HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE.

VOL. IV.

JANUARY 31, 1832.

NO. 1..

THE HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE.

6

With the present number, our periodical enters on its eighth year. This is an age, to which few publications of the kind, in this country, have arrived. It becomes us gratefully to acknowledge "the good hand of God," which has sustained us under the labours, sacrifices, and discouragements, with which the work has been conducted. And while we are sensible that our pages have been less instructive and interesting than they would have been, if we had possesed greater ability, enjoyed more leisure, and received more aid from those who were well able to afford it; still we indulge the hope, that the original design of this publication, has been, in some degree, attained. Something, we trust, has been done, towards stating, explaining and proving that system of scriptural doctrines and duties, which had obtained the name of Hopkinsian. If this has edified and confirmed some; we would flatter ourselves it has enlightened and convinced others. It must have been perceived that the Hopkinsian system, while, on the one hand, it shuns the first principle of Arminianism—that of a self determining power, or "the efficiency of man in all his moral actions"-it avoids, on the other hand, the three capital absurdities of modern Calvinism, viz. the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants; the natural inability of men to do what God requires; and an atonement made for the elect only. It is presumed some have discovered, that Hopkinsianism is, indeed, much the mildest, and the only consistent form of Calvinism. It is not unlikely, that some may have found themselves in the predicament of an aged Minister of the Old Colony,' a few years since; who had conceived a strong prejudice against the writings of Dr. Hopkins, which he had never read; but upon being persuaded by a clerical brother, to peruse a volume of the Dr.'s works, exclaimed, 'If this be Hopkinsianism, I have been a Hopkinsian these twenty years.'

We think we can perceive, that in places where this work has freely circulated, much of the reproach which had been cast upon the name Hopkinsian, has been removed, and that this appella

tion is used, as it ever should have been, merely as a term of dis-' tinction.

It gives us pleasure to state, that our publication has received a regularly increasing patronage, from its commencement. While w tender our thanks to all who have aided in circulating the Magazine; we would respectfully solicit a continrarce of their assistance; as, without it, our work must share the fate of most religious periodicals in this fickle age, and expire for want of pecunia.y support. Still more urgently would we solicit the aid of such as are able to adorn our pages with well-written original communi

cations.

A DIALOGUE

BETWEEN A CALVINIST AND A SEMI CALVINIST.

The following Dialogue was inserted in the Life of Dr. Hopkins, written principally by himself, and published soon after his death. That interesting and valuable work is now out of print, and probably has not been seen by many of our readers. The life of Dr. Hopkins has recently been re-written, and published in an abridged form; from which the Dialogue, as well as some of the peculiar sentiments of the venerable author, have been excluded. We have ever considered this Dialogue as one of the Dr.'s most able and useful productions, with which we wish all our readers may be acquainted, and with which, at the suggestion of an esteemed correspondent we are happy to enrich our pages.-- Ed.

Semi-Calvinist Sir, I have wanted, for some time, to talk with you about the notion, which some lately advance, viz: That christians may, yea, that they ought, and must be willing to perish forever, in order to be christian s This is a shocking doctrine to me: For 1 botove it absolutely impossible for any one to be willing to be rually wretched; and, if it were possible, it would be very wicked; for we are commanded to do that which is directly contrary to this, viz: to desire and seek to escape dannation, and to be saved; as all our most considerable and best divines have taught, which I could easily prove, were it necessary.

Calvinis-I can decide nothing upon this matter until I know what is meant by being willing to be miserable forever, by those who assert this, or you, who oppose it. Let me then ask you, Do you suppose that by being willing to be miserable is meant a being pleased with damnation, or choosing to be miserable forever, for its own sake or in itself considered; and preferring misery, eternal misery, and being just as the damned will be, to eternal happiness, and being just as the blessed will be forever, considering the form

er as being in itself better than the latter? This is doubtless impossible, and if it were not, would be very unreasonable and wicked. And I question whether any one ever believed this, or meant to assert it, by saying that christians ought to be willing to perish forever. But if by being willing to be cast off by God forever, be meant, that however great and dreadful this evil is; yet a christian may and ought to be willing to suffer it, if it be necessary in order to avoid greater evil; or to obtain an overbalancing good, if such a case can be supposed: This, I think, is true, and ought to be maintained, as essential to the character of a christian; and that the contrary doctrine is dangerous and hurtful. For it is essential to true benevolence to prefer a greater good to a less, and a less evil to a greater, and that whether it be private or public good or evil; or his own personal good or evil; or that of others. Semi. I am unable to conceive what you mean by a greater evil, than eternal damnation, or a greater good' to be promoted by this evil. Is not this the greatest of all evils? And what good is left for him, who is doomed to eternal misery? I grant that a man may, and ought to subject himself, in many cases, to a less evil, in order to avoid a greater, or to obtain a greatly overbalancing good; but in the proposed case all good is lost forever, and the greatest possible evil takes place, and nothing but evil, without end.

6

Calv. Is not the damnation of millions a greater evil than the dam ation of a single person? And is not the eternal happinessof millions a greater good, than that of one individual? This I know you will grant. Supposing it were necessary for one individual to be miserable forever in order to save a million from this misery; and by his subjecting himself to this, they would all be saved from this evil, and be eterually happy ought he not to be willing to perish, in such a case and on this supposition? And if he should not be willing to give himself up to this evil, to save a million from it, and to make them eternally happy, would he not prefer a million times greater evil to one a million times less; and choose a million times less good and prefer it to one a million times greater? And if this is not unreasonable and wicked, and directly contrary to true benevolence, what can be?

Semi. This is making an impossible supposition. The damna"tion of one man cannot save one, much less a million.

Calv. I grant it is an impossible supposition; but it nevertheless serves to show that there may be a greater evil than the damnation of one individual; a good that will overbalance a million times, the evil of the damnation of one man; and that on supposition, this greater evil can be avoided, and the overbalancing good obtained, by the damnation of one man, and can be done no other way, then it is desirable he should be damned, and he ought to be willing, and to choose it. St. Paul makes this same supposition, when he says; 'I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh,' and

declares that he should be willing to perish and could even wish it, if by that means, all the nation of the Jews might be saved.

Semi. This is carrying things too far. It is impossible that any man should be willing to give up all good, and to be miserable forever, for the sake of the good of others, be it ever so great. And you misunderstand St. Paul, when you suppose he says that he should be willing to perish for the sake of the salvation of his brethren. By being accursed from Christ, he means some temporary evil only, which he might suffer consistently with his being a christian, and his obtaining eternal life.

Cilo. You implicitly grant in what you have just said, that a man may be willing to suffer evil, and a great degree of it, for the sake of the good of others: And indeed, this must be granted by all who allow there is any such thing in nature as disinterested benevolence, or loving our neighbor as ourselves. And that this is the nature of true love or chanty the scripture asserts charity seeketh not her own.' And all men will grant that it is reasonable that a man should give up his own good to a great degree for the sake of his neighbor's good: He ought to be willing, for instance, to endure hunger a whole day, to save his neighbor from starving: He ought to be willing to give up his whole worldly interest and comfort, and live a life of poverty and want, if this were necessary to save a whole nation from ruin, and make them rich and happy yea, he ought to be willing to expose, and give up his life, if this were necessary for the good of his country, and to save the lives of millions.

And if this be the nature of benevolence, and most reasonable, what bounds can be set to it, or where shall it stop? If true benevolense will give up twenty degrees of personal good for the sake of a thousand degrees of good to others: it will give up a thousand degrees, for the sake of obtaining fifty thousand degrees of good to others; and so on, till he has given up all his own personal good for a proportionably greater good to the public. Nothing but a want of benevolence or a defect of it, can render a man unwilling, in the case proposed, to give up all his personal good. And there is the same reason for his doing it, as there is for his giving up one degree of his own good for the sake of procuring fifty degrees of good to others.

And if benevolence will lead a man to suffer one degree of pain and misery, in order to save another from an hundred degrees of pain, and it be most reasonable that he should; then, for the same reason he will be willing to suffer an hundred degrees of pain or positive evil, if this be necessary in order to save his neighbors from ten thousand degrees of evil; and he must be willing to suffer all the positive evil and pain that he is capable of through the whole of his existence, if this be necessrry to save an hundred thousand or even an hundred, from this evil. For there is the same reason why he should be willing to suffer all this for the sake of a proportionably greater good to others, as that he should be willing to suffer one degree, to save others from an hundred degrees. And

if it be contrary to benevolence to be unwilling to suffer one degree of evil to save others from an hundred degrees of it; it must be equally contrary to it to be unwilling to suffer all possible degrees of evil, for the sake of saving others from a proportionably greater

evil.

It hence appears that the apostle Paul, spoke the language of true benevolence, and declared he felt, as he ought to feel, when he said, he could wish himself accursed from Christ, if by this means his brethren might be saved, if we understand him as meaning, that he was willing to be lost forever for their sake, that they might be saved. And why shall he not be understood to say, what he ought to say, and to speak the language of true benevolence; since this is the natural import of his words, and to be accursed from Christ, cannot mean less than eternal damnation, without putting an unnatural, forced meaning upon them? St. Paul certainly thought it was a great evil which he mentions, and was willing it should come upon him for the sake of his brethren; since he meant hereby to express his love to them. If the evil were small and inconsiderable, it expressed but a small and inconsiderable degree of benevolence; and the greater the evil was, which he was willing to suffer for their sake, the greater benevolence was expressed. He therefore doubtless mentioned the greatest evil that he could conceive, and that he was capable of suffering; when he meant to express the greatness and strength of his love to them. And, by the way, as it was no argument that Paul thought it to be a small evil or none at all to be accursed from Christ, or that he had no aversion to it, and that it was not dreadful to him; but the contrary, because he was willing to suffer it, for the sake of his brethren: so it is no argument that any man does not think damnation infinitely dreadful, and has not a proper aversion to it, because he is willing to be damned, rather than a greater evil should take place, or for the sake of promoting a greater good.

Semi. For my part, I must say, this is all darkness to me. How can these things be.

Calv. Let us take another, or a little different view of this point; perhaps it may be set in a more easy, convincing light. I conclude that you will grant that the glory of God, or the greatest and most advantageous display of the divine perfections, is of the highest importance; and that it is reasonable, and our duty to make this our highest and supreme end, in all our desires and actions; and that we ought not to be willing any thing should take place, inconsistent with his glory; and that we ought to be willing that should take place, be it what it may, which is most for his glory; even though it be the eternal damnation of sinners

Semi. I grant that we ought to make the glory of God our su preme end. But this will be so far from making us willing to be damned, that it will lead us to desire and pursue our salvation, that he may be glorified in that, and that we may glorify him for

ever.