that he intensely desires many things which are not accomplished: "Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever." "Oh that thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace!" "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?"

In order to remove this difficulty, some have presumed to say that God cannot convert and save all men. He earnestly desires the salvation of all, but he cannot effect it. He converts and saves as many as he can. But this, obviously, is not harmonizing the two classes of scriptures at all. is rather annulling the one class in order to save the other. God desires the salvation of his guilty creatures, undoubtedly; for he hath said it. But how is this truth consistent with those other declarations, that he "doeth according to his will;" that he "hath mercy on whom he will have mercy;" and that, "with him, all things are possible?" Here is the real difficulty of the case; and the solution above suggested goes not a step towards removing it.

Some have thought to remove the difficulty by insisting that all men will finally be saved. God desires the salvation of all, and will ultimately save all; for "whatsoever his soul desireth, even that it doeth." But it is certain from many scriptures, and even from some of the class referred to, that all men are not to be saved: "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?" "Oh that thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace; but now they are hidden from thine eyes."

Others have attempted to remove the difficulty by saying that while God desires, in itself considered, the salvation of all men, he does not purpose, on the whole, to put forth his power and save all. A distinction is made between what God desires, in itself considered, and what he purposes, on the whole. And this, I have no doubt, is a valid distinction. It is one which is continually made and acted upon in common life. It is one which may properly be applied to the case in hand. And yet it does not seem to

us to tell the whole truth on the subject. It does not reach to the full extent of it, or embrace all that requires to be said.

In order to make the matter plain, we need that other distinction which has been insisted upon in this discussion. As supreme and sovereign disposer God puts forth certain claims, and utters a peculiar language. It is all true. It is glorious truth, on which every friend of God delights to ponder and to rest. God could not show forth his glory to his creatures, and withhold those sublime exhibitions of himself, which, as sovereign disposer, he has been pleased to make. At the same time, in administering a moral government over free, intelligent creatures, and especially over apostate creatures, whom, on the ground of the atonement, he is endeavoring to win back to the truth and save, it is proper that he should use quite another language. It is proper that he should invite, exhort, reprove, entreat, and warn; it is proper that he should express his desires, and pour forth his paternal yearings, and urge every appropriate motive to bring the sinner to repentance. And if he will not return to his duty, it is proper that the injured Sovereign should give vent to his feelings in the language of our blessed Lord: "Oh that thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belonged to thy peace; but now they are hidden from thine eyes." Language such as this, with which the scriptures abound, is all true and important, and most honorable to the heart of its divine author, and indispensable to a full exhibition of his character and glory. Nor is it at all inconsistent with that other language which, standing in a different relation, and speaking and acting in a different capacity, God uses to set forth his supreme control over all creatures and all worlds.

The distinction on which we have insisted is important, as it goes to vindicate the sincerity of God in his invitations and entreaties, and in all the efforts which, as a compassionate moral governor, he is pleased to make, to bring sinners to the knowledge of the truth. It is often said that if

God's claims of sovereignty are just, he cannot be sincere in his invitations. Having all hearts in his hands, and being perfectly able to turn them as he pleases, if he really desires the conversion of sinners, why does he not turn them to himself? Why does he not put forth his power, and subdue their wills, and end the struggle at a stroke? And is not the fact that this is not done conclusive proof, either that he lacks the power, or that in the expression of his desires, he is insincere? Or to place the difficulty in another light: how can God sincerely invite and entreat those to come to him and live whom he certainly knows never will come, and respecting whom he has even a plan, a purpose, that they never shall?

We have chosen to present this objection in all its force. It has been a perplexing one to ministers and Christians; a difficulty with which they have been unwilling to grapple; preferring rather to leave it among the dark things of God. And we frankly acknowledge that, except on the ground of the distinction above illustrated, we should be at a loss how to dispose of it.

The

The objection to God's sincerity, it will be seen, is twofold. The first form of it is grounded on his absolute control over the hearts and actions of men. If he has such a control, and sincerely desires the salvation of sinners, why does he not exercise it, and turn all men to himself? other form of the objection is grounded on the universal purposes and foreknowledge of God. If it has entered into his great plan of providence and grace that certain individuals are not to be saved, how can he sincerely urge them to accept of life?

It will be seen that both these objections owe all their plausibility to a confounding of the distinction between God as the supreme disposer and a moral governor. It is God in the same office, and acting in the same capacity, who has formed his decrees of election and reprobation, and exercises a sovereign control over the hearts and actions of men, while at the same time he is inviting and entreat

ing all men to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. And this, it is said, and said justly, seems crooked and insincere.

But we have seen that it is not God in the same office, and acting in the same capacity, who gives utterance to these seemingly discrepant forms of speech. It is God, the supreme and sovereign disposer, who has formed his universal plan, and is giving it effect throughout his immense dominions of providence and grace. It is in this capacity that none can stay his resistless hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? But it is in a very different capaoity; that of a father, a ruler, a compassionate moral governor, that he gives utterance to his invitations, bis entreaties, his paternal yearnings, for the salvation of those who persistently turn their backs upon the overtures of his love. He is perfectly sincere in these utterances. He is intensely earnest in them. He feels all that he expresses, and infinitely more than can be expressed in the language of mortals.

Without the distinction which has been indicated there is no such thing as vindicating the sincerity of the divine Being in the invitations of his love. But with this distinction clearly formed, rightly understood, and carried with us in our intepretations of the Bible, there is no difficulty. In both the capacities in which God presents himself before us, his utterances are all true; they are precious truths; and infinitely honorable to himself.

Nor let any one think to refute our reasonings on this subject, by comparisons drawn from mere earthly relations, as of a father to his children, or a ruler to his subjects. The truth is, no earthly relations can reach to the vastness of the subject in hand, or can be employed, except in a very little way, to illustrate it. The parent may exercise a kind of moral government over his children. He may give them laws, and desire and exact obedience. He may also, during their minority, have the disposal generally of their affairs. But is he their Creator and their Supreme Disposer? Does

he exercise such a sovereignty or such a moral government over them as God does? Or is he under a necessity of speaking and acting in different relations and capacities, as God is, in order to unfold more adequately his character and display his glory? We make these remarks for the purpose of showing how dangerous it is to attempt illustrating divine things by human things; or to attempt refuting the plain declarations of God's word by comparisons drawn from mere human relations.

The distinction of which we have spoken is further important, because, if correctly understood and applied, it would heal many differences and disputes among evangelical Christians. The most of these differences cluster around the great subjects of God's sovereignty and our responsibility; his purposes and our duties; his uncontrollable agency in disposing the affairs and actions of men, and our freedom to do as we please, and form characters good or evil. Some good men are so enamoured of the doctrines of God's decree and his sovereignty as to think of little else. They forget a class of truths which lie over on the other side: such as man's freedom and accountability, his subjection to law, and his obligations to labor for the salvation of his own soul and the souls of others. "God will fulfil his own purposes, he will gather in his own elect, he will overrule all things for his highest glory and the greatest good; and why should we trouble ourselves about duties and responsibilities? Commit everything to God, rest implicitly in his decrees, and wait the disposals of his blessed will." Thus some men reason and act on the subject of religion, who, if they should do the same in regard to the common affairs of life, would be justly thought to require a guardian.

But at the farthest remove from these, and often in sharp controversy with them, is a class of religionists who think little of God's sovereignty and decrees, and believe still less. They know that we are free, responsible agents; that God has given us his law, and that we are bound to obey it. They know also that God has revealed to us the gospel,