er feel any opposition to the doctrine of which that duty is the practical result. And it is entirely in character for backsliders, self deceivers, and hypocrites, to join with the openly irreligious in opposing those doctrines of the gospel which enforce duties they have no inclination to perform. It appears also, that when we see those who profess religion beginning to manifest an opposition to any of the doctrines of the gospel, we ought to expect that they will soon manifest the same opposition to the corresponding duties of the gospel, and proceed on to open immoralities. Lax views of doctrine and lax views of duty have long been found together, and it is perfectly natural that they should be inseparable companions. 3. This subject shows the delusion of those who trust in their practical religion without loving the doctrines of the gospel, and of those who trust in their intellectual knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel without performing its corresponding duties. That practical religion which does not grow out of the doctrines of the gospel does grow out of other doctrines of an opposite character, and is a differeut religion from the religion of the gospel. Those who cordially reject the doctrines of the gospel, thereby give as decisive evidence of being enemies to God and his gospel, as it is possible for any to give. For, it is written, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God." And it is also written, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." And it is equally true, that those who trust in their intellectual knowledge and belief of the doctrines of the gospel, without performing its corresponding duties, thereby give as decisive evidence of being enemies to God and his gospel as it is possible for any to give. For, it is written, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." DISCIPULUS. For the Hopkinsian Magazine. ESSAYS UPON HOPKINSIANISM. [Continued from Vol. 1, page 478.] NO. XI. Section, 1. The extent to which the Hopkinsian system has been received. Those, who believe this system to be scriptural and true, cannot be consistent with themselves, without maintaining, that it has, in all ages, been received as extensively as revealed religion. True religion consists in a belief and love of revealed truth, with a corresponding practice. The superstitious maxim, that "ignorance is the mother of devotion," is not more absurd, than the liberal sentiment, that it is of little consequence what one believes, if he has a good heart, and leads a holy life. Who have such a heart and lead such a life, except those who know and receive the doctrines taught in the sacred scriptures? It is "through the truth" that the Holy Spirit sactifies men; and it is by obeying the truth' that men 'purify their souls.' There are many worse, but few are better than their creed. Those who hate the light, are "evil doers ;" and those, 'who reject the counsel of God against themselves,' are his enemies, who make Him a liar.' If, then, the Hopkinsian system be true, it is the very system taught in the Bible; the same, in substance, with that which the patriarchs and prophets embraced; & the same which was taught by the apostles and believed by the primitive Christians. That this was the system received by the reformers, has been already suggested and is capable of demonstration. (See Vol. 1, page 258.) All the leading doctrines of the Hopkinsian system, are found in the writings of Luther & Calvin. Hopkinsianism is but another name for genuine, consistent Calvinism. The doctrines termed Hopkinsian, are the doctrines of grace, and the doctrines of the reformation. These were the doctrines of the Puritans in England, and of their brethren and descendants in America. But the particular object in view, at this time, is to shew, how extensively Hopkinsianism has been received, in this country, since its doctrines were revived and elucidated by Dr. Hopkins and others. President Edwards and Dr. Bellamy began the work of purging Calvinism from the Arminian and Antinomian errors, with which it had, in a course of years, became intermixed and debased. Their writings were pretty extensively read, and opened the eyes of many to discern the corruption, which had been gradually introduced into the orthodox creed, and to perceive more clearly the truth respecting the law and government of God, the character and duty of men, the requirements of the gospel, and the nature of true religion. In the great revival of religion, of which Edwards and Bellamy were such distinguished instruments, very many of the converts embraced the leading doctrines of what has since been called the Hopkinsian system. Dr. Hopkins made great advances upon his predecessors, in explaining and confirming the pure doctrines of revelation especially in regard to the purposes and providence of God, human depravity, the doings of the unregenerate, the requirements of the gospel, and the nature of holiness. And though his writings met with much opposition from various quarters, and especially from numbers, who loved to be called Calvinists, but who had departed from the sentiments of the Genevan reformer, & run either into Arminianism, on the one hand, or Antinomianism on the other; yet so clear and rational were his illustrations, and so scriptural and forcible his reasonings, that very many of the more intelligent and pious among the orthodox, embraced his views.This is evident from the long and respectable list of subscribers to his system of divinity, as well as from the fact, that in the year 1796, when he wrote the "Sketches of his life," more than one hundred ministers, besides a multitude of private Christians, embraced his sentiments. Three years after this, in 1799, the Massachusetts Missionary Society was instituted at Boston, nearly all the members of which, were professedly Hopkinsians. Since that period, while a number of those who have received the Hopkinsian system, has diminished, in some places, it has greatly increased, in others. In NewEngland, at the present time, notwithstanding the prevalence of Socinianism, or Arianism, in some sections, and of a liberal orthodoxy, verging towards Socinianism, in others; there is still thought to be quite as many, who receive and to appear as their advocates, in the advocate Hopkinsian sentiments, face of so many men, reputed as at any former period. In some great, learned and devout, who exof the States west of New-England, plode them, as absurd, and dethere have within a few years, been nounce them, as licentious. They great accessions to the ranks of are in the condition of certain consistent Calvinists. Hopkinsian rulers, in the days of our Saviour, sentiments are extensively preva- mentioned in John, xii, 42, 43.-— lent in the state of New-York. It "Among the chief rulers also, is said, that many of the students many believed on him: but because of the theological seminary, at of the Pharisees, they did not conAuburn, are strict Calvinists; and fess him, lest they should be put that one half of the students of out of the synagogue: For they the theological seminary, at Prince- loved the praise of men, more than ton, call themselves Hopkinsians. the praise of God." There are A large proportion, some think many men of talents and learning, almost half of the Presbyterian who read and approve the works ministers in the United States, of Hopkins and other eminent adopt the leading sentiments of writers of the same sentiments ; the Hopkinsian system. but who are unwilling to be known as their admirers, and still more so to assume the pen in their defence. There are some ministers, who are gratified with a clear and full exhibition of Hopkinsian doctrines from the pulpit, who yet never dare to attempt such an exhibition themselves. There is no small degree of self-denial requisite, to teach and defend a system, which many 'great, and noble, and mighty' condemn, because it condemns them, and which is wounding to the pride and selfishness of every unholy heart. Section, 2. By whom, and how the Hopkinsian system has been defended, and opposed. It is natural to suppose, that this, like every other religious system, has found its defenders among those, who have believed and embraced it. But, the number of those, who have appeared openly in defence of Hopkinsian doctrines, is far from being equal to the number of those, who have been convinced of their truth. These doctrines, being scriptural and true, and altogether of a holy tendency, are, of course, offensive to men of 'corrupt minds and destitute of the truth" as all men are by nature.Hence they are unpopular, and often expose such as avow them, to no small share of obloquy and reproach. This, it is believed, has deterred many, who have been fully convinced of the truth of the Hopkinsian system, from coming out openly and boldly in its defence. They perceive the reasonableness and consistency of Hopkinsian doctrines, and their accordance with the language of sacred scripture, but have not the resolution But still, the number of those, who earnestly contend for this system which they believe to be the faith once delivered to the saints, is not small, or inconsiderable. Their mode of defence has been chiefly that, which was used by the chief apostle of the Gentiles, in the synagogues of the Jews, in defending the same doctrines, eighteen centuries ago, viz. reasoning out of the scriptures." This mode of defence has been limited, in a great measure, to sermons from the pulpit, and conversation in private circles. Little, comparatively, and much less than might and ought to have been done, has been attempt ed by means of that powerful engine, the press. Sermons, and a few small treatises, have occasionally, been published; but only a single system of divinity, of any magnitude, has, to our knowledge, been produced in this country, by a Hopkinsian. Rarely has a tract, calculated to illustrate and enforce the distinguishing truths of the Hopkinsian system, been put in circulation. But few periodical works and those of short continuance, have been supported, by the advocates of Hopkinsianism. Thus while the mode of defending and propagating this system has been unexceptionable; the zeal and industry of its frien is have not been commensurate either with their ability, or with the importance of the cause. But, on the other hand, the opposition to Hopkinsian sentiments, has been made by greater numbers, carried on in more various ways and pushed with greater activity and ardour. Wherever these sentiments have been advanced, either from the pulpit, or the press, they have met with more or less opposition from all classes of men, except those who have either cordially embraced them, or become rationally convinced of their truth. These are the only sentiments, that receive no toleration from any quarter. Other sentiments are often treated with forbearance, if not with indifference by such as disbelieve and discard them; while all who disbelieve the doctrines of the Hopkinsian system, join in open opposition to them. This mark, set upon Hopkinsianism is presumptive evidence of its truth; for such was the reception given to the system of doctrine taught by the ancient prophets, by the Author and Finisher of our Faith, and by his holy apostles. That this system is scriptural and true, is the very reason why it receives no quarters from any, who do not receive it; for a system that is true, must, of course, tend to subvert all the systems of error invented by men, as well as to condemn the practices resulting from them,and to destroy the hopes grounded upon them.But between erroneous systems, there is often no material difference as to sentiment, and no difference at all as to their practical tendency. And hence it is, that Antinomians can very well bear with Arminians; Arminians with Unitarians, and Unitarians with Universalists; and that they are all more averse to Hopkinsians, than to each other, or even to Deists and Atheists.They may well say to Hopkinsians 'Ye have taken away our gods, and what have we left? If Hopkinsianism be true, it follows, that all oth er schemes of doctrines are false; and as this system inculcates disinterested benevolence, it condemns all other systems, which are reconcilable with selfishness, whether gross or refined. It is rare, that the opposers of Hopkinsianism, presume to meet its defenders in the open field of argument, for here they are sure to be defeated, unless the defence happens to fall into the hands of such as are either unskilful, or afraid to be consistent with themselves. A very common, and very successful mode of opposition, is to misrepresent the doctrines of the system. The misrepresentations, resorted to, are various, and often inconsistent with each other. At one time, these doctrincs are represented, as leaving men nothing to do; and another time, as requir ing them to do more than they can or ought. Sometimes they are represented as taking all blame from men; and at other times, as making them to blame both for what they have a right to do, and what they cannot help. At one time, we have these doctrines represented as mere abstruse metaphysical speculations; and at another time as having a gressly immoral practical tendency Another mode of opposing the Hopkinsian system, is, to exclude or silence those, who teach and advocate it. Various arts are used and much pains taken, to keep, or put, from the pulpits, such ministers, as believe and preach this system, to exclude them from conspicuous and influential stations, and to keep them silent on public and important occasions. Another method of opposing Hopkinsianism, is, the extensive distribution of books, whether larger or smaller, periodical or occagional, which if they do not directly attack Hopkinsian sentiments, kave them out and thus, indirectly prepossess the minds of their readers with the idea, that such sentiments are needless and extravagant, and that we may believe and have religion enough without them. But the most common and most successful method of opposing the Hopkinsian system, is, to blacken the character and sink the reputation of its advocates. This is done in various ways; no matter how inconsistent with each other, or absurd in themselves. Sometimes they are represented as weak and superstitious; at other times they are represented as presumptuously metaphysical and abstruse. Their regard to truth, is termed bigotry; their unwillingness to relinquish their creed, is termed obstinacy; and their rejection of error, is pro nounced uncharitableness. Their imperfections are magnified to crimes, and their virtues depreciated to mere pretence and show.― The slanders of their enemies are circulated as biographical truths.If the opposers of the system, succeed in destroying the character of its advocates, they gain their object, which is, to excite such an odium against them, as to prevent their being heard; which is a much easier way to prevent the reception of their sentiments, than to attempt to answer their arguments. This is an ancient, as well as a common and successful mode of getting rid of the truth. The prophets were vilified and driven out, as disturbers of Israel. The apostles were slanderously reported, and made the filth of the earth and off-scouring of all things.'And even the, Teacher sent from heaven,' was represented as 'a friend of publicans and sinners,' was charged with blasphemy, was convicted on the testimony of two false witnesses, and was finally crucified between two thieves. A HOPKINSIAN. For the Hopkinsian Magazine. CONCERNING MELCHISEDec. Mr. EDITOR-In the rumber of your Magazine for August, 1824, page 190, the following question is asked by Nepios, Who was Melchisedec? and in the number for February 1825, page 324, zine is inserted for an answer. an extract from the Theological Maga-This extract does by no means appear to answer the question. 1 have, therefore, sent you a few observations, which 1 should be pleased to have you publish. 1. We must bear in mind, that Melchisedec is a finite being; and when Christ is compared to him, there can be only such a resemblance, as may exist between an infinite and finite being., tore, that he was called Noah, or by any other name, than Melchisedec.lience we must consider him a person 2. We have no evidence from scrip |