that the elect will repent and believe the Gospel, as it is that they will be justified and glorified. 1 He had no views of Election which hindered him from calling upon all men with earnest sincerity to accept the offers of mercy through a crucified Redeemer. He knew that the provisions of God's grace are abundant for all, and that whosoever will, may come and take the water of life freely. With solemn appeals to the conscience and heart, he was wont to call upon both hearers and readers to make their calling and election sure.' Clearly he taught that every sinner can do this by exercising 'repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.' Grace is the only certain evidence of grace; and, therefore, the Apostle exhorts Christians to live in the exercise of grace in order to gain assurance that they are chosen to salvation. Let them grow in grace, and they will grow in assurance of their calling and election to eternal life.' 2

Still he knew well that no sinner would come to Christ, unless drawn by the Father. Such were his views of man's depravity by nature, that he had no hope of the salvation of a single soul aside from the electing love of God. The fact that God has given to Christ a seed to serve him—that He has chosen from eternity a great multitude that no man can number to be holy before him in love—that He has determined of his own good pleasure to form a people for his praise; this glorious doctrine of the election of grace,' illuminated to his eye the whole horizon of truth, and gave him hope and courage while he entreated sinners to become reconciled to God. The inveterate depravity of the human heart and the terrible influence of the god of this world over the great mass of mind, did not intimidate or dishearten him. For he believed the promise without the shadow of a doubt, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." Beyond the clouds that obscure our heaven with gloom, he saw a God of matchless wisdom and infinite resources, pledged to his Son and to the universe, to prepare unnumbered millions of the human family for the bliss of his heavenly kingdom.

"The few friends Christ now has in the world, may look forward by an eye of faith, and joyfully anticipate the day when multitudes which no man can number, shall rise from spiritual death to spiritual life, and reign in righteousness from the rising to the setting sun, and there shall be none to hurt or destroy in all God's holy mountain. This is a most animating motive to pray to the Father, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'" 3

Thus he made the electing love of God' beautiful to contemplate,

1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 317.

2 Ib. p. 322.

3 Ib.

and gave it the energy of a mighty moral force to urge ministers and Christians to fidelity in the use of means.

Singular as it may appear, he also held such opinions respecting the doctrine of Reprobation, as, on the whole, encouraged him to effort, by inspiring him with the most animating hope. He firmly believed that God has a purpose, fixed from eternity, concerning all who will finally be lost. To suppose that the existence, actions, characters, and destiny of such are not all contemplated in the divine purpose and are not a part of that comprehensive agency which worketh all in all, would, in his view, be to suppose not only what is untrue, but also what is absurd. His opinions of this doctrine are developed in his discourse on the conduct and doom of Pharaoh. He there fearlessly carries out his conceptions of the decrees and agency of God, to their practical bearings on the characters and final condition of men. Many have objected to some of his statements in this discourse, as derogatory to the benevolence and justice of God. They have said that he makes God directly the author of sin; that, if this doctrine be true, Pharaoh was irresponsible, and, of course, deserved no punishment for his acts; and that God is infinitely cruel, because he makes men sinners, and then inflicts upon them the penalty of eternal damnation for what they could not help.' Now all who knew Dr. Emmons, need not be assured that his whole soul would have revolted in earnest detestation at such statements as these. He may have used language in some instances, which would seem to imply force or compulsion, and of course inconsistent with the moral freedom of man. For example, when he declares that when Moses called upon him to let the people go, God stood by him and moved him to refuse,' 2 the words are those which literally express outward action and physical impulse. But he is well known to have employed the language for embodying his idea of a totally different kind of agency. He believed that God had a fixed purpose in regard to Pharaoh, and all the events and circumstances concerned in the formation of his character. He believed also that God's purpose, in no case, infringed, or was inconsistent with the moral freedom of Pharaoh. The result of Pharaoh's hardness of heart and final overthrow was certain; but certain only as the impenitence and destruction of every unregenerate sinner are certain; certain, but yet in perfect consistency with the full exercise of reason and liberty of the will. The idea that God exercised any agency upon Pharaoh which absolutely necessitated his sinning, or hardened his heart in any such sense as to destroy his responsibility for hardening his own heart, would have been as repugnant to the sentiments of our author as to 1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 323. 2 Ib. p. 327.

those of any one who has attempted to fasten these conclusions to his premises. He inculcated, in every variety of form, the ability of the sinner to do all that God requires of him, and thus make it certain that he is not one of the reprobate, but one of the elect. Yes; he taught explicitly that man has a natural power to frustrate the decrees of God.' Surely, then, he could not have intended to imply, in any form of speech which he has employed, that Pharaoh was a subject of such compulsory agency on the part of God, that either his freedom of will or his power to do right was destroyed or impaired. To no one would he have thought the command, Repent and do works meet for repentance,' more applicable, than to this same rebellious monarch of Egypt.

What, then, did he mean by the strong language above quoted? The answer is very obvious, if we recur to his definition of divine agency. It is not physical force. It is not compulsion. It is not the decree of fate, by which human actions are absolutely necessitated. No, no; it is something more consonant with the spirituality of the Divine Mind and the claims of a sound philosophy. God's will, or choice, is his agency. Not his knowledge, or his wisdom, or his power; but his volition. His purpose from eternity and his choice at the time, contemplated Pharaoh as acting freely in view of all the motives concentrated in his solemn position. By causing him thus to act, is meant his will that, on the whole, he should act for himself, or on his own responsibility, under the pressure of all the facts in his case. Thus, the creature acted freely under the influence of the Creator, and his actions were his own. Our author's views of this point are fairly stated by the editor of his Works. "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 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 the divine will that he should do so, as he could have done, if God had formed no choice respecting it? Or, in other words, did the will of God that Pharaoh should do this thing freely of his own accord, and in a manner perfectly consistent with his accountability, have any tendency to prevent his doing it?"3 The writer of this article from oft-repeated conversations with Dr. Emmons, knows that

1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 304.

2 Ib. p. 350.

3 Memoir, pp. 79, 80.

respecting the agency of forming all the vessels of

these were the views which he entertained God in hardening Pharaoh's heart and in wrath for destruction.' From eternity the Infinite Mind saw that the plan of creation which he adopted would be the best possible, all things considered. Therefore, he adopted it. He works all things after the counsel of his own will respecting the salvation of the elect, and they 'work out their salvation with fear and trembling.' They are chosen, called, justified, glorified. He works all things after the counsel of his own will respecting the destruction of the wicked, and they abuse their privileges, neglect the great salvation, and perish in their sins. God wills that they should freely and responsibly pursue their own chosen way. It is not consistent with his plans, all things taken into view, to put forth an agency that shall turn them from sin to holiness. They will persist in sin and go away into everlasting destruction from his presence, and become monuments of his justice to all eternity.

Such, in brief, were the views of Dr. Emmons respecting the doctrines of Election and Reprobation. And whatever deductions the ingenuity of criticism may make from them, and with whatever forms of terror an opposite theory may array them, they lay in the mind of their author side by side, perfectly harmonizing with those attributes of God which constitute his highest glory, and with those inherent elements of freedom and responsibility in man which show that he was originally created in the divine image. That plausible objections would be urged against his views, he was well aware; nor was he the man to shrink from meeting them. He was deeply convinced that his reasonings from the Scriptures and from the nature of things had conducted him to the essential truth on these points, and he was ready to follow wherever these should lead the way. If any objected that he was conflicting with man's freedom, or with God's impartiality, he boldly joined issue with them, asking no favor, and giving no indulgence. By the truth, he would be condemned or justified. If he was accused of ascribing tyranny to God or involving Him in the authorship or guilt of sin; if the objector averred that he left no place for the use of means or the intervention of second causes; he made it manifest with admirable promptness that he had studied his subjects in these several bearings and had made preparation to show the fallacy of all such objections. Taking with him the truths, that God has for his own glory foreordained whatsoever comes to pass,' and 'that men act freely and responsibly while acted upon,' he felt himself armed for any and every encounter with opponents. Though he loved not controversy for its own sake, yet he was glad to find a 'foeman worthy of 1 Works, Vol. IV. pp. 331-334.

his steel,' and even his antagonists acknowledged that he wielded his weapons with adroitness and effect.

The following specimen will show his manner of treatment when pressed with objections. He had just been disposing of the assumption, that his view of reprobation was inconsistent with free and responsible action on the part of the sinner. He is now met with the objection that he leaves no room for the use of means.

The 'decree that any shall be lost, renders absurd the employment of means for their salvation.' ]

"This objection is founded upon the preceding, and if there is no foundation for that, there is none for this. If the decree of reprobation does not destroy free agency, then it does not destroy the use of means. If reprobates remain free agents, then there is a great propriety in treating them as such, and in exhibiting before them all the motives of the Gospel, to lead them to repentance. But it is sufficient to say, that God used means with Pharaoh, to bring him to good, though he had determined to destroy him. He admonished him of his duty and of his danger; he visited him with mercies and judgments; he employed Moses and Aaron, and even his own subjects, to persuade him to submission; and he delayed to cut him off from the earth, until it clearly appeared that all means and motives served to harden his heart and increase his obstinacy. This instance of the divine conduct towards a reprobate, demonstrates the propriety of using all the means of grace with reprobates. God addressed the understanding, the conscience, and the heart of Pharaoh, and used every method proper to be used, to bring any obstinate sinner to repentance. Reprobates are as capable of feeling the force of moral motives as any other men in the world; and therefore it is as proper to use the means of grace with the non-elect, as with the elect. So God teaches, by his word and by his conduct."

Whatever some of the language employed by Dr. Emmons may seem to imply, or whatever inferences others may deduce from his premises, it is perfectly obvious that he entertained no view of divine efficiency, of election or reprobation, which appeared to him to curtail in the least the moral freedom of man, or absolutely necessitate the destruction of a sinner. Certainly it is but common justice, that he should be judged in the light of his own definitions and explanations. The statements already submitted, indicate with sufficient clearness what were our author's views of the

§ 8. Sovereignty of God.

He who exists by a necessity in his own nature, uncaused and eter

1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 333.