or HOPKINSONIANS, so called from the Rev. Samuel Hopkins,
D.D., pastor of the first Congregational church at Newport, Rhode
Island, North America, about A. D. 1770. Dr. Hopkins, in his sermons and
tracts, made several additions to the sentiments previously advanced by
the celebrated President Edwards, of New-Jersey College. The following
is a summary of their distinguishing tenets:--
1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested
benevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including
God, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of
every individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the
whole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and
happiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral
rectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our
neighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our
neighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must
be the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the
particular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested
affection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance,
all which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists
in love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man,
ourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of
God. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal
benevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of
our appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to
hurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the
divine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our
neighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.
2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested
affection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only
object of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to
promote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature,
and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law
of God, and it is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the
foundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry
and false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and
sensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites
mankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love
produces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil
speaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly
comprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.
3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions
of the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from
a bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty
when they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability,
which consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be
the subject of a command.
4. That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ,
is not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense,
that natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is
universally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very
thing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,
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 for ever;
which, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness.
But as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream,
so the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow
creatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great
soul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the
governing principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to
their worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his
Maker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine
love, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in
the ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart,
that he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of
the potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits
the nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride
is lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God,
and rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine
administration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due
to those who have broken it; and “the Judge of all the earth cannot but
do right,” Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his
government to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is
felt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to
the free grace of God, through Christ’s redemption.
6. That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent
power, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the
existence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be
admitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and
view of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of
operation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually
preferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely
disappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains,
therefore, that “God was the author, origin, and positive cause of
Adam’s sin:” yea, “that he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as
really as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.”
7. That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general
good. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on
designs of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has,
undoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of
the infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have
been made to the view of creatures.
8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended,
that repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and
perfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only,
that true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which
the believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his
mediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, “Repent ye, and believe
the Gospel;” and Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
9. That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine
constitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but
personal: for, (1.) Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not
the act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time
that he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to
them afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be
transferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.)
Therefore Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause,
but only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and
now God brings his posterity into the world sinners.
10. That though believers are justified through Christ’s righteousness,
yet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal
righteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor
personal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the
sinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only
the benefits of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being
pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness’ sake; and this is the
proper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan’s righteousness was
imputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his
father Jonathan’s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.
11. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees,
not only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the
total depravation of human nature, the special influences of the Spirit
of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final
perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom
and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since
the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists.
Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these
propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in
the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.)
Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is
confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our
affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Scriptures teach us, that
“no man hateth his own flesh.” Such a “disinterested benevolence,”
therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and
happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be
convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered
out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it
is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever
unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and
strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can
only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal
point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and
efficient cause of sin.” It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that
“in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;” this, however, is a
position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common
sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no
speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an
excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” saith the
Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii,
5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully
gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,” by Ezra
Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In
this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that
the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of
mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it
differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.
D.D., pastor of the first Congregational church at Newport, Rhode
Island, North America, about A. D. 1770. Dr. Hopkins, in his sermons and
tracts, made several additions to the sentiments previously advanced by
the celebrated President Edwards, of New-Jersey College. The following
is a summary of their distinguishing tenets:--
1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested
benevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including
God, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of
every individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the
whole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and
happiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral
rectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our
neighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our
neighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must
be the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the
particular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested
affection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance,
all which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists
in love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man,
ourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of
God. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal
benevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of
our appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to
hurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the
divine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our
neighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.
2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested
affection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only
object of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to
promote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature,
and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law
of God, and it is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the
foundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry
and false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and
sensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites
mankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love
produces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil
speaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly
comprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.
3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions
of the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from
a bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty
when they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability,
which consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be
the subject of a command.
4. That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ,
is not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense,
that natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is
universally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very
thing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,
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 for ever;
which, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness.
But as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream,
so the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow
creatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great
soul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the
governing principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to
their worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his
Maker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine
love, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in
the ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart,
that he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of
the potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits
the nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride
is lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God,
and rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine
administration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due
to those who have broken it; and “the Judge of all the earth cannot but
do right,” Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his
government to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is
felt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to
the free grace of God, through Christ’s redemption.
6. That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent
power, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the
existence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be
admitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and
view of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of
operation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually
preferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely
disappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains,
therefore, that “God was the author, origin, and positive cause of
Adam’s sin:” yea, “that he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as
really as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.”
7. That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general
good. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on
designs of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has,
undoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of
the infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have
been made to the view of creatures.
8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended,
that repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and
perfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only,
that true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which
the believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his
mediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, “Repent ye, and believe
the Gospel;” and Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
9. That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine
constitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but
personal: for, (1.) Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not
the act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time
that he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to
them afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be
transferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.)
Therefore Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause,
but only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and
now God brings his posterity into the world sinners.
10. That though believers are justified through Christ’s righteousness,
yet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal
righteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor
personal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the
sinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only
the benefits of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being
pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness’ sake; and this is the
proper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan’s righteousness was
imputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his
father Jonathan’s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.
11. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees,
not only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the
total depravation of human nature, the special influences of the Spirit
of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final
perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom
and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since
the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists.
Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these
propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in
the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.)
Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is
confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our
affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Scriptures teach us, that
“no man hateth his own flesh.” Such a “disinterested benevolence,”
therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and
happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be
convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered
out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it
is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever
unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and
strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can
only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal
point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and
efficient cause of sin.” It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that
“in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;” this, however, is a
position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common
sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no
speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an
excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” saith the
Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii,
5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully
gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,” by Ezra
Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In
this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that
the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of
mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it
differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.