3. To affix to this word a new and disreputable meaning, would be injurious to those philosophers, who have used the term in its true sense, and who, by their researches and writings, have shed much light upon the most important of all subjects, and greatly benefitted their fellow men. Let a new and odious meaning be affixed to this word, and generally associated with it in the minds of the present generation, and they would soon either be unable to understand the writings of the best philosophers of preceding ages, or would look upon them as no better than visionary theorists, whom much learning had made mad.'

with the science of mind, are (caeteris paribus) best able to elucidate and answer objections against the peculiar truths of the gospel. But, as these truths are offensive to impenitent, worldly men, they desire to fix an odium upon the explanations and reasonings of such, as clearly and forcibly declare and defend the evangelical system. Hence, some of late, have called them metaphysical; intending to have it understood, that this is a term of reproach. Let it become really reproachful; let philosophers combine to attach anew," strange and odious sig nification to it; and let it commonly be used' to mean a false 4. My last and principal objec- and deceitful philosophy, which tion to affixing a new and dishon-ascribes imaginary causes to exourable sepse to the word, is, that it would tend to justify and confirin the wicked in their opposition to the doctrines of the gospel and those who reason out of the scrip-ly be necessary, at any time, to Tures' in their defence. Most of the doctrines of divine revelation relate to spirit, and not to matter. The means of explaining and vindicating these doctrines, are fur-fatal errors and sins. nished by intellectual philosophy. Those, who are best acquainted

isting appearances,' and employs itself in prying into things too deep to be fathomed by the line of human intellect; and it would on

raise the cry of metaphysicks! to frighten people from the most instructive and profitable preaching, and to confirm them in their most

A LOVER OF TRUTH AND METAPHYSICKS,

fifty years ago, when Dr. Bellamy, Dr. Hopkins, and others, began to publish their writings on the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel; which much alarmed Antinomians, on the one hand, and Arminians, on the other, and led them to apprehend, or, at least, to express an apprehension, that there was danger of schism in the Church. To express an apprehension of this kind, whether in sincerity or pretence, was no new thing. It has been the practice of the opposers of truth, in every age, to represent sound doctrine as of a contracted,

dissocial and exclusive nature, there is always a wayward tendenand as tending directly to destroy cy, in every visible church, to demutual fellowship among the visi- part from the faith which was ble members of Christ, and to di- once delivered to the saints.' This vide his visible family into sects tendency can be counteracted onand parties. The reason of this ly by the plain and forcible exhipractice is obvious. Sound doc-bition of the doctrines of the Gostrine, such as the inspired writers pel, from the pulpit and the press. I teach, and such as we believe the But, such an exhibition, wherevHopkinsian system comprises, sub-er and whenever made, will natuverts and condemus every false rally excite a cry of schism, loud and selfish scheme of sentiments and general, just in proportion to ever embraced either in the Chris- the degree and extent to which tian or Pagan world, and with- the professed followers of Christ draws the hand of fellowship from have departed from the pure and all, who openly avow their appro- essential truths of his gospel. But bation of fundamental error, and this cry of schism always was and appear to reject and disobey the always will be without reason.truth. Separations and divisions are ever The doctrine of John, the bap-made by those who reject and optizer, was viewed, by a majority of the visible church of God, as sectarian, because it drew a line of separation between such as brought forth fruits meet for repentance,' and such as, while they called Abraham their father, refused to do the works of Abraham. When Christ preached his own gospel, his doctrine was viewed as reproaching the most learned, wise and godly in the Church, and as tending to alienate the affections of the people from their constitut-lic church, had the members of it ed rulers and teachers, and to been generally willing to come to produce divisions and separations the light and renounce their eramong the professed children rours, superstitions and unchrisof God. The doctrine of the apos- tian practices. At this day, the ties was represented as having a Hopkinsian system of sentiments, similar tendency; and hence they which is not a novelty, but the anand their followers were called a cient and true faith delivered to sect every where spoken against.' the saints, produces no divisions Luther, Calvin, and the other in- in any church, except when more trepid reformers of the sixteenth or less of its members hate the century, were denounced by the light, and will not come to the rulers of the Catholic church, as light, lest their deeds should be schismatics, whose doctrines tend-reproved.' The opposers of truth, ed to sow discord and divisions and not its friends and defenders, among the visible people of Christ. must be answerable for all the Owing to the imperfection of evils arising from divisions and Christians and the hatred of unbe-schisms in the churches of Christ. lievers to the light of Divine truth, As there is nothing in the Hop

pose the true doctrines of the Gospel, and not by those who receive, propagate, and defend them. If all those who heard John and Christ and the apostles preach, had possessed an honest and good heart, they would have been of one accord,' as the primitive disciples were, and there would have been no occasion or motive for separations and divisions. The preaching of the Reformers would have produced no schism in the catho

kinsian system of a sectarian na-ent senses. There are two senses,

ture or tendency; so there has been little or nothing of this kind in the practice of Hopkinsians. They have never formed themselves into a sect or denomination, distinct from other professing Christians. Their peculiarites respect the fundamental doctrines and duties of religion, and not external rites, modes and forms. Hence they are found interspersed among various denominations of evangelical Christians, such as Presbyterians, Baptists and Congregationalists. Instead of separating from the churches to which they belonged, they have generally remained, and endeavoured to 'strengthen the things that were ready to die.' They have, indeed, it is apprehended, been much too fond of union and intercourse with those whose views of the leading doctrines and precepts of Christianity materially differ from their own. Whether this be owing to a want of a just sense of the importance of divine truth, or of a sufficiently constant and ardent love to it; or to a want of that self-denial, which elevates the soul above the frowns and flatteries, the reproaches and honours of the world, I leave every reader to form his own judgment, simply subjoining the interrogations of Paul, What communion hath light with darkness? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

OBJECTION IV. The Hopkinsian system is unpopular.

And what if it is? Popularity is not the test of truth, any more than ridicule. Was the system of sentiments advanced by the prophets, by Christ and his apostles, popular?

The word popular, however, needs explanation. It is used, and may be understood, in differ

in particular, in which the word may be used, with application to s system of religious sentiments; it may mean that which is pleasing to the people, or that which is stilable to the common people.

In the first of the above senses, I admit that the Hopkinsian system is not popular. It is not, in itself, pleasing to the mass of people. It is a system of truth and duty, which must be displeasing to all, who have not received the love of the truth,' or who feel indisposed to do their duty. The Hopkinsian system sets the character, designs and works of God in a true and scriptural light, and must, therefore, be offensive to those, who have the carnal mind which is enmity against God.' This system pourtrays the native character of men, as void of holiness and full of sin; which must, of course, be displeasing to such as think more highly of themselves, than they ought to think, and are going about to establish their own righteousness.' This system includes the duty of disinterested love to God and men; which cannot fail to offend such as are lovers of pleasures, rather than lovers of God, and who all seek their own things. To add no more, the Hopkinsian system teaches the way of salvation by grace, through faith in the atonement of Christ; which can never please such as are seeking justification by the deeds of the law, and will not come unto Christ, that they may have life.'

All unregenerate men, all impenitent sinners and unbelievers, are averse to both truth and duty. And they are the vast majority in the Christian world, and a great majority, even in those places, where there is most of the spirit and power of religion. That the Hopkinsian system of sentiments,

so they naturally reject the Rev- which can justly be attributed to elation, which God has given in Hopkinsianism. The preaching the scriptures of truth. Hence, of Hopkinsian sentiments makes in the original of the New Testa-infidels, somewhat in the same way ment, there is but one and the that the preaching of Unitarian same word for unbeliever and in- sentiments makes Christians.fidel. Every unbeliever is a prac- While the preaching of Hopkintical if not a speculative deist. sianism shows hypocrites that they Men need to be unmade, and not are infidels; the preaching of Unimade atheists and infidels. tarianism shows infidels that they may become such Christians as the preacher describes, without a change of heart; and thus, while Hopkinsianism, by exhibiting the true doctrines of the Gospel, leads. false professors to become open infidels; Unitarianism, by perverting the doctrines of the Gospel, and representing them in a light

But, though all men, in their natural state, have the spirit of atheism and infidelity; yet some are rationally convinced of the being and perfections of God, and of the truth and divinity of the scriptures; and many more having imbibed false notions of the character of God and of the contents of the scriptures, imagine them-pleasing to the unsanctified heart, selves to be, and profess to be, induces avowed deists to become believers in the Divine Existence professors of the Christian relig and the inspiration and truth of ion. the scriptures. Individuals of this latter description, when taught by a developement of the Hopkinsian system, what a being God is, and what truths the scriptures teach, are inclined, by the blindness and perverseness of their hearts, to reject both, and come out openly, as they always were inwardly, atheists and infidels. This is all the making of atheists and infidels,

It was in contemplation to take notice of one other objection, viz. that Hopkinsianism tends to licentiousness. But this would anticipate the subject of the next essay; which, according to the outlines of my plan, sketched in No. 1, is, to illustrate the practical tendency of the Hopkinsian system of senti

ments.

A HOPKINSIAN.

MESSRS. EDITORS,

Thinking the following narrative of a religious experience may be a means of promoting the cause of piety, I transmit it for publication.

A.

From early childhood. I have been the subject of serious impressions. At the age of about nine, I commenced prayer. When about sixteen or seventeen years old, I resolved to quit the sinful pleasures of youth, and render obedience to the divine commands. I viewed various systems of religion. I read the scriptures.

But God's commands I did not keep. After having endeavoured to establish myself in various religious opinions. I became violently opposed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Because that doctrine. was declared in the scriptures, I almost concluded they were not the word of God. Some infidel writers strengthened my doubts. When about three or four and twenty, my mind was involved in awful darkness. The bible I had read considerably; but to the doctrine of election, which