"If he was not the first that discovered the truth that all sin and holiness consists in action, or in voluntary exercises of the mind, he was the first to make an extensive use of this principle in explaining the doctrines of the gospel. By common consent, the Exercise scheme' is his. He not only be. lieved with others, that much of the sin and holiness of men consists in their voluntary affections, but that all of it does; and this principle he carried out in all its bearings upon the subject of human depravity, the connection of Adam with his posterity, the doctrine of regeneration, the free agency and accountability of man, and the government of God. this principle it follows that the depravity of mankind is not a corrupt nature inherent from Adam, but their own voluntary opposition to God; that regeneration consists not in the implantation of a new principle distinct from the affections of the mind, but in a change in the affections themselves from sin to holiness; that God does not require men to alter the nature which he has given them, or to make themselves new faculties or powers, but to exercise that holiness of heart, for which he has given them the requisite capacity."

From

"That mankind are free and active while acted upon, or that they are free moral agents while doing that which the agency of God disposes them to do, is a distinguishing feature of Dr. Emmons' theology." "He believed that God exercised a real, a universal and a constant agency over all his intelligent creatures, and that at the same time they enjoyed the most perfect freedom conceivable. He never made the agency of God limit the freedom of the creature, or the freedom of the creature counteract the will of God. In all his addresses to God, and descriptions of his character, he speaks to and of him, as doing all his pleasure in heaven above, and on earth beneath. In all his addresses to man, he speaks to and of him, as a free moral agent, capable of doing or not doing the whole will of God, and as accountable for the manner in which he improves the powers which God has given him.”

The doctrine of the Divine agency or efficiency, especially as exerted in the production of evil, has been often urged as an objection to Dr. E. And it must be confessed that he has used language, particularly in his sermon on Reprobation, which, if it were somewhat modified, would be less

*

Vol. iv. Serm. 24.

likely to be misunderstood and perverted. But what is that Divine agency or efficiency, by which God has made and governs the world, and by which he turns and controls the hearts of men? It consists altogether, according to Dr. E., in the Divine will. In creating the world, God simply willed that it should be, and it was. The changes also which take place, in both the natural and the moral world, are brought about by the mere will of God. The agency of God in the conversion of Paul was but the will of the Holy Ghost, that Paul should turn voluntarily from sin to holiness. And the agency of Godin hardening the heart of Pharaoh, so that he should refuse to let the people go, was but the will or choice of God, all things considered, that his heart should thus be hardened. And do not all consistent Calvinists-all those who hold to the universal decrees or purposes of God, believe as much as this?

The following specimens of Dr. Emmons' manner of illustrating this difficult subject, in familiar conversation, are presented by Prof. Park.

'Do you believe that God is the efficient cause of sin?' 'No,' was the reply. Do you believe that sin takes place according to the usual laws of nature?' 'Yes.' 'What are the laws of nature according to Newton?' 'They are the established modes of the Divine operation.' • Do you approve of that definition?' 'Yes.' Put those things together.' Dr. Emmons was always satisfied, if a man would adopt the common definition of the laws of nature and would believe that sin takes place according to these laws. Again, he once asked a teacher of theology, Do you believe that God is the efficient cause of sin?' 'No.' Do you believe that he created the world by his mere volition; that he willed, and it was done?' Yes.' Do you believe that his will is creative; that he has only put forth a volition for an event, and the event takes place ?' 'Yes.' 'Do you believe that on the whole he willed sin to exist?' 'Yes.' 'Was not his will creative then?' Pause. Is there any more harm in causing a thing to be, than in willing it to be?' Pause.My theory is, that God caused moral evil in the act of willing it; and you believe that he performs that act. I believe that he caused it in no sense morally different from that in which you believe he willed it. Where then is the great discrepancy between you and me ?"

The controversy between Dr. E. and some of his opponents, in regard to this question of the origin of sin, according to Prof. Park, is a curious one.

66

They believe that God has created within us a nature which is sinful. He denies it, for this, among other reasons, that such a belief makes God the author of sin which man has no freedom in committing. He believes that God creates the wrong exercises of a free agent. They deny this theory because it makes God the author of sin. Their doctrine makes God the cause of a moral evil which we have no agency in committing; his doctrine makes God the cause of a moral evil which we have no agency in committing."

Perhaps nothing which Dr. E. has written has been more strenuously objected to than his views of unconditional submission. He did hold and teach that, in submitting to God, the sinner must make no conditions or reservations-that he must lay down his weapons, and yield himself up to his of fended Sovereign, to be saved or destroyed, as shall seem good in his sight. But this is no more than what every consistent Calvinist, and we may add every faithful ambassador from God to men teaches, the world over. All good men do not use the same phraseology, in treating of this subject. All might not approve of some of the expressions of Dr. E. But all who have faithfully negotiated between God and men have held and enforced the doctrine of unconditional submission. It is one thing to submit to God on certain conditions of our own proposing, and quite another to submit without any conditions. The latter is the submission which the gospel inculcates, and God accepts; the former is properly no submission at all.

But if the most obnoxious features of Dr. Emmons' theology were so very like what other Calvinists have believed and taught, why were they thought by many to be peculiar to him? And why, in particular instances, did they excite so strong an opposition? This was chiefly owing, we think, to his peculiar manner of setting them forth. In the first place he delivered all truth, not excepting those doctrines which to the natural heart are most unpalatable, with great clearness and directness. They lay clearly in his own mind, and he brought them out clearly before the minds of others. He studied no circumlocution; he used no soothing, softening,

qualifying words; but marched directly up to the point which he wished to exhibit, and made it stand out, in all its inherent offensiveness, to the view of the natural, unreconciled heart. In some few instances, we think that he used stronger expressions than the truth of the case required. In his determination not to be misunderstood on the one hand, he laid himself open to misconception on the other. For example, in the Sermon on Reprobation, before referred to, we have the following passage:

"When Moses called upon him (Pharaoh), to let the people go, God stood by him, and moved him to refuse. When Moses interceded for him, and procured him respite, God stood by him and moved him to exult in his obstinacy. When the people departed from his kingdom, God stood by him and moved him to pursue after them with increased malice and revenge. And what God did on such particular occasions, he did at all times. He continually hardened his heart, and governed all the exercises of his mind, from the day of his birth to the day of his death. This was absolutely necessary to prepare him for his final state.”

If Dr. Emmons' meaning, with respect to the agency of God in the production of sin, was what has been explained above, it is evident that, in this and the parallel passages, he expressed something more than his meaning, so, at least, ordinary, unschooled minds would understand him. Men need not a little preparation, in order to receive expressions like those we have quoted in the sense in which the author intended. "It is extremely difficult," says Dr. E., in his Autobiography, "for hearers to understand some doctrines, until they have been taught others from which they flow, and with which they are intimately connected." This consideration should lead ministers of the gospel to be exceedingly cautious in their exhibitions of the Divine word, that while they obscure no important truth on the one hand, they leave it not liable to be received in, or perverted to, a bad sense on the other.

In some instances, owing perhaps to the clearness with which a particular truth lay in his own mind, Dr. E. failed to express it, just as he intended it, to the minds of others. The whole was so plain to him, and all the necessary limita

tions and qualifications were so well understood, that he forbore to use requisite precautions in the representation of it. We have an instance of this, in his Sermon entitled, "Forgiveness of sins only for Christ's sake;"* the principal object of which is to show, that forgiveness is the only favor which God bestows upon men on Christ's account." Most readers and hearers would understand from this, that men receive no favor, except forgiveness, through Christ, in consequence of Christ; or as in any way connected with his mediation. But such was not the meaning of the author. He believed, like other Christians, that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places, in Christ Jesus ;"—that our very life and breath, the probation we here enjoy, and all the favors connected with our probation, whether temporal or spiritual, whether in providence or grace, flow to us through. Christ, and as a consequence of his mediation. Still, there is a peculiarity attending the blessing of forgiveness. It stands connected with the atonement of Christ as no other Divine favor does. It was to lay a foundation for forgiveness, that his atonement was made. "We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." He shed his blood" for the remission of sins." To remove the obstacles in the way of forgiveness was the grand object of the atonement; and forgiveness stands connected with the atonement as no other blessing does. It may be said to be the only favor which is bestowed directly and strictly for the sake of the atonement; while all our other blessings, temporal and spiritual, flow to us consequentially, through the mediation of the Son of God.

By those who are acquainted with Dr. E. only through his publications, and more especially his earlier publications, his character as a preacher is liable to be misapprehended. His first volumes of sermons were chiefly of a doctrinal, and to some extent of a metaphysical character. The subjects required this mode of discussion, and it was with great propriety adopted. Still, the impression was made upon those who knew nothing of the man, except from his published sermons, that he was a dry, doctrinal, metaphysical preacher, who dealt only with the understandings of his hearers, but

* Vol. V. Serm. 47.