BA, 
 
 A3 5 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 A = 
 
 ^<= ■ 
 
 Ag 
 
 -el 
 
 ^ 
 
 — 5| 
 
 M 
 
 = s| 
 
 = 
 
 ^^f! 
 
 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 ^^ 'mi 
 
 -ig 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 H ^ 
 
 ^^^ D3 jK 
 
 
 
 6 1 
 
 > II 
 
 
 P II 
 
 
 
 SS; 
 
 
 3 ~ 
 
 I 
 
 
 i?9n
 
 ■LIBRARY '1 •. W'MM't^m 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY Oli f •••.■■■ ■;]v;-!'4rf >'■•;'•'. 
 
 CALIFORNIA I • .i-^/^l-^:;.'^:-?'', 
 
 SAN D|Eeo I ^{l-S^U^:?!^^^
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN D1E60 
 
 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 ROGER SHERMAN AND SAMUEL HOPKINS. 
 
 From Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 
 
 October 22, 1888. 
 
 WORCESTER, MASS., U. S. A. 
 
 PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON, 
 
 311 Main Street. 
 
 1889.
 
 HOPKINSIANISM 
 
 By Andrew P. Peabody. 
 
 Samuel Hopkins was born at Waterbuiy, Connecticut, in 
 1721, graduated at Yale Colleo-e in 1741, was settled as a 
 minister at Great Barrington, tlien the Second Parish of 
 Sheffield, Massachusetts, in 1743, became minister of the 
 First Congregational Church in Newport, Rhode Island, in 
 1770, and died at Newport in 1803. He was a profound 
 and original thinker, and while never attractive as a 
 preacher, he exercised, through the press, an extensive and 
 by no means short-lived influence on New England theology. 
 His system, while at certain points it seemed Calvinism in- 
 tensified, was, nevertheless, a revolt against some of the 
 dogmas deemed fundamental by the Genevan reformer. 
 Dr. Hopkins denied the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
 posterity, and of Christ's righteousness to the redeemed ; 
 yet maintained that Adam's posterity inherited from him a 
 sinful and ruined nature, being born sinners, and that 
 Christ's righteousness is the meritorious cause by means of 
 which alone a portion of the human race are saved from 
 the everlasting punishment which all, even infants, deserve 
 for their sinful nature, and which also is justly due as the 
 penalty for any single sinful act or volition which, as an 
 offence against the Infinite Being, itself becomes infinite. 
 Selfishness, according to him, is the essence of all sin, and 
 virtue consists in disinterested benevolence, embracing 
 every being in the universe, God and all his creatures, and 
 self only as an infinitesimal part of the universe. Thus so 
 far is self-love from being the measure of brotherly love, 
 
 ■fr/: 
 
 M
 
 that love for the remotest being in the universe is the normal 
 measure of self-love. Man, according to the same system, 
 is a free agent, that is, can do as he wills, but is morally 
 incapable of aught but evil before conversion, has a depraved 
 will, can do nothing toward his own conversion, sins in his 
 every endeavor to improve his moral condition, and is en- 
 tirely dependent on the supernatural agency of the Holy 
 Spirit for his regeneration. 
 
 The supreme purpose of God in the creation of this world 
 and of man, according to Dr. Hopkins, was the manifesta- 
 tion of his own glory, and that glory can be manifested 
 only by doing what he will with his own. By his very 
 nature he is above all law, and the laws which he enacts for 
 his creatures have no claim on his observance. With him 
 might creates right. From the human race, sinners by the 
 depraved nature inherited from Adam, and therefore merit- 
 ing eternal misery, he, in a past eternity, by his own 
 arbitrary decree, elected a certain number who should be 
 rescued from perdition, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and 
 made partakers of heavenly happiness. They were elected, 
 not because of any foresight of their faith or good works ; 
 but, being elected, they are endowed by the irresistible 
 grace of God with the traits of character that make them 
 fit for heaven. An essential pre-requisite to regeneration 
 is the hearty approval of and assent to the Divine sover- 
 eignty in the arbitrary election of those that are to be saved, 
 even to the extent of a willingness to be among those eter- 
 nally lost, if the glory of God so require. He who is not 
 willing to be damned is not in a salvable condition. 
 
 It will be readily seen how intimately connected are the 
 two points on which Mr. Sherman assails Dr. Hopkins's 
 system. Self-love must of necessity be extinguished, or 
 reduced to an infinitesimal fragment of itself, before the 
 soul can be willinir to suffer everlastino; torment. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins's earliest publication that drew the attention 
 of theologians to his peculiar views was in 1759, namely,
 
 three sermons entitled, "Sin, through Divine Interposi- 
 tion, an Advantage to the Universe, and yet no Excuse for 
 Sin or Encouragement in it." Most of his many subsequent 
 publications^ were in maintenance of the ground then taken, 
 ao;ainst antag-onists of the older Calvinistic school. Among 
 these was " An Inquiry into the Nature of true Holiness," 
 published in 1773, which is the special subject of Mr. Sher- 
 man's strictures. He had many disciples, and while among 
 the most modest of men, without so intending, he gave his 
 name to a sect. 
 
 For more than half a century Hopkinsianism, not only in 
 fact, but in name, held a prominent place in New England 
 theology. Many of the most eminent divines, for a 
 period extending through the first quarter of the present 
 century, were styled Hopkinsians. In Connecticut this 
 type of dogmatic belief found special favor and prevalence, 
 and led to several cases of local dissension and controversy, 
 some of which had a more than local interest, and have left 
 their record in pamphlets that had in their time an exten- 
 sive circulation. In Windham County, perhaps in other 
 counties, it was the occasion of a rupture in the Association 
 of ministers, a minority seceding from their Hopkinsian 
 brethren, and forming a separate organization. 
 
 The leading champion of this system was Rev. Dr. Em- 
 mons, of Franklin, Massachusetts, who was unsurpassed, 
 perhaps unequalled, among his contemporaries, in conver- 
 sance with the whole range of polemic theology, in dialectic 
 skill, in keenness and subtilty as a controversalist, and in 
 close logical consistency in admitting the most startling and 
 repulsive inferences that could be legitimately drawn from 
 his premises. Dying in 1840, at the age of ninety-five, 
 he considered himself as almost the last depository of the 
 
 ilJut not all. He was a pioneer in the anti-slavery cause, and one of tlie ear- 
 liest, so far as I know the very earliest American publication in behalf of 
 emancipation was " A Dialogue, showiiif; it to be; the Duty and Intei'est of the 
 American States to emancipate all their African Slaves," published by Dr. 
 Hopkins, in 1770.
 
 6 
 
 true faith. At his special request, his funeral sermon was 
 prepared and read for his approval, by Eev. Thomas Will- 
 iams, who, after paying this tribute to his venerable friend, 
 regarded himself as the sole surviving Hopkinsian. In his 
 late old age he repeatedly visited me, always with a volume 
 of Dr. Emmons's sermons in his hand, and interspersing 
 his portion of our conversation with extracts from the vol- 
 ume. He was the only person from whom I ever heard in 
 express words the defence of the doctrine of infant damna- 
 tion. But this was his favorite theme. He had braced 
 himself up to regard it with entire complacency, and to 
 consider it as a peculiarly resplendent manifestation of what 
 he called the Divine glory, which, he said, would l)e ob- 
 scured by the admission to heaven of unconverted members 
 of a sinful race, though themselves guiltless of actual trans- 
 gression. 
 
 Hopkinsianism is to be regarded as an important stage of 
 progress from the earlier Calvinism to the new theology of 
 Andover and New Haven. In denying the dogmas of im- 
 puted sin and imputed righteousness, and in affirming human 
 freedom as a metaphysical certainty, it undermined the 
 theology on which previous generations had reposed, and in 
 jts intense stress on inevitable, but abhorrent corollaries 
 from other dogmas of that system which, had not been 
 strongly emphasized before, it led to a revision of the entire 
 system. It is therefore to be accounted as holding a fore- 
 most place among the liberalizing influences, which have so 
 largely modified the (so-called) orthodoxy of New Eng- 
 land, and of those Western reo;ions which have been colo- 
 nized chiefly from New England. 
 
 Roger Sherman is so closely identified with the history of 
 the country as to need no prolonged biographical notice. He 
 was on the Committee to draft the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence of which he was a signer, and afterwards served in the 
 General Congress on several of the most important com- 
 mittees. He was one of the framers of the Articles of the
 
 Confederation of 1783, and one of the most efficient mem- 
 bers of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was at 
 different times Judge of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, 
 Treasurer of Yale College, Mayor of New Haven, and Repre- 
 sentative and Senator in the Congress of the United States. 
 Hardly any man ever filled so many important offices, and 
 none certainly, with a more noble record of ability, integ- 
 rity and faithfuhiess. He was a man of whose like a 
 generation sees but few. 
 
 He was at the same time not only a devoutly religious man, 
 but active in the religious movements of his time and com- 
 munity, an earnest inquirer into Divine truth, and a ready 
 recipient of whatever seemed to him of Divine authority. 
 He held for man}' years the office of Deacon in the church 
 to which he belono^ed in New Haven. 
 
 While there is not the slightest probability that these 
 letters to Dr. Hopkins were ever printed till now, they may 
 have been more or less circulated in manuscript, as the fact 
 that so eminent a layman had entered into the controversy, 
 would naturally have aroused curiosity as to his treatment 
 of it. In a volume of " Sermons on Important Subjects," 
 by Andrew Lee, D.D., of Hanover (now Lisbon), Con- 
 necticut, there is a sermon on the atrocious dojrma of 
 willingness to be damned as essential to salvation, in which 
 he carries out precisely Mr. Sherman's line of thought, 
 shows that damnation implies wickedness no less than 
 misery, and more than intimates that to be willing to incur 
 such a doom is to deserve it. 
 
 The spirit of protest seems to have been transmitted in 
 Mr. Sherman's family. Rev. John Sherman, his grandson, 
 was the first Connecticut minister who made profession of 
 Unitarianisra, wrote the first volume ever published in this 
 country in defence of Unitarianism, and founded the first 
 Unitarian church in the state of New York.
 
 8 
 
 ROGER SHERMAN TO SAMUEL HOPKINS. 
 
 New York, June 28, 1790. 
 Dear Sir : — 
 
 I have lately read your book on the nature of true holiness and ap- 
 prove the sentiments, except in two points, which do not appear to me 
 well founded, and which I think may have a bad tendency. One is on 
 the nature of self love; the other, "that it is the duty of a person to be 
 vnlling to give up his eternal interest for the Glory of God." I have 
 also read a manuscript dialogue between a Calvini stand Semi-Calvinist 
 on the latter subject, of which it is said you are the author. I have care- 
 fully attended to these subjects, and shall submit to your consideration 
 the result of my inquiries. 
 
 I admit that self love as you have defined it, or selfishness in a depraved 
 being that is destitute of true virtuous benevolence to others, is the 
 source of moral evil. Tliat this arises from the want of a good moral 
 taste, or spiritual discernment, which occasions the person to place his 
 happiness in wrong objects. But I consider self love as a natural prin- 
 ciple which exists in beings perfectly holy, which by the moral law is 
 made the measure of our love to our neighbor, and is therefore a prin- 
 ciple distinct from general benevolence or love to others. I define self 
 love to be a desire of one's own happiness, or a regard to one's own in- 
 terest, which I think may be exercised in the highest possible degree 
 consistent with the highest possible degree of disinterested love to 
 others, by wishing perfect happiness to ourselves and others. I think 
 these affections are distinct but not opposite. And in the great fountain 
 of happiness there is a sufllciency to fill the capacities of all. You sup- 
 pose that we ought to love ourselves and others in proportion to the im- 
 portance of each in the scale of being in general. I was for sometime 
 at a loss for a scale by which to ascertain the proportion of love due to 
 ourselves or others ; but I could find none shoi'tof the superlative degree, 
 that is, to wish to each the highest possible degree of good and happi- 
 ness which they are capable of enjoying, and to rejoice in the infinite 
 happiness of the Deity. 
 
 I suppose a virtuous person feels the same kind of pleasure in the 
 good and happiness of othei's, as in his own; not from any selfish views 
 or motives, but from a disposition to be pleased with the happiness of 
 being in general ; this will incline him to refrain from everything in- 
 jurious to others, and to do good to all as there may be opportunity and 
 occasion ; and his natural principle of self love, will dispose him to pay 
 a due attention to his own interest. And as these affections are distinct 
 and may consistently be exercised in the highest degree towards their 
 respective objects, what necessity or room is there for degrees of com- 
 parison, or the subordination of one to the other? Both are subject to 
 the law. — Beneficence or doing good to others, is not commensurate -with 
 benevolence towards them, for we ought to exercise the highest degree
 
 9 
 
 of benevolence toward that being to whom our goodness or beneficence 
 cannot extend ; and the duty of extending it to others depends upon a 
 variety of circumstances, so that much wisdom is necessary to direct in 
 the proper application of it. On the other point, viz. "that it is the duty 
 of a person to be willing to give up his eternal interest for the glory of 
 God." I do not find any such thing required of any person in the divine 
 law or in the Gospel; but it appears to me that the contrary is enjoined. 
 I admit that persons are required to be willing to give up their temporal 
 interest, and to lay down their lives, when the glory of God or the 
 advancement of his kingdom in the world require it ; to these all general 
 requirements of submission to the will of God may be applied. The Old 
 Testament Saints and Martyrs mentioned in Heb. II. endured great suf- 
 ferings in the cause of religion, but they were limited to this state of 
 trial, and they were supported in them by their faith in a future state of 
 happiness ; they considered that they had in heaven a better, and an en- 
 during substance, but though they had respect to this recompense of 
 reward , yet their love to God and religion was not founded in selfish 
 principles, but they loved them for their own amiableness and intrinsic 
 excellence ; and in the exercise of this disinterested love, consisted their 
 happiness and reward, as well as their duty. And in Heb. 12. 2. where 
 Jesus Christ is referred to as our example, it is said "That for the joy 
 that was set before him he endured the cross," etc. The whole tenor of 
 the gospel appears to me to be against a person being willing to be 
 damned on any consideration. God commands all men everywhere to 
 repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved. 
 And his voice to impenitent sinners is, not, be willing to be damned, but 
 Turn ye, turn ye, Jrora your evil ways; for lohy 'will ye die? How do I 
 know of any direction or example in the Bible for praying for Spiritual 
 or eternal blessings, with a Avillingness to be denied on any consideration. 
 But God allows his people to pray for them absolutely and has absolutely 
 promised to bestow them on all those who are willing to accept them on the 
 terms of the gospel, that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. 
 '•• Ask and ye shall receive. Whosoever loill, let him come and take of the 
 roaters of life freely. Him thai cometh unto me Itoill in no wise cast out." 
 But there are no such absolute promises as to the bestowment of temporal 
 favors. It is impossible that it should be for the glory of God, or con- 
 sistent with the gospel dispensation to punish with endless misery any 
 man who has a supreme love to God, and regard for his glory, wliich in 
 this case is held out as the motive to be willing to be damned. It also 
 involves in it this absurdity, that a person ought to be willing to be fixed 
 in a state of eternal enmity to God, from a principle of supreme love to 
 him. 
 
 The reason why any of the hunian race are subjected to endless punish- 
 ment, is, because they have sinned and voluntarily continue luKilly im- 
 penitent, which is wholly their own fault. And God lias declared that lie 
 has no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn
 
 10 
 
 from liis way and live. Ezek. 83. 11. Is this consistent with his requir- 
 ing them to be willing to continue in sin and perish forever ; for none 
 can be damned who do not persevere in sin? I admit that it is the duty 
 of all to- acknowledge that the divine laAV which requires us to love God 
 with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, ou pain of eternal 
 damnation is holy, just and good ; and I suppose that the conscience of 
 every sinner who shall be Anally condemned by the law, will witness to 
 the justice of the sentence, and that seems to be sufficient to answer the 
 ends of government, Avithout his being willing to suffer the punishment. 
 While in a state of probation sinners are required to turn and live, which 
 appears to me inconsistent with their being required to be willing to be 
 damned. And I believe that it is naturally impossible for any moral agent 
 to be willing to be separated from all good, to all evil, and if so, it can't 
 be his duty. The revealed law of God is the rule of our duty and it may 
 be his will to suffer events to take place with respect to us, which it 
 would be sinful in us to be willing should take place with respect to our- 
 selves. For instance, it is the will of God to suffer the Saints during 
 their continuance in this life to be imperfect in holiness, yet it is their 
 duty to be perfect, nor ought they to be willing to be unholy in anj^ re- 
 spect or degree, for that wou.ld be a willingness to transgress the divine 
 law, and would be sinful. The like might be observed respecting all 
 the sins which ever have been, or shall be committed in the world, and 
 God overrules all these for good, yet neither God's suffering sin to take 
 place, or his overruling it for good, can excuse any person in the com- 
 mission of sin, much less make it his duty to be willing to commit it. 
 .This is fully illustrated in your sermons on "Sin the occasion of great 
 good !" 
 
 Mr. Calvin's comment on the Avords of Saint Paul, Eom. 9. 3. is 
 quoted in support of the lawfulness of being willing to be damned ; but 
 Calvinists do not found their faith on the authority of his opinions, that 
 would be to entertain an opinion contrary to his, Aaz., That the word of 
 God is the only rule of faith in matters of i-eligion. Expositors differ as 
 to the meaning of those words of Saint Paul, but if they import what 
 Mr. Cah'in supposes, may they not be considered as an hyperbole which 
 is never understood to be literally true? And the occasion on Avhich they 
 Avere spoken Avas only to express in strong terms the Apostle's great 
 affection for his nation and concern for their spiritual Avelfare. Besides 
 CA^ery Avish of a good man is not a good AA'ish. Moses in a like expres- 
 sion, Exod. 32. 32. seems not fully to liaA^e met Avith the diAane appro- 
 bation, as appears by the ansAver, verse 33. "And the Lord said unto 
 Moses whosoever hath sinned against me, him Avill I blot out of my 
 book." — Holy David Avas displeased because the Lord had made a breach 
 upon Uzza. And the pious prophet Jonah Avas angr}^ because the Lord 
 spared Nineveh. And patient Job had some impatient Avishes that would 
 not be justified. 
 
 But if Mr. Glasse's exposition of Rom. 9. 3. is admitted it Avill remove
 
 11 
 
 the difficulty, that is, that he himself ouce had wished anathema to 
 Christ, etc. 
 
 It is further said in support of this opinion, that a number of mankind 
 will eventually suft'er endless punishment, and that all holy beings will 
 approve the judgment of God therein, and that it ought to be approved 
 by all. But can it be inferred from hence that it was the duty of those 
 unhappy persons while in a state of probation to be willing to persevere in 
 sin and suffer the just consequences of it? Are they not punished be- 
 cause they were willing to continue in sin? And does God punish his 
 creatures for doing their duty? Or can it be inferred, that it is the duty 
 of a person possessed of true holiness, to be willing to apostatize from 
 his holiness, and abandon himself to wickedness and so plunge himself 
 into endless misery. 
 
 It is said that it is necessary to be willing to be damned, if it shoiild be 
 God's will and for his glory, to evince that our love to God is supreme 
 and disinterested ; but would not the aftection expressed, Psalm 73. 25. 
 "Whom have I in heaven but thee and there is none upon earth that I 
 desire besides thee," etc., be a much better evidence of the sincerity 
 and disinterestedness of our love to God, than to l^e willing to be for- 
 ever separated from his favourable presence and fixed in a state of 
 enmity to him for our own voluntary transgression and impenitence. 
 
 These few imperfect hints will communicate to you my idea on the 
 subjects, and if I am mistaken I wish to be enlightened. I had not the 
 book or manuscript before me when I wrote this, so that in my refer- 
 ence to them, I do not recite the words, but state the sense according to 
 my best recollection. I am, &c. 
 
 KOGER SHERMAN. 
 
 SAMUEL HOPKINS TO ROGER SHERMAN. 
 
 Newport, Aug. 2, 17'J0. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I am gratified, and think myself honored by your address of the 28tli 
 of June last. I am pleased with your particular attention to the subject 
 upon which you write, and the ingenuity manifested in what you have 
 written. Hut your dificring in judgment from me, and especially your 
 thinking my sentiments may have a bad tendency, cannot be but dis- 
 agreeal)le to me. However, as I apprehend my real sentiments are in 
 some respects mistaken ; and tliat what I have advanced on those points 
 can be supported by Scripture and reason : and not doubting of your 
 uprightness and candour, I am encouraged to write you on the subjects 
 in dispute. 
 3
 
 12 
 
 The self love ■wliicli I have deflned, in my tract on the natui-e of ti-ue 
 holiness, and discarded, as -wholly opposed, in evei-y degree of it, to the 
 divine law, and to that universal, disinterested benevolence, in which 
 all holiness consists, — this self love you suppose to he a natural principle 
 of human nature, and perfectly innocent, though exercised in the highest 
 possible degree; and is really "subject to the law of God," as nmch as 
 universal benevolence, and consequently must be a holy affection, I think. 
 This, if I am not mistaken, is the difference between us on this point. 
 
 In support of my sentiment, and in opposition to the contrary, I take 
 leave to propose the following considerations. 
 
 I. There cannot be any need of self love, supposing it to he an inno- 
 cent affection ; and it can answer no good end, where universal, disin- 
 terested benevolence is exercised in a proper degree. And there is, in- 
 deed, 710 room for the former, where the latter is perfect. 
 
 Universal benevolence extends to being in general as its object, 
 and wishes the greatest possible happiness of the whole : And 
 the greatest possible happiness of every individual being, capable 
 of happiness, so far as is consistent with the greatest happiness of 
 the whole. The benevolent person is himself the object of his uni- 
 versal benevolence, as really as any otlier being ; and for the same reason 
 that he wishes the greatest possible happiness to being in general, he 
 wishes the greatest possible happiness to himself, as included in being 
 in general. This is necessary ; for to suppose otherwise is a direct con- 
 tradiction. Love to l^eing in general necessarily regards and wishes the 
 greatest possible happiness to him who exercises this love. This is not, 
 indeed, self love, which is a regard for one's self, as self, and as distin- 
 guished from all others, and to no other being; but it is the same dis- 
 interested affection which wishes the highest happiness to every indi- 
 vidual, included in l)eing in general ; and therefore to himself, as neces- 
 sarily included in the whole, and one among others. 
 
 What need then can there be of self love? It can do no more than wish 
 and seek the greatest happiness of the person who exercises it : But 
 this the reasonable and noble affection of universal, disinterested bene- 
 volence will do in the best and most perfect manner. Self love is ex- 
 cluded as wholly needless, at best ; and there appears to be no use or 
 room for it in the mind exercising love to the being in general. To 
 suppose two distinct and different kinds of love exercised by the same 
 person, at the same time, wishing and seeking the same greatest pos- 
 sible happiness to himself, is doul)tless inconceivable, as it is monstrous 
 and absurd. This view of the matter leads me to suspect that they who 
 plead for self love as a useful principle, as consisting in a person's wish- 
 ing his own highest ])ossible happiness, and as distinct from universal 
 benevolence, do really mean that regard to our particular interest which 
 is necessarily included in universal benevolence ; and which I mean by 
 disinterested, benevolent affection; and that the difference is only in 
 words, and if we could understand each other, we should be agreed. To 
 lirevent mistakes of this kind, I endeavored to explain what I meant )^y
 
 13 
 
 self love, and opposite disinterested affection, in my inquiry concerning 
 the nature of true holiness (Sec. III., IV.) But perhaps have not dis- 
 tinguished with sufficient clearness, and therefore have not been under- 
 stood. 
 
 I agree that this universal benevolence is exercised "in the superla- 
 tive degree," wishing the greatest possible happiness to the whole, and 
 to every individual, Avithout any "degree of comparison," so far as is 
 consistent with the greatest good of the whole. 
 
 This leads to another consideration. 
 
 II. Self love, as distinguished from universal benevolence, or dis- 
 interested, public affection, cannot be a holy and innocent affection ; but 
 must oppose the latter, because it will not subordinate a person's own 
 private interest to the general good ; or give up any degree of suppos- 
 able, or possible personal happiness, however inconsistent with the 
 greatest general good. 
 
 The greatest possible good of the whole may not be consistent with 
 the greatest possible happiness of every individual, and certainly is not ; 
 for if it were none would suffer evil ; and certainly there would be no 
 individuals miserable forever. And whenever the interest and happi- 
 ness of an individual is not consistent with the greatest happiness of 
 the whole, or an infinitely greater good than the happiness of that par- 
 ticular person, it is reasonable and desirable that the interest and hap- 
 piness of that individual should give way, and be given up for the sake 
 of greater general good. And universal, disinterested benevolence will 
 do this ; for it wishes and seeks the greatest good of the whole, and of 
 individuals, so far as is consistent with this, and no further, and there- 
 fore subordinates the interest of individuals to the greater and more 
 important general interest and happiness. But self love which desires 
 and seeks nothing but the greatest possible happiness of himself, and 
 has not the least regard to the happiness of the whole, or of any other 
 being but his own self, will not subordinate his own interest and happi- 
 ness to any other interest whatever; or be willing to give up any degree 
 of liis own personal interest and happiness, for the sake of the greater 
 happiness of the public, or of any other being. Therefore tliis self love 
 always opposes universal benevolence, and the latter is, in the nature of 
 it, contrary to the former, and directly opposes and counteracts it. And 
 so far as the latter takes place in the heart, the other is weakened and 
 rooted out. And perfect universal benevolence is inconsistent witlievei\v 
 degree of self love. What can be more evident than this? The conse- 
 qnence is, that self love is unreasonable and sinful in every degTee of it 
 and cannot be reconciled with universal l)enevolence. 
 
 III. Self love cannot be a holy or right affection, or agree or consist with 
 holy affection, because it does not desire or seek, or even discern that in 
 which real good and liapiihiess consists; but the contrary. 
 
 If this be true of self love, and can be made evident, all nuist grant 
 that it is in its own nature an evil and vicious affection, and directly 
 opposed to universal benevolence, which discerns and seeks the only
 
 14 
 
 true happiness of all, and that to the hiajhest degree, so far as is con- 
 sistent Avith the greatest possible happiness of the whole. 
 
 Yon, Sir, "Admit that self love in a depraved being, is the source of 
 moral evil. That this arises from the want of a good moral taste, or 
 spiritual discernment, which occasion the person to place his happiness 
 in wrong objects." ^ 
 
 Is it not unintelligible if not a contradiction, to say that "Self love, 
 in a depraved being, is the source of moral evil?" Is not moral depravity 
 moral evil? This, according to your position, must take place previous 
 to self love becoming the source of moral evil, and in order to it. Is it 
 not too late for self love, or anything else to be the source of moral evil, 
 after moral evil exists in the mind, in its full strength? Besides, if the 
 above were consistent, is it not perfectly unaccountable that self love, if 
 it be a perfectly good and innocent affection, should be the positive, pro- 
 ductive source or fountain of moral evil ; and yet continue itself, inno- 
 cent and good, in all the exercises of it? 
 
 But to drop all this, upon the above position the following questions 
 may be asked. 
 
 Question 1. How can the mere want of a good moral taste, or spiritual 
 discernment, occasion a person to place his happiness in wrong objects? 
 It is easity seen that the want of a good moral taste Avill prevent a 
 person placing his happiness in I'iglit objects, or those objects which are 
 suited to make him truly happy. But actually to place his liappiness in 
 wrong objects, supposes not only the want of a good moral taste, but a 
 positively wrong or bad moral taste. Whence arises this positive wrong 
 moral taste, which leads a person to place his happiness in wrong 
 ol)jects? It cannot be the production of the want of a good moral 
 taste ; for a mere negative can produce nothing that is positive. If there 
 be nothing wrong in self love; but it is a perfectly right and good 
 affection in evex'y degree of it, and in its greatest possible strength ; then 
 this cannot be the source or cause of a wrong moral taste. And if the 
 absence or want of a right moral taste cannot be the cause of a positive 
 wrong moral taste ; from what quarter or source can this come? 
 
 Question 2. In what does a right and good moral taste consist? It 
 must consist in self love, or in disinterested benevolence, for there is 
 no otlier moral disposition or affection in the mind of a moral agent but 
 these, or that is not implied in them. And I conclude it consists in the 
 latter. That so far as the heart is formed to disinterested benevolence, 
 so far it has a right moral taste, or spiritual discernment. And he who 
 is "destitute of all disposition to virtuous benevolence to others" is 
 destitute of all right moral taste. But if self love be right and good 
 in a moral sense, why is that destitute of all right moral taste? Or 
 why does a wrong taste, which consists in moral blindness and delusion, 
 and places happiness in wrong objects, take place, and lead the mind 
 astray, where there is nothing liut self love? 
 
 These questions cannot be answered to satisfaction, I believe, or the 
 subject be cleared of insuperable difficulties in any way, but l)y adopt-
 
 15 
 
 ing the proposition above asserted, viz. : That self love does not discern, 
 relish and seek that good in which trne happiness consists ; bnt the 
 contrary, which is the same as to say, that it is directly opposed to all 
 right moral taste or spiritnal discernment ; and is itself wrong moral 
 taste, in which all moral blindness consists ; and which necessarily 
 excludes all true moral discernment. Therefore it knows not, nor can 
 know, what true happiness is; but places it in wrong objects, in that in 
 which it does not consist, and pursues it in opposition to God, and the 
 general good ; and even the real good of the person who is under the 
 dominion of it. 
 
 That this is the truth may be argued from the nature of self love. 
 It excludes being in general from the mind. It has no eye to see it, no 
 true discerning of it, or feeling towards it. Therefore it excludes all 
 regard to. God, the sum of all being. It has no true idea of disinter- 
 ested universal benevolence ; consequently is wholly in the dark with 
 regard to holiness, the only happiness and beauty of the moral world ; 
 and has not the least degree of taste and relish for it ; Irat contrary. 
 It contracts the mind down to one infinitely little, diminutive object, 
 which is as nothing, compared with universal being ; and feels as if 
 this little object was all that is worthy of regard. The constant language 
 of this affection is, "I am, and none else besides me." This is to love 
 and make the greatest lie possible ; and is the sum of all moral darkness 
 and delusion. Surely such an affection excludes all perception of true 
 enjoyment and happiness ; and all desire and taste for it ; and necessarily 
 includes as essential to it, a perfectly wrong taste, and pursuit of 
 happiness; placing it wholly in wrong objects, where it is not to be 
 found. And who can doubt that such an aflection is the epitome and 
 source of all moral evil? 
 
 But what the Scripture reveals on this point, is moi'e to be relied 
 upon; and that coincides with and confirms the reasoning above. Ac- 
 cording to that, all right taste and spiritual discerning consists in love, 
 or disinterested benevolence. "Every one that loveth, knoweth God. 
 He that loveth not knoweth not God." (1 Joh. i. 7, 8.) The love here 
 intended appears from the context to be disinterested benevolence. 
 Where this is not, it is said God is not known. Consequently there is 
 no true taste and spiritual discerning with respect to anything in the 
 moral world. '-He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh 
 in darkness, because that darkness has blinded his eyes." (Chap. 2, 11.) 
 What is it but self love, or selfishness which hateth a brother? This is 
 here asserted to be moral darkness itself ; which darkness is not a mere 
 negative thing. It is sm. It is a Avrong, perverted taste, placing happi- 
 ness in wrong, forbidden objects. It puts light for darkness, bitter for 
 sweet, and sweet for bitter. 
 
 The following words oC Christ, rightly considered, will be found to 
 assert the same thing. "The light of the body is the eye; If therefore 
 thine ej'^e be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine 
 eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness." (Mat. 6. 22, 23.)
 
 16 
 
 Here all moral darkness (for it is of this tliat Christ is here speaking) 
 is said to consist in the evil eye; which is something positive, and not 
 merely the want of a single eye. The evil eye is an exei'cisc and 
 artVftion of the heart, and is moral evil or sin; for "From within, out 
 of the heart of men proceeds aw eMi7 e^/e." (Mark 7. 21,22.) And this 
 evil eye consists in self love or selfishness, as opposed to benevolence 
 and goodness. (See Matt. 20. 15, Dent. 15. 9, Prov. 23. 6, 28. 22.) 
 
 From all this put together, it appears that according to Scripture, 
 self love is itself moral darkness ; gives the mind a wrong taste ; knows 
 not what true happiness is ; and therefore always seeks it in a wrong 
 Avay, and in forbidden objects; consequently is in its nature opposed to 
 universal benevolence ; there being no more agreement between these 
 opposite affections, than there is between light and darkness, good and 
 evil. 
 
 IV. That self love is in its nature opposed to disinterested love or 
 true holiness ; and therefore is moral evil itself, seems to be evident, in 
 that it appears to be the sum and source of every evil affection of the 
 heart. 
 
 Pride is inseparable from self love; and I believe it is impossible to 
 separate one from the other, they being the same affection ; or at least 
 the one involves the other, if there be any distinction ; so that if one 
 exists, the other exists also, and if one ceases to be exercised, the other 
 must cease also. He who regards and loves himself only, does in this 
 think too highly of himself; sets himself infinitely too high in his 
 affections and feelings towards himself. Self love is the source of all 
 the l)itter envying and strife in the hearts of men ; of all the contention 
 and unrighteousness among men ; and of all the opposition to God in 
 heart and conduct. Wliere there is no self love, none of these things 
 can possibly exist, nor anything that is morally wrong. This I en- 
 deavored to illustrate, and establish ii) the above mentioned inquiry, P. 
 28, 29. And I do not yet see how it can be proved not to be agreeable to 
 the truth. 
 
 V. That self love is a wrong and sinful affection in the nature and in 
 every degree of it, is evident, in that the holy Scripture never speaks in 
 favor of it, but condemns it, and requires men to renounce it. 
 
 When St. Paul undertakes to give the worst character of men who 
 should arise, he sets self love at the head ; which no doul^t includes all 
 the rest : "In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be 
 lovers of their own selves," etc. (2 Tim. 3. 1, 2 etc.) If self love were a 
 virtuous or an innocent affection, it would not be set at the head of a 
 catalogue of the most odious and hurtful vices. Therefore the injunc- 
 tion is, "Let no man seek his own ; but every man another's Avealth." 
 (1 Cor. 10. 2-i.) This does not forbid them to seek their own happiness, 
 in any view and sense but directs them not to seek it as their own or in a 
 selfish way, under the influence of self love, which seeks a person's 
 own personal lia|)i)incss, and nothing else. Therefore it is said that 
 charity, or Christian love, "Seeketli not her own." Which is so far
 
 17 
 
 from including-, that it excludes self love ; for that seeketh her own and 
 nothing else ; and therefore cannot be included in Cliristian attection. 
 
 When Christ says, "If any man will come after me let him deny him- 
 self," He asserts in the strongest terms, that self love must be crossed 
 and renounced, in order to be a Christian ; for it is impossible to tell 
 what self denial is, if it do not consist in crossing selflshness, and 
 giving up what self love seeks. Tliat a man maj^ deny himself in the 
 exercise and gratification of self love, is an express contradiction; for 
 this is gratifying and pleasing self. 
 
 The command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," has been 
 supposed by some to approve of self love, and even to enjoin it. as a 
 measure by which love to our neighbor is to be regulated. But this, I 
 believe will appear to be a mistake, when carefully examined. He who 
 desires and seeks the greatest possible happiness for himself, and for 
 his ueighl)or, consistent with the honor of God, and the greatest general 
 good, whicli he does who exercises universal benevolence, as has been 
 shown, he, and he only, loves his neighbor as himself. He therefoi-e 
 has no need of the least degree of that self love which is distinct from uni- 
 versal benevolence, in order to obey this command. Perfect, universal 
 disinterested benevolence is perfect obedience to it, and cannot possibly 
 be otherwise. Therefore nothing ))ut disinterested benevolence is here 
 commanded, and no other kind of love is allowed or supposed ; conse- 
 quently self love is excluded by this precept. The least degree of that 
 self love which seeks a man's own personal private interest and ha{)pi- 
 ness exclusively, not having the least regard to his neighbor, will 
 exclude and destroy that impartiality wliich is reasonable, and consists 
 in loving his neighbor as himself. It necessarily renders him partial in 
 his own favor, and seeks his own happiness exclusive of his neighl)or's ; 
 consequently does necessarily oppose disinterested, impartial aftection. 
 This is particularly stated and considered in the above mentioned inquiry 
 (Pages 24, 25, 2()), whicli I have not seen confuted or answered, and I 
 believe is unanswerable. 
 
 I have been the longer on this i)oint (perhaps too long, and to little 
 purpose) because it appears to me to have a close connection with the 
 other, and if we were agre(Ml in tliis, wc should not long difter in judg- 
 ment with respect to that to wliich I now turn my attention. 
 
 The question in dispute is : Whetlier it be the duty of any person to be 
 willing to give up his eternal interest for the glory of God, and the 
 general good? You say. Sir, "I do not find any such thing required in 
 Divine law, or the Gospel; but it appears to me that the contrary is 
 enjoined." 
 
 I wish to have the (piestiou decided by the law and the testimony. I 
 appeal to these. And if the allirmative cannot be proved l)y the Scrip- 
 tures, I am willing to give it up. 
 
 It is granted, "Tliat persons are required to give up their temporal in- 
 terest, and to lay doAvn their lives, wlieii the glory of God or the ad- 
 vancement of his kingdom in the worlil require it." If it be reasonable,
 
 18 
 
 and persons are required to give up tlieir temporal interest, or ten 
 degrees, or one degree of tlieir interest, for the glory of God, and the 
 general good, and it is contrary to the nature of universal, disinterested 
 benevolence not to do this ; then if it be equally necessary for the glory 
 of God, etc., to give up every degree or the whole personal interest, it is 
 equally reasonable to be willing to do this, and it must be required, and 
 it is equally contrary to the nature of this benevolence not to do it. The 
 glory of God and the greatest pulilic good is an interest of intinitely 
 more worth and importance, or an inlinitely greater good, than the 
 Avhole eternal interest of any individual person ; and therefore when the 
 latter interferes with the former, and consequently it is necessary that 
 the latter should be given up to promote the former, universal benevo- 
 lence will — it must — consent to it; and this is required, if it be I'equired 
 to give up any degree of personal interest, to promote the public good. 
 This, I conceive, is as clear demonstration, as that three and two are 
 more than two and two. This consequence cannot be avoided unless it be 
 by denying that it ever is, or can be necessary for the glory of God, and 
 the greatest good of his kingdom, ttat the whole eternal interest of any 
 individual person should be given up and lost. But none will deny this, 
 I presume, Avho believe, what is abundantly asserted in Scripture, that 
 many of the human race will be miserable forever ; for this could not 
 take place, were it not necessary for the glory of God, and the greatest 
 good of the whole. 
 
 It is said, this cannot be duty or required, since all are commanded to 
 do that which is contrary to this, viz. : to repent and believe in Christ 
 and be saved, to turn and live, etc. Answer: No repentance, believing 
 and turning is I'equired which is contrary to supreme love to God ; and 
 consequently seeking his glory above all things, and subordinating 
 every other interest to this ; but this love is implied and required in 
 these commands. And if a M'illingness to give up a person's whole in- 
 terest, if this be necessary for the glory of God, be not implied in this 
 love, I will give up the point, and never plead for it again. A person 
 must love himself more than God, and set his own personal interest 
 above the interest and honor of God, and therefore not love God su- 
 premely and with all his heart, who is not willing to give up his whole 
 interest, when necessary for the highest interest of God and his glory. 
 And so long as he is of this disposition he will not repent, believe in 
 Christ, or return to God. 
 
 If it be said. He knows it is not necessary for the glory of God, that 
 his eternal interest should be given up, but the contrary; for God com- 
 mands him to repent and come to Christ for life; and he turns and 
 comes, that he may live, and not die. 
 
 Answer: His being commanded to repent, etc., is no evidence that he 
 shall not live in impenitence, and perish, for many do so whom God 
 commands to repent, to turn and live. And lie knows not that he shall 
 ever turn and come to Christ, until he knows he has actually turned and 
 come, and therefore cannot know that he shall not be cast ofl", and that
 
 19 
 
 this is not necessary for the giory of God. Therefore in the first act in 
 which he returns and comes to Christ, he comes, not knowing that he 
 does come, for this can be known only by reflecting on what he does, or 
 has done. He comes to a Sovereign God and Saviour, not knowing tliat 
 it is not necessary that he should perish forever, for the glory of God, 
 and casts himself at the foot of Christ, who has mercy on whom he will 
 have mercy, and whom he vnll he harcleneth ; and cordially submits to this 
 Sovereign God and Saviour, and is willing to be in his hand, not know- 
 ing Init it may be most for his glory to cast him off, and not desiring to 
 be saved, if this cannot be consistent with the glory of God ; and on this 
 supposition gives up his whole interest. This is the disposition in 
 which the sinner comes to Christ. And as most Christians are not soon, 
 if ever, assured that they are such ; and none perhaps have this assurance 
 at all times ; they thus submit to God, to dispose of them as he sees most 
 for his glory. And as they increase in love to God, this submission is 
 stronger, and more sensible ; though they may not think this is a being 
 willing to give up their whole interest for the glory of God ; and not 
 know, in this respect, what manner of spirit they are of ; yet this is all 
 I mean by being willing to be cast off, if most for the glory of God. 
 And I think it impossible to love God, and to come to Christ for salva- 
 tion, without such a disposition and a cordial submission to his will, 
 who has mercy on whom he will and hardens whom he will, while he 
 knows not what is his will concerning him. 
 
 And such a Christian, if he attain to know he loves God, and has this 
 submission to him, Avill not l)y this lose this disposition; but it will 
 increase as his love to God increases ; and he will more and more sensi- 
 bly feel, that were it not for the glory of God, and the greatest good of 
 his kingdom, that he should be saved, he would have no desire, on the 
 whole, to be saved, however desirable that be, in itself considered. 
 
 I o1)serve it is said, "There is no direction or example in the Bible for 
 praying for spiritual or eternal blessings with a willingness to be denied, 
 on any consideration. But God allows his people to pray for them ab- 
 solutely ; and has absolutely promised to bestow them on all who are 
 willing to accept of them on the terms of the Gospel, that is, in a way 
 of free grace through the atonement. Ask, and ye shall receive, etc." 
 
 Answer: We are certainly directed to pray for spiritual and eternal 
 blessings, with resignation to the will of God, be that what it may; 
 which implies, and really is, a willingness to be denied, if what we pray 
 for be contrary to the will of God to give, and not consistent with his 
 glory, and the general good. We must knoio that we ask for things 
 agreeable to his will. That is, we must knoAV that it is his will to grant 
 them before we can ask for them absolutely, and Avithout any condition. 
 For if we ask absolutely for anything, when we knoAV not that it is the 
 will of God to give it, we set up our own will, while we know not that it 
 is agreeable to the will of God; wliicli must be the highest arrogance, 
 rebellion and stubbornness. 
 
 It will be said, We know it is the will of God to give Spiritual and 
 4
 
 20 
 
 eternal blessings to all who ask for them, because he has promised to do 
 it. "Ask, and ye shall receive." Therefore Ave know, when we pray for 
 those blessings, it is his will to give them ; and consequently we may 
 ask absolutely, not willing to be denied on any consideration ; because 
 we know that God is not willing to deny us. 
 
 Answer : All praying, and asking, is not asking in the sense of Scrip- 
 ture. We must kiioiv that we ask in truth, agreeable to the true import 
 of direction and command, before we can know that it is the will of God 
 to grant those blessings. But this we cannot know until we have first 
 asked, if we do then. Therefore we must first ask before we can know 
 it is the will of God to grant the blessings for which we ask ; and there- 
 fore may not ask absolutely. And how few are there who absolutely 
 know they have ever asked for spiritual blessings, so as to be entitled to 
 the promise? None but assured Christians do know this. How few are 
 they ! Perhaps not one, at all times. From this view, I think it follows, 
 that the prayer which entitles to saving blessings is never made abso- 
 lutely, or without sul)mission, not knowing whether it be the will of God 
 to grant the things which are asked, or not ; and that a person cannot 
 know that it is the will of God to give him spiritual blessings, till he has 
 thus submissively asked, and upon reflection knows that he has done it. 
 And that, in this case, an unsubmissive asking is a wicked asking, Avhich 
 surely does not entitle to the promise. And that no person who does not 
 know he has asked submissively, can know that he shall be saved, or ask 
 saving blessings a])solutely, without asking wickedly. And if he know 
 that he has first asked sul)missively, and has obtained spiritual blessings, 
 and so can noio ask absolutely, knowing it is the will of God to save 
 him; he can with truth say, "Lord, thou hast been pleased to give me 
 saving blessings, and I know it is thy will, and for thy glory that I 
 should be saved ; but if tliis were not thy will, and for thy glory, but the 
 contrary ; salvation Avould not be desirable to me, in this view of it. I 
 must say "Thy will be done." If this be not the feeling of his heart, his 
 supposed assurance is nothing but delusion, and he has never yet asked 
 so as to receive. 
 
 But there is a plausible, and in the vicAV of some, an unanswerable ob- 
 jection to all this, as it implies that a person may and ought, for love to 
 God, to be Avilling to be a sinner, and an enemy to God forever, if this 
 be most for the glory of God, and the greatest happiness of liis kingdom. 
 This is thought to be contrary to the law, and all the commands of God, 
 and in itself absurd and impossible. 
 
 If I am not much mistaken, most of the ol)jections and arguments, if 
 not all of them which I have seen ottered against this, are founded on a 
 mistake, or a supposition which is not true, viz. : — That to be willing to 
 be a sinner, in this case, necessarily implies an inclination to sin, which 
 is actually sinning, from love to God, and desire that he may be glorified, 
 this being what God requires ! If I could be convinced there Avere any 
 trath in this, I should renounce the sentiment as false and dangerous. 
 But I yet think directly the contrary to l)e true ; and that a being willing
 
 21 
 
 to be a sinner, if this were necessary for the glory of God, is itself an 
 exercise of love and obedience to God; and not to be -willing, on this 
 supposition, would be itself an act of sin and rebellion. If the dialogue 
 which you mention be one that I have seen, I think this point is there 
 proved by argument which cannot be confuted. 
 
 God has revealed that it is his will that some of our neighbors should 
 be given up to sin and ruin forever, for his glory, and the greatest good 
 of his kingdom. It is granted that we ought to acquiesce in this, and 
 be willing that it should take place, in as many instances, and under those 
 particular instances which God sees will best answer his ends ; that such 
 acquiescence is implied in love to God ; and theref oi-e implies no incli- 
 nation to sin, or to think favorable of it ; but the contrary ; and that the 
 least disposition to object, and oppose this known will of God, would be 
 an act of sin, and rebellion against God. And if it be as necessary that 
 we ourselves should be given up to endless sin and ruin, in order to an- 
 swer the same end, as that our neighbor should be thus given up, we 
 must consent, and be willing, on this supposition, that this should take 
 place, if we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves. 
 And so long as we continue of this disposition, we obey the Divine 
 law, and are friends to God and holiness ; and cannot fall into sin and 
 ruin until we give up this disposition and imbibe the contrary, and be- 
 come unwilling to suffer anything for the glory of God. In this view of 
 the matter, I think, it appears that "It does not involve any absurdity, 
 that a person ought to be willing to l)e fixed in a state of eternal enmity 
 to God, from a principle of supreme love to him," on supposition that 
 this be necessary for his glory. This is so far from being an absurdity, 
 that a person must cease to love God supremely, in order not to be will- 
 ing, on this supposition, and actually turn an enemy to him. 
 
 You think. Sir, "It may be the will of God to suffer events to take 
 place with respect to us, which it would be sinful in us to be willing 
 should take place, with respect to ourselves." If the will of God re- 
 specting such events be made known to us, it cannot be sinful in us to be 
 willing they should take place ; otherwise it would be a sin for us to say, 
 "Thy will be done," without making any condition or reserve; which I 
 believe none will assert. On the contrary, it is our indispensable duty to 
 submit to the known will of God, with respect to every event, be it what 
 it may. And not to l)e willing it should take place, as He has willed it 
 should, is opposition to God, and therefore an act of rebellion. 
 
 The following instance is brought to illustrate this position. " It is the 
 will of God to suffer the Saints, during their continuance in this life, to 
 be imperfect in holiness. Yet it is their duty to be perfect ; nor ought 
 they to ))e willing to be unlioly in any respect or degree ; for that would 
 be a willingness to transgress the divine law, and would be sinful." I 
 aTii pleased with this instance, because I tliiuk it is suited to illustrate the 
 point in view. I grant it is the duty of Saints to be perfect in holiness; 
 but do not tliink it Avill follow from this, that they ought not to be will- 
 ing to be unholy in any respect or degree, or that such willingness Avoultl
 
 22 
 
 be sinful ; but tbe contrary. It is a holy Avill or choice, and not to be will- 
 ing to be sinful, in this case, Avouhl be a transgression of the Divine law, 
 and therefore sinful. It is, in itself considered, desirable to be perfectly 
 holy in this life ; and must be a duty, as their obligation to this cannot 
 be made to cease. But it l)eing the known will of God that they shall 
 not be perfectly holy in this life ; and therefore that it is, on the whole, 
 wisest and best, most for his glorj', and the general good, that they 
 should be imperfect in this world ; it is certainly their duty to acquiesce 
 in this, and be willing it should be so, and say " Thy will l)e done." And 
 this willingness to be imperfect and sinful, in this case, all things con- 
 sidered, is so far from being sinful, that it is a holy submission to the 
 will of God ; and the contrary would be opposition to the known will of 
 God, to his glory and the general good, and therefore a transgression of 
 the Divine law, and very sinful. It is, on the whole, all things consid- 
 ered, Ijest, and most desirable that they should not be perfectly holy in 
 this life; otherwise this would not be agreeable to the will of God. 
 And not to be willing that should take place, which is on the whole best, 
 most desirable, and agreeable to the will of God, is an unreasonable, 
 Avicked disposition, and directly opposed to God. And to be willing to 
 be imperfect in this state of trial, is no part of that imperfection, nor 
 has it any tendency to make them imperfect; l)ut the contrary, as it is 
 directly opposed to all sin, and is, as has been observed, a holy volition, 
 a holy submission to the will of God. 
 
 The spii'its of the just now made perfect, acquiesce in it, it is perfect- 
 ly agreeable to their inclination and will, that they were imperfect in 
 this life, and that all the redeemed should be so ; and this acquiescence 
 in the will of God, respecting this, is so far from being sinful, that it is 
 part of their perfect holiness, and essential to it. And what reason can 
 be given why this same disposition in the Saints in this life, is not a holy 
 disposition? This is easily applied to the point in dispute; and I am 
 mistaken if it do not serve to illustrate it, and obviate every objection 
 made to a being willing to be sinful forever, on supposition this be the 
 will of God, or most for his glory, and the greater happiness of his 
 kingdom. 
 
 You say, Sir, "I believe that it is naturally impossible for any moral 
 agent to be willing to be separated from all good, to all evil." I should 
 believe this too, if I thought self love was essential to a moral Agent, 
 and that it is right to exercise this to the highest possible degree, and 
 wrong to suppress or counteract it in any instance. Yea, I should believe 
 more, viz. : — that it is naturally impossible for a moral agent to give up 
 the least degree of personal good, or suffer any evil, for the sake of any 
 public good, however great. But universal disinterested benevolence 
 will give up personal good ; and be willing to suffer personal evil for the 
 sake of a greater public good, and for the same reason that it will give up 
 one degree of private good, for a greater public good, it will be Milling 
 to be separated from all personal good, to all evil, if necessary to pro- 
 mote a proportionable greater public good. And it appears to me, natu-
 
 23 
 
 rally impossible, or impossible in the nature of things, that it should do 
 otherwise, unless it be defective, or counteracted by self love. 
 
 St. Paul's Avish (Rom. 9. 3.) has l)een an eyesore to many. They have 
 thought themselves sure that he could not mean what his words naturally 
 impart ; consequently have set their invention to work to And out some 
 other meaning. Most of which invented, forced meanings are, I think, 
 so low and flat as to be unbecoming an inspired Apostle, and really cast 
 reproach on the sacred oracles. The most plausible of these, perhaps, is 
 that of Mr. Glass, which is wholly built on the original word, translated, 
 I could vnsh, not being in the optative mood; but in the past tense of the 
 indicative. But Grotius, who was skilled in the Greek alcove most others, 
 says it is common for the Greeks to use a word so, when it is to be 
 understood in the optative sense, of which thei-e is an instance it Acts 
 2.5. 22. And Glasse's sense is so low, that it appears to me to come to very 
 little, and to be unworthy of the Apostle Paul ; and exhorts the true spirit 
 and force of expression. The words, taken in the most easy and natural 
 sense, in which Calvin and others have taken them, do strongly express 
 the feeling and exercise of true benevolence, which St. Paul ought to have 
 had, and to express on such an occasion ; and Avhich he certainly did 
 profess in a very high degree, who sought not his own profit, but the 
 profit of many, that they might be saved. 
 
 Calvin, I suppose, is not cited as an authority, but only to show the 
 propriety of their being called Semi-Calvinists, who do not agree with 
 him in this sentiment. 
 
 Wishing we may each of us be led into all important in truth, I am, 
 Dear Sir, Avith high esteem, and much afi"ection, your o])liged, huml^le 
 servant, 
 
 S. HOPKINS. 
 Roger Sherjiajst, Esq. 
 
 ROGER SHERMAN TO SAMUEL HOPKINS. 
 
 New Haven, October, 1790. 
 
 Dear Sir ; 
 
 I received your letter of the 2d August last, and am obliged to you for 
 the observations it contains. I think there is no material dittereuce of 
 sentiment betAveen us except on the last point. I am not convinced by 
 Avliat you havcAvrote on that subject that my former opinion was Avrong; 
 but I don'i knoAv that I can say much more to support it than I did be- 
 fore. 
 
 I believe Ave do not dirter at all in opinion respecting that general 
 benevolence Avhcrein true virtue consists; Avhich you admit includes a 
 regard to our OAvn greatest good and happiness, and that regard I call an 
 exercise of love to ourselves. When I said that self love and love to 
 others Avcre distinct affections, I only meant thai they Avere exercises of
 
 . 24 
 
 the same kind of aft'ection towards different objects, viz., onrselves and 
 others. 
 
 I do not fully understand the force of your observations on -what I 
 said respecting the ground or reason why self love in a being destitute 
 of general benevolence is the source of moral evil, viz., "That this 
 arises from the want of a good moral taste, or spiritual discernment, 
 which occasions the person to place his happiness in wrong objects." 
 You do not here distinguish between occasion and positive cause though 
 you make a material distinction between them in your sermons on "Sin 
 the occasion of great good." President Edwards I think has illustrated 
 tliis point in his ansAver to Dr. Taylor on original sin, and in a sermon 
 published with his life, on the enquiry, Avhy natural men are enemies to 
 God. He supposes original righteousness in man was a supernatural 
 principle which was withdrawn on his first transgression, and his natural 
 principles of agency remaining, were exercised wrong, and his affections 
 set on wrong objects in consequence of such withdrawment. The will and 
 affections are the powers of agency, and the exercises of them are holy 
 or sinful, according to the objects chosen or beloved, or according as 
 their exercises agree or disagree with the divine law. Moral good and 
 evil consist in exercises and not in dormant principles ; the heart is the 
 seat not only of sin but of holiness according as it is differently affected. 
 Your observations on self love in persons destitute of general benevo- 
 lence are not opposed to anything I meant to express in my letter. 
 
 You say, "that love to being in general necessarily regards and wishes 
 the greatest possible happiness to him who exercises this love, this is not 
 indeed self love, which is a regard to one's self as self, and as distinguished 
 from all others, and to no other being; but it is the same disinterested 
 affection which wishes the highest happiness to every individual included 
 in being in general and therefore to himself, as necessarily included in 
 the whole, and one among others." There appears to me to be a little 
 ambiguity in those words as self and what follows. I suppose that the 
 good and happiness of ourselves and each individual being who is a 
 proper object of happiness, is individually to be regai'ded, loved and 
 sought as an ultimate end, or what is desirable for its own sake as a 
 real good. "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." 
 Therefore when a person seeks his own highest good and happiness in 
 the enjoyment of God, and in connection with his glory, he answers the 
 end of his creation. Those texts which you cited to prove that self love 
 is siiiful, I suppose are not to be taken absolutely to condemn all love to 
 self, but such only as is opposed to, or unconnected with love to others, 
 as appears from Phil. 2. 4. Look not every man on his own things 
 but every man also on the the things of others. No man ever yet hated 
 his own flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it. Our own temporal as well 
 as spiritual good may be lawfully sought and enjoyed, and our sensitive 
 api^etites gratified, so that it be not done in a manner or degree 
 proliil)ited by law. "Every creature of God is good and nothing to be 
 refused if it be received with thanksgiving, etc."
 
 25 
 
 I think you use the term self love in tlie narrower sense than it is 
 used in general by otliers ; and -when pious persons find in themselves 
 those desires and "svishes of their own good and happiness, which I 
 consider as inseparable from a moral agent, and which you admit are 
 lawful as flowing from general benevolence, or as a part of it, when 
 they find self love condemned by that general term, it creates in their 
 minds groundless uneasiness and doubts as to their good estate. Though 
 perhaps a critical attention to your deflnition and distinctions might 
 prevent this. 
 
 As your observations on the other point have not removed my difli- 
 culties, I will make a few remarks on that subject. 
 
 1. The glory of God and his happiness do not depend on tlic will of 
 his creatures. Acts 17. 25. Neither is tvorshipped by men's hands as 
 though he needed anything. Job 35. 7. If thou he righteous, what givest 
 thou him, etc. His goodness is his glory and that is displayed or mani- 
 fested in his doing good. Exod. 33. 18, 19. And he said I beseech thee, 
 sheio me thy glory. And he said, I will make my goodness pass before thee, 
 etc. 
 
 2. None of his rational creatures are miserable but for their own 
 fault. He inflicts punishment, not in a way of mere sovereignty, but as 
 a righteous Judge or Governor ; and for the general good. He gathers 
 out of his Kingdom all things that offend and do iniquity. 
 
 3. No person who has a holy love to God, can consistent with his 
 will declared in the gospel, be Anally miserable ; and their self denial 
 for his glory, and all their trials and afflictions in this life Avork together 
 for their best good, and work out for them an eternal weight of glory. 
 
 4. The duties of self denial and sutt'ering in the cause of God, are 
 compatible only to this state of trial — and the precepts Avhicli require 
 this, appear to me to be expressly limited to suflering in this life, and 
 eternal life is promised as an encouragement to it ; therefore I see no 
 ground to extend them by reason or analagy to the point in question. 
 Mat. 19. 29, John 12. 25, Luke 18. 25, etc., Mark 10. 29, 30. 
 
 0. No person who is to be a subject of everlasting misery is ever 
 willing to endure it ; but it is the providential will of God to sufler them 
 to hate him and blaspheme his name because of their torment ; therefore 
 their willingness to suffer, is not necessary for the manifestation of his 
 glory in their j)unishment. And it would involve an inconsistency to 
 suppose any person to be willing to submit to tiie providential will of 
 God, in all the circumstances of his damnation, unwillingness to sufler and 
 enmity to (lOd on account of it, being material circumstances. You 
 mention the third petition in the Lord's prayer, ' ' Thy vnll be done on 
 earth as it is in heaven," as a proof thatabsolnte submission to the Avillof 
 God is a duty. I admit lliat (iod's perceptive will ought to be obeyed 
 in all things, and his pi'ovidential Avill sulmiitted to as far as it is hkhU' 
 known by revelation, or the event; but no particular person AvhiU' in a 
 state of probation can know that it is the providential will of God (hat 
 he shall Anally perish, l)ut he knows that it is his perceptive will, that
 
 26 
 
 lie shall turn and live. And for persons wlio doubt of their good estate, 
 to put it to trial by supposing a case that never can happen if they have 
 any degree of true love to God, or if they ever comply Avith the require- 
 ments of the gospel ; and which it is certain their hearts never ■will be 
 reconciled to, if it should happen, would only tend to All their minds 
 with greater perplexity and disquietude. True Christians are assured, 
 that no temptation (or trial) shall happen to them but what they shall 
 be enabled to bear ; and that the grace of Christ shall be sufficient for 
 them ; but no such gracious promise of support is made to any who 
 shall be the subjects of damnation, therefore a willingness to suffer 
 this, is not a trial required of a true Christian. The angels in heaven 
 do God's will, but we have no intimation that they are required to be 
 willing to fall from their holy and happy state. 
 
 As to your observations on the Saints' imperfections in this life, I shall 
 only remark, that I allow that they ought to approve whatever is ordered 
 or permitted by God concerning them as most holy and Avise ; but not 
 their own conduct in being unholy or sinful in any degree. 
 
 As to the submission of the awakened humbled sinner to the divine 
 sovereignty, I admitted that a sinner ought to approA^e the law of God, 
 as holy, just and good in the threatening endless misery to sinners ; l)ut 
 this is consistent with their hoping in his mercy. The convinced publi- 
 can prayed, ''God he merciful to me, a sinner." I suppose that the divine 
 sovereignty is the greatest encouragement that a convinced sinner has or 
 can have, to hope for mercy. That a God of infinite goodness can 
 (through the atonement) have mercy on Avhom he Avill, consistent Avith 
 the honor of his laAv and goA^ernment and of all his perfections, is a 
 much better ground of hope, than if the sinner was left to his OAvn will; 
 but I don't see that this includes in it a willingness to be damned, though 
 the convinced sinner has a sense of his just desert of damnation, yet he 
 is invited and required to turn and live. 
 
 St. Paul's wish, Rom. 9. 3, taken literally (as translated) I think can't 
 be vindicated. 
 
 1. Because it would have been opposite to the revealed Avill of God 
 concerning him, he being a true Saint, could not be accursed from 
 Christ. 
 
 2. It could have been of no use to his brethren— his damnation could 
 not atone for their sins ; and there Avas a sufficient atonement made by 
 Jesus Christ. I think all that he intended Avas to express in strong 
 terms his great afiection and concern for that people and not that he did 
 or could really Avish damnation to himself for their sakes. Dr. Samuel 
 Clark on the place says, "The expression is highly figurative and affec- 
 tionate — But his intention was not to Avish himself subject to the 
 eternal AA'rath of God, Avliich is absurd and impossil)le." 
 
 It still appears to me that no moral agent ever Avas or can be Avilling 
 to be damned, and that no such thing is re(iuired by the divine laAv or the 
 gospel. If a person could be Avilling to be forever abandoned to sin and 
 misery, he must be so lost to any sense of good or happiness, as not to
 
 27 
 
 be capable of any regard to the glory of God, or the good and happiness 
 of the moral system ; for if he could take pleasure in these, he would 
 not be wholly deprived of happiness. 
 
 The bad tendency of this doctrine if it be not well founded, will be : — 
 
 1. To give uneasiness to pious minds who may believe it upon the 
 authority of those whom they think more knowing than themselves, but 
 yet they can't find their hearts reconciled to it. 
 
 2. Pious orthodox Christians who think it an error will be prejudiced 
 against the books that contain it, however orthodox and useful in other 
 respects, and will scruple the lawfulness of keeping them in their houses, 
 or any way encouraging the spread of such books, lest they should be 
 guilty of propagating dangerous errors. 
 
 3. It will give the enemies of truth occasion to speak reproachfully 
 of the authors of such books, and prejudice the minds of people against 
 them, and so obstruct tlieir usefulness. Therefore I wish you to cut off 
 occasion, from those who may seek occasion. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 ROGER SHERMAN.
 
 
 -A-.'-- 
 
 uc 
 
 SOUTHERN BEGION^^^^^^ 
 
 LIBRARV FACIUTV 
 
 AA 
 
 000 290164 3 
 
 Return ,^°' ""'''^'- ^'^!^0^^>^9^iZir'''
 
 
 Uni\ 
 S