professed disciple, reminding any reader of Baxter's best works. Baxter might have learned to advantage from his humble contemporary to insist more than he did on the doctrines of grace, as the only ground of the sinner's hope, and the grand motives to a Christian practice. Both have met in heaven, and rejoice, we doubt not, continually in the multitudes whom their labors that survived them have already drawn, and are each day attracting thither, to swell the train of the ransomed, and the glories of the Redeemer.

Contrasted with the greatness of this world, how does the character of Baxter rise and tower in surpassing majesty, whether we consider the purity of his motives, or the high excellence of his private life, the nature of the influence he exerts, the labors accomplished by him, or the sufferings by which he was perfected. Voltaire, born the year after Baxter's death, resembled him in the quenchless fervor of his spirit, his promptitude and his untiring restlessness, the versatility of his powers, and their continuous exercise through a long life. But when the effects produced on the human character, and on the happiness of the individual, and the family, and the nation, by the philosopher of Ferney, and the Kidderminster pastor are brought into view together, how is the lustre of infidel genius rebuked! The gigantic skeptic dwindles and wilts before the holiness that inspired the genius of Baxter, like Satan, when touched by the spear of Ithuriel, cowering in deformity and shame. To sneer, to chatter, and to mock, were the favorite employments of the one, flinging The other was, filth and breathing venom on every side. indeed, imperfect; but still it is seen, that the mind which was in him was the mind that was in Christ; and beneficence, and truth, and purity, piety toward God, and justice and mercy toward mankind, streamed from his heart, his lips, and his eyes, over a world that was not worthy of him.

upon

Imagination might ask, what would have been the chosen pursuits of such a spirit as Baxter's, had his lot been cast in these western shores. our times, and his home been fixed Would he have given his life to the heathen? He loved them. And while Owen, his gifted compeer, thought it not the duty of the church to undertake missions to the heathen without some new call from heaven, Baxter judged more rightly, that the only impediment was the want of the requiWhen silenced in England, site love and faith in the church.

VOL. VIII.-NO. XXIX.

4

he declared that years and the difficulties of a new language only prevented him from going to preach Christ to idolaters. We may well suppose, that, in whatever field he had been fixed, he would have thrown the whole weight of his energy into the missionary enterprise. In the labors of the Tract and Bible Society, he had within his parochial limits anticipated the schemes of our day. But with the widening facilities now afforded for the work, how efficient might he have been, and how effective a writer of tracts was Baxter qualified to become. And had he enjoyed the light of those truths, now the common heritage of the age, but, then, hidden from some of the ablest and best of mankind,—had he known the powers of an emancipated church,-had he understood the sanctity of conscience, how much of misspent labor might have been preserved for wiser uses. But here as elsewhere, God, who would not have the fathers perfect without us, had reserved for us some better thing. Rich is our inheritance. And did Richard Baxter see as we do, a country opening before him, not a narrow and rock-bound isle, but a massy continent, soon to be belted by our republic,-did he behold what our eyes witness, the railroad and the canal, shooting their lines of electrical communication across the face of our broad territory, did he see steam yoking itself to the chariot, and urging the vessel with a speed that leaves the wildest hopes of early projectors lagging far behind,-and did he see our language, his own nervous and masculine English, spreading itself not only through Britain and America, but to their colonies and connections on every shore, would he not have deemed these redoubled opportunities of influence a call to yet redoubled zeal? Yet more, had he seen travel and history bringing every day new testimonies to swell the growing mass of prophecies accomplished, and to heighten and strengthen the walls of Christian evidence,-did he hear from the southern seas, then unknown, the cry of nations turning from the idols of their fathers, would not even his zeal have received a new impulse, and the trumpet at his lips have blown a blast waxing yet louder and louder? Whatever were his duty, is not the less ours. The contemplation of such an example reproves us all. But the Master's promised presence and the inexhaustible graces of that Spirit which has been the Teacher of the church, and her teachers in all ages, these may well stimulate to the loftiest aims, and revive

the faltering hopes of the faintest heart. Let us not then, in beholding the graces that have adorned the former servants of our common Lord, be ready to deem all emulation impossible. In regarding the character and achievements of Baxter, we may not hope to possess his singular talents; but all may imitate his holiness, his zeal, his resolute patience, his diligence, and his flaming charity. And if ever the standard seem too elevated, and our eyes are dazzled as we look at its tall summit, bright with heaven's own light, let us remember, that even this does not reach the full height of our privileges and our obligations. For it was no disputable authority that spake, and in no dubious language, when the Lawgiver and the Redeemer proclaimed it as the rule of his household, "Be ye perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

ARTICLE II.

WORKS OF NATHANAEL EMMONS, D. D.

The Works of Nathanael Emmons, D. D., late Pastor of the Church in Franklin, Mass., with a Memoir of his Life. Edited by JACOB IDE, D. D. Six volumes, 8vo. Boston, Crocker & Brewster. 1842.

[COMPLETED FROM VOL. VII, p. 534.]

PROFOUND as is our respect for Dr. Emmons, it would ill become the responsibility we have assumed in attempting an impartial review of his works, were we to pass in silence some important matters on which we sincerely believe him in mistake.

We begin with an important case, which may serve as one of our promised illustrations, respecting the assumption of false principles.

In his two discourses on "the true character of good men (Vol. V, p. 196), he maintains, not merely the possibility, but the absolute necessity, of a man's being either perfectly holy or perfectly sinful, at any given moment of his life. Against such a position we have many objections, which we

think are not answered in the discourses; but we deem it needless here to propound more than one of them.

To the support of such a doctrine, the assumed principle is indispensable, that we can think of only one thing at a time. And, accordingly, he all along reasons on this assumption, though it is no where directly made, or even mentioned. Thus, in the following sentences:

"We all know that our thoughts are extremely rapid in their succession. We cannot ascertain how many thoughts we have in one hour, nor even in one minute. And our affections or volitions may be as rapid in their succession as our thoughts; yea, it is very evident that they are too rapid for observation. For, though we never act without a motive, yet we often act without being able, the next moment after action, to tell the motive from which we acted. This shows that the succession in our volitions, as well as in our thoughts, is sometimes too rapid to be distinctly remarked. Let it be admitted, then, that saints are not always conscious of the alternate succession of holy and unholy exercises in their own minds; yet this will not prove that there is no such succession. The plain reason is, the succession is too rapid to be observed."-Vol. V, p. 205.

Be it so. Still, this proves but little to the main object he has in view, the impossibility of mingled emotions of sin and holiness, except on the assumption that we cannot think of two things at once. Now, of such an assumption, we say, in the first place, that whoever builds an important conclusion upon it, ought first distinctly to state, and positively to prove, the principle. It is not enough to intimate to others, that they cannot prove the contrary, because the succession of thought is so rapid. The rapidity of our thoughts affords not even a presumption against the co-existence of a plurality of thoughts, and consequently of affections, in the wonderful mind. This might seem enough to stop one who has taken the laboring oar into his own hand. But if it is not enough, then we say, secondly, that, feeble as are our own powers of cogitation, we can think of at least two things at once. We simply affirm it, as a matter of direct consciousness. We know it, just as we know that we can see two men at once. We might say, that, as their images co-exist distinctly on the retina of the eye, so do they on our mind's eye. But we need no such analogies to confirm what is already positive knowledge. And what is thus known to be true in our own consciousness, we remark, thirdly, we believe to be also true, and even necessarily true, in every reasoning being. It seems to us indispensable to the existence of rationality; for

how can we compare any two things together, or draw any conclusion in regard to their relations, if we can think of only one of them at a time? Once completely out of the mind, the thing may as well never have been there. And if it be supposed, that some dim trace or impression of it is left, whereby to infer its relations to its successor, then we affirm, that even the dim trace or impression is just as really an object of thought, as would be a more vivid impression,albeit, we presume it was not from such dim impressions of one out of two compared objects, that Dr. Emmons carried on his logical processes. Nay, a lower effort than that of reasoning, viz., simple comparison, seems to us necessarily to imply the co-existence in the mind of the objects compared. If a lamb is completely out of your thoughts, away from your conceptions, as though it had never been there, how is it possible for you to affirm, that it is smaller or less ferocious than a lion? But if both are together in your mind, though with less vividness than if only one were thought of, why may you not simultaneously feel holy pity for the lamb, and unhallowed wrath towards its devourer?

A fair answer to this question would seem fatal to the principle. We must, therefore, be allowed to think it a spurious postulate, sanctioned though it be by the additional authority of Scotch metaphysicians. And yet, on this postulate in mental philosophy, connected with what seems to us an insulated and wrong view of certain scripture declarations, hangs the prolific theory, which we believe Dr. E. was the first to advance, respecting the precise nature of the imperfections of good men in this life. According to that theory, their imperfection does not consist in the feebleness nor in the impurity of their affections, nor in the mingling of wrong affections; but simply in the inconstancy of those affections. Hence, when holy in any degree, they are perfectly holy; and when sinful, they are perfectly sinful; and so, in his own language, "there may be some moments or hours in which they are totally sinful, as well as some in which they are entirely holy." And in the same paragraph, he says: "A saint is one who habitually obeys, though he sometimes disobeys, the divine commands. The saint, who is imperfect, and sometimes feels and acts like a sinner, will continue habitually holy and obedient to the end of his days." (p. 206.) Of course he means to be understood as saying, that, in far the