but sin every day since they were born; and nothing prevents God from executing the penalty of his holy law upon them but his mere sovereign, unpromised mercy; — this is the plain, simple truth with respect to every sinner. And this plain, simple truth is more alarming and tremendous to an awakened sinner, than all the thundcrings and lightnings which attended the giving of the law at Mount Sinai." By such words did the Franklin Calvinist aim to excite a spirit of self-loathing. He had no time, therefore, for entertaining his hearers with a theory of their having committed a sin in Paradise. They rose in rebellion when he announced that they would, if they could, dethrone God; but they would have loved to hear him declaim on their having really and actually eaten the apple six thousand years ago. He believed it to be one thing to press on men the charge that they themselves are now, of their own choice, ready to crucify their Lord afresh; and a very different thing to utter mystical words on their generic participation in the crime committed in the heart of Asia, before the birth of Cain. He saw peril in all such terms as charm man with a notion of his mystical illdesert, and thus allure him away from the accusation of his ill-desert in the plain, prosaic sense of that word. When sin is mentioned, it is soothing to lose one's self in imaginative theories. If Emmons had taken delight in this fashionable Calvinism, he might have astonished his auditors with his sesquipedalian nomenclature, and earned a shining name for his polished orthodoxy, but he chose to tell men, in a homely way, that they in their own persons have committed all the sin which they are guilty of, have committed their sin because and only because they chose to do so, have committed it whenever they could, and they mean now to commit it whenever they can, and they do not repent only because they are unwilling to repent, and they are in danger of not being saved, only because they prefer to sin and to be lost.

c. Bis Critics overlook the fact, that he aimed to exhibit a Consistent CalriniswL

His theories on the freedom of the will, on the nature of virtue, on the voluntariness of all character, on the atonement, etc, were designed to prepare the way for preaching those truths which distinguished Calvin from Arminius. He conducted many a controversy with what he termed Semi-Calvinists, the " Moderate Calvinists, which is but another name for moderate Arminians." They professed a faith in the Catechism; this formed one half of their theological influence. They refused to preach its most distinctive doctrines ; this formed the other half of their influence, and gave it a semitone. They believed in the absolute Sovereignty of God. This was one half of their record. But they said nothing of the doctrine in the pulpit; this was the other half. They silently admitted the divine purposes; thus far all was well. They really denied the divine efficiency in executing all these purposes : thus far all was ill. To accept the purposes is Calvinistic; to disown the efficiency that gives to these purposes all their meaning, is Anti-Calvinistic. The same men proclaimed in general terms the doctrine of Total Depravity ; this was one part of their creed. They averred in specific language, that all the choices of men are not positively sinful; this formed the other part of their creed, and made it semi-compact. To avow a belief in Total Depravity is popular. To avow a belief that all the choices of men arc not positively sinful is popular. To remain Orthodox, and yet to assure the unregenerate, that their preferences arc not entirely wrong, must be popular. " It has been much disputed of late, among those who call themselves Calvinists," says the unfashionable divine, " whether all the doings of unregenerate men arc altogether sinful." . . . . " There are many who acknowledge that the hearts of sinners are totally depraved and yet deny that their actions are altogether criminal." But he adds, " Either all the actions of sinners are totally corrupt, or none of them are so."

d. UitCritics overlook the/act, that he was an Independent Calvinist.

"I am General Washington's man;" "I am President Madison's man;" — Emmons commiserated the African who was wont to proclaim bis slavery by such words. In forming his creed Emmons was nobody's man. " lie was himself," says Dr. Ide, " in every respect, and nobody else." He is, therefore, an independent witness for the Genevan faith. His testimony in its behalf is the more important, as, during his earlier years, his moral feelings rose in strong antagonism to it. lie was not a Calvinist by nature. Through strict discipline, however, he became in some particulars, a more faithful representative of Essential, as distinct from Fashionable; of Consistent, as distinct from one-sided Calvinism, than has appeared in our land for a hundred years. (See pp. 309-311.) It is true that he did not wear a gold ring, but he was a Calvinist for all that. He did not burn with ambition for place or power, but he was a Calvinist for all that. He was neither morose nor envious, but he was a Calvinist for all that He did not engage in wily manoeuvres; but he was a Calvinist for all that. He did not slander his opponents; but he was a Calvinist for all that. He allowed some phrases which his brethren disowned ; but he was an essential Calvinist for all that. He disowned some phrases which his brethren allowed; but he was a consistent Calvinist for all that Dr. Ware of Cambridge said, tnat Emmons '■ is one of the ablest, and clearest and most consistent writers, that has appeared on the side of Orthodoxy." He did maintain the Free Will of man; he did so, partly in order that he might maintain the Predestinating act of God. He did affirm that all sin is a free choice; he did so, partly in order that he might affirm the justice of God in punishing forever so needless an offence.

Emmons has illustrated the type of his independent as well as " Consistent Calvinism," in his article written for Miss Hannah Adams's History of all Religions, on the Hopkinsian Theology, and also in the following record which he wrote near the close of his life.

" 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, notwithstanding 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 summary is of great historical importance; for it illustrates the inaccuracy, not to say the inveracity, of representing Emmonism as distinguished from the popular Calvinism, merely by the theories that God is the First Cause of sin, and that sinners should submit to the justice of a condemning God, or, as his maligners express themselves, " should be willing to be damned." The same inaccuracy is illustrated by another statement which Dr. Emmons has made, concerning the type of his theology, and in which he has condemned what Professor "Woods of Andover was accustomed to call the " fag-ends of Calvinism." He writes:

In my discourses " I had no intention of starting any new scheme of divinity; for I was early and warmly attached to genuine Calvinism, which I believed to be built upon the firm foundation of the gospel itself. This system, I have thought, and still think, is the very form of sound words, which the apostles and their successors taught, long before Calvin was born; and which has been constantly maintained by those who have been jnstly called Orthodox, in distinction from Heterodox Christians, ever since the first propagation of the Christian religion. But Calvinism has lost much of its purity and simplicity, by going through so many unskilful hands of its friends. This has given great advantages to its enemies, who have clearly discovered and successfully attacked some of its excrescences and protuberances. The Calvinists and Arminians are more directly and diametrically opposed to each other, than any other denominations of Christians; and after many skirmishes together, they had long ago one great pitched battle, in which they concentrated their mutual attacks to a few cardinal points. These Dr. Price enumerates and reprobates in the following order and strongest terms.

"'First, The doctrine of absolute predestination and election.

"' Secondly, The doctrine of original sin.

"' Thirdly, The doctrine of the total impotence of man, and irresistible grace, in opposition to free will.

"' Fourthly, The doctrine of particular, in opposition to universal redemption.

- • Fifthly, The doctrine of the perseverance of saints, after being once called and converted.

"' These five doctrines have been called, by way of distinction and eminence, the Five Points. They are the points about which the sect called Arminians, differ from Calvinists. But there is one other point connected with those now specified, which forms an essential part of this system, and which, in justice to it, ought to be mentioned. That is the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ All the orthodox confessions of faith agree in declaring that we are accounted righteous before God, not for our good works, but only for the merit of Christ. In truth, were any man (supposed unacquainted with the controversies which have arisen among Christians) to set himself to invent a system of faith so irrational and unscriptural as to be incapable of being received by Christians, he could scarcely think of one concerning which he would be more ready to form such a judgment.'

" It is not a little strange that Dr. Price should venture to speak so reproachfully of Calvinism, when he knew that some of the greatest divines and metaphysicians in Europe had employed their profound learning and reasoning powers to maintain it; while others of equal learning and genius had labored in vain to overthrow it. The truth is, Calvinists have so ably and perseveringly supported their system of sentiments, that they have been, and still are, universally called the orthodox, in distinction from all other denominations of Christians. This can be accounted for, only on the supposition that their scheme of doctrines stands upon a firm and immutable foundation. I know that some Calvinists maintain that the first sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity; that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers for their justification ; that sinners are under natural inability to turn from sin to holiness; and that Christ made atonement for the elect only. I grant, these are gross absurdities, or mere wens and protuberances, which must be pared off from true Calvinism, in order to make it appear consistent with both reason and Scripture. Accordingly, modern Calvinists readily surrender their formerly untenable outposts, and now find it more easy to defend their citadel against all attacks of their most numerous adversaries." — Memoir of himself.