remember, that God has exalted Jesus in his mediatorial governm nt to the administration of the empire of the universe, as a reward of his sufferings in making this atonement; and that he governs all the machinery of creation, in subserviency to the interests of the church, which he has purchased with his blood. The doctrine of the atonement forms the centre about which all political, as well as all ecclesiastical bodies, revolve. Nations who honour Messiah and rejoice in the fruits of his atonement, he will honour; and will degrade those who dishonour him, and reject his

atonement.

While the people in the eastern parts of Massachusetts, were thus marching forward, with rapid strides in the carreer of error, the people in the southern parts of New England owing partly to extraneous influerice, were moving in the same direction, but with slower pace. The next distinguished writer on theology among the northern divines, after Dr Bellamy, was Dr. Hopkins of Newport, who advances several steps farther than his predecessor. His sys tem of doctrines was published in 1792. On the doctrine of human depravity and inability he speaks thus:*-"The understanding, or intellect, considered as distinct from the will, is a natural faculty, and is not capable of moral depravity." He repeats the same sentiment, in a variety of shapes, without ever once admitting that the will is as much a natural faculty as the understanding; and that the understanding is as much concerned in our moral action as the will. On the subject of God's being the author of sin, Dr. Hopkins goes farther than Edwards, who says, "If by the author of sin is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin: and at the same time the disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin infallibly follows; I say if this is all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase

* Vol. I. p. 452. Boston.

On Free Will. Edi. I. part IV. Sec. II. p. 254.

as that which by use and custom, is apt to carry another sense.)" Dr. Hopkins, explains much, but after all, a large portion of his system is occupied with attempts to prove that God is really the author of sin. "Hence he says in this view" (that of Edwards,) "he" (God,) "is really the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of any thing which he wills." Edwards rejected the phrase; Hopkins adopts it, but with much explanation.

On the subject too of the good of the whole, on the doctrine of benevolence to being in general, he advances a little beyond Edwards. He says, "disinterested, impartial benevolence, to being in general that is capable of good and happiness, regards and wishes well to every being and creature in the system, according to the degree of his existence, worth and capacity of happiness, so far as all this comes into the view of the benevolent person.-And as he himself is one individual part of the whole, he must of necessity be the object of this disinterested, impartial benevolence-not because it is himself, but because he is included in the whole." He condemns all self love, and, indeed, represents it as the very essence of all sin. As to the sin of Adam, the doctor says," it is not to be supposed that the sin of Adam is imputed to them while they are considered as innocent in themselves." In consequence of Adam's sin his posterity, he says, are depraved, and this is all that should be meant by original sin. The doctrine of imputation he denies.

Of the obedience and sufferings of Christ, he says:"The law of God does not admit of a substitute, both in obeying the precepts and suffering the penalty of it." Again,-"This atonement therefore only delivers from the curse of the law, and procures the remission of their sins, who are in him; but does not procure for them any positive good: it leaves them under the power of sin, and without any title to eternal life." By his obedience to the law, according to this writer, Christ procured a title to everlasting blessedness for his people. "The vicarious atonement is of such a nature, that the sinner might lawfully be punished, after the sufferings of his substitute."

"The atonement is coextensive with the fall." "Infinite wisdom saw it best that redemption should not extend to all mankind." After all then the atonement really amounted to nothing. All might have been sentenced to hell, as many are, notwithstanding all Christ has done for them. God merely displayed his wrath against sin, by punishing an innocent person, and so it would seem that devils have really as much interest in the atonement, as men, and that devils as well as Christ, contribute to make it. It is impossible to make the various parts of his system consistent with each other.

In his discourse on the mode of preaching the gospel, he takes great pains to prove, that the preacher should press upon the sinner faith and repentance only, while he insinuates that prayer and other duties should not be performed by the sinner until he is converted. Others have followed the system out fully, and declared that all prayer should be abstained from, until after conversion. When this is reduced to practice, it really amounts to this, that a man must know himself to be regenerated before he may dare to pray or perform any duty,-a most mischievous tenet.

Many of those opinions are given with much explanation, and many salvos, such as, "in this sense,"—" with these explanations,"" thus understood," &c. as if the author advanced with hesitancy and trembling anxiety. He appears to have been naturally a sensible man, and his works abound with pious traits. But led away by the opinions of others who had gone before him, by errors of education, and bewildered by metaphysical subtilties, he destroys the simplicity of gospel truth, and weaves into the web of his speculations gross errors, which when fairly disentangled and followed out, would destroy the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the work of redemption. He would himself have shuddered at the consequences drawn from his writings.

Dr. Emmons has succeeded him, and pretty fully developed his system, which is still evolving itself, and more and more displaying the extent of its deleterious power.

Dr. Emmons asserts "That God is possessed of affections which change, as the objects of those affections change," that he is "constrained to reject the eternal generation of the Son, and the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost," that "the fall has not disabled men, but that they can love God, repent of sin, believe in Christ, and perform every religious duty as well as they can think, or speak, or walk:"-that "by immediately acting upon the human heart, with energy to produce the volition, God produces every sinful act:"-that "it is out of the divine power so to impute guilt or disobedience, as to transfer either from Adam to his posterity, or from Christ to his people; so that Christ's righteousness is never in this sense imputed." He denies the existence of a covenant of works, and says that God by a secret constitution had determined if Adam should eat the forbidden fruit to make him a sinner.

To all this, West, Spring, and other divines of New England accede. There are shades of difference among those who are called Hopkinsians, hardly any two of them agreeing fully on those points; but generally it may be said of them all, however pious and excellent men many of them may be, that they have inaccurate notions of the object of worship, of the medium of worship, and of the character of the worshipper. 1. They have wrong conceptions of God the object of worship, as they make him to be the author of sin-as they represent him as decreeing hypothetically-as possessing changeable affections-of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, as not eternal-as doing all things out of benevolence, with a view to promote created happiness, and not from a regard to his own glory,and as the avenger of sin, not of the sinner. 2. Of the medium of worship, Christ Jesus, as dying without any definite object, except it be to promote the good of the whole:as not standing in the capacity of surety for his people, nor sustaining a representative character-and as instituting ordinances that are not means of grace. 3. Of the character of the worshipper, man, as possessed of natural power to obey all the divine commands; as bound not to love himself;

as bound to seek the good of the whole only; as never acting from any original corruption; as liable by nature to no punishment for Adam's sin; as not having the righteousness of Christ imputed to him; as regenerated in his will only, and not in all his faculties; as being compelled to sin by a positive influence from God; and as being a mere machine operated upon by his Maker.

It was not without many throes, that the New England churches brought forth these heresies. Bellamy tells us, that the revival of Whitefield gave occasion to the most violent contests; produced many evil passions, and factions among professors, all which he attributes to the agency of Satan, for defeating a glorious work. It was impossible that any society of good men, such as were formed in orthodox times, should without agitation, forsake the paths of truth, and wander so far into the mazes of error and false philosophy. The discussions on theological subjects were managed with considerable warmth of temper, but the writers on the side of innovation were much more numerous, than those on the side of truth. The friends of truth were never roused to general and vigorous action, not even when the citadel was taken. All are not, however, quite turned aside; although none of the opinions which we have exhibited wants advocates, among divines who are highly esteemed to the eastward; but those divines do not harmonize among themselves. Dr. Emmons, Dr. West, and Dr. Spring are among the most distinguished leaders in the new philosophy and divinity, which pervade generally almost all the denominations of Christians in Rhode Island, in the District of Maine, in the eastern part of Massachusetts, in Vermont and New Hampshire. We have every shade, from the genuine disciples of the Genevan school, to the thorough paced Socinian, though the former among the clergy is much more rare than the latter. The Rev. John Godman of Dorchester, indeed, is the only clergyman of Massachusetts, whom we know to be a thorough Calvinist. Much division has long existed between what are called the high-toned Hopkinsians, and the moderate Calvinists, or