repeatedly expressed wishes of their constituents; he would preach and publish a discourse upon "the rights of the people." If he saw a general destitution of religious principle in the community, and a tendency to substitute expediency for duty; he would raise his voice, and under the sanction of the word of God proclaim that "gain is not godliness." When the people became divided among themselves in respect to the principles of government, and began to cherish towards each other alienated and hostile feelings; he would endeavor to check the rising tide by a discourse upon "the ruinous tendency of divisions." If he discerned a spirit of skepticism and unbelief generally prevalent among the people, especially in the higher ranks of society; he would warn them of "the demoralizing influence of infidelity." The origin and extent of human authority, the importance of good government, the proper means of sustaining it, the character of the good citizen, and the obligations which the members of every civil community are under to each other as well as to God, with numerous other topics of a similar character, he was accustomed to discuss on Fast and Thanksgiving days. The principles which he illustrated and applied were sound and important. Few, if any, of his political opponents would deny either the truth or importance of his principles; although they did object, and would probably now object to the application of them which he occasionally made. The candid and intelligent of all parties may now read the sermons, which he preached in times of the highest political excitement which the country has ever seen, and they will not only approve of the general sentiments advanced, but admire the manner in which they are illustrated. They will of course differ in regard to the propriety, or impropriety of their application. A gentleman in his immediate vicinity, who was always known to be among his opponents in politics, was not long since heard to say, "I often heard the Doctor preach what were called his political sermons, about which so much noise was made at the time, and I always liked him. The principles which he advanced were true, and such as I believe the Bible inculcates." It was understood at the time this was said, that the gentleman did not, in every case, approve of their application. To suppose that under all the exciting circumstances in which the Doctor lived, he never cherished an opinion too favorable to the conduct of his own party, or too unfavorable to that of his opponents; that the application of the great principles which he illustrated was always with strict impartiality, would be to suppose him more than a But no intelligent and candid man will deny that the discourses to which allusion is now made, embrace subjects of

the highest moment both to rulers and people; that these subjects are discussed with singular plainness and fidelity; that they may be read and studied with great profit by men of all political parties; and that, if carried out into general practice, the stability of our government, and the lasting prosperity of the nation would be secured.

His love of liberty, and the independence with which he maintained its great principles may be seen also from the fact that he preached against slavery while it was sanctioned by the laws of his own State, and persons were actually held in bondage by many of its citizens. In consequence of a discourse which he delivered on this subject, a member of his church, who owned a slave, immediately set her at liberty. She afterwards became a member of his family, lived in it twenty-three years, died there, and left her little property to his children. It is remarkable that he resembled Edwards and Hopkins, not only in the leading principles of their theology, but in their hostility to involuntary servitude, and in the fearless and decided manner in which they raised their voice against this sin.

MUCH has been said respecting the theological opinions of Doctor Emmons. While not a few have received them, and thought them an improvement upon the theology of the age, others have considered them both false and dangerous. In the latter class, there are many well meaning and intelligent men, some of whom have read his works, and understand his system. But it is a fact which cannot be questioned, that those among the reputedly orthodox who consider his system essentially false, are generally speaking, persons who are partially or wholly unacquainted with his writings. A perusal of his works is that only which can give the reader a full and accurate knowledge of his opinions. But from the following document found among his papers after his decease, the complexion of his theology may at once be seen.

I have endeavored to show,

1. That holiness and sin consist in free voluntary affections or exercises.

2. That men can act freely under the divine agency.

3. That the least transgression of the divine law deserves eternal punishment.

4. That right and wrong are founded in the nature of things.

5. That the posterity of Adam are guilty of no sin, but their own free voluntary selfish affections.

6. That God exercises mere grace in pardoning or justifying penitent believers through the atonement of Christ, and mere goodness in rewarding them for their good works.

7. That the hearts of sinners are, by nature, totally depraved.

8. That God has a right, nothwithstanding their total depravity, to require them to turn from sin to holiness.

9. That preachers of the gospel ought to exhort sinners to love God, repent of sin, and believe in Christ immediately.

10. That sinners do not perform one holy and acceptable act until they exercise pure disinterested love.

11. That sinners must exercise unconditional submission to God, before they can exercise saving faith in Christ.

12. That men are active and not passive in regeneration.

These are doctrines which I have preached in the general course of my ministry, some of which I have endeavored to set in a clearer light than I have ever seen done by any others.

This outline of Christian doctrines will not be thought to comprise all the subjects on which he preached and wrote. They are but a few of the many which were made familiar to his people, and which are now to be found in his publications. Nor will it be thought, that all these are doctrines which are peculiar to him, or which no one else believed or taught before him. The object of this outline is merely to indicate the topics on which the leading features of his instruction might be

seen.

The question has sometimes been asked, What has Doctor Emmons taught that is new? or what are the improvements which he has made in theological science? A full and definite answer to these questions would require a more extensive and perfect knowledge of theological opinions, than the writer pretends to possess. He does not hesitate to say, however, that Dr. Emmons has applied the principle of voluntary action to the subject of theology more successfully than any divine that has gone before him. If he was not the first that discovered the truth that all sin and holiness consist 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 believed 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.

From this principle it follows that the depravity of mankind is not a corrupt nature inherited 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.

If the position that all holiness and sin consists in moral exercises be a mistake, and it is found to be true that mankind are really praise or blame worthy for that in which they have no activity; much of what Dr. Emmons has written, and which his friends highly esteem as important improvements in theology, will doubtless be found among "the wood, hay and stubble" which will be burned up at the last day. But if it be a fact that all sin and holiness primarily consists in moral exercises, it must be admitted that he has made great improvements in the theology of the age. Whether he was the first to discover this fact or not, it is certain that no other man has made so extensive and important use of it as he, in explaining, reconciling, and defending the doctrines of the gospel. Admit the fact, and the conclusion becomes irresistible. No intelligent man who admits the one, will deny the other.

That mankind are active while acted upon; or in other words, that they are free moral agents in doing that which the agency of God disposes them to do, is a distinguishing feature of Dr. Emmons' theology. The Arminian view of Stewart, Reid, Clarke and others, is, that just so far as the creature is free and accountable, so far he is independent of divine power and influence, and just so far as he is dependent, he is passive. Edwards rejected this principle in part, but not wholly. The same may be said of Hopkins; for they both held that the creature is passive in regeneration, and in receiving a sinful nature. But with his mind established in the truth, that all sin and holiness must consist in voluntary exercises, Dr. Emmons discovered, what it is strange no one ever discovered before, that man is active while acted upon. For ages it seems to

have been well understood, that sinners are acted upon by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. But Dr. Emmons perceived that the scriptures as clearly taught the agency of man in this change as the agency of God, and proved the entire consistency of the one with the other. Should it be said that others before him admitted this fact to some extent, and taught it in some instances, it will not be pretended that any one ever carried it out as he has done. 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.

With his views of human and divine agency, it is not difficult to see that the one is consistent with the other. It was his belief that the agency of God consisted entirely in his volition, and that the agency of man consists entirely in his volition. The agency of God in the conversion of Paul, for instance, was the will of the Holy Ghost that he should voluntarily turn from sin to holiness. The agency of Paul, in his own conversion, was the spontaneous surrender of his heart to that Saviour who was before the object of his hatred and persecution. Now with this view of divine and human agency, who can say that the one is inconsistent with the other? Who will affirm that there is even the appearance of inconsistency between them? Was Paul's voluntary surrender of his heart to Christ, in any way inconsistent with the choice or will of the Holy Ghost that he should do this? Was the power of Paul to receive the Saviour voluntarily, destroyed or in any wày diminished by the will of God that he should thus receive him?

According to the definition of divine agency given by Dr. Emmons, all that God did to harden the heart of Pharaoh, or to move him to refuse to let the people go, was to will or choose, all things considered, that he should voluntarily or freely refuse to let them go. But was the exertion of such an agency as this upon him, in the least degree inconsistent with his own free moral agency? Could not Pharaoh himself refuse to let the people go when God chose he should do it, as well as though God had made no such choice? Could not Pharaoh act as freely in refusing to let the people go, under the influence of