Questions on Chapter 19.

inability in those who are not elected is of such a kind as will infallibly prevent their obeying the commands of God; and it is a part of their system that the Being who issues these commands has resolved to withhold from such persons the grace which alone is sufficient to remove that inability. In accounting for these commands, therefore, they are obliged to have recourse to a distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God. They understand by his revealed will that which is preceptive, which declares the duty of his creatures, containing commands agreeable to the sentiments of their minds and the constitution of their nature, and delivering promises which shall certainly be fulfilled to all who obey the commands. They understand by his secret will, his own purpose in distributing his favors and arranging the condition of his creatures — a purpose which is founded upon the wisest reasons, and is infallibly carried into execution by his sovereign power, but which, not being made known to his creatures, cannot possibly be the rule of their conduct.” (Hill’s Lectures.)

There is, perhaps, only a shade of difference between the theory of Baxter and Hopkins, as above delineated, which has been held by a large portion of the Calvinistic Churches since their day, and the more modern phase of the subject called “New Divinity,” and advocated generally by New School Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists of New England. We must, however, reserve the examination of this subject for our next chapter. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 19.

QUESTION 1. Has there been much diversity of sentiment in the Church relative to the extent of the atonement?

2. Into what two great parties have Christians been divided on this subject?

3. Why should caution and forbearance be exercised on this subject?

4. Has this controversy always been conducted in a proper spirit?

5. What is the view of Arians, Socinians, etc., in reference to the extent of the atonement?

6. What peculiar view is taken by a certain class of Universalists?

7. Upon what false assumption is this scheme based?

8. Has the same view of the nature of atonement been adopted by any others?

9. Do the Scriptures present the atonement in the light of a commercial transaction?

10. In what light, then?

11. To admit this view of the nature of atonement, would the salvation of all for whom it was made necessarily follow?

12. What, then, would be the controversy between Calvinists and Universalists?

13. How is this scheme refuted?

14. In what great question is embraced the substance of the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians?

15. What are the three different views taken by Calvinists on this subject?

16. Is there any essential difference in these schemes on the subject of the main question?

17. What distinguished divines are mentioned as having advocated the latter?

18. How have Calvinists endeavored to justify themselves in offering salvation to all?

19. Have they in this way successfully vindicated their consistency?

20. What does Mr. Baxter mean by the phrase “sufficient grace”?

21. What does Dr. Hill mean by moral inability, and by the revealed and the secret will of God?