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 inisapprehended. 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.

came not nigh their consciences and hearts. The same impression has been made, to some extent, by the preaching of those who have undertaken to imitate Dr. E. Perhaps no preacher in New England ever had so many palpable imitators as he, not only as to the doctrines he taught, but his style, plan, and manner of delivering them. Nor is it too much to say, that some of this crowd of imitators have done their great examplar much injustice. They have held up only the dry bones of Dr. E., without any of his life, soul, body, freshness, to animate and cover the skeleton, and give it comeliness and power.

That Dr. E. was a doctrinal preacher is very true; but he was also practical-pre-eminently practical. That he dealt soundly with the understandings of his hearers is also true; but no man ever dealt more faithfully with their consciences and hearts. No man ever stirred up more effectually the opposition of the carnal heart, or edified and comforted more satisfactorily the hearts of those who were truly pious. Let any one examine the second, third, and sixth of the volumes before us, and he will be satisfied as to the practical character of Dr. Emmons' ministry. No important subject whether of moral or Christian duty escaped him, but all were unfolded, enforced, and dwelt upon as occasion required.

The style of Dr. E. was peculiar and inimitable. It seems easy to the reader or hearer, and many have tried to catch it, and make it their own; but in general, they have fallen far behind the original. It was natural to him; and till another arises to whom it shall be as natural, it will never be successfully imitated. His style may be characterized as neat, pure, flowing, luminous-rising often into the region of elegance and eloquence. But whenever it does rise, it rises without any seeming effort. It is raised and fully sustained, by the strong current of thought and emotion. It may seem superfluous to give any specimens of a style so extensively known and admired; but we can hardly resist the temptation to present a single paragraph. It is from the Sermon on the primitive rectitude of man."

"How happy was Adam in his original state of moral rec

* Vol. 4. Serm. 33.

titude and perfect innocence ? His body was full of vigor and free from pain. His mind was full of light and free from er. ror. His heart was full of holiness and free from moral impurity. His eyes and ears were feasted with a vast profusion of new, beautiful, grand, and delightful objects. His inheritance was rich and large, comprehending the world and the fulness thereof. His sensibility enjoyed the love and approbation of his Creator. He was permitted a free and unrestrained access to the fountain of holiness and happiness. God presented him with the delightful prospect of a numerous and happy posterity. Heaven and earth appeared unitedly engaged to raise him as high in knowledge, holiness and felicity, as his nature would admit him to rise. There was nothing within nor without to interrupt his enjoyment, nor to bring a cloud over his bright and extensive prospects. His habitation was Paradise, and his heart was heaven."

In his method of sermonizing, Dr. E. was generally, though not invariably, uniform. What he says of himself, in the early part of his ministry, was true of him to the end of it:

"I seldom preached textually; but chose my subject in the first place, and then chose a text adapted to the subject. This enabled me to make my sermons more simple, homogeneal, and pointed; while at the same time, it served to confine the hearer's attention to one important, leading sentiment. Those who preach textually, are obliged to follow the text in all its branches, which often lead to very different and unconnected subjects. Hence, by the time the preacher has gone through all the branches of his text, his sermon will become so com plicated that no hearer can carry away any more of it than a few striking, unconnected expressions. Whereas, by the opposite mode of preaching, the hearer may be master of the whole discourse, which hangs together like a fleece of wool."

That a sermon planned after Dr. Emmons' usual method may have simplicity, connectedness, and general unity, and be admirably adapted to the purpose of instruction, is very obvious; but is it so well adapted to make a single and deep impression? There is a sermon in the volumes before us on the declaration of Solomon, "The words of the wise are as goads;" the leading sentiment of which is thus stated: Every wise preacher will aim to impress the minds of his

66