Let us briefly examine the views upon which such strange inconsistencies arose. Is it true, that if the salvation of a sinner in any way depends upon himself, that the glory due to God is any less than it would have been if his salvation had been fixed by a decree of heaven, and therefore certain before he was born?

To answer that question satisfactorily, we must go back and see what was the state and condition of the sinner before he fell; and consider, also, whether God would be the more glorified by making his creatures all free, or by holding them under bonds to serve Him.

The question of free will is only noticed here in so far as it is connected with and bears upon the great truths discussed.

If it is true that the soul of man was an angel of light before the fall, and that from having associated with the prince and people of darkness since, he has degenerated and been reduced to his present depraved condition, then the wisdom of God would be best sustained, and consequently his glory too, upon the hypothesis that he had left the questions of repentance and salvation, in part at least, with each to settle for himself.

They certainly were free to act for themselves before they fell; because there was no devil to tempt them before Satan fell himself, so far as we are informed or have any sort of ground to believe. He was an angel of high degree; once as pure and holy as those he left behind him— as the Scriptures authorize us to believe. Yet he was a creature of God, and as perfectly subject to His control and disposal as is man in his present state. If God had so willed, He could have controlled his conduct and enforced the most abject obedience by Satan. Or, after he became rebellious, God could have controlled each and all of his followers, and restrained them from following after his baleful example to their own overthrow. A denial of that power to God would indeed be in derogation of His just claim to sovereignty. He did not control Satan or any of his angels, but permitted him and them to act for themselves, as free agents, in that awful affair.

They having voluntarily abandoned the service of the Creator for that of a creature, and God having allowed them to act for themselves on that occasion, it is most reasonable to suppose that He will not coerce obedience from any of them now, and save them from the just reward of their own folly and wickedness.

Were He to do otherwise, and restore any without sufficient evidence of voluntary contrition and repentance on their part, the probabilities are that should they be left free again, the same thing would be repeated. In that event, a defect in His providence would be manifest, even to the limited capacities of men, and which would certainly reflect less glory on God than would the success of His schemes.

And to put any one in a situation calculated to excite a hope of pardon for past transgression, and restoration to the Divine favor, without really offering any opportunity for repentance or salvation, would be to trifle with the feelings of a creature in his distresses. Few men would confess a willingness so to act themselves, and surely the number can not be greater of those who would assume to charge the beneficent Creator of the universe with such cruelty, even to a devil. It then would seem the most likely, that God allows His rational creatures the privilege, in some degree, of acting for themselves, and that He will hold them to answer for their conduct.

Would it not redound more to the glory of God that His creatures be granted perfect freedom of will to serve Him or not, as they please? Or the question may be better stated thus: Is the voluntary homage of the free, or the servile obeisance of the slave, most acceptable to the sovereign?

"The love of liberty with life is given,

And life itself th inferior gift of Heaven."

There is nothing more true than this. The love of liberty is an all-pervading instinct of nature, and is not peculiar to man, but common with all animated beings. Whence this universal agreement?

A characteristic so striking and uniform can only be traced to a common origin; to God the maker of all. If He has inspired all living creatures with the love of liberty, is it not proof conclusive that He loves it himself? Liberty being more agreeable to the Divine Nature than slavery, and having full power over all His creatures, is it reasonable that He would surround himself, in heaven, with a band of slaves, rather than a universe of spirits, like Himself, free?

That Satan and his comrades are in bondage now, we have abundant scriptural evidence. They are represented as held in "chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."-2 Pet. 2: 4; Jude 6. We are often spoken of as the servants of the devil. The glorious mission of Christ was to make us free. "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son."-Gal. 4: 1 to 7. "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." "If the son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."-John 8: 32, 36.

We observe here the condition of the sinner is represented as one of servitude; no such terms being applied to the holy angels of heaven, the presumption thence arises, that they are not slaves but free. The redeemed of earth are to be "free indeed." As they are to become as the angels of heaven, we infer again that the angels are free.

But again. Slavery is the opposite of liberty. Sinners who are in servitude are subject to all sorts of sorrows, pain, and misery; which is just the reverse of the estate of holy angels in heaven, and of that which is reserved for the people of God. May we not, therefore, presume, that as the latter are to be free, the former are free also? It can not be necessary to run these analogies, or press such inferences further. The subject is inexhaustible, and such conclusions are not to be resisted.

With a few words, therefore, as to the meaning of the term "servant," and we will pass on.

Service is of two sorts, voluntary and constrained. Those of each class who serve, are designated by the

sacred writers indifferently as "servants."

The followers of Jesus Christ are always by them treated as of the former, and the adherents of Satan as of the latter class of servants.

No inference can, in this view, be drawn from the fact that the righteous are sometimes called the servants of God, or of Christ, that they are not free, who are expressly declared to be so.

The discussion of free will as opposed to predestination illustrates, fearfully, the natural proneness of man to run into extremes. The absurdities into which the one party has been driven can alone be equaled by those of the other. And, as is usual in such cases, the truth can only be found between them. The one ascribes everything to a stern, unyielding fate, and the other to the result of free will.

If anything is taught in the Bible so clearly as to bar and foreclose all doubt, it is the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God. That is one of the chief attributes of Deity, and necessary to the government of His creatures. Without prescience of the effect of every cause, and of the conduct of all rational beings, His laws would be found but little better than those of men; and, like ours, they would have to be changed about as often as the moon.

To those who admit the Bible to be true, there can be no necessity to offer argument to sustain the foreknowledge of God. Such Scriptures as the following, and which abound in that inspired Book, to all that class, must be proof sufficient on this point: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified. and slain."—Acts 2: 23. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”—Acts 15: 18. "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." -1 Pet. 1: 2. Regardless of all reason, and such scriptural evidence, some ultra advocates of the free-will dogma have been driven to deny that God did foreknow all things.

Such is often the consequence of suffering ourselves to become over-anxious to support a pet idea.

The immediate cause of such zealots falling into an error so absurd, in most, if not in all cases, is and has been their inability to reconcile the foreknowledge of the Creator with the free agency and consequent accountability of the creature.

All who think to any profit know that there are many things which it is much easier to comprehend and understand fully, to our own satisfaction, than it is to explain them to, and engraft them upon, the minds of others. This is a problem of that sort. Whether the difficulty, in this instance, lies more with the incompetency of the teacher or pupil, all are left to form their own judgment.

It is said, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Were it not uncharitable, apparent facts and circumstances would justify the dark suspicion that the obtuseness of some persons in this particular is less real than affected. There is danger of doing injustice to some, however, in so accounting for that in all cases, which does sometimes, to say the least we can for it, appear very strange indeed. The eyes of erring man are subject to become so far blinded, and their judgment so perverted by prejudice, arising from the influence of preconceived opinions, bias, growing out of overestimating the value of some favorite and conflicting notion, allowing themselves to be carried too far by the fervor of debate, etc., that wellintending persons, of strong mind and great learning are, on that account, many times, as we can not doubt, unwittingly led far away from the plain and simple paths of Gospel truth, and lost in the mazes of mysticism, ultraism, and other like baleful isms.

Any protracted discussion of this question, which is only preliminary to that propounded for examination in this work, is forbidden by the limits prescribed. A few suggestions, in the way of directing the inquiring mind to a pleasant and fruitful field for thought, in reference to it, may not, nevertheless, prove amiss.

That there are passages of scripture, which, if consid