of President Edwards: "He took his religious principles from the Bible, and not from any human system or body of divinity. Though his principles were Calvinistic, yet he called no man father. He thought and judged for himself, and was truly very much of an original. Hopkins has been called a metaphysician; but one great object of his life was, to break down a system of false metaphysics, which interferes with the plain meaning of the written word. He was not perfect, but he bowed before the revelation of God. His reverence for the Creator made him independent of creatures. Many European theologians have been slaves to each other; but what had the minister of Great Barrington to fear from foreign prescription? Oxford could not overawe him. No œcumenical council could reach him. In many respects, it was well for him that he was retired with Edwards, in the forests of Berkshire. He studied more profoundly and more freely at the base of Monument Mountain, than he would have done amid the fashions of a court. He was a Congregational minister in the New World; and therefore, if true to his calling and position, he must have examined the truth for himself. He derived from Congregationalism one of its chief blessings, -an impulse as well as a liberty to believe according to evidence, rather than according to prescription.

Of course, he was accused, as an independent thinker is apt to be accused, of all kinds of heresies. Once, when charged with adopting Arminian interpretations of the Bible, he replies in his sturdy way: "It does not fright me at all, to be told that Arminians understand this text as I do. For who would not much rather join with the grossest Arminians, so far as they are right, than with the most orthodox Calvinists, wherein they are wrong?" When tired of hearing the stale charge that he had started new doctrines into life, he responds: "I now declare, I had much rather publish New Divinity than any other. And the more of this the better, - if it be but true. Nor do I think any doctrine can be too strange to be true.' I should think it hardly worth while to write, if I had nothing new to say." In his "Animadversions on Mr. Hart's late Dialogue," Hopkins alludes to his having been falsely accused of propounding new theories, and replies: "This he [Mr. Hart] has over and over again, above a dozen times. He calls them new doctrines,' new orthodoxy,' a new scheme,'new notions,'' a new system or rather chaos of divinity,' upstart errors,' &c. And the teachers of them he calls new apostles,' 'new divines,' teachers,' &c. If this were true, I see not what reason there would be to make such a great outcry about it. This is really no evidence against those doctrines. It is at least possible, that there is some truth contained in the Bible, which has not been commonly taught ;

6

Memoir of Edwards, p. 41. + Hopkins's Works, vol. iii. P. 393.

'new

Ib. p. 345.

yea, has never been mentioned by any writer since the apostles; and whenever that shall be discovered and brought out, it will be new. And who knows but that some such new discoveries may be made in our day? If so, unhappy and very guilty will be the man who shall attempt to fright people, and raise their prejudices against it, by raising the cry of NEW Divinity. Indeed, I question whether an author can, with a right temper and view, take this method to run any doctrine down, by appealing to the prejudices of people, and keeping up a constant, loud cry of new, upstart divinity.”*

So far does Hopkins indulge his independent spirit, that often when he quotes other writers, even Edwards himself, he disclaims all intention to quote them as establishing the truth of his positions, and he says in one passage: "I hope I never shall be guilty of referring to any uninspired man as an authority. When I mentioned a sense which others put upon this text, I referred to the Doctor [Doddridge] as one of them, not as any evidence that this was the right sense; but that it was in fact so understood by some, as I asserted."† We must concede that, here and there, our author adopts a style too intense and unqualified, ‡ in asserting the duty of free thought. When reprimanded for controverting some of the fathers, the intrepid man replied, in language more nervous and cogent than some would think him capable of using:

"If it could serve any good purpose, I might say, that as great a number of divines, as old or elder than they, and as famous for piety and learning, might be mentioned, who are on our side of the question. And we might proceed to set father against father, and try who shall get the most on his side. But this is in truth nothing to the purpose. The opinion of the most venerable and renowned fathers in this case, in determining what doctrines are true, and what are not so, ought not to have the least weight. And it is foolish, and even carries a degree of impiety in it, for us, who have the Bible in our hands, to lay the weight of a straw on the opinion of the wisest and best men that ever lived. I am sorry to have any occasion to make this observation at this time of day, among Protestants. It is very weak and ridiculous, if not something worse, for a divine to attempt to support or confirm any doctrine by appealing to the judgment and decision of any man; or to run down and reject any tenet that is advanced, merely because it is a new doctrine, or embraced by few, and is contrary to the opinion of the fathers, and what has been established by common consent. Since people in general are too apt to be influenced by this, and it is common for every one to have his father, on whose sleeves he pins his faith in a great measure, without examining for himself, it is pity they should be upheld and confirmed in it by public teachers, when it is of such importance that they should by all possible means be beat off from this sandy foundation, and learn to judge for themselves by 'reasoning out of the Scriptures,' and 'searching them daily, to see if these things are so." " §

See p. 9 of the Animadversions.

+ Hopkins's Works, vol. iii. p. 387.

It has been already asserted, (see pp. 29, 30, above,) that our author, stable as be was, often indulged himself in a style of writing too unqualified. He trusted, that the good sense of his readers would suggest at once the needed limitations.

§ Hopkins's Two Discourses on Law and Regeneration, Works, vol. iii. pp. 564, 565.

Averse as Dr. Channing was to the spirit and genius of Hopkinsianism, he yet never accuses Hopkins himself of a blind adherence to human creeds, of a slavish and bigoted subjection to any uninspired men. He rather commends the Rhode Island patriarch for the opposite virtues, and considers them as exerting an influence upon his theological system. He says, in language needing qualification:

"His [Hopkins's] name is, indeed, associated with a stern and appalling theology, and it is true that he wanted toleration toward those who rejected his views. Still, in forming his religious opinions, he was superior to human authority; he broke away from human creeds; he interpreted God's word for himself; he revered reason, the oracle of God within him."

66

. . From such a man, a tame acquiescence in the established theology was not to be expected. He, indeed, accepted the doctrine of predestination in its severest form; but in so doing, he imagined himself a disciple of reason as well as of revelation. He believed this doctrine to be sustained by profound metaphysical argumentation, and to rest on the only sound philosophy of the human mind; so that in receiving it, he did not abandon the ground of reason. In accordance with his free spirit of inquiry, we find him making not a few important modifications of Calvinism. The doctrine that we are liable to punishment for the sin of our first parent, he wholly rejected; and not satisfied with denying the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, he subverted what the old theology had set forth as the only foundation of divine acceptance; namely, the imputation of Christ's righteousness or merits to the believer. The doctrine that Christ died for the elect only, found no mercy at his hands. He taught that Christ suffered equally for all mankind. The system of Dr. Hopkins was, indeed, an effort of reason to reconcile Calvinism with its essential truths. Accordingly, his disciples were sometimes called, and willingly called, Rational Calvinists. The impression which he made was much greater than is now supposed. The churches of New England received a decided impression from his views; and though his name —once given to his followers-is no longer borne, his influence is still felt. The conflict now going on in our country, for the purpose of mitigating the harsh features of Calvinism, is a stage of the revolutionary movement to which he, more than any man, gave impulse. I can certainly bear witness to the spirit of progress and free inquiry which possessed him. In my youth, I preached in this house at the request of the venerable old man.* As soon as the services were closed, he turned to me with an animated, benignant smile, and using a quaintness of expression which I need not repeat, said to me, that theology was still imperfect, and that he hoped I should live to carry it towards perfection. Rare and most honorable liberality in the leader of a sect! He wanted not to secure a follower, but to impel a young mind to higher truth. I feel that ability has not been given me to accomplish this generous hope; but such quickening language from such lips, though it could not give strength, might kindle desire and elevate exertion."t

The quaint expression which Dr. Channing did not repeat in the preceding extract, he has repeated in another document. It is an expression illustrating the opinion which Hopkins, as well as Bellamy and Edwards, entertained, with regard to what the younger Edwards terms "improvements in theology." Dr. Channing writes of Hopkins, in a more familiar paper:

* Dr. Channing was ordained at Boston, in the very year of Hopkins's death + Channing's Works, vol. iv. pp. 342, 343, 344.

"I preached for him once; and after the service in the pulpit, he smiled on me, and said, 'The hat is not made yet.' On my asking an explanation, he told me that Dr. Bellamy used to speak of theology as a progressive science, and compare the different stages of it to the successive processes of making a hat. The beaver was to be born, then to be killed, and then the felt to be made, &c. Having thus explained the similitude, he added, 'The hat is not made, and I hope you will help to finish it.'"*

It has been said, that for a man like Hopkins to cherish the love of progress in a youth like Channing, is of dangerous tendency. But real progress will always lead into the truth. All movement toward error is retrograde, and where the allowance of independent thought has made one Unitarian, the repression of it has made ten infidels. Attempts to fetter the human mind have maddened it, until it has burst through all restraint into scepticism or atheism. Channing was a youth of meditative and even ascetic habits. He admired Hopkins, but he cherished a still higher reverence for Stiles. There is no more evidence of his having been led into Socinianism by the independence of Hopkins, his neighbor, than by the eminent catholicism of Stiles, his former pastor; nor can he be more justly said to have been repulsed into Unitarianism by the stern features of Hopkins's new divinity, than by the rigid expression of Stiles's old divinity. If the charge had not been so often repeated, we should not deign to notice it; but if it be honorable to ascribe the career of Channing to the fact of his having been trained amid Hopkinsian influences, it would be equally honorable to ascribe the career of Buckminster to the fact of his having been trained under Calvinistic and anti-Hopkinsian influences. All such charges are idle, unless they be proved.

It is not wonderful, that so dauntless an inquirer as Hopkins should have awakened the fears of less manly thinkers. His antagonist, Mills, who reprimanded him for so many things, once expressed the grief of many worthy fathers in the ministry, whose praise is in the gospel through the churches, and who are not so far superannuated, but that, with good old Eli, they tremble for fear of the ark, when they see it in danger of a wrong touch from the vigor and sprightliness of younger years." In our times it is unusual to characterize Hopkins as a sprightly author, but he replied to this repri mand of Mr. Mills with a Hopkinsian vigor: "Who these worthy, aged, trembling fathers are," he remarks, "I know not, and have no inclination to detract from their praise. But I think I have a right to say, they fear where no fear is; and if they tremble, and handle the ark as Mr. Mills has done, no thanks are due to them, that it has not been completely overset long ago." +

66

But while our author was a champion for untrammelled thought, he was peculiarly deferential to the decisions of the inspired word.

* Letter of February 14, 1840.

+ Hopkins's Works, vol. iii. p. 417.

Independent as he was, he aimed to sink all human metaphysics beneath the Scriptures; to have no other than a biblical philosophy. He went beyond the divines of his day, in deriving his science from the sacred volume. His doctrines will be misunderstood by men who do not appreciate his marked reverence for the letter, as well as the spirit of the Bible.

There are different opinions on the question, whether a system of divinity should be expressed in the language of the inspired penmen, or whether it should exhibit the biblical ideas in a more modern and occidental form. But whatever may be our own mode of answering this question, we must admire the masculine genius of him. who combines the greatest freedom of inquiry, and the purest love of rational investigation, with an humble deference to the meaning and also to the phraseology of the sacred writers. Even if men disapprove of his judgment, they must commend the reverential spirit which led our author to adopt the phrases, as well as the ideas, which he deemed to be scriptural. He exposed himself to much obloquy, by adhering to the forms of utterance which he found in the bold appeals of inspired men. He felt himself justified in asserting, because the Bible asserts, that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," "and the heart of his servants," and "moved David to say, Go, number Israel; " and he "put a lying spirit in the mouth of" the prophets, and hath poured out upon men the spirit of a deep sleep," etc., etc., etc. He might have avoided many censures, if he had couched his ideas in other phrases. But no. "The Bible says it, -therefore I say it," was the ceaseless language of his heart. He would yield to no objections against the words of holy men, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Did Samuel Hopkins aim to exalt his logic above inspiration? It is not too much to affirm, that no divines before his day could express their faith in the precise words of the Bible, so thoroughly and minutely as he. This gave to his system its excellence, in his own lowly view. Throughout his Journal we are every where meeting such nervous comments as the following, from this admirer of a biblical creed:

"And whom he will, he hardeneth.' Saint Paul here has reference to God's hardening the heart of Pharaoh, and does not soften the expressions used respecting the hardening his heart, in the least. The softeners of our day would not speak so. They would say, Whom he will, he permits or suffers to harden themselves.' We may hence infer, that they do not think and feel respecting this matter as Paul did." See also Hopkins's Works, vol. i. pp. 111130, new edition.

The modesty of our divine had an obvious effect upon his theological speculations. He cherished a native lowliness, which was

p