The errors of Hopkinsianism detected and refuted. In six letters to the Rev. S. Williston ..

Front matter

LIBRARY

FRII«CIGTO]¥, M. J.

DONATION' U?

Preface

JL HE following letters are entitled, " The Errors of Hopkinsianism detected and refuted," not because Mr. Williston has adopted every part of that system, nor because all its errors are here exposed : but because he apparently agrees with the Hopkinsian system in some of its most prominent features, and because those features especially are noticed. In regard to original sin, if I understand their meaning, he evidently differs from the Hopkinsians ; for Dr. Emmons^ who was a celebrated Hopkinsian writer, says, " Adam conveyed neither sin, nor guilt, nor moral depravity to his descendants, by his first transgression."* But Mr. W. supposes total depravity to consist in the sinfulness of our natures,

* This quotation and others which I have made from Hopkinsian writers, are borrowed from a work called, " Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism." Seepage 71. I take it fur granted, that the author has given a faithful repi'esentation of their sentiments, as he has made copious extracts, professedly in their own words. T\\q few passages I have transcribed, are as I find thera in Jiis book, not having, at present, access to the originals.

VI PREFACE.

which we bring into the world with us, see. p. 30, 31, of his book. On the doctrine of Foreordination, Eternal decrees, Election and Reprobation, God's being the efficient cause of sin, Sin being for the greatest good of the universe, the Universality of the atonement. Disinterested Benevolence, Regeneration, and free-agency, there appears a perfect coincidence of sentiment between them.

In regard to the public debate which gave rise to the sermons, which are examined in these letters, perhaps it w^ould be uninteresting and useless, to detail the particulars of it here. The subjects handled in the five first letters were the points of debate at that time. Thus much I may be allowed to say, that I did not engage in the controversy, because it is my delight to dispute. I was led to it from a sense of duty — and from the same motive I have written.

Respecting the subjects of this investigation, I consider them some of the most important doctrines of the Gospel ; and therefore it is not a matter of indifference which system is embraced. Any system which eclipses the glory of the Divine attributes, and exculpates man from blame in his wicked conduct, must be unfriendly to the interests of religion. If man be not/ree, he is not responsible, not a subject of moral governm.ent, neither rewardable nor punishable, upon the principles of justice and goodness. Indeed all laws, human and divine, presuppose an ability in man to obey them. Why

PREFACE. vii

does the judge pronounce sentence of condemnation upon a criminal ? Is it not on the supposition that he might have done otherwise ? Whatever mysteries therefore, there may be in the science of human nature, and however difficult it may be to obviate the objections which may be urged from prescience^ there is no fact more certain than this, that man is a free-agent, as it respects his moral conduct. — Those gentlemen who urge the doctrine of total depravity against this truth, seem to forget one very important trait in the Gospel system, viz. the atonement of Christ, and the benefits which universally flow from it to mankind, by which they are graciously restored to the power of action.

To be an idle, indifferent spectator, therefore, while doctrines are propagated with avidity, which destroy this characteristic of man, and nullify so important a trait of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, cannot be justly considered a Christian virtue. It is not, it is true, congenial to the feelings of my mind, to enter the list of controversy, while conscious many things must be said offensive to some who are justly esteemed on many accounts. The all-important truths of God, however, are of vastly more importance than the feelings of any number of individuals, and they must be defended^ although the others should be offended. However the piety and friendship of those persons who embrace the doctrines herein opposed, may be valued, the sacred truths of the Gospel arc not to be tamely viii PREFACE.

sacrificed for the sake of purchasing their friendship. No candid Christian can require this.

I may have mistaken the meaning of scripture, but I cannot mistake the sincerity of my intentions, and the purity of my motives. And whatever aversion I might have to controversies of this description, I believe myself called in the present instance, to take up my cross and follow Christ. — Indeed it has been crossing to my leading inclination to consent to write and publish these letters. In doing it, however, I have satisfied my conscience, and hope to render some small service to the cause of truth and piety — and I sincerely pray, that the truth will not have suffered for having passed through my hands, and that the spirit of charity and brotherly love will not be diminished by these strictures.

The reader must judge for himself respecting the sentiments and arguments in the following sheets, and make up his mind accordingly.

In regard to those passages of scripture which speak on the subject of election, the plain state of the case appears to be this, — From the circumstance of God's choosing Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his posterity, to whom was committed the lively oracles of truth, and through whom Jesus Christ was to come according to the fiesh, they were denominated the elect, or chosen people of God. — The peculiar care which God manifested towards that people, in the various privileges granted them,,

PREFACE. ix

the protection and deliverance extended to them, caused them to conclude that all other nations were reprobated^ and that all their nation were elected. — This erroneous sentiment our Lord combated in the sharp controversy he held with their learned Doctors and Scribes. When the Apostles were sent out to preach the glad tidings of salvation to Jews and Gentiles, who, in consequence of believing the report, were collected into the Church, and enjoyed its distinguished privileges, they adopted the same phraseology, denominating all the members of the visible church the electa the chosen people of God — And when speaking of the Gospel method of salvation, which was invariably the same to Jews and Gentiles, they sometimes called it God's predestination, appointment or determination.* This predestination, or predetermination of God respects the means of salvation, the foundation of pardoa and acjceptance, which is Christ Jesus, and the qualification for heaven. These are immutably the same, and can never vary to suit the whim and caprice of mutable man — man must bend to them, or otherwise he must suffer the fearful consequence.

God is enthroned in uncreated wisdom and goodness, by which he was led to establish the most wise and benevolent method to rescue man from the thraldom of sin. Having fixed the terms on which sinners must be saved, if saved, his gracious determination is, never to recede from them. Thus he

• See the Appendix,

X PREFACE.

hath appointed all obedient believers to everlasting life, and all disobedient unbelievers to eternal death. Here we may behold the beneficent predestination of God ; and also see the reason why those terms are used to designate the people of God. Personal and individual election and reprobation appear to have been strangers upon earth in the Apostles' days. By an abuse of their phraseology these doctrines have sprung up in the Christian Church, by which the minds of the simple are led astray, being continually tormented with doubts and fears, which are engendered from erroneous conceptions of the divine character.

In the following sheets, I have attempted to explain some of those difficult passages, w^hich have been supposed to favour the doctrine of eternal and individual election, and other sentiments intimately connected with it ; and to answer some of the arguments which have been used to establish those points. How far I have succeeded, is not for me to determine. I must beg the reader's indulgence for any errors he may discover ; and also intreat an interest in his prayers, that I may experience that deliverance from sin, and that perfection of love, which qualifies the soul for eternal happiness.

To hold the truth in unrighteousness, would only expose us to greater shame and contempt. While, therefore, wc strive after accurate ideas of God.

PREFACE. xi

and of his truth, let us seek a conformity to his will and image in all things. Speculative knowledge alone only puffeth up the soul with self-conceit ; while charity, love, edifieth. O that both writer and reader may so improve the day of our merciful visitation, that we may at last inherit eternal life.

N. B.

ERRORS OF HOPKINSIANISM.

LETTER I. Rev, Sir

i^ OT long since I had an opportunity of reading your sermons which were occasioned by the public debate between Mr. Benedict and myself, in Durham, May 2d, 1810. After an attentive perusal of them, I hesitated whether I ought to take any public notice of them or not. This hesitation, however, did not ai*ise from any conviction of their truth, nor from any supposed difficulty in refuting the erj'oneous 'sentiments you have attempted to establish; but partly from an aversion to controversies of this nature, and partly from an apprehension that the manifest contradictions, the glaring absurdities, and the many misapplications of scripture, were sufficient to carry their own confutation. But when it is considered that the subtilty of error insinuates itself often imperceptibly into the human mind, by which the judgment is perverted, and a wrong bias given to the whole train of thinking, unless timely checked in its progress by the barrier of

J 4 LETTER I.

truth — and also that I am more immediately concerned than any one else, in consequence of having taken an active part in the debate alluded to, I think myself bound to enter a public protest against what are deemed the dangerous errors advanced in your sermons.

Another consideration likev/ise induces me to take my pen on this occasion, namely, that you have not given a fair and candid statement of the points debated, nor of the arguments used. This I hope to convince you of in the course of these letters. Let these considerations, dear sir, be my apology for troubling you with these remarks ; and also for continuing a controversy v/hich is already worn thread bare, by the repeated publications on these subjects. The propositions you have stated, and the arguments used to support them, have, the most of them, been answered over and over again, by men of the first qualifications, both as it respects erudition and piety ; and their arguments remain unanswered and unanswerable to the present day. It is hardly possible therefore to advance any thing new upon subjects which have been so ably investigated.*" It is possible, however, for these remarks

• Considering, hovveve**, that Hopkinsianism is of comparltively recent date, and that in several instances it differs from Calvinism, on these accounts the controversy, as fiir as we are concerned in it, assumes i« some respects, a different aspect. Formerly we had to contend for the moral agency of man, tbe universality of the atonement, and justification by faith. — Truth has at length prevailed, and those points are yielded by many, although so explained as to do away- their practical iniluence.

to fall into the hands of some, who have not seen the invaluable authors alluded to ; and under God, may be a mean, either of reclaiming them from a pernicious error, or of confirming them in the truth. Without further introduction, I begin with some remarks upon the text which you have made the foundation of your sermon on foreordination. That God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, is not disputed ; but that the doctrine you have attempted to deduce from these words, was never designed by the Apostle, is easily demonstrated. You say, " The first is, that God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass ;" whereas the text says nothing about " bringing every thing to pass Avhich is brought to pass." It simply states, that he worketh all ihi7igs after the counsel of his ozcn will. The question to be determined is, What is the counsel of his will? You say that it means, that " God foreordained every event which comes to pass," p. 1. If every event which comes to pass, is brought to pass by God's plan, as you call it, or is an effect of his decree, then there can be no event, however trivial in itself, however wicked, foolish, and inconsistent, but f-hat is included in this plan which you ascribe to God, and which, according to your statement, is the effect ofhisuncontrolable decree. If this system does not ascribe wickedness, foolishness, and absurdity to God* there are no such things as wickedness, foolishness, and absurdity in the world ; for all events, whether they be wicked or good^ foolish or wise, absurd or coni6 LETTER I.

sistent, you intimate are included in God's plan, }% 6, Are not foolishness, wickedness, and all inconsistencies, events ? If not, what are they ? causes-, means, or ends ? It matters not by what name they are distinguished, whether causes, means, ends or events ; for according to your system, they are all included in the divine plan ; and you assert, p. 1 , " God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass ;" and therefore whatever name is attached to what comes to pass, whether cause or effect, Avisdom or folly, they are all, according to your sentiment, the work of God. Now, sir, you must either deny that there are such things as folly, wickedness, and absurdity, or ascribe them to God. If you undertake to do the first, you must blot out of the Bible all those passages of scripture which speak of those things, (and you know they are very ^any) an4 §l\^Y( tlie inspired writers were mistaken. If you ascribe them to God still, as you have already done in your book, I ask who imputes " folly" to him now ? p. 3. It will not help you any to cay, that these wicked and foolish actions, are said lo be the actions of men. This we know ; and in this respect we"follow the inspired writers, in im- Duting them to wicked and foolish men. But according to your doctrine, they are no more the actions of men, than the moving of my pen are its aetiorfs ; and in this case it would be as absurd to fmd fault with my pen for bad writing, as to find fault with men for their inconsistent conduct. For vou sav. All events are brought about by God's plan, and expressly assert in the first page of your book, that they are his work.

Permit me here to repeat the text and your comment. Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, " There are two ideas," say you, " contained in this passage." The first is, That God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass. The other is, That he brings all things to pass, according to a plan, or scheme devised by his own mind." Do folly and sin come to pass? most certainly. Who brings them to pass ? " God brings to pass, every thing which comes to pa^s." Is sin and folly produced by wisdom and holiness ? You say yes, by admitting God to be wise and holy. Do these effects answer to their cause? No ; for nothing is more opposite than wisdom and holiness to folly and sin ; and yet according to your sentiments, sin and folly have resulted from infinite wisdom and holiness. I ask again, who imputes ''consummate tolly" to God now ?

Any hypothesis which imputes v/ickedncss and folly to a being of infinite wisdom and holiness^ must be false *, but your doctrine of foreordinatiori does this; and therefore it is false. If any should doubt respecting your ascribing sin to God, let them examine the note, p. 23. Here you state expressly, that God is the efficient cause of sin ; and lest your readers should not believe you meant to make God the cause of sin, you have made the words efficient cause, emphatic al, by causing them to be printed in italics.

U LETTER I.

Having made these general remarks upon your explanation of the text, I proceed to consider the subject more methodically. In doing this, per^ mit me, in some measure, to imitate the method you have adopted. From the perfection of God's character it is impossible for him to foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. However difficult in many instances, it may be to prove a negative, I think it not impossible in the present case. It will be admitted by all, that God is infinitely jW^, wise, holy^ good, and true — and any system which, either in its principle, or by consequence, militates against these perfections of Deity, must be erroneous. That the system whicliyou have advanced, and advocated does this, the following observations are designed lo shew.

I. 1 . It militates against the justice of God, according to your own assertion in page 67, where yoil say, " Impartiality requires that all innocent persons should be justified," Impartial conduct is an exemplification of justice. Now if God from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, he ordained the condemnation of part of the angels, of Adam and all his posterity while in a state of perfect innocence. It is of no use to say they became singers before the sentence of condemnation went forth against them ; for agreeably to your system their sin was only an intermediate link in the immense chain of irresistable decrees, which was necessary to bring about the end which God had in view. If :herefore justice or impartiality required all ilrrrocent persons should be justified, it is an impeachment of that resplendent attribute of Deity, to say that he foreordained their condemnation while in a state of perfect innocence. And in regard to their sin, agreeably to your doctrine, they acted perfectly according to the divine mind, unless you suppose his decrees were contrary to his will ; and if so, they could not have done otherwise, unless you suppose they could have resisted the irresistable decress of God, which is a contradiction.

See that stern judge upon the bench, and that trembling criminal at the bar — The witnessess are pointed in their testimony against him — murder, wilful murder is proved — His counsel, or rather a professed advocate for the judge, proceeds to develope the circumstances of the case — '' The criminal says he, is guilty of wilfiil murder, and therefore the sentence of condemnation must be pronounced against him. True, he is dependent on the honourable court for his present existence ; for such unlimited authority hath his honour over the lives of men, especially such as are devoted to such flagrant acts of wickedness, that he may take them away at pleasure— But be it known to you, gentlemen of the jury, that this same honourable judge contrived ' a plan' by which this wicked murderer should be excited to sin as he has ; and lest his * plan or scheme' should not take effect he secretly provoked him to anger against his brother, and even guided his hand when the fatal blow was given." But pray Mr. counsel, says the foreman of the jury, do you mear?

to impeach the character of our honourable judge ? I have always thought differently of him — I took him for an upright man — " and so indeed he is,'' rejoins the wise counsel — " Permit me to explain the reasons of his conduct. You must know then, that there are some men " ministers of satan," who pretend to plead the cause of righteousness, who are continually harping upon the evil of sin, its unhappy influence upon society; and they also insinuate, that my manner of vindicating the judge has a tendency to asperse his character, especially his goodness and justice — I hope you have not heard their harangues— But as I was about to say, our honourable judge is of a quite different opinion respecting sin — He thinks the rest of our honest neighbours could not be happy were there not some murderers and thieves, &;c. that he might have an opportunity of displaying his sovereignty in punishing them. — To convince you and all other good people that he is right, he contrived, as I said before, that this man, who stands trembling before you, should commit this sin, that he might make a public example of him before you all. Some, indeed, have intimated fJiat he is not just in punishing men for doing what he designed they should ; but this only proceeds from ignorance ; and he wishes to let them know how mistaken they are. It is true " his holy nature abhors" murder, although he has determined many shall commit it, even against his commands — For you must also know that he has expressly forbidden it — but his determination, which must stand.

because perfectly according to his good pleasure, is secretly opposed to his commands, and it must and shall be accomplished. Therefore, gentlemen, please to pronounce sentence, that our judge may have an opportunity of convincing you of the justice and impartiality of his deteraiinations."

Do you think, sir, the judge would approbate such a speech ? and yet in such a point of light you represent the Judge of all the earth,, for you expressly assert that all things, and consequently wickedness of every kind, is brought about by the agency of God, and that they are according to the counsel of his will, and yet that he will adjudge to everlasting torments those who thus fulfil his will. If such sentiments do not cast an impenetrable miit around the glory of God's justice, I know not what can.

2. But this doctrine not only eclipses the glory of God's justice in the condemnation of the wicked, it also militates, in the second place, against the wisdom of God. For according to the representation you have given of his character, he is so deficient in wisdom that he cannot govern the world without a previous plan. Here you reduce the infinitely wise God to the level of an ignorant mechanic, who cannot see the end from the beginning with- ,out a prescribed plan. I conclude his own infinite mind is sufficient to guide him in all his multifarious works and ways, without any previously devised " plan or scheme." The goodness, wisdom, and immutability of his coimsel, as well as his infinite foresight of all possible causes and events, preclude the necessity of any other limits to regulate his adorable conduct.

Your doctrine also militates against the tuisdom of God by making the decrees, and commands clash — you very justly conclude that the harmony of God's works are marks or evidences of his wisdom. But in p. 7. you insinuate that his decrees and commands are in opposition to each other. He itcreed that man should murder, and that the children of Israel should make their children pass thrGugh ihejire to Moloch, which thing he commanded them not. Here then are two works of the Almighty, his decrees and commands directly opposed to each other. Is this harmony ? Such conduct is so far from being a mark of wisdom, that it is indicative of the •most consummate duplicity and folly. It is an evidence of duplicity, because it supposes him to command mankind to do that, which he never designed they should — and it is an indication of folly to publish laws, which were superceded by a prior act of the Almighty, called a decree. As God is infinitely sincere, and wise, he cannot be the author of that doctrine which necessarily imputes insincerity and folly to him ; and as the jarring sentiments which you advocate fix these reproachful blots on his character, they must, on that very account, if no other reasons could be assigned, be erroneous.

Another reason why your inconsistent doctrine sullies the glory of infinite wisdom is, that it supposes it impossible for God to foresee what will be.

unless he predetermine it shall be. The doctrine espoused by us, acknowledges, not only that his infinite prescience' seeth what will be, but also all that may, and might have been. And this prescience does not depend upon a predetermination of the Almighty for its existence, nor upon the transpiring events brought about by the voluntary conduct of free agents, but is an essential perfection of his nature. To say that his prescience depends upon his predetermination, is to suppose a time when the Almighty did not possess infinite knowledge. In this way you make knowledge, or wisdom respecting future events, an adventitious property of the divine mind, and therefore not essential : and if not essential he may exist without it — It is easy to perceive, therefore, that your doctrine in this way also, eclipses the glory of infinite wisdom. It were easy, without any such perfection as infinite knowledge, to prdHict future events, if these events depended solely on a predetermination in the Almighty to bring them to pass : but God possesses this perfection in the most pre-eminent degree ; for knoxjon unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world : and inasmuch as your doctrine of foreordination annihilates his prescience, it must be unscriptural and irrational.

Once more — the doctrine of immutable decrees respecting every event sullies the glory of God's wisdom, by supposing him incapable of governing mankind as free agents. If all our actions are the result of a predetermining cause in God, as you assert, we have no more freedom than the water which descends from the clouds. To adopt your sentiment therefore, and then talk about freedom and responsibility in man, is perfect nonsense. On this absurd principle his freedom is purely mechanical, for he can no more move in opposition to irresistible decrees, than he can reverse the eternal laws of order, unless you suppose him capable of breaking God's decrees 5 and in this case certainly the *' eternal purpose," would not take effect. So that according to your principle all his thoughts, words, and actions are as immutably fixed, as the throne of God itself. How then in the name of reason, can you assert, that man is a free agent, and accountable for his conduct ? Do you think merely because he feels no compulsion, he is therefore free? The water, the air, nor the fire feel any compulsive force, although governed by immutable laws — are they therefore free-agents,'and responsible for their conduct ? O sir, can you lay your hand upon your breast, and in the fear of God say, that the ideas you have advanced respecting man's responsibility, and the reasons for it, carry conviction to your own judgment ? Pardon this appeal, sir, — it is hard to suspect a man's sincerity. But I sincerely confess, I can see not the smallest shade of difference, upon your scheme, between the reasons which are offered for man's accountability, and what might be given for inert matter.

Neither will it be of any avail to say that his actions result from his depraved nature. He is no

ON F0RP:0RDINATI0N. 25

itiore accountable for this, on your principle, than the water is for its solidity, or the air for its transparency. For even this fallen, depraved nature, according to your scheme, was brought upon mankind hy Adam^ and upon him,, by an almighty decree, made antecedent to his existence, which he could no more resist, or control, than he could dethrone the Almighty himself. And to make mankind accounliable for that in which they had no coiicern, is as unreasonable, as to make your child of two years old accountable for the errors of your sermons. In fact, from the fairest principles of reason, inferable from your first principle advanced in the first page of your book, God is the immediate author not only of all the good, but also of all the evil ever committed by men or devils. And if this is not scandalizing the immaculate character of God in the most emphatical sense of the word, I know not what ought, in justice, to be so called.

Now if the Almighty cannot govern man as a free agent, it is because he lacks wisdom. But according to your scheme he either cannot or will not. For the doctrine of foreordination, and universal and irresistible decrees, is totally subversive of free agency. It is certainly a greater manifestation of wisdom to adapt a government to the circumstances and capacities of a world of free, responsible agents, than it is to compel them in all their actions, by an irresistible influence. Seeing therefore that God is infinitely wise, and tliat the doctrine advanced by -ytfWj sir, is subversive of that adorable perfection, ft

c i26 LETTER I.

must of consequence be false ; and a false doctrine cannot originate from God.

3. In the third place, your doctrine militates against the holiness of God. If the Almighty be holy, as you must admit, nothing unholy can proceed from him. But there are many unholy events which take place. Do these unholy, sinful events originate from God ? I suppose you will answer, No. But what says your doctrine ? "God includes in his plan every thing which comes to pass." Does not sin come to pass ? and who brings it to pass ? *'' The first is, That God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass." God brings every thing to pass — sin comes to pass ; therefore God brings sin to pass.