine decrees' of Arminius already mentioned; but a clear statement of the Arminian position is found in the 'Five Articles of the Remonstrance' put out by Uyttenbogaert his friend and follower, in 1610, the year following Arminius' death.

These Five Articles' may be summarized as follows:

'I. Asserts conditional election; i.e. dependent on the foreknowledge by God of faith in the elect, and

of unbelief in those who are left in sin and under condemnation.

2. Asserts universal atonement, i.e. it is intended, though it is not actually efficient for all.

3. Asserts the inability of man to exercise saving faith or to accomplish anything really good without regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

4. Declares that the Grace of God is indispensable in every stage of the Christian life, but that it is not irresistible.

5. Asserts that the grace of the Holy Spirit is sufficient for continual victory over temptation and sin; but the necessity of final perseverance of all believers is left doubtful. (This article was

afterwards so modified as to assert the possibility of falling from grace.) '1

A brief consideration must now be given to the teaching involved in these Articles.

It will have been apparent from what has already been said that the Atonement in Arminian theology is universal. God proposed the salvation of all men in and through Jesus Christ. The death of Christ was sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. All idea of a salvation for the elect only is thrown overboard by Arminius. Christ died for all. And yet not all are saved. Actually it is only the elect who attain salvation. Although Christ's Atonement was intended for all, it is not actually efficient for all. Although He died sufficienter' for all men, yet His death was efficienter' for the elect only. A question of great importance follows from this. It will naturally be asked: What decides who are the saved? Arminius replied: The elect are saved, and they are elect not because of an arbitrary will of God, but because God foresaw in them faith in Jesus Christ. The death of Christ was inefficient for the salvation of the condemned because God foreknew their lack of faith, and because of His foreknowledge predestined them to condemnation.

Salvation, then, is by faith, and faith is the result of the Divine Gift of Grace. Here we touch on another question of great importance in Arminius' teaching. Arminius regards grace as being 'so tempered and commingled with the nature of man, as not to destroy within him the liberty of his will, but to give it a right direction, to correct its depravity, and to allow man to possess his own proper motions.' He emphasizes the teaching of Scripture that grace can be resisted (Acts vii 51) and can be received in vain (2 Cor. vi 1); also that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it, and to refuse all cooperation with it (Heb. xii 15; St. Matt. xxiii 37; St. Luke vii 30). This is in complete opposition to the Calvinism which

1 Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. i., Art. Arminianism.'