|
Samuel Hopkins modified Jonathan Edwards's distinctive doctrine of
disinterested benevolence in the late 18th century. This provided the
theological foundation for Hopkins
to become the first American abolitionist. Hopkins's
doctrine focused not on God alone as Being in General, as Edwards taught,
but he included the focus of man in his horizontal life to others after
conversion. According to Hopkins,
the fruit of the Christian life should be willing to suffer no matter what
the consequence, out of selflessness to others. The practical application
of this doctrine led to Hopkins's
fight against the practice of slavery in Newport,
Rhode Island. According to Hopkins,
this was the selflessness that should be the fruit of the true Christian:
willing to suffer for God no matter what the consequences, even if it meant
challenging the social practices in ending the slave trade. He believed
abolitionism was just one of the ways a Christian could manifest
disinterested benevolence to man, in one's love to God. Hopkins's
doctrine would influence Christian reform movements with a focus on civil
morality in antebellum America.
His influence and legacy of Abolitionism in the 19th century would
challenge the unity of the churches and the social order in America
that would lead to the American Civil War.
In January 1758, Jonathan Edwards had been installed as the new
president of Princeton University.
A Smallpox epidemic was threatening the Princeton
community and Edwards was advised to be inoculated from the virus. On February 23, 1758, Edwards's
doctor inoculated him with the smallpox virus and within a few days his
mouth and throat began to prevent him from swallowing. Unable to drink
sufficiently to prevent a secondary fever, the virus consumed him and his
recovery became increasingly unlikely. On March 28 of the month following,
a Philadelphia newspaper
announced that Edwards was dead at the age of fifty-four.
Although Edwards was dead, his work would continue. His most prominent
students who had studied under him would try to build and expand upon his
foundation and continue his theological legacy in a rationalistic age.
These students consisted of Joseph Bellamy, Jonathan Edwards, Jr., and the
most enduring systematizer of Edwards's theology, Samuel Hopkins. This
movement of theology would later be referred to as the "New England
Theology" because of its distinct progressive character and emphasis
in the late 18th century. These were the theologians, still faced with the
threat of Rationalism, Moralism, Antinomianism, and Arminianism. These men
attempted to answer their critics and continue Edwards's tradition of
commitment to Calvinism emphasizing morality and piety in the Christian
life. The late 18th century America
was an age of men who believed in a Moral Governor who ruled the universe,
but was distant from man. Thomas Jefferson claimed that men ought to have a
true rational understanding of Jesus and an admiration toward abiding by
the Ten Commandments, which according to him, was the way of eternal life while
living on this earth. According to this late 18th century mindset,
Christianity should not teach the fall of man or human depravity, which
were theologically primitive doctrines of a past age, but that every man
could live their lives to God, by following the example of Jesus and his
love for God. One of the stumbling blocks of Christianity in the minds of
the leaders of this rational age, was the problem of evil. If God was a
Benevolent and Moral Governor, from where does evil come?
Hopkins, as a consistent New
Divinity minister, had a desire to take Edwards's understanding of sin,
evil in the world, and the reason for God allowing it, to show that it was
to bring greater glory to God and ultimate good for man. Hopkins
went further than both Calvin and Edwards in his explanation of the reason
for evil in a rational age. His attempt was to justify God in the eyes of
rational men; God was not the arbitrary, wrathful God who allowed evil
among men merely for the suffering of humanity, but he had a greater purpose
in his allowance of it. However, in his attempt as advocate of the Most
High, he greatly modified not only Edwards's teaching on divine
benevolence, but Calvinism as well. Historian Paul Conkin wrote of Samuel
Hopkins, "In his theological system he did make some telling
concessions to a more humanistic age, and in ways he never intended he
began, or possibly continued, such a process of reinterpreting Calvinism as
to make it more human-centered and benevolent. This reinterpretation, in
New England, would culminate in the theology of Nathaniel Taylor and Horace
Bushnell, both of whom gained direct inspiration from Hopkins."
Samuel Hopkins was born in a wealthy family in Waterbury, Connecticut,
the eldest of his father's sons. Because of this, he was able to graduate
from Yale in 1741 and was influenced in his undergraduate years by the
sermons of George Whitfield and Gilbert Tennent during the first Great
Awakening in America. After graduation from Yale, he began to pursue the
ministry. Although Hopkins did not know the actual date of his conversion,
he claimed that this was truly not important. What was important to Hopkins
was the fruit of good works that was the evidence of a conversion, and
these good works should make one confident in his assurance of salvation.
The doctrines that would be taught and built upon as a student of Edwards,
would change the shape of New England theology for years to come. Hopkins
had heard Jonathan Edwards preach and eventually applied to study with
Edwards between the years 1741 and 1743. For two years, Hopkins would study
under this American master theologian and genius.
As a pastor, Hopkins was never a successful minister. He was first
called to preach in a pulpit in Great Barrington, in western Massachusetts.
His preaching was known to be dull among his parishioners and his sermons
were abstract exercises in theology. His moral demands were so rigorous
that few in his congregation could meet his standards. In 1769, Hopkins
left the pulpit at Great Barrington because of financial reasons and was
called to the pulpit of the First Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island in
1771. During these years while pastor at this church, Hopkins would prove
to be a prolific writer of some of his most enduring writings. He was to
publish Edwards's posthumous works, to write the first biography of
Edwards, and to publish the practical sequel to Edwards's Nature of True
Virtue. In this sequel Hopkins would contribute the theology which would
lead to the later evangelical social reform, particularly the involvement
in the abolition of slavery.
The year 1793 was to be path-breaking for Hopkins. Not only did he
publish the first systematic theology in America, but as the minister at
the Newport congregation, Hopkins would begin as a moral reformer resolved
to abolish the slave trade. Hopkins had written earlier in his life to the
Constitutional Convention on the abolition of the slave trade. As pastor in
Newport, in the midst of the practice of the slave trade, he saw a more
immediate need to speak out. Newport, Rhode Island was the center of what
was called the triangular trade, the exchanging of distilled rum for
African slaves for sale in the West Indies. For Hopkins, it was necessary
for him to teach and modify the doctrines of Edwards's True Virtue, and to
practically apply this doctrine in his own distinctive way. Hopkins would
become the "father of abolitionism" during these years and became
the most famous man in the city of his pastorate. Although there may have
been other philosophical teachings, such as the influence of Immanuel Kant
that was driving his doctrine of disinterested benevolence, most of his
influence was from taking Edwards's ontological teaching of God to make
this practical to Christians in America. Kant was very influential in the
late 18th century and he taught a this-worldly ethic, one that applied in
the phenomenal realm of men. In contrast, Hopkins's doctrine was distinctly
Edwardsean without a mere emphasis on the abstract appreciation of beauty,
but with an emphasis on a practical desire to do good. Hopkins desired to
improve upon Edwards True Virtue, more than merely defend him to men in his
age. In 1773, Hopkins wrote Inquiry Concerning the Nature of True Holiness.
Hopkins said that Edwards's interpretation of Being in general was an area
in need of improvement. Historian Joseph Conforti wrote, "[Hopkins]
attempted to correct Edwards by redefining Being in general as 'God and our
neighbors,' that is God and mankind."
To understand Hopkins, one must remember that his theology was an
attempt to justify the ways of God to men of a rational age. To those who
would argue that God is evil, unjust and arbitrary, Hopkins presented God
as allowing all things to be conducive to the greatest good for men.
Therefore, when sin entered the world through Adam as presented in Genesis
chapter two, for Hopkins this was allowed in order to bring about the
greatest good. The introduction of sin in the world according to Hopkins
had to be conducive not just to God's glory but to the happiness and
fulfillment of humanity. God was a good and just moral governor of the
universe and men should understand that he desires nothing but the greatest
good for humanity. Hopkins perceived that although the practice of slavery
was part of the consequences of the fallen human nature, it would be for
God's greater glory if the practice could be abolished. As he later taught,
God would not be pleased with America as long as men held others in
bondage. Whereas Edwards had taught that disinterested benevolence was
ultimate for the glory of God, Hopkins's consciously tried to improve on
this by saying that men bring glory to God not merely in their relation to
Him, but in their actions and benevolence to men who are made in God's
image. Hopkins wanted the world of the late 18th century to know that this
was an ordered universe made by a just God who indeed only intended good
for his creatures-even those who were under the ownership of other men.
Another aspect of Hopkins theology to be considered in light of his
future moral reform was the doctrine of human depravity. For Hopkins, man
was fallen and he could not please God. Here we see Hopkins explicating
Edwards's doctrines found in his essay On the Freedom of the Will. Hopkins
avoided teaching a doctrine of imputation of Adam's sin to humanity,
because for him it was enough to know that all men sin and this is revealed
in their actions; or the "sin is in the sinning". Man in his
present state is unable to love and obey God, therefore he must be changed
by the Spirit of God. In this transformation of moral character, man would
do good deeds to show the fruit of his regeneration. In his doctrine of the
"fruits of regeneration," Hopkins did not stray far from the teaching
of Edwards, nor was he far from the Calvinistic confessions in his
doctrine. However, in his modified understanding of sin as "sin in the
sinning" he set himself against the traditional Calvinist and
Edwardsean understanding of original sin. This would influence the later
New School Presbyterians in their doctrine of original of sin but it also
gave Hopkins a doctrinal platform to undermine the pro-slavery arguments of
slaveholders of the 18th century.
The ultimate doctrine of true virtue expressed in a disinterested
benevolence would be the fuel to the fire of his moral reform. Edwards
described true virtue as disinterested benevolence to Being in general. He
explained that the ultimate glory of God emanated in man because it was
represented in man's true and virtuous living. It was through this
doctrine, based upon Edwards's writings in True Virtue that a person who
desired his own salvation was in actuality not showing a changed will, but
one that was worthy of damnation. This should be understood in light of
rewards and punishments. Edwards had explained in True Virtue that
"true love for God is in love for God, as God is in himself in all his
perfections." For Hopkins, this selfless love or true virtue in
disinterested benevolence would be displayed not only in our love for God,
but for man as well.
Concerning salvation for example, Hopkins taught that if a person knew
that some would perish under the wrath of God, and a person desired
salvation while knowing this truth, in reality they were selfish in seeking
salvation, showing themselves unworthy of God's graciousness. In contrast,
the person who wanted to truly glorify God would want his will to be in
exact conformity with God. If the will of God was that one must perish
eternally, then a true Christian's will should desire to be damned for His
glory. Hopkins taught that one's will should be in conformity to God's
wishes, even if it meant the losing of one's own soul. Hopkins wrote in his
dialogue between a Calvinist and semi-Calvinist:
I conclude you will
grant that the glory of God, or the greatest and most advantageous display
of the divine perfections, is of the highest importance, and that it is
reasonable, and our duty, to make this our highest and supreme end, in all
our desires and actions; and that we ought not to be willing any thing
should take place inconsistent with his glory; and that we ought to be
willing that what should take place, which is most for his glory, even
though it be the eternal damnation of sinners.
Practically speaking, this doctrine would have overwhelming influence on
the way a man would think about his fellow man. Hopkins applied this
doctrine, while pastor in Newport, Rhode Island to the immediate abolition
of the slave trade and emancipation of the slaves in America. According to
Hopkins, if a true Christian was to be willing to be damned for the glory
of God, then inevitably a Christian who lived a life worthy of God would be
willing to give up everything in order that his fellow man might live
better. Ultimately, Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7, commonly called the
"Golden Rule" or "Doing unto others as you would have them
do unto you," apparently included not only being damned for another,
but also by giving up all wealth and social status to redeem and set another
man free. Hopkins redefined Edwards's understanding of true virtue as
"disinterested benevolence to Being in general" meaning God only,
and modified his teaching by writing that true virtue was disinterested
benevolence to God and man. Conforti wrote, "The American Revolution,
the Newport slave trade, and the slave system itself presented Hopkins with
opportunities to demonstrate his disinterested love of Being in general and
to call for the reform of American society." Given Hopkins's
foundational theological thought and his practical application of it to the
abolition of the slave trade, we should consider the slave trade that
existed in America during Hopkins's life. It should be remembered that
Christians as well as non-Christians were involved both in the slave trade
and owned the labor of slaves. The doctrine of original sin provided a
pro-slavery apologetic for many of the slaveholders. In contrast, Hopkins's
denial of original sin and his advocacy of the greatest good for all beings
in his disinterested benevolence, gave him justification for opposing the
trade in Newport, Rhode Island.
Slaves had existed in the American colonies since the early 17th
century. By the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, one
out of five people were of African descent and were held as slaves in the
thirteen colonies. In the Colonial period of America, opinions on slavery
were divided. Some believed slavery was a "necessary evil" which
meant although one disagreed with the practice, there was really nothing
anyone could do about it because ultimately it would upset the social order
in America. At this time, some believed the social order was founded upon
the freedom of some men to hold the labor of other men. Those who believed
this way and owned slaves were mainly the aristocratic class.
The majority did not argue on behalf of slavery merely because they
thought the Africans were less human, arguing from the curse of Ham in
Genesis (although there were a few that argued this way). But the majority
of the aristocrats who owned slaves at this time argued that slavery was a
divine institution --an ontological institution which God had positively
sanctioned in the Bible. The aristocratic class both Christian and
non-Christian, argued that slaves had been held in bondage since Biblical
times and that the Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice
of slave holding. They argued that they did not own the slaves as beings in
God's image, but that they owned the slave's labor. This was in important distinction
for those of the upper class of this period.
Unfortunately, some scholars have argued against slavery from the abuse
of the institution until more recently. What is most interesting of a
culture and a republic supposedly founded on Christian principles is how
the majority of the slaveholders argued for the Biblical support of slavery
in contrast to a man like Samuel Hopkins who used the same Bible to argue
its abolition. This is more than a mere matter of interpretation because
the majority of both the abolitionists and the slaveholders, used the Bible
to support their position. The theological and philosophical
presuppositions of the individuals were driving their interpretations of
the Bible and while the slaveholders maintained that the Bible implicitly
and explicitly sanctioned the practice, the abolitionists including Samuel
Hopkins, appealed to what they called the "spirit of the gospel."
The main arguments of the Christian and non-Christian slave holders who
used the Bible to support the practice and trade were the following: (1)
Africans could be enslaved, because they were under Noah's curse upon his
son Ham; (2) God's people Israel had held slaves; (3) Christ did not
prohibit slavery; (4) Slavery was merely the lowest grade in a divinely approved
social order; and (5) Enslavement of Africans actually improved the lives
of the slaves, particularly in giving them access to the gospel. In
contrast to the slaveholder's eloquent exegesis, were those such as Hopkins
who said that while the texts themselves might not positively condemn the
practice, the very spirit of the gospel message was antithetical to the
practice.
In response to the slaveholders whose teachings were purportedly
supported by the Bible, Hopkins took up his pen first to address the
Continental Congress in 1776. He wrote a treatise to be published so that
all might truly understand what he termed the horror and inconsistency of
the Christian life by supporting the slave trade and in the holding of
slaves for labor. It is interesting to note that many of the same
arguments, both of the defenders, and Hopkins as the opponent of slavery,
are repeated in the Antebellum period, between 1830 and 1861 between many
of Hopkins's New England abolitionist descendents such as Henry Ward Beecher,
Charles Finney, Lyman Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe and many of the
graduates and students at Lane Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the
majority of Christian Southerners. It is important to see the New England
influence generally, and Samuel Hopkins's teaching specifically upon the
New School abolitionists of the 1820s-1850s. There is a
"genectic" theological influence which Hopkins gave to the
evangelical reform and abolitionist movements.
In the style of other writings by Hopkins, in 1776 he addressed a
dialogue to the Continental Congress in the American Colonies entitled: A
Dialogue concerning the Slavery of the Africans, showing it to be the Duty
and Interest of the American Colonies to Emancipate all the African Slaves,
with an Address to the Owners of such Slaves. He begins his address by
using a Whig ideology to begin his defense of why the African slave trade
should cease and that slaveholders should immediately emancipate their
slaves. He wrote:
Concerning the slave
trade and the Revolutionary War: …If the slavery in which we hold the
blacks is wrong, it is a very great and public sin, and, therefore, a sin
which God is now testifying against in the calamities he has brought upon
us; consequently, must be reformed before we can reasonably expect
deliverance, or even sincerely to ask for it. It would be worse than
madness, then, to put off attention to this matter, under the notion of
attending to more important affairs. This is acting like the mariner, who,
when his ship is filling with water, neglects to stop the leak, or ply the
pump, that he may mend his sails. (551)
Hopkins is here applying his understanding of the Millennium and true
virtue displayed in a disinterested benevolence, with a synthesis of the
American Whig political theory in appeal to the Continental Congress. He is
asking them ultimately, how can you proclaim and fight for freedom while
the slaves are being traded and these human beings are being treated like
dogs. He appeals to them that if America is God's plan for Christianity to
cover the earth, merely suggesting that the slave owners get rid of their
slaves is not enough. In order to be in line with God's will for his
Millennium in America, we must forbid the slave trade as unrighteous,
including the drinking of rum that is fueling the desire for the slave
trade in the first place. In Hopkins's mind, there is a close relationship
between our behavior toward our fellow men, the attempt to set up a
strictly Christian nation (or the covenant idea of America), and our relationship
to God. This should be viewed in contrast to the fact that many of the New
Divinity ministers had explained the evil in the world up until this point
as being for God's glory and man's greatest good. Hopkins is trying to
appeal to the slave holders in the American colonies as not only being
inconsistent personally with regards to true Christian virtue, but that
slave holding and the slave trade are inconsistent with America's aims at
being a true Christian nation. Hopkins
asked the question of how a nation who held slaves and practiced
slave-trading be truly righteous and expect God's blessing, particularly in
the pursuit of independence which the American colonies were presently
engaged. Hopkins wrote:
I think it of importance
that this trade should not only be condemned as wrong, but attentively
considered in its real nature, and all its shocking attendants and
circumstances, which will lead us to think of it with a detestation and
horror which this scene of inhumanity, oppression, and cruelty-exceeding
every thing of the kind that has ever been perpetrated by the sons of
men-is suited to excite; and awaken in us a proper indignation against the
authors of this violence and outrage done to their fellow-men, and to
feelings of humanity and pity towards our brethren who are the miserable
sufferers.
Hopkins continued in his
dialogue by describing the maltreatment of the slaves from the argument
that drunkenness upon rum and the avarice of men drives the practice of the
slave trade. He spoke of their poor travel conditions from ports to the
West Indies, the chains, the task master's whip, to the great hypocrisy
that it shows of the Christian faith against those who argue that they are
being brought from the land of idolatry and darkness to the place to hear
the gospel truth. He added that even if they were being converted, in
response to some of the slaveholder's arguments concerning the
"positive good" of the institution, that the majority of the
slaves think of the Christians as hypocrites because of the law of Christ
that stresses love and does not speak of bondage of sorts, except slavery
to Christ as their head. He said that the blacks detect the hypocrisy of
this treatment by Christians and do not want to have anything to do with
our religion (pp. 555-557).
Hopkins's response in this
section is in reply to those who argue that the slave trade has ultimately
good results; that they ultimately become Christians brought out of
paganism and darkness. The slaveholders argued that slaves are brought from
Africa, out of the pagan land where the gospel of
Christianity is not heard and into a civilized land
of Christians where they hear
the gospel. While he agreed that they were being influenced by the gospel,
he believed that the slave trade was undermining the true Christian witness
because benevolence was being denied out of selfish desire for profits of
rum in the slave trade, and the convenience of holding men in bondage for
labor.
Hopkins answered the
advocate of slavery in a story which is a parable of sorts. In response to
the advocate's claims that the slave trade has been abolished in the
colonies and we should wait to free those who are already in bondage. Hopkins
said that if a people stole the goods of another people then realized it
was wrong, it would not be enough to admit to their wrong doing, but that
they should return the goods stolen as well to enact true justice. Hopkins
showed himself to be an immediate abolitionist with apparently no
reservations or concerns to the economy nor the social conditions of the
time which were built upon the institution of human bondage (561). If men
were to consider the greatest good in light of disinterested benevolence,
then they would disregard any economical concerns because the Christian
life should be lived selflessly.
In response to the slaveholders who argued that the Bible teaches
implicitly and explicitly that slavery is a lawful institution, Hopkins
responded:
In a word, if any kind of slavery can be vindicated by the Holy
Scriptures, we are already sure our making and holding the Negroes our
slaves, as we do, cannot be vindicated by any thing we can find there, but
is condemned by the whole of divine revelation. However, I am willing to
hear what you can produce from Scripture in favor of any kind of slavery
(562).
According to Hopkins's
understanding of divine benevolence, he cannot imagine that just because
slaves are mentioned in the Scriptures, that this in any way warrants the
continued practice. The Christian doctrine of the golden rule is to love
and treat others as you would have them love and treat you (Mt. 7). To Hopkins
this is inconsistent Christianity. Hopkins
believed that there were no fruits evident in the Christian life when one
does something out of selfish ambition and the desire of gain. Christians
show their love for God by denying themselves, having a disinterested
outlook on life. No matter what harm, or at what cost, a Christian should
only want to do that which glorifies God in the greatest way and what is
the best for all of man-including the abolition of the slave trade and
slavery. Here again, Hopkins's
doctrine of disinterested benevolence is driving his arguments and his
consequential persecution and unpopularity in the pulpit among the Newport
elite. It should be noted that Hopkins himself was a prominent and elite
man of his times, not merely because of the home in which he was born, but
also his great position as minister and leader of the community. It is
obvious that he sincerely believed the theology he was teaching with
apparently no ulterior motives because he was to be not only persecuted for
his position against slavery, but he risked losing the his prominent social
position within the community as well.
The Advocate for the continuance of slavery first uses the argument from
the "curse of Ham" in Genesis. Hopkins
answered that even if that argument can be proven from Scripture, "the
other sons of Ham and their posterity are no more affected with this curse
than the other sons of Noah and their posterity. Therefore, this prediction
is as much of a warrant for the Africans' enslaving us, as it is for us to
make slaves of them. The truth is, it gives not the least shadow of a right
to any one of the children of Noah to make slaves of any of their
brethren." (563)
The advocate then follows his first premise by stating that God allowed
the people of Israel
to buy and make slaves from the nations around them. Hopkins
answered: "…It was right for them to make bond-servants of the nations
round them, they having an express permission to do it from him who has a
right to dispose of all men as he pleases. God saw fit, for wise reasons to
allow the people of Israel thus to make and possess slaves; but is this any
license to us to enslave any of our fellow-men, any more than their being
allowed to kill the seven nations in Canaan is a warrant to us to kill any
of our fellow-men whom we please and are able to destroy, and take
possession of their estates?" (564)
Hopkins continued for
several paragraphs showing how the State of Israel was a peculiar nation
called out by God for righteousness of all people and that it is important
to distinguish the laws that God set for them and to not appeal to this
particular nation with its particular laws to justify slavery upon the
whole earth. Here is evidence of how Hopkins's wass denying slavery from
the Old Testament. Ultimately, he made a separation and not a mere
distinction between the New Testament Church and the Old Testament Israel.
This would be in contrast to his teacher Jonathan Edwards who spoke of the
"Old Testament Church." In order to make his appeal to the
Continental Congress, Hopkins uses arguments in the dialog from reason to
speak to the Rationalists of the day and to the Christians, many who
understood as he that America was founded to be a Christian nation, a holy
experiment, a unique separated republic in covenant with God.
The advocate for slavery in the dialog appealed to the New Testament
which seems to favor slavery such as Paul's letter to Philemon and Paul's
commandment in 1 Tim. 6:1 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honor." Hopkins responded and
said that whatever these verses say about certain slavery practices, they
certainly do not support the slave trade of Negroes. He argued that the
bondservants spoken of by Paul are those who have "forfeited their
liberty to the community of which they are members, by some particular
crimes, and by debt in some instances; and are for this condemned to
servitude for a longer or shorter time, and sold by the civil
magistrate…These Scriptures, therefore, are infinitely far from justifying
the slavery under consideration; for it cannot be made to appear that one
in a thousand of these slaves has done any thing to forfeit his own liberty.
And if there were any such, they have never been condemned to slavery by
any who are proper judges, or had any authority to act in the affair."
(566).
In response to the advocate's claims that immediate emancipation would
hinder and ultimately harm the slaves in bondage, Hopkins replied:
If it be not a sin, an
open, flagrant violation of all the rules of justice and humanity, to hold
these slaves in bondage, it is indeed folly to put ourselves to any trouble
and expense in order to free them. But if the contrary be true, if it be a
sin of a crimson dye, which is most particularly pointed out by the public
calamities which have come upon us, from which we have no reason to expect
deliverance till we put away the evil of our doings, this reformation cannot
be urged with too much zeal, nor attempted too soon, whatever difficulties
are in the way…furthermore, the slaves cannot be put into a more wretched
situation, ourselves being judges, and the community cannot take a more
lively step to escape ruin, and obtain the smiles and protection of Heaven.
(571-572).
Hopkins continued:
Let this iniquity be
viewed in its true magnitude, and in the shocking light in which it has
been set in this conversation; let the wretched case of the poor blacks be
considered with proper pity and benevolence, together with the probably
dreadful consequence to this land of retaining them in bondage, and all
objection against liberating them would vanish. That mountains that are now
raised up in the imagination of many would become plain, and every
difficulty surmounted" (573).
Hopkins appealed to the Constitutional Convention by reminding them of
the righteous Israelites who were held by Pharaoh in perpetual bondage. How
God sent a leader in Moses to supernaturally set them free showing his
disgust with the institution. He asked rhetorically whether if our own
people were in bondage in some foreign land, would we not try to free them,
and do every thing we can to bring about the abolition of their bondage. He
concluded that it is because of the prejudices of Americans.
It is because they are Negroes [that we do not want to fight to set them
free], and fit nothing but slaves, and we have been used to look on them in
a mean, contemptible light, and our education has filled us with strong
prejudices against them, and led us to consider them, not as our brethren,
or in any degree on a level with us, but as quite another species of
animals, made only to serve us and our children, and as happy in bondage as
in any other state (573).
Hopkins continued that if we were to view the Africans on the same level
with our brethren and children, and our neighbors, "and that
benevolence which loves our neighbor as ourselves, and is agreeable to
truth and righteousness, we should begin to feel towards them, in some
measure at least, as we should towards our children and neighbors in the
case above supposed, and be as much engaged for their relief" (574).
The advocate of slavery in the Dialogue tells him that he kindly and
fairly treats his slaves. The advocate believes that he is not doing any
wrong as a Christian who holds his men in bondage. There is no abuse of the
bondage as some might assert. Hopkins answered, "this is speaking like
a man who has been robbed and when he protests to the robber of the
unrighteousness of the act, the robber tells him that you have no reason
for anger, for I have treated you kindly in my robbing you; you have
treated righteously and I have stolen from you that which I need"
(578). For Hopkins, the abuse within slaveholding is enough justification
for its abolition, but as well he believed that the slave trade and slave
holding were wrong and he defined the practice as sin.
The advocate asked Hopkins to consider God's obvious blessing upon the
American colonies. He noted the fact that America is trying to abolish the
slave trade in her colonies and it seemed that America is prospering
therefore the warnings and threats that Hopkins is aiming at the advocate
are superficial; God is not angry. In response to this claim and in his
conclusion, Hopkins wrote:
…If we obstinately
refuse to reform what we have implicitly declared to be wrong, and engaged
to put away the holding of the Africans in slavery…have we not the great
reason to fear, yea, may we not with great certainty conclude, God will
withdraw his kind protection from us, and punish us yet seven times more?
This has been God's usual way of dealing with his professing people; and
who can say it is not most reasonable and wise? He, then, acts the most
friendly part to these colonies and to the masters of slaves, as well as to
the slaves themselves, who does his utmost to effect a general emancipation
of the Africans among us; and, in this view, I could wish the conversation
we have now had on this subject…were published and spread through all the
colonies, and had the attentive perusal of every American (587-88).
Ultimately, Hopkins gives six reasons based on his understanding of
Scripture why the slave trade and slavery should be abolished: (1) No one
wants to be a slave, therefore no one should enslave another (Golden Rule);
(2) Africans are united with all humanity in descent from Adam; (3) Noah's
curse applied to the Canaanites and not to the Cushites, or the descendents
of Ham (Africans); (4) Mosaic law has been (implicitly) abrogated, so that
the example of ancient Israel does not apply; (5) "Man-stealing"
was a crime punishable by death in biblical times (Ex. 21:16); (6) Although
Christ did not expressly prohibit slavery, it is "repugnant to the
very genius and spirit of Christianity."
In 1793, Hopkins wrote A Discourse upon the Slave Trade and the Slavery
of the Africans. This was delivered at the annual meeting of the Providence
Society for Abolishing the Slave Trade. In this discourse, Hopkins's
fervently argued for the abolition of the slave trade again by appealing to
disinterested benevolence. In the beginning of the discourse he appealed to
Jesus and his "great commission" to go forth and preach the
gospel to every creatures and he explained how the hope of heaven should be
the hope of every man. The hope of heaven would also make men turn their
eyes not only upon God but with concern to their fellow man. In anticipated
response to those of the slave trade and the slaveholders, Hopkins explains
that if slaves were to be freed, the gospel would equip them for their
place in society. Hopkins wrote,
This institution of Heaven, when properly attended to, understood, and
cordially embraced, turns men from darkness to marvelous light. If it finds
them in a state of savage ignorance and barbarity it civilizes them, and
forms them to be intelligent and good members of society…It raises the mind
to the sight and contemplation of the most sublime, important, and
entertaining objects, and manifests those truths, and gives that light,
which are received with pleasing love and admiration…It forms men to
uprightness and the practice of righteousness, to universal benevolence and
goodness; teaching them to love their neighbor as themselves, and to do to
other men as they would that others should do unto them (599).
Hopkins appealed to the Providence Society by explaining that the gospel
is the true means that God has given to men to root out slavery. He
explained that where the gospel is received and obeyed not one would make a
slave of another because he would be acting contrary to the precepts of
Christianity (601). He again is astonished that a country that claims
Christianity as its banner would submit to such heinous practices which are
inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Hopkins wrote,
That this business, which is such a gross and open violation not only of
the genius and precepts of Christianity, but of the rights and feelings of
humanity, should be undertaken and carried on by nations who call
themselves Christians, and by individuals who bear that name, is truly
astonishing. It is impossible fully to describe, or have an adequate
conception of, the crimes which have been committed in this business, or
the evils which have attended it.
Hopkins explained that if nations and individuals were truly Christian,
then they would abolish such a practice but as it were, they are really the
"emissaries of Satan" in disguise, fooling themselves that they
are bringing the slaves to a Christian land and teaching them the gospel.
In light of his doctrine of disinterested benevolence, Hopkins proclaimed
that this practice is not done out of love but with a "sordid
selfishness and avarice which fortify men's hearts against the truths and
precepts of the gospel, and will lead them to do the work of the evil one,
in order to get money and promote what they consider to be their worldly
interest" (603-4). He reminded the audience that God allowed America
to gain her independence from Britain and in response to God's benevolence
we should fear that God should take away our freedom if we do not abolish
the trade immediately.
He ended his discourse by asking all to pray for the repentance of the
slave traders and slaveholders, and the abolition of the slaves. He closes
in a manner which would be characteristic of later Christian reformers in
the 19th century. Hopkins wrote,
May none of this respectable society, from selfish and sinister views,
or from fear of man, or partial favor and affection to any, or from
indolence and neglect, act a part inconsistent with the benevolent design
of it, or unworthy of a member of it; but may every one, with the utmost
care, circumspection, fidelity, and fortitude, act a consistent part, and persevere
in constant endeavors to promote the important end of this institution,
whatever may be the opposition from ignorant, interested men, knowing that
he is engaged in the cause of God and human nature (608).
Hopkins's arguments in attempt to end the slave trade would be used by
his abolitionist descendents. Ministers in the antebellum period in America
who did not necessarily agree with his doctrine of disinterested
benevolence, who nevertheless sought to abolish the slave trade. Hopkins
can truly be called the father of abolitionism and the reform movements
which were to characterize many evangelicals of the 19th century. Two
historians have described the type of moral reformers who were to follow
Samuel Hopkins: "The Calvinist's deity had died, to be replaced by One
concerned with the happiness of mankind, the growth of the visible church,
the extinction of heresy, and the establishment of a moral order which
reflected the ethics but not the theology of Calvinism…it was the faith of
the fathers, ruined by the faith of the children." Historian Paul
Conkin wrote, "[Hopkins] was a position in a lineage that stretched
from Edward to Hopkins and Bellamy to Timothy Dwight to the New Haven
theology of Nathaniel Taylor to liberal forms of Congregationalism in the
late nineteenth century. Hopkins, when understood in this developing
tradition, anticipated not Hodge and the Princeton theology but a
continuing series of more liberal and modernist versions of evangelical
doctrine, revisions made to fit new contexts and new intellectual
influences. In this tradition Hopkins was a revealing but not a highly
original or gifted theologian. He was not broadly learned, was on most
critical issues depended on Edwards, and yet was not always a perceptive
interpreter of his mentor. Hopkins had more than his share of moral fervor,
but he lacked the philosophical and esthetic subtlety of Edwards."
In historian Donald Scott's book From Office to Profession: The New
England Minister, 1750-1850, he argues that the New England ministry after
Jonathan Edwards changed from being an office within the community to
preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to a profession of moral reformers who
thought the gospel was only good if it was preparing American for the
Millennium and Christ's imminent return. The New Divinity ministers,
particularly Samuel Hopkins set this agenda for 19th century moral reform.
Through the teaching of Nathaniel W. Taylor and Henry Ward Beecher, the
doctrines of original sin were continually undermined. They thought that
true change in the life of Christians began at conversion and because of
the "free will" of men, they merely needed to be informed of
their sin and they would repent and change. This conversion would lead men
to influence the way the gospel effects society. In movements such as
temperance reform, or the militant march of ministers against alcohol use
and abuse; the movement of education reform, or the growth of Sunday
School, teaching men and women to read and write; the movement of social
reform to care for the poor and to help them promote themselves in society;
and particularly the abolitionist movement to free the slaves immediately,
were all reform movements to end immorality in America and to fulfill the
coming of the Kingdom of Christ on the earth. As Jonathan Edwards had
written a century prior, America was specifically designed to set up the
Kingdom of Christ upon the earth. Hopkins's influence to the next
generation would provide additional stimulus for moral reform through his
writings on the Millennium and on disinterested benevolence to the greatest
good of men.
Through the direct influence of Hopkins to Henry Ward Beecher and to his
son Lyman Beecher, the next century began with an effort for a united
Christendom. Christians would unite together to bring in the Millennium,
engaged in moral reform in the society. Henry Ward Beecher, Lyman Beecher
and his daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe, were to lead this abolitionist,
moral reform crusade to put an end to slavery. Particularly Harriet Beecher
Stowes influence and writings cannot be underestimated. With her
publication in 1852 entitled Uncle Tom's Cabin, more people read and were
influence at the supposed horrors of slavery than any publication before or
since. Indeed, it could be argued that Hopkins was indirectly responsible
for this book and its influence. His doctrines were made popular by Harriet
Beecher Stowe as she popularized Hopkins into fictional characters in the
New England Novels, with the hopes that it might be as influential to Americans
as her first book, Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Although it would beyond the scope of this essay to consider the
magnitude of Hopkins's influence on the 19th century moral reform, one
should be aware of his influence on the fictional, abolitionist writings of
Harriet Beecher Stowe. In Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Oldtime Folk her
grandmother says: "I like good, strong, old-fashioned doctrine. I like
such writers as Mr. Edwards and Dr. Bellamy and Dr. Hopkins." Beecher
Stowe's father, Lyman Beecher was a Congregationalist and Presbyterian
minister trained in the school of Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins, called
the New England theology. He would eventually be president of Lane Seminary
in Cincinnati, Ohio after 1832, which was a hotbed of abolitionist influence.
In the 1859 story in the series of "New England Novels"
entitled The Minister's Wooing, Stowe "preaches" through her
literature the doctrine of Hopkins's disinterested benevolence. The details
of his theology was correct in her writings, although his life is not
always portrayed accurately. However, her story does take place in Newport,
Rhode Island in the midst of the slave trade and among slave holders. Stowe
writes a love story between a young lady named Mary Scudder and her suitor
James Marvyn. James is sent on a trip and unable to be wed to Mary, so the
character Hopkins
"woos" her to marry him. Upon James unexpected return, Hopkins
is willing to give up Mary so she can marry James when he realizes she is
still in love with him. Not only were Stowe's New England novels
expressions of her theology and philosophical mind they had an ulterior
motive such as the one presented by Stowe in her 1852 novel Uncle Tom's
Cabin that presented slavery as a great evil that must immediately be
abolished. Stowe presents Hopkins's
doctrine of disinterested benevolence in a way that would convince even the
youngest child reading the novel. The moral reform and true virtue as
understood in Hopkins's
disinterested benevolence was being made practical to the common layman as
a theology hidden within the text of a novel.
In chapter four of The Minister's Wooing the characters are engaged in
the discussion of the Sunday sermon by Doctor Hopkins. The narrator says:
"The subject of
discussion, and what Mrs. Brown supposed to be in her own thoughts, was the
last Sunday's sermon on the doctrine of disinterested benevolence, in which
good Doctor Hopkins had proclaimed to the citizens of Newport their duty of
being so wholly absorbed in the general good of the universe as even to
acquiesce in their own final and eternal destruction, if the greater good
of the whole might thereby be accomplished.
One wonders if would have every crossed Samuel Hopkins's mind some sixty
years earlier if his doctrines would become popularized and used
narratively against the practice of slaveholding by a New England woman
such as Harriet Beecher Stowe. Again, Hopkins's
doctrines are explained in terms of love: the fact that God's love is
disinterested and God expects man to love as he loves; second, it is the
opposite of self-love that it seeks the good of others; and third, it seeks
the good of being in general. All of these novels written by Stowe were to
practically end the continued slaveholding that had existed since the time
of Hopkins, and which he gave
the majority of the his last years to abolish.
The post-Revolutionary interpretation of Hopkins's
dialog in 1776 has the character in chapter ten opposing the slave trade to
a slave trader. The character using Hopkins's
doctrine of disinterested benevolence says that slavery and the slave trade
are a violation of the commandments because it is not loving and
furthermore slavery is not in accord with the freedom the Lord granted from
England in
the Revolutionary War.
The reason for concluding with this afterword on the legacy of Samuel
Hopkins should be understood. Harriet Beecher Stowe was not an orthodox
Calvinist theologian, but a great author of literature that affected the
reform of enslaved men during the rise of democratization and radical egalitarianism
in America
that resulted from the synthesis of revolutionary ideals, or Whig ideology,
and the decline of Calvinistic theology among the majority of people. Her
literary contributions displayed Hopkins's
doctrines creatively in an age that had matured with slavery being the
foundation of the social order. For Hopkins,
as well as for Stowe, slavery would only be abolished when people stopped
reading Jonathan Edwards and paid attention to the interpretation and
modifications of his followers of the New England
theology, namely Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins. It was Stowe that
influenced more people of her time against the supposed evils of slavery in
her time and that gave the greatest impetus not only for moral reform and
abolitionism, but the coming of the American Civil War.
Hopkins should be remembered for many of his positive contributions.
Hopkins desired to teach Calvinism to men of a rational age and to prove
the relevance of a belief in God in light of sin and evil. His theology of
disinterested benevolence helped Christians to think about their
relationship to God and man and not merely about rewards and punishments in
the Christian life, but how to live as a Christian today to the glory of
God. His theological legacy helped many Christians to reconsider the evils
of slavery in light of Christian charity.
However, in an attempt to preach morality and emphasize piety in the
Christian life, Hopkins's instituted a moral reform that has been the root
of an American civil religion. As an abolitionist of the slave trade,
Hopkins led the way for later 19th century reformers who would be involved
in the practice of building a Christian America. Although many of the
reforms were good and the abolitionists challenged slaveholders to not only
treat their slaves fairly, but influenced some to free their slaves
altogether, many did not think slavery was an evil institution,
particularly the Southern region. Hopkins's theological legacy fueled the
fire for one region of Christians to think of slavery as evil, against
another region that argued for biblical sanction of the institution. The
preaching of the abolitionists descended from the New England theology of
Samuel Hopkins would give impetus to the split in many of America's
churches, leading to the devastating American Civil War. In addition,
Hopkins's influence on Christian moral reform during the Antebellum era
might have influenced more morality than actual Christianity in the minds
of many of that time, particularly the Southern Presbyterians, Episcopalians
and Baptists. What began as the understanding of true virtue in light of
disinterested benevolence, eventually caused a break up the churches and
the union of the states. Those particularly in New England who were under
his greatest influence (such as Harriet Beecher Stowe) were stalwarts of
immediate abolitionism who antagonized one region of the country to have to
defend itself against the very practices which they believed not only the
Bible supported, but just as importantly to the social order, the
Constitution permitted.
It was ultimately Hopkins's legacy that caused the people mainly of New
England to influence the government of the union of the states to interpret
the constitution according to one region's bias. Hopkins set the standard
for systematic theologies to be written in America, but his understanding
and application of disinterested benevolence to the social order,
ultimately upset the social order. However, in light of Hopkins's doctrine
of disinterested benevolence although he would have probably seen the Civil
War as a horrible, unnecessary evil, he would have rejoiced because
ultimately God would be glorified and it was a means to the greatest end
for men made in God's image.
CRB
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Hopkins, Samuel. The Works of Samuel
Hopkins, D. D., 3 volumes (Boston: Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, 1854).
Particularly, I will use Vol. II and Hopkins' dialogues concerning the
slavery of the Africans.
________. A Dialogue Concerning the
Slavery of the Africans (Norwich, Conn.: Judah P. Spooner, 1776).
________. An Inquiry into the Nature of
True Holiness (Newport, R.I.: Solomon Southwick, 1773).
Secondary Sources
Ahlstrom, Sidney E. A Religious History of
the American People (New Haven: Yale University, 1972).
Birdsall, Richard. "Ezra Stiles
Versus the New Divinity Men" American Quarterly 18 (1965): 248-58.
Birdsall criticizes Haroutunian's thesis and wrote: "The New Divinity
functioned not only as a critique of New England's theological condition,
but, like the Awakening itself, as a protest against the evolution of New
England society."
Boardman, George Nye. A History of New
England Theology (New York: A. D. F. Randoph, 1899).
Breitenbach, William K. "The
Consistent Calvinism of the New Divinity Movement" William and Mary
Quarterly 41 (April 1984): 241-64.
Conforti, Joseph. Samuel Hopkins and the
New Divinity Movement (Grand Rapids: Christian University, 1981).
Conforti's thesis: "The New Divinity men did not betray their origins
in experimental religion by over intellectualizing the piety of the Great
Awakening; rather, they preserved and bequeathed to the next generation
revivalists its creative tension between social theory and social
practice."
________. "Samuel Hopkins and the New
Divinity: Theology, Ethics, and Society in Eighteenth-Century New
England" William and Mary Quarterly 34 (October 1977): 572-89.
Conkin, Paul K. The Uneasy Center:
Reformed Christianity in Antebellum America (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1995).
Foster, Charles. The Rungless Ladder:
Harriet Beecher Stowe and New England Puritanism (Durham: Duke University
Press, 1954).
Foster, Frank Hugh. A Genetic History of the
New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), 8. First
comprehensive history of New England theology form the First Great
Awakening to the mid-Nineteenth century. This book has an very thorough
chapter on Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity.
Gaustad, Edwin S. The Great Awakening in
New England (New York, 1957).
Gerstner, John H. The Rational Biblical
Theology of Jonathan Edwards, Three volumes (Powhatan, Va: Berea
Publications; Orlando, Fl.: Ligonier Ministries, 1991). An excellent work
by an evangelical scholar who has a large section on the history of
Edwards' theological influence on the New Divinity ministers.
Guelzo, Allen C. "Jonathan Edwards
and the New Divinity: Change and Continuity in New England Calvinism,
1758-1858," Dennison, Charles G. and Gamble, Richard C., eds. Pressing
Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia: Committee for the Historian of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986).
Haroutunian, Joseph. Piety Versus
Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Holt, 1932).
Haroutunian's thesis is that the New Divinity became divorced from social
reality and the dynamic piety of the Awakening. He criticized the New
Divinity men for moralizing Edwards.
Hatch, Nathan O. and Stout, Harry S. eds.
Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1988). Best collection of essays on Edwards' that I know in print.
Hedrick, Joan D. Harriet Beecher Stowe: A
Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
Heimert, Alan. Religion and the American
Mind from the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard
University, 1966). Still one of the best overviews although Conforti finds
disagreement with certain parts of the study.
Hirrel, Leo P. Children of Wrath: New
School Calvinism and Antebellum Reform (Lexington: University of Kentucky,
1998). One of the latest studies on Antebellum reform that continues to
show the close relationship between Christianity and the effort for moral
reform in attempt to hurry the Millennium.
Kuklick, Bruce. Churchmen and
Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale
University, 1985). I will consult a chapter on the New Divinity men after
Edwards which includes a few pages on Hopkins.
May, Henry F. The Enlightenment in America
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). One of the best overviews of the
intellectual mind of the 18th century American.
Mead, Sidney E. Nathaniel William Taylor,
1786-1858: A Connecticut Liberal (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942).
Mead challenges Haroutunian's work and his distorted interpretation of
Hopkins' theology and other New Divinity men. He does not give a positive
view of the New Divinity men.
Morgan, Edmund S. The Gentle Puritan: A
Life of Ezra Stiles, 1729-1795 (New Haven: Yale University, 1962).
Consulting for additional information on Samuel Hopkins' life and
influence.
Smith, Hilrie Shelton. Changing
Conceptions of Original Sin: A Study in American Theology Since 1750 (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955). Excellent book which has a section on
Hopkins' disinterested benevolence and God's allowance of sin for the
greatest good in the world.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. The Minister's
Wooing. (New York: Derby and Jackson, 1859) reprint, Edited by Sandra R.
Duguid. (Hartford: The Stowe-Day Foundation, 1978). Will read this book for
a fictional representation of Samuel Hopkins and his formulation of anti-slavery
doctrine from his disinterested benevolence.
________. Oldtown Folks. 1869; Reprint,
Edited by Dorothy Berkson (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987).
Sweet, Leonard I., ed. The Evangelical
Tradition in America (Macon: Mercer University, 1984). This book includes
one of the best bibliographic essays that includes much evangelical
scholarship up to 1984. The essay includes many of the theses and
"conversations" of historians writing about evangelicalism since
the 1960s.
Warfield, Benjamin B. "Edwards and
the New England Theology," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited
by James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912), 5:226;
reprint, Studies in Theology, volume IX of The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1927). A good essay on the
influence of Edwards' theology on Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins and the
other New Divinity ministers.
|
