do and actual performance, though the latter presupposes and necessitates the former, are yet by no means one and the same.

"He [God] had power to create the world before he created it. Power may exist without any exercise or exertion. The agency of God, therefore, does not consist in his power to act, or in his omnipotence." "None of his natural perfections can produce any effect without his willing it; and after he has willed it, his agency is no farther concerned in its production. His agency consists in nothing before his choice, nor after his choice, nor beside his choice. His willing or choosing a thing to exist, is all that he does in causing it to exist."2

The agency of God is perfectly free. To act of choice, is to act with entire freedom. An agent is free just so far as he is voluntary; and God being perfectly voluntary in all his action, is also perfectly free.3

But agency may be perfectly free and voluntary, and yet have no moral character. A mere animal may act of choice, in view of motives adapted to influence his will; but having no power to distinguish right from wrong nor to appreciate the nature of either, he cannot be a moral agent. Man, having this power, acts so as to be worthy of praise, or deserving of blame. God, having the most perfect discernment of the difference between moral good and moral evil, acts voluntarily, freely, and morally. The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.' His volitions are all holy. His choice ever has been, is, and ever will be, to do what is wisest and best. To suppose that he can choose otherwise, is to suppose what involves an absurdity. On a point of so much interest, however, Dr. Emmons should be allowed to speak his own thoughts in his own words.

"God always acts not only voluntarily and freely, but benevolently. All his volitions are virtuous and holy. He always chooses to act perfectly right. It is morally impossible for him to have a selfish or sinful volition. There is no more difficulty in forming clear and just conceptions of the free, voluntary and moral agency of God, than in forming clear and just conceptions of his power, wisdom and goodness. Nor is there any more difficulty in forming clear and just conceptions of his power, wisdom, goodness and agency, than in forming clear and just conceptions of human power, wisdom, goodness and agency. Power in God is of the same nature as power in man. Wisdom in God is of the same nature as wisdom in man. Goodness in God is of the same nature as goodness in man. And free, voluntary, moral agency in God is of the same nature as free, voluntary, moral agency in man. If this be not true, we can form no right conceptions of our Creator, and can never know that

1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 379.

2 Ib.

3 Ib. 380.

own.

he is a wise, powerful, benevolent and active being; for we derive all our ideas of God from our ideas of ourselves. To say, therefore, that God's agency is different in nature from our own, is as absurd as to say that his knowledge, his power, or his moral rectitude is different from our And to say this, is to say that we have not and cannot have any true knowledge of God. We may then rest satisfied that God is a perfectly free, voluntary, moral agent; and that his free, voluntary, moral agency solely consists in the mere exercise of his will. I have dwelt the longer on this point, because it is a point of great importance to be understood, in order to have just conceptions of God, who is the first, the greatest and best of Beings, of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things."1

The agency of God is universal. Proof; God has made all things. He upholds all things by the word of his power. He has made all things for himself; and therefore his agency must extend to all created objects in the universe. Possessing both a right and a power to do what he pleases with his own, and to govern them so that they shall subserve the purposes of his own glory, we cannot conceive it to be possible even for God himself to do this, without exercising a constant powerful agency over all his creatures and all his works, throughout his dominions."2

It should be observed, however, that while Dr. Emmons strenuously insisted on the universality of divine agency, he was particularly careful to foreclose the inference that God is the only free moral agent in the universe. He had no pantheistic tendencies. High as he exalted God, he would give man his true place. As we shall see, when we reach his teachings respecting man, he fully believed in the voluntariness and entire freedom of human agency. Denying the doctrine of man's independence, he yet taught with earnestness and power that of his freedom and responsibility. God is the only independent moral agent in the universe; but there are as many free moral agents, as there are individuals possessing reason and conscience. God indeed, does all things after the counsel of his own will; but his will is that man should evermore act of choice in view of motives. 'Men are as much free, voluntary, moral agents, while dependent on God and under his universal agency, as if they were self-existent, and independent of all other beings. Their dependence on God, and his controlling power over them, are perfectly consistent with their enjoying the same free moral agency that God himself enjoys."3 Other divines have taught substantially the same doctrine; but we have yet to learn who of them has explained it with so much precision, or made so ex1 Works, Vol. IV. pp. 381, 382. 2 Ib. p. 383. 3 Ib. p. 385.

tensive an application of it as Dr. Emmons. Yet the principles that some of them have adopted and the statements they have made necessarily involve the very ideas which have sometimes subjected him to severe animadversion. Passing by Calvin, the Westminster divines, Edwards, Smalley, Bellamy, and Hopkins, consider the following passages from Dr. Dwight's Theology. From the text, "What his soul desireth, even that he doeth," he deduces the doctrine, 'That all things, both beings and events, exist in exact accordance with the purpose, pleasure, or what is commonly called the Decrees, of God. Amongst other proofs of this, he adduces these two: 'That God cannot but have chosen the existence of all those things, whose existence was on the whole desirable, and of no others;' and 'This choice of God, that things should exist, is the only divine energy, and the only cause of existence.' In illustrating the last proposition, he declares that 'the energy of mind is its will; and this is synonymous with its choice, generally understood; each act of the will, being no other than an act of choice. What is thus true of every finite mind, is eminently true of the Infinite Mind.' He adds, that it is metaphysically proper to say, that God wills all things into existence; or that they are produced by his choice; in the full sense, in which any effect is said to be produced by its efficient cause.'2 This would seem to be as decisive as anything which Dr. Emmons has said. Both as to the nature and the extent of divine agency, it is definite and positive. One sees not how it can be construed to mean anything less than the boldest assertions of our author on this subject. It includes not only events,' but 'particularly those, which are called the actions of moral or voluntary creatures.' 3 This author, too, meets the objection that God's universal agency excludes the idea of man's freedom, very much in the same manner with Dr. Emmons. An elaborate train of thought conducts him to the conclusion, "That God can create a free agent, whose actions shall all be foreknown by him, and shall exactly accomplish what is, upon the whole, his pleasure.' 4

It were no difficult task to quote from other standard authors similar opinions. But let it now suffice to state, that Dr. Emmons advocated no views of divine agency which interfere in the least degree, as he believed, with man's free moral agency. He believed that God exercises a real, a universal and a constant agency over all his intelligent creatures, and that at the same time they enjoy the most perfect freedom conceivable. He never made the agency of God limit the freedom of the creature, nor the freedom of the creature counteract the 'Dwight's Theology, Harper's edition, Vol. I. p. 238. 2 Ib. p. 244. ♦ Ib. p. 259.

3 Ib.

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.'1

We have dwelt more at length on this point, because we believe that in regard to it Dr. Emmons has not always been fairly dealt with. Inferences have been charged upon him, which he viewed with as earnest an abhorrence as any other man. It has been affirmed that he was guilty of blasphemy in charging God with being the author of sin. He has been represented as making man a machine, freeing him from all responsibility and even destroying his personality. A number of such inferences have been drawn by others from what he has taught, and then paraded before the religious community, if not as sentiments actually inculcated by himself, yet as legitimate conclusions from his premises. Those who knew him require not to be assured that he was among the first to deny the truth of all such deductions. Divine agency, in his mind, involved no such consequences was attended by no such terrible incumbrances. No writer was more prompt than he to assert and maintain the unimpaired moral freedom of man, while he delighted to view the wise and holy God as working all things after the counsel of his own will.' It was no paradox to him, any more than it seemed to be to the Apostle Paul, that man can work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, while it is God that worketh in him both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.' In other words, he believed that 'men can act freely under a divine agency.' 2 Taking this principle with him, he was prepared, on the one hand, to assert the absolute supremacy of God, and, on the other, to predicate of man entire freedom of moral action. Reason and Scripture unite in placing the former truth on an immovable basis; consciousness and the first principles of intuition assure us of the latter. Both demonstrably true, they cannot clash. 3

In connection with our author's opinions of God's decrees and agency, we may examine his belief respecting

§ 7. Election and Reprobation.

These are both included in the more comprehensive doctrine of the divine purposes; but, on account of their practical relation to the happiness of the saved and the misery of the lost, they require particular 1 Works, Vol. I. p. 79. (Memoir.) 2 Ib. p. 77. 3 Ib. Vol. IV. p. 384.

consideration. In the system of theology elaborated by Dr. Emmons, the election of grace' occupied no obscure or inferior position. It mattered not to him, that it was a truth very much spoken against.' We would not be too sure that it was not even more interesting to him, on that very account. At any rate, he was the man to give its claims a fair hearing, and to express his opinions of it without disguise. He believed, then, that God chose his people in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy, and without blame before him in love.' That Christ should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, was, in his estimation, more than a mere figure of rhetoric. The elect were given to Christ in the covenant of redemption, as a reward for his mediatorial services and sufferings.' They were so given to Christ that there is no uncertainty about their conversion and salvation. The decree of election was such, that Christ could say with the fullest assurance, "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me." The election was from eternity-a purpose of mercy in Christ Jesus, before the world began, to save sinners. It was not simply a decree to save sinners, provided they should repent and believe; though it is certain that all who do believe shall be saved. But it was a purpose, fixed as the eternal hills, that multitudes of the human family ruined by sin, should have their attention directed to the "Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world,” be renewed in the spirit and temper of their minds, and rendered "meet for the inheritance of the saints in light."2 In that glorious purpose, the 'foreknown were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, the predestinated were called by the Spirit, the called were justified, and the justified were glorified.' There was more than a poetical beauty, according to our author, in Paul's rapturous exclamation: "We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." All Christ's people are elected to eternal life, and to regeneration and sanctification, as the necessary means to qualify them for it.' 3

From this statement of Dr. Emmons's views of Election, it will be seen that he gave no countenance whatever to the slander, that 'if a man is to be saved he will be, do what he may, and if not, he will not be, do what he can.' He regarded a sentiment like that with mingled contempt and abhorrence. Nor did his opinions of this doctrine render means unnecessary. He made much of means. In God's decree that such and such results should take place, he saw that second causes were as important as the ends were necessary. It is just as certain 1 1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 310.

2 Ib. p.

311.

3 Ib.