The Journal of Baptist Studies 8 (2016) As Hopkins reasoned, “The law must thus first come, before the grace of the gospel can give true relief.”70 Ryland had also broached the subject, like Fuller, of disinterested love and the willingness to be damned for the glory of God. Ryland had asked in his letter, “What call have they to be willing to be damned, when God assures them that Christ is able and willing to save them, and can be glorified more in their salvation than in their damnation?” 71 Interestingly, Hopkins did not answer the base concern that he had misunderstood the doctrine of disinterested love. Instead, he argued that to deny that such a willingness to be damned for God’s glory does in fact bring him great glory would be tantamount to reasoning that since God is more glorified in the salvation of sinners than in the damnation of such, God must save all sinners alike. Surely, he reasoned, Ryland could not agree with such a conclusion.72 Hopkins also attempted to answer Ryland’s concerns regarding the idea of God as the author of sin. He acknowledged Ryland’s complaint: “You might think we spend too much time, and take more pains,” he wrote, “in explaining and vindicating the divine agency in the existence of moral evil than in proving that God is the Author of all moral good.”73 Ironically, seemingly in agreement with Ryland’s observation, Hopkins directed his friend to his other writings for his teachings on this subject rather than clarifying what he had already written. As to the warning that excessive attention to the doctrine of God’s decrees could prove unhelpful to the lost, Hopkins rebutted that such a problem might arise from the attention given to any theological concept in which the main meaning
70
Ibid., 2:755. Ryland, “A Significant Letter,” 30. 72 Hopkins, “Letter to Dr. Ryland (September 1803),” Works 2:756. 73 Ibid. 71
39