eternal decrees and foreknowledge, I shall close my extracts, by bringing forward the three following sentences: "GOD WAS THE AUTHOR, ORIGIN, AND POSITIVE CAUSE OF ADAM'S SIN, THIS CAN BE PROVED, AND MAY BE ASSERTED, AS A MOST EVIDENT TRUTH. BUT IN CAUSING OR ORIGINATING SIN, THERE IS NO SIN." "GOD MOVES, EXCITES, AND STIRS UP MEN TO DO THAT WHICH IS SINFUL; AND DECEIVES, BLINDS, HARDENS, AND PUTS SIN INTO THE HEART, BY A POSITIVE CREATIVE INFLUENCE." "THUS DOES GOD FORM THE CHARACTER OF THOSE WHO WERE FROM ETERNITY PREDESTINATED TO DA MNATION; AND THUS BY HIS PROVIDENCE HE EXECUTES HIS DECREE OF REPROBATION." As some of my readers may desire to know more fully, what is the doctrinal system held by the Hopkinsians, I will herewith submit a brief summary of the whole, as set forth in Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, published for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference Office in New York; a work too, which has been compiled from the best sources ancient and modern, and which is superior to any dictionary of the kind in existence. But it is not necessary for me to say any thing in commendation of this work." The following is a summary of the distinguishing tenets of the Hopkinsians: 1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested benevolence. 2. That all sin consists in selfishness. 2. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions of the unregenerate. 4. That the impotency of sinners, with regard to believing in Christ, is not natural but moral. 5. That in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart of the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off forever. 6. That the infinitely and holy God has exerted his omnipotent power, in such a way as he purposed should be followed with the existence and entrance of moral evil in the system. 7. That the introduction of SIN is, upon the whole, for the general good. 8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. 9. That Adam's act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause, but only the occasion of his posterity being sinners. 10. That though believers are justified through Christ's righteousness, yet his righteousness is not directly transferred to them. 11. That men are totally depraved until regeneration. 12. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of eternal decrees, and of particular election and reprobation. REMARKS. Upon the whole, I may say, that Dr. Hopkins' theory appears to be an attempt to unite some points of mystic theology with the system of Calvinism commonly received, and that where it differs from the latter, it obviates no difficulty whatever. Finally, the doctrine of Hopkinsian Calvinism, makes God the author of sin. 2. It destroys the free agency, and of course the accountability of man. 3. It arrays God's secret decrees against his written word. 4. In close connexion with the foregoing objection, it may be added, that this doctrine mars, if it does not destroy, the moral attributes of God. 5. It puts a plea into the mouth of sinners to justify themselves in their sins, and leads to Universalism and infidelity. 6. The evils done to the church because of the belief, and consequent influence of this doctrine, are incalculable. A Hopkinsian believes that the elect will certainly be saved, and go immediately to heaven when they die,-and every believer in Calvinism thinks himself, to be one of the elect. Now, a Calvinistic priest, in whom a gentleman in New-Jersey, a few years ago, put confidence to write his will, and who was to receive a legacy out of the gentleman's estate, wrote eleven hundred dollars, instead of one hundred!!! Also, a Calvinistic lawyer, who was himself to receive a legacy from this same man's estate, was afterwards found to have been conniving and assisting his brother preacher in this work. Well, when the man was dead, and the will produced, it being so differently written from what the testator had ever talked of among his friends, and apprehending that the fraud was coming to light-this Calvinistic priest (one of the elect of God, in his own estimation, being strong in the faith) committed suicide, thereby exchanging an earthly for a hea venly inheritance! And the lawyer too, being of the same faith and hearing what his minister had done, followed his example! This is getting out of a scrape Calvinistically. And this is what Calvinism leads to. And what is to prevent any Calvinist, strong in the faith, from giving glory to God in this way? CHAPTER V. HOPKINSIAN CALVINISM, AS SET FORTH IN A WORK CALLED THE "SEVEN CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN ATHANASIUS AND DOCILIS, ON THEOLOGICAL SUBJECTS. THE work bearing the above title, was written by His Holiness, the Right Reverend ISAAC ANDERSON; and, to use his own words, has, because of "the calls for a second edition," having been "so numerous, and from sources so respectable," been presented to the public a second time. Soon after the first edition of these Conversations had made its appearance, which was in 1821, it was answered at length, and in a masterly manner, by the Rev. Robert Paine of the Methodist Episcopal church, in a pamphlet entitled "Seven Conversations between Quero and Athanasius." Mr. Paine's pamphlet, every candid reader will acknowledge, is a complete refutation of the views and sentiments of Athanasius. But still, Athanasius, in his preface to the scond edition of this mighty work, assigns as a "rational" reason for not noticing Mr. P's publication, that "the patrons of this second edition, think the cause of truth does not demand that it should be noticed." Indeed! This is in perfect accordance with the manner in which Calvinistic writers answer the arguments of their Arminian competitors. They affect to treat them with silent contempt! A masterly argument this! O what logical inflexibility is embodied in this argument! And although Mr. P. was then considered a man of talents and learning, and has since been elected president of La Grange college in Alabama, yet, this pious old doctor of divinity calls him a "would-be author," and charges him with "weakness, folly and self-conceit!" Finally, Athanasius charges his clerical brother Quero, by way of interrogatory, with the want of an "honest and upright heart and intentions." Still, Athanasius says, "Quero flies in a great rage!" Upon the whole, I can but exclaim as did one of old, "Lord, what is man!" But to the work in hand. The work which I am now reviewing, and the most noxious parts of which I propose herewith to exhibit, is founded, principally, on the four following propositions: I. GOD A MORAL GOVERNOR. II. MAN A MORAL AGENT. III. GOD THE EFFICIENT CAUSE. IV. MAN A PASSIVE RECIPIENT, OR, MAN A CREATURE CAPABLE OF BEING ACTED UPON BY ANOTHER AGENT.” Athanasius, in sustaining the above propositions, uses a great deal of sophistry, a quantity of fanaticism, and much of the twang common to writers of his order, all well spiced with Hopkinsian metaphysics. In a word, the whole work is completely shrouded in the mantle of metaphysical obscurity. However, had I time and room, I could soon have this whole pamphlet in the air-dangling like the late Comet, after Davy Crockett's operation on it-headless and taillessa scattered constellation of decapitated Jack O'lantern! The following are the extracts which I have selected from this work: "But that power which secures saints from fulling, is exerted on saints as passive recipients. And the doctrine of final perseverance belongs to the two last propositions; namely, that God is an efficient cause, and man is a passive recipient; and not the two first. God acts on the saint as a passive recipient, so as to make it certain, that he will persevere as a moral agent in holiness." Page 18. "Atha. Docilis, in the close of the last conversation you said, that man had natural power to be perfectly holy, without divine influence. The subject to which this leads is important. "Doc. I know not with what subjects it may be connected; but the sentiment seems to flow from the principles about which we had conversed and settled." P. 26. "Atha. Exactly so. Then the atonement is the ground on which offers are made; and the obedience of Christ unto death, the ground of saving or renewing influence. Let me now ask, may not all the blessings procured by the atonement, be offered and pressed on man as a moral agent; and yet no saving influence be exerted on him, inclining him to accept? Doc. If I attempt to deny this, every day's experience would rise up and contradict me. "P. 28. "Atha. You have answered so well, you now may tell me what is irre sistible grace. Doc. Athanasius, I have a sort of glimmering light on that subject, but would rather hear you answer. Atha. I will then try to make it plain. God designs to turn a sinner to holiness; All light and motive addressed to him as a moral agent, fail. God then operates on him as a passive recipient, with ALMIGHTY ENERGI, the infallible consequence of which is, the man turns, and this is irresistible grace, and is the same thing, that is called special grace." P. 29. "Atha. That the Father sent the Son and commanded him, is the repeated language of the Bible. Then, the Father's right to command, and the obligation of the Son to obey, must arise out of mutual agreement. And there is no way to escape this argument but by denying the equality of the persons in the Godhead, or by asserting, that among equals, one may have an inherent right to command another. Doc. Have you any other proof that a covenant existed from all eternity between the sacred persons of Jehovah respecting man's redemption? Atha. There are several other proofs; 1st. Works performed by a person, or sufferings endured, which were not required or commanded, cannot entitle him who performed the work, or endured the sufferings, to a reward. No man feels bound to reward his neighbor for works which he did not employ him to do, or for sufferings which he did not require him to undertake. But the works and sufferings of the Redeemer are rewarded by the Father, and a reward was promised, &c. Then, the works and sufferings of Jesus Christ are such as he had covenanted to perform and endure, and such as the Father had covenanted to reward. 2nd. The persons of Jehovah, antecedent to the covenant, would have had an equal claim to the creatures of their creative power. But if the Bible plainly teaches that one sacred person has a right to give or with- " hold any part of creation, the right must be founded on agreement or covenant. The Father did give to the Son a right to exercise authority over all things, and gave him A PORTION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY AS A Reward. P. 30. "Then look at the subject in every light that the scriptures represent it; we are necessarily led to the conclusion, that an ETERNAL COVENANT existed between the sacred persons of the Godhead respecting man's redemption." P. 31. "Doc. Does the agency of God on man, as passive recipient, depend on the consent of man as moral agent; so that God cannot operate on the man, unless the man, as moral agent, first consent that God should so operate on him as a passive recipient? The reason I ask this question is, I heard a public teacher say, (a Methodist, and he said the truth) God never would regenerate a man, unless the man first agreed to be regenerated. "Atha. The cause and reason of man willing, is, because God, as efficient cause, operates on him as passive recipient, and works in him to will and to do. So that your teacher put the effect before the cause. Were his doctrine true, no sinner ever would be converted!!! God must make him willing in a day of his power; and this is done by a divine influence on him as a passive recipient; which operation is previous to any right moral exercises in the will of man as a moral agent." P. 33. "Atha. What is sin? Doc. It is a transgression of the law of God. Atha. Yes, and the law of God is fulfilled by love. Then the opposition to love is enmity. Love is the voluntary exercise of a moral agent; of course, enmity is also the exercise of a moral agent. Then, I ask, can sin belong to man as a passive recipient? Doc. Sin cannot consist in a mere capacity to be acted on by some other agent; for this is no transgression of a law; but sin must be in the acts of an active creature, transgressing or violating some law. Atha. May not a creature, as soon as it has an idea and a voluntary exercise, be a sinner? Doc. It would seem so! Atha. But can a soul exist without being a moral agent? REMARKS. The above contradictory questions and answers, end my quotations from the Seven Conversations. I would, at any time, prefer, for the man of my counsel, the Koran, communicated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel, to that of the Seven Conversations. And, there is more sound doctrine and scriptural divinity, |