Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

sinners to procure their regeneration, but to procure their pardon and justification after they are regenerated." These quotations will be abundantly sufficient to put the intelligent reader into full possession of Dr. Emmons's theory of justification.

We have dwelt long enough on the peculiar opinions of Dr. Emmons on the mediatorial work of Christ, and its consequences. It is now proper that we should take some notice of his views of the work of the Spirit in regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and perfection in holiness. Among his sermons we find one on special grace, in which one proposition which he maintains is, that God is able to make sinners willing, by an act of his power. The doctrine of this sermon is sound; but why call this exertion of divine power, 'special grace'? However much the deceitful and desperately wicked heart of man may abound in evil thoughts and malign passions, they are all, according to his monstrons theory, to be ascribed to God, who produces just as much wickedness, as will most glorify his own name, in the greatest happiness of the universe. As there is nothing in the mind but exercise, the soul cannot be, as Calvinistic divines have taught, passive in regeneration; but is active; for regeneration is nothing else than the exercise of love, produced by an act of divine power, that is, by the will of God that such an exercise should now exist. "When the Spirit of God renews a sinner, he instamps his own moral image on him, which consists in holiness: and we know that all holiness consists in love." In the sermon from which this is taken, he maintains two propositions: the first is, "That the Spirit of God in regeneration produces nothing but love-And secondly, that he does produce love." From this his first inference is: "If the Spirit of God produces nothing but love, then there is no ground for the distinction between regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. In regeneration he produces holy exercises, in conversion he produces holy exercises, and in sanctification he produces holy exercises."-" But systematic divines generally use them to signify very different things. They use regeneration to denote the Spirit's operation in producing a new heart or a new nature, or a new principle, which is prior to, and the foundation of all holy exercises. They use conversion to signify the Spirit's operation in producing love, repentance and faith; which are implied in embracing the gospel. And they use sanctification for the Spirit's operation

in producing all future exercises of grace. But the scripture makes no such distinction." His second inference is, that "men are no more passive in regeneration, than in conversion and sanctification."-" But if there is no new principle or nature produced in regeneration, but only love, which is activity itself-and it is universally allowed that men are active in exercising love to God or man," then are men active in regeneration. Accordingly the scripture requires men to be active in regeneration, conversion, and sanctification." And in the first inference from the sermon on the Duty of sinners to make a new heart,' he says, "If the making a new heart consists in the exercising of holy instead of unholy affections, then sinners are not passive in regeneration. It has been the common opinion of Calvinists, that a new heart consists in a new taste, disposition, and principle, which is prior to and the foundation of holy exercises. And this notion of a new heart has led them to suppose that sinners are entirely passive in regeneration. But if a new heart consists in new holy exercises, then sinners may be as active in regeneration as in conversion."

The next inference is, that "if sinners are free and voluntary in making them a new heart, then regeneration is not a miraculous or supernatural change." Sound theologians have not generally been in the habit of calling regeneration a 'miraculous change,' but with one consent, have denominated it a supernatural change;' nor should these two things have been confounded. That it is a supernatural change, that is, not produced by the mere efforts of nature without divine aid, Dr. Emmons himself every where asserts; and surely that which exceeds the powers of nature, and can only be effected by the power of God, may with propriety be called supernatural. Unless he means that, all other exercises of mind being produced by the same power, this operation stands on the same footing with every other exercise of mind, and is therefore merely natural.

In the sermon, 'On the treasures of a good heart,' we have the same views reiterated. A good heart contains good affections, good intentions, good desires, good volitions, good passions; but there is no renewed nature; for, according to the philosophy of this system, there is no nature in man-nor taste -nor principle, distinct from the active exercises of the mind. We need not dwell, therefore, any longer, on this part of the subject; the reader is in possession of the whole theory of mind, as held by Dr. Emmons and his followers. It will only be

necessary to repeat, what the reader has remarked above, that these views lead, of course, to an entirely new order in the succession of the various exercises of piety in the mind. Formerly it was believed, that first the mind must be divinely illuminated, that this new spiritual light produced faith, and faith, as Paul says, worked by love; that from these immediately flowed godly sorrow, working repentance and other graces. The earlier advocates of the New Divinity, however, denied the necessity of any illumination of the understanding, and made the heart, that is the seat of the affections and volitions, the only subject of moral qualities, whether good or evil. Regeneration, according to them, was the creation of a new heart, taste or principle, from which holy affections proceeded. But Dr. Emmons has declared both to be in error, and has given us the following, as the true order of exercises in the regenerate soul. "Love," says he, “must be before either repentance or faith." Next after love comes repentance. "True repentance naturally and almost instantaneously follows true love to God. And as repentance follows love, so faith follows both love and repentance. When the sinner loves he will repent, and when he repents, he will exercise, not merely a speculative, but a saving faith." Although the mere order of the exercises of piety does not seem to be a matter of any great importance, and our views of it must depend on the philosophy of the mind which is entertained by us; yet Dr. Emmons considers it a matter of great moment, and manifests more zeal for his own opinions, on this subject, than on most others. If time permitted, it would be easy to show the arrangement to be preposterous.

Another peculiarity in Dr. Emmons's system of holy exercises is, that every act must be called perfectly holy or perfectly sinful. The imperfection of saints, in this life, does not therefore consist in having exercises which are partly sinful and partly holy, which he maintains to be impossible, but in having their holy exercises interrupted by the occurrence of such as are sinful. Hence the Christian is perfect during the time that he experiences holy exercises, and absolute perfection would be the state of the mind, if these holy exercises were to continue. He seems to have no idea of sin consisting in defect, or in the want of a sufficient degree of love; and yet this is a thing obvious on the most superficial glance at the subject. Many are conscious that they love God, but how few are there who would venture to say that their love and gratitude is at any moment as intense as

it should be? The appeal may, on this point, be very properly made to the conscious experience of the Christian.

The only other subject which we shall mention, as belonging peculiarly to the New Divinity, and especially to that form of the system called Hopkinsianism, is, that the use of means by the unregenerate is altogether useless, and should never be enjoined or encouraged. They insist that the use of means by an unbelieving, impenitent sinner, cannot possibly be acceptable to God, or have any influence in promoting his conversion. This subject has, however, been so frequently discussed, and the scriptural principles are so obvious, that we will not protract this article with further remarks, especially as we do not find that Dr. Emmons has given it any prominence in his works. Those who wish to see the subject ably discussed, are referred to Dr. Dwight's discourses on the means of grace.'

It was our purpose to trace the connexion between Dr. Emmons's system, and the still newer theory which has sprung up in New England, and which, from its author, has received the denomination of Taylorism; but the prescribed limits have already been transcended, and we must abruptly conclude.

It would be a pleasing task, if space were left us, to distinguish between the man and the system; to point out the singularities of his peaceful, recluse life, and the history of his conflicts in theology; to show how private religious emotions survived, even amidst a system of opinions subversive of grace, when fairly carried out. But we cannot hope for attention to discussions so protracted. This is our reason for not giving some account of the life of Dr. Emmons, for which the sketches of Dr. Ide and Professor Park afford abundant materials. Those, however, who would be much interested in the details will probably purchase the volumes, especially if the system of opinions which they comprise should find means of awakening a new interest in its behalf among the clergy of New England. That the reprint of these works will afford occasion for many a new discourse, assertory of Emmonistic errors, we do not doubt. Be it so: those who love such views of God and Redemption are not quite extinct; their right to propagate their opinions is undoubted; and our only request is, that when they teach, they should so far reverence the memory of the great Reformer, as never to call it Calvinism.

[blocks in formation]

ART. II.-The Works of Thomas Chalmers, D. D., and L.L.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Edinburgh, and Corresponding Member of the Royal Institute of France. Glasgow: William Collins. London Hamilton, Adams & Co. 1835-1842. Twenty-two volumes, 12mo.

It is not to return upon our former track, that we resume the consideration of this great writer's labours; nor shall we treat of any of the subjects which occupied us in reviewing his theological publications. The fact is, the American reprint comprised only seven ofthe twenty-two volumes lying before us; nor is it likely that the American public will demand more, until the completion of the Commentary on the Romans. This however furnishes, of itself, a cogent reason why we should give our readers some account of our author's opinions, in regard to several important subjects, which, though treated in their relation to Great Britain, are in several of their aspects greatly interesting to America.

The three points on which an American will at once seize, in looking over these volumes, are Education, the Church Establishment, and Pauperism.

The first of the topics which awakens our lively interest in these volumes, is that of Popular Education. To this, Dr. Chalmers applies the argument of which he has for many years been the great propounder, in regard to church affairs. Briefly stated, it is this: It is not with the desire of knowledge, as it is with the desire of food. Generally speaking, the more ignorant a man is, the more satisfied he is to remain so. But the more hungry a man is, the less satisfied he is to remain so.' Turned in a hundred different ways, this distinction is the fulcrum of his whole system. The picture which he draws of education in Presbyterian Scotland is pleasing, and serves to explain the long acknowledged, but, to some, unaccountable intellectual superiority of that race.

"The people are not taught gratuitously; for by a small quarterly payment, they are made to share in the expense of the education of their families; but the remaining share is, by the law, devolved upon others. It consists of a salary which enables the schoolmaster to teach upon moderate terms, and of a school and school-house, with a garden, by which education is visibly obtruded upon the notice of every little vicinity. To this extent, the offer of education may be said to have been made; and it is an offer that has been met by the nearly unexcepted consent and co-operation of the Scottish peasantry.”—“ We now

« ÎnapoiContinuă »