by a true logical argumentum a minori ad majus, that the money which was unequal to the lesser purchase, was utterly and absolutely, and ridiculously unequal to the greater? Precisely such is the apostle's mode of argumentation. His documentary quotation establishes the point, that mere lineal descent from the patriarch Abraham did not insure even theocratic and externally Messianic privileges. Ishmael was the son of Abraham as truly as was Isaac. His posterity, then, were as lineally descended from the patriarch as the posterity of Isaac, and yet it was to be "in Isaac, to the exclusion of Ishmael, that the Messianic seed was to be called to him," and associated with his name. Since, then, mere lineal descent from the patriarch did not secure even theocratic and externally Messianic privileges, it follows, by a cogent and most impregnable and infallible argument, that lies like a logical giant in the words of the Old Testament quotation, that mere patriarchal descent did not, and could not, secure the spiritual and everlasting privileges that were vouchsafed to Abraham himself. If pure and lineal descent from the patriarch was not adequate to the attainment of the lesser privileges,—and the case of the lineally-descended Ishmaelites is an irrefragable proof that it was not,-the consequence is inevitable, That the same descent could not be adequate to the attainment of the greater privileges."-pp. 178, 179. Now, this is sound logic, if it is understood that the "lesser privileges" are included in, or are essentially connected with, the "greater"-in the same or a similar way that £100 are included in, and form part of, £10,000. A man cannot possess the latter sum, without having the former. In such a case, we may legitimately argue from the less to the greater. The argumentum a minori ad majus is a good and valid argument in all cases where the greater includes the less, or where the attainment of the less is essential to the attainment of the greater. The case would be entirely altered, however, if the two kinds of privilege were dissimilar in their nature;-if, for example, the "lesser privileges" had consisted in wealth and honour, or in the possession of a beautiful and fertile country, like Canaan—in such a case, would the above argumentation hold good? Could we argue, that because "lineal descent from Abraham" did not secure to the Ishmaelites riches and honour, or the possession of a "land flowing with milk and honey;" therefore, the same descent could not secure to others heavenly riches? Assuredly not. It is a fact, no doubt, that descent from Abraham did not, and could not, secure the heavenly inheritance; but it is no proof of this fact that it did not secure, and could not secure, worldly riches and honours: so neither is it a proof of this fact that it was not adequate to the attainment of "theocratic privileges," unless on the supposition that these privileges were, as a means, or otherwise, essential to the attainment of everlasting life. The proper light, no doubt, in which to view "theocratic privileges," is to view them as means-the usual and ordinary means of grace and salvation-essential means, perhaps to the Israelites, on whom their observance was strictly enjoined; and in their case, when properly observed, attended with a blessing. But the reasoning of the author goes farther than this. As an argument "from the less to the great er," it leads to the conclusion that the attainment of the "lesser privileges" was essential to the attainment of the "greater," in all cases;-in other words, that it was impossible to obtain the higher privileges, without also obtaining the lower; just as it would be impossible for a person to obtain an inheritance worth £10,000, without also obtaining the value of £100. Such, undoubtedly, is the conclusion to which the argumentation of the author leads. Now, is this a conclusion which he is willing to admit? Is he willing to allow that the Ishmaelites were "cast out" or cut off by God himself from privileges that were essential to the attainment of everlasting life? His reasoning, as we have seen, clearly leads to this conclusion; but we cannot imagine any thing more fatal to the basis-principle of Arminianism, or to the author's own sentiments, as we shall see by and by. On other grounds, it might be shown that the reasoning of the author proceeds on the assumption, that the Ishmaelites were cut off, not merely from the "lesser privileges," but from the "greater” also. His position is, that "lineal descent from Abraham" was not adequate to secure the heavenly inheritance -and his proof is, that the Ishmaelites, though thus descended, did not obtain even theocratic privileges. But this is clearly no proof of his position, unless we suppose that they were also excluded from everlasting life. For if we suppose that though deprived of the lower, they yet obtained the higher class of privileges; how could their case be a proof of the inadequacy of patriarchal descent to secure what they actually obtained? On this supposition their case would be a stronger proof to the contrary. It would show that the "descent" in question was adequate, even in the most unfavourable circumstances. It is thus clear that the argumentation of the author involves the conclusion that the Ishmaelites were excluded from both classes of privileges. Some degree of obscurity attaches to the use made of the terms "theocratic and Messianic privileges," which the author is not careful to remove: for, though he employs these terms with very great frequency, he never, so far as we have observed, explains their full and conjoined import. Had he expounded to his readers the plenitude of blessing and privilege couched in these terms, and explained their intimate connexion with the "higher privileges," it would have enabled them to descry the inconsistency of his reasoning with the principles he avows. What the author calls the "lesser privileges," included, not only the establishment and organization of a church-not only the means of grace and salvation, but an interest in those gracious promises made to Abraham, such as, "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." What God promised to be to Abraham, he thus pro mised to be to his seed also: and this promise was not a dead letter. We know from the result that it secured the continued existence of a godly seed among his descendants in the favoured line. Even in the degenerate days of Ahab, there were "seven thousand men," whom God had "reserved to himself," and who had not "bowed the knee to the image of Baal," Romans xi. 8. And in the days of the apostle, when their peculiar theocratic privileges were about to expire, and the "kingdom of God" was about to be taken from them, there were still among them "a remnant according to the election of grace." The distinguished and distinguishing favours thus bestowed on Isaac, and afterwards on Jacob and his posterity, to the exclusion of the Ishmaelites, and all other nations, is a fact frequently dwelt on in Scripture. It is the inspired theme of many of the "songs of Zion." "The doctrine of his holy word To Jacob he doth show; His statutes and his judgments he To any nation never he Such favour did afford; For they his judgments have not known, |