A DEFENCE OF
PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE
OF THE LATE MR. FULLER
RELATIVE TO THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, IS TRIED
BY THE WORD OF GOD.
BY WILLIAM RUSHTON,
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND, 1831
Zion's Advocate Print,
Luray, Virginia 1904.
PREFACE
Actuated by a desire to benefit the cause of truth, I publish and send
forth this edition of Rushton’s “Defence of Particular Redemption,”
believing that the scarcity of former editions and the recurrence of
questions therein discussed, render its republication needful.
Among the many who have risen in the Old Baptist church, who
became dissatisfied with its doctrine and practice and sought to
change them to suit the notions of the world and render that ancient
church more popular, none have succeeded in gaining a greater name
than Andrew Fuller. He was born in 1754 and died in 1815. At the early
age of seventeen he began to consider the expediency of making a
change in the tactics of the Baptists, and at the age of twenty-one he
wrote an essay entitled “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,”
which was published in 1782. His object seems to have been to
introduce the custom of offering salvation to all sinners without
distinction, maintaining that the prophets, Christ, and his Apostles
gave unlimited invitations to unconverted hearers of the gospel. As a
reason for such indiscriminate exhortations, he argued that the
atonement was general in its nature but special in its application,
denying that Christ made a vicarious offering when he laid down his
life. These views he advocated in a work entitled, “Dialogues, Letters,
and Essays,” to which Mr. Rushton replied in the form of letters as
given in this work.
Mr. Fuller, in connection with Mr. Carey and others, founded the first
Missionary Society ever organized—“Baptist Society for Propagating
the Gospel amongst the Heathen.” This Society was organized at
Kettering, England, October 2, 1792, and thus was introduced a
departure from the apostolic practice that formed a wedge to sever
the New School Baptists from the Old Order of Baptists.
Unscriptural practices usually result from false doctrines. Of the false
doctrines that led to the introduction of this new and unscriptural
move in the Baptist church, the doctrine of an indefinite atonement
was, perhaps, the most prominent. That doctrine has always been a
cardinal principle in the Arminian faith, and the arguments of Mr.
Fuller are as strong as any that have ever been advanced to support
that doctrine. As the issue is one that continues to mark an important
distinction between the doctrine of the Apostolic church and that of
the churches of the world, Mr. Rushton’s letters will ever continue to
be of great importance to the household of faith.
JOHN R. DAILY.
LURAY, VA., June 23, 1904.
INTRODUCTION
I think it right to inform the reader that, some time ago, I was
accidentally engaged in a verbal controversy on the nature and extent
of the atonement of Christ, with a Baptist minister of some celebrity,
residing in Northamptonshire. At parting he earnestly entreated me to
read Mr. Fuller's “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays,” which I promised
to do. No sooner had I read and pondered that work, than the fallacy
of Mr. Fuller’s doctrine, which my friend had espoused, appeared to
me in a more striking manner than it had ever done before; and I felt
assured that, with a little labor, the speciousness and deceitfulness of
Mr. Fuller's views might be fully made manifest. With this conviction, I
determined to attempt a refutation of them, and to publish it in the
following Letters.
It is more than possible that some weak and inconsiderate persons
may feel offended at the free use I have made of Mr. Fuller’s name,
because being now deceased he cannot answer for himself. Although
I have no fear of any objection of this nature from persons who are
acquainted with literary affairs, yet, for the sake of the weak, and
because of the captious, I offer the following apology:—
1. The subsequent Letters are not directed against Mr. Fuller, but
against the doctrine now prevailing in the Baptist churches.
2. It is impossible effectually to oppose this doctrine, without
reference to some acknowledged writings in which it is stated and
defended; and these acknowledged writings are Mr. Fuller’s
“Dialogues,” &c. It is true there are some living authors who have
asserted the same things; but these writers are inferior to Mr. Fuller in
celebrity and polemical talents. To encounter them, therefore, would
not be to allow my opponents the full exercise of their strength:
neither would it become the great cause of truth to engage the
subaltern, while the champion is defying the advocates of particular
redemption, and crying out, “Choose you a man for you, and let him
come down to me.”
3. When an author publishes on controverted subjects, he does so,
not only for the generation living at the time, but for the succeeding
generations. Though he dies as a man, he still lives as an author, and
teaches and speaks as long as his writings are read. It is right,
therefore, to examine the theories and doctrines of an author, whether
he be living or dead. What man of sense would reflect on President
Edwards, for publishing his confutation of Dr. Whitby, after the
Doctor’s death? Or who would charge Mr. Fuller with unfairness, for
publishing his “Strictures on Sandemanianism,” long after Mr. Robert
Sandeman had returned to his original dust?
4. But if, notwithstanding this explanation, any Baptist minister or any
other who understands the controversy, and who has espoused Mr.
Fuller’s views, feels hurt that Mr. Fuller’s name has thus been
introduced, let such a one take his pen, and as he reads, let him erase
the name of Mr. Fuller, and substitute his own; and let him know that
he is the man against whom I am writing, and not the deceased Mr.
Fuller.
If, however, the reader be one of those favored individuals whom the
Father hath drawn to Jesus, he hath already been taught so much of
the infinite evil of sin, and the vanity of all created things, as to loathe
himself and his own righteousness, and to value nothing in
comparison with truth. And in those happy moments, when he is
favored with a glimpse of the exalted Lamb, whose transcendent glory
fills heaven and earth, he looks coolly upon human authority, human
wisdom, and human worthiness. Such a one will not be offended
when the authority of celebrated names is set at nought that truth may
be maintained; but rather he has learned, in some degree, to “cease
from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be
accounted of?”
The only persons to whom I would offer any thing like the shadow of
an apology, for the polemical style of the following Letters, are the
afflicted, broken-hearted children of Zion. I know that disputings gall
and distress a tender mind. But how can we contend earnestly for the
faith, without disputation? Were not our Lord and his apostles often
engaged in reasoning with the opponents of truth? I hope, therefore,
that the lambs of the flock will not be offended, especially when they
reflect that the things contended for in the following pages are of the
highest importance—things with which the honor of God, and the
glory of a dear Redeemer are concerned; and which are absolutely
necessary to the strengthening of their own weak hands, and
confirming of their feeble knees. It is now high time for the friends of
truth to speak boldly. Error no longer hides its hateful head, but struts
abroad before the sun, and scornfully defies the advocates of
sovereign grace.
Although I have, in the following letters, boldly and unequivocally
asserted what I believe to be the truth, and although I have
endeavored to expose the deceitfulness of the opposite error, I hope
the reader will find nothing inconsistent with the meekness and
gentleness of Christ. That I have expressed indignation at iniquity I
acknowledge, but have not yet learned that this is inconsistent with
the spirit of the gospel, or contrary to the example of our Lord.
Throughout the whole I have studied brevity and perspicuity; and I
have not been unmindful of the well-known advice of the poet, which
all controversial writers should observe:—
“Quidquid praecipies esto brevis, ut cito dicta
Percipiant animi dociles, teneantque fideles.”
Into the hands of Him whose servant I profess to be, I confidentially
commit my work, notwithstanding the sinfulness and imperfection
which adhere to it. I shall think myself more than remunerated for my
labor, if he make it useful to any of his ransomed ones. But should it
please him that it die as soon as it is born, and remain in silence
forever, I trust I shall be content. For I am well persuaded that the Lord
will defend his own immortal truths in his own way and in his own
time, though error may rejoice in a temporary triumph, and though
truth may be “fallen in the street.”
WILLIAM RUSHTON, JUN.
Liverpool, 1831.
LETTER I.
DEAR SIR:— Agreeably to your earnest request, I have carefully read
Mr. Fuller’s publication, entitled “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays.”
Although I have long been acquainted with his sentiments generally,
and have attentively perused some of his writings, yet I know not how
long I should have postponed reading the “ Dialogues” had it not
been for your earnest solicitations. I consider myself, therefore,
indebted to no small degree to you for the pleasure and advantage I
have derived from some parts of that work. In the first and second
parts, particularly, Mr. Fuller discovers that strength of mind, and that
depth of originality of thought which characterize him as a polemic
writer: he has also defended many truths, and triumphantly refuted
some dangerous error. Here and there, indeed even in the first two
parts, he touches upon certain points, on which you will not expect
me to agree with him; but it is in the third part wherein he explains
himself more particularly on all important subjects which engaged our
attention when I had the pleasure of a personal interview with you,
and on which, more especially, I find reason to differ from him.
It is well known that a particular truth is often more effectually
opposed by the introduction of principles inconsistent with it, than by
an open attack upon that truth. Now, if I mistake not, Arminian
principles have been more effectually introduced into the churches, in
this manner, by Mr. Fuller’s writings, than if he had openly impugned
the doctrines of grace, and employed the whole force of his able pen
against election, efficacious grace and final perseverance. Those he
professed to maintain inviolably; yet, by insisting on faith in Christ as
a moral duty, comprehended radically in the law,—by his view of
moral inability,—but especially by the sentiments he has advanced
relative to the Atonement of the Son of God, he has furnished a
system for those who are predisposed towards Arminianism; and this
system has so far prevailed in the churches, that now we hear almost
as little of finished salvation as if we were Arminians; as little of the
earnest and the witness of the Spirit, as if we were Sandemanians.
In all religious error, there is some false doctrine in particular which
constitutes its basis, and against which some one branch of divine
truth, more than another, stands as a bulwark. In Mr. Fuller’s
controversy with his Baptist brethren, the Atonement of Christ is the
cardinal point. I am not therefore surprised to find him labor so
earnestly to explain away the doctrine of Particular Redemption, and
by all means to establish his own views of the atonement, as that
which constitutes the very basis of his system. However important the
controversy about faith and universal invitations may be, it sinks into
insignificance when compared with that of the atonement. He who is
unsound in this, cannot be sound in any other doctrine of grace. But
when the death of Christ is known in its vicarious nature, its certain
efficacy, and its discriminating character, it affords the surest defence
of sovereign grace against all the attacks of Neonomian, Arminian and
Semi-pelagian errors. To this important point our conversation was
principally directed, when, in our friendly interview, you defended and
I opposed Mr. Fuller’s sentiments; and to this fundamental point
would I again solicit your attention in an epistolary form. I am desirous
of doing this not only because his views almost universally prevail in
the churches, but also because in all the replies to Mr. Fuller’s that I
have seen [I except Mr. Booth’s Sermon on “Divine Justice,” &c., which, with the Appendix,
may be considered a kind of caveat against Mr. Fuller’s notions; but this work does not profess
to be a full confutation of them nor is Mr. Fuller’s name so much as mention[ed] either in the
Sermon or the Appendix.] this subject has been almost neglected; whereas, it
is his fundamental and almost vulnerable point. I do not intend to
touch upon the other subjects in dispute, but shall confine myself
entirely to the doctrine chiefly treated of in the third part of
“Dialogues,” that is, the doctrine of the ATONEMENT. In doing this, I
shall carefully inquire what are Mr. Fuller’s views on the subject. I
shall take care not to misunderstand them. I shall closely analyze
them, and compare them with the Scriptures of eternal truth. It will be
necessary, then, in the first place, to attend to what Mr. Fuller has
advanced on this great article of Christian doctrine, by quoting his
own words:
“If God requires less than the real demerit of sin for an atonement,
then there could be no satisfaction made to divine justice by such an
atonement. And though it would be improper to represent the great
work of redemption as a kind of commercial transaction betwixt a
creditor and his debtor, yet the satisfaction of justice in all cases of
offence, requires that there be an expression of the displeasure of the
offended, against the offender, equal to what the offense is in reality.
The end of punishment is not the misery of the offender, but the
general good. Its design is express displeasure against disobedience;
and where punishment is inflicted according to the desert of the
offence, there justice is satisfied. In other words, such an expression
of displeasure is uttered by the lawgiver, that in it every subject of his
empire may read what are his views of the evil which he forbids, and
what are his determinations in regard to its punishment. If sinners had
received in their own persons the reward of their iniquity, justice
would in that way have been satisfied; and if the infinitely blessed
God hath devised an expedient for our salvation, though he may not
confine himself to a literal conformity to those rules of justice which
he hath marked out for us, yet he will certainly not depart from the
spirit of them. Justice must be satisfied even in that way. An
atonement made by a substitute, in any case, requires that the same
end be answered by it, as if the guilty party had actually suffered. It is
necessary that the displeasure of the offended should be expressed
in as strong terms, or in a way adapted to make as strong impression
upon all concerned, as if the law had taken its course: otherwise
atonement is not made, and mercy triumphs at the expense of
righteousness.”
The following quotations are taken from the third part, wherein Mr.
Fuller has introduced his views in the form of a dialogue between
Peter, James and John. James is introduced as expressing Mr.
Fuller’s sentiments. When asked by Peter his views of imputation, he
replies:
“To impute, signifies in general to charge, reckon or place to account,
according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like
many others, has a proper and an improper, or figurative, meaning.
1st. It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account
of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM.
This I consider as its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used
in the following passages:—‘Eli thought she (Hannah) had been
drunken,’ &c, &c. Secondly, it is applied to the charging, reckoning,
or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH DOES
NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I
consider as its improper or figurative meaning. * * It is in this latter
sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. * * It is
thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was
accounted, in the divine administration, as if he were, or had been, the
sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted as if they
were or had been, righteous.”
“PETER. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and
properly PUNISHED?”
“JAMES. I should think I do not. But what do you mean by
punishment?”
“PETER. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he
cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality.”
“JAMES. Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in
any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly
punished.”
“If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really
and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not ours, then the
sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he
sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins,
and not his,” &c.
“A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not
guilt, any more than the consequent exemption from obligation in the
offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in
their effects, but in themselves, they are untransferable. To say that
Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he
were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or
punishment due to our sins, is one thing; but to say he deserved that
curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant
of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy
the conscience of Christ.”
“That the Scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits
of the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, is a remark of
which I am not able to see the fallacy: nor does it follow that his
obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be, and
is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently
received. Neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves
transferable.”
Concerning SUBSTITUTION, Mr. Fuller thus explains:
“I apprehend, then, that many important mistakes have arisen from
considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a
debt. * * Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking
it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made not on
pecuniary, but on moral principles. The reason of this difference is
easily perceived. Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A third
person may cancel the one, but he can only obliterate the effects of
the other: the desert of the criminal remains.”
“Were I asked concerning the gospel when it is introduced into a
country, For whom was it sent? If I had respect only to the revealed
will of God, I should answer, It is for men, not as elect or non-elect,
but as sinners. But if I had respect to the appointment of God without
regard to its application, I should say, he hath visited that country to
“take out of them a people for his name.” In like manner, concerning
the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the
Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it,
referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for and declared it the
gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answer the question in a
scriptural way in saying, “It was for sinners as sinners.” But if I have
respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to
the design of Christ in laying down his life I should answer, “It was for
his elect only.”
“If the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world,
there is no further propriety in asking, Whose sins were imputed to
Christ? or, For whom did he die as a substitute? than as it is thereby
inquired, Who are the persons whom he intended finally to save?”
“In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ’s
atonement sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the
whole world to believe in him; or in opposition to Scripture and
common sense, confine our invitations to believe, to such persons as
have believed already.”
I shall only add a few more quotations on the subject of PARTICULAR
REDEMPTION.
“The particularity of redemption,” says Mr. Fuller, “consists in the
sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the
atonement; that is, with regard to the persons to whom it shall be
applied.”
“PETER. Is there anything in the atonement, or promised to it, which
infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made?
“JAMES. If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was sufficient, I
answer, There is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was
intended, I answer, There is.”
“If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and
that which was paid was just of sufficient value to liquidate a given
number of sins, and to redeem a given number of sinners, and no
more, it should seem that it could not be the duty of any but the elect,
nor theirs till it was revealed to them that they were of the elect, to rely
upon it: for wherefore should we set our eyes on that which is not?
But if there be such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ, as it is
sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to
believe in him; and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the
purpose or sovereign pleasure of God to render it effectual to some
rather than others, no such consequence will follow,” &c.
These extracts fully exhibit, at one view, Mr. Fuller’s sentiments on
the important doctrine of the atonement; and I solicit your minute
attention to them; for plausible as his words are, I intend to prove that
they are grossly inconsistent with themselves, and as inconsistent
with the word of God. And I entreat your attention to them the more,
because of the noisy complaints which have been raised that Mr.
Fuller has been misrepresented. Even the honest and accurate Mr.
Booth did not escape the charge of misunderstanding and
misrepresenting Mr. Fuller’s meaning. Whether there were any just
ground for these complaints, it is not necessary now to enquire; but in
the present investigation care shall be taken that there be no mistake.
LETTER II.
You will, I doubt not, agree with me when I say that a great change has
taken place, during the last sixty years, in the principles maintained
by the Particular Baptist churches. It was once the glory of these
churches, that they contended earnestly for the doctrines of
sovereign discriminating grace, even when a disposition appeared too
generally amongst professors to relax on these points, and to
accommodate matters with the world; a disposition much lamented
and deprecated by the servants of Christ. Dr. Gill has distinctly
foretold its pernicious effects, which have been only too visible in our
own churches. In his sermon on “The Watchman’s Answer,” &c., he
says, “Of late years there has been a very visible decline, and a night
is coming on, which we are entered into; the shadows of the evening
are stretching out apace upon us, and the signs of the eventide are
very manifest, and will shortly appear yet more and more: coldness
and indifference in spiritual things, a want of affection to God, Christ,
his people, truths and ordinances, may easily be observed; the first
love is left; iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxes cold; and it
will wax yet colder and colder, and will issue in a general forsaking of
assembling together, and in an entire neglect of the ministers of the
gospel; when such who have been professors themselves will be shy
of them, and carefully shun them,” &c. Now, what would this holy man
say, were he at present alive, to find his words fulfilled so soon in his
own denomination? What an alteration must have taken place
amongst us, when there are now very few to be found who maintain
the same glorious truths for which Dr. Gill was so able an advocate,
and the few who do, are no longer cordially received into our pulpits
or tolerated in our associations! Men have risen up amongst us
everywhere speaking perverse things; the churches have been
gradually drawn aside by them, until at length professors will not
endure sound doctrine, but are yearly heaping to themselves such
teachers as will gratify their itching ears.
Mr. Fuller appears to have been a kind of a leader in this defection, at
least he considered his own publications to have conduced not a little
to the change. Writing to a friend on this subject, he expresses
himself, says his biographer, in the following strong and pointed
language:—“When I first published my treatise on the nature of faith,
and the duty of all men who hear the gospel to believe it, the Christian
profession had sunk into contempt among us; insomuch that had
matters gone on but a few years longer, the Baptists would have
become a perfect dunghill in society.” Strong and pointed language
indeed! yet it must really be confessed that this was in a great degree
the case. The truth is, that the principles maintained at that time by the
Baptists were such as to render them odious to the public. They never
could maintain those principles inviolably, and at the same time be
generally esteemed a respectable body of professing Christians. They
were distinctly forewarned by the Lord himself, that they should be
hated of all men for his sake; that if they kept his words, the world
would hate them, even as it had hated him. If the doctrine he taught
caused the Master of the house to be despised and rejected of men; if,
for the same cause, the apostles were esteemed as the filth of the
world, the offscouring of all things,—what right had these Baptists to
complain, if while holding in their measures the same truths, their
profession became contemptible, and their churches considered a
perfect dunghill in society? Complain! No, it was the highest honor
they were capable of in this life. If to them it was given on the behalf of
Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake, they
ought to have rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame
for his name. And I doubt not many of them did. Dr. Gill, when
declaring his determination to go on preaching a free and finished
salvation in the face of all opposition, adds: “I am not afraid of the
reproaches of men; I have been inured to these from my youth
upwards, but none of these things move me.”
But, as I have already said, the case is very different now. Since Mr.
Fuller’s principles have obtained amongst us, we are no longer
offensive to the world; or, to use his strong language, we are no
longer a dunghill in society. The offense of the cross has, in a great
degree, ceased in reference to our doctrine, our profession, and our
preaching. And to add to our respectability, we have amongst us a
number of rational polite ministers; men whose minds are too
enlightened, too liberal, to insist much on the distinguishing doctrines
of the gospel, and who are, consequently, rolling along in the full
stream of earthly reputation. They speak according to the world and
the world heareth them. But with all these advantages, what have we
lost? O God! thou knowest what we have lost! Our profession is
offensive; but alas! we have lost much of the comfort of the Holy
Ghost. We have gained ease and tranquility; but we have lost in a
great degree, the sensible enjoyment of the Lord’s special presence.
We are no more odious to society; but the Holy Spirit is remarkably
withdrawn: that adorable Person is grieved; the power of godliness is
almost gone; and, in many instances, the form is ready to depart also.
“O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened
our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of
thine inheritance.”
I would now proceed to an examination of the extracts given in my
first letter; but before I do so, it will be proper to explain, that, in this
controversy, I use the term redemption in its general acceptation.
When we speak of particular redemption, or universal redemption, we
use the term in reference to the ransom price. Sometimes in Scripture
the word redemption means deliverance; but this is its secondary, and
not its proper or original signification. To redeem, is properly to buy
again, to purchase from captivity, &c., and when used in reference to
the great affair of salvation, it relates primarily to the blood of Christ,
“in whom we have redemption.” In this sense Mr. Fuller uses the term
when he speaks of the “particularity of redemption;” and in this sense
the inspired writer uses it when he says, “Being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This
explanation is necessary, because some, from inattention, and others
from a worse cause, have attached an ambiguous meaning to the
term.
The extracts to which I have called your attention are very ingeniously
written. But the very ingenuity is suspicious, because truth requires
none. Such are the obscurity and artfulness which run through them,
that of the many persons who have read Mr. Fuller’s Dialogues, &c.,
very few fully understand them. Some imagine he held the doctrine of
particular redemption, because he sometimes speaks of Christ dying
for his people. Others suppose he teaches universal redemption; but
many, though they do not altogether understand him, plainly
perceived that he favors their predisposition to Arminianism, and
therefore they approve of his system. In some instances, no doubt,
Mr. Fuller has been misunderstood from inattention, but this has not
always been the case. There is an uncommon degree of subtilty in his
statements, attended with much speciousness: palpable
inconsistencies are hid with great ingenuity, and the difference
between him and his opponents is so artfully lessened, that it appears
to many readers to be of little importance. He evidently wishes not to
be considered an opponent of particular redemption; yet he neither
agrees with Particular Baptists on the one side, nor asserts boldly,
with the General Baptists, that Christ died equally for every man; but
maintains a kind of a metaphysical medium which is as far removed
from the simplicity that is in Christ, as it is from that gospel which is
hid from the wise and prudent.
I shall occupy the remainder of this letter with such an examination of
the extracts as may discover the inconsistency and self-contradiction
which lie concealed within them.
FIRST. In the first place, Mr. Fuller has discovered great inconsistency
and disingenuousness in desiring to be considered an advocate of
particular redemption, while in reality he maintained no such doctrine.
He wishes it to be understood that he is favorable to the doctrine
itself, and differs from his brethren only in the explanation of it. “The
particularity of redemption,” says he, “consists in the sovereign
pleasure of God, with regard to the application of the atonement, that
is, with regard to the persons to whom it shall be applied.” Now, most
persons, on reading this, would be naturally led to conclude that Mr.
Fuller believed there was something of particularity in the atonement
itself. But herein they would be mistaken; he means no such thing. He
affirms that the particularity of redemption lies only in “the sovereign
purpose of God, to render it effectual to some rather than others.”
This, however, is not particular redemption; it is sovereign election.
Some who have held universal redemption, have also held particular
election, and have consequently maintained the “sovereign purpose
of God” to render both the atonement and a preached gospel effectual
to some rather than others. Mr. Fuller, therefore, ought to have been
equally candid, and to have acknowledged openly that he believed in
no particularity of the atonement itself, but only in the sovereign
purpose of God with respect to its application; which sovereign
purpose belongs to election, and not to the atonement.
It doubtless appeared, to the mind of Mr. Fuller, absurd to hold
personal election in connection with universal redemption, as some
Protestants, have done, and as the Church of England teaches in her
17th and 31st Articles, and he probably thought that if indefinite
redemption were substituted for universal, the absurdity would no
longer exist. But, on examination, it will be found that Mr. Fuller’s
views by no means removes the inconsistency. “The particularity of
redemption,” he says, “lies only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure
of God to render it effectual to some rather than others.” Here we have
a theological inaccuracy. Mr. Fuller ought to have said that the
particularity of redemption is the effect of the sovereign purpose of
God, &c. The death of the Redeemer is in pursuance of a previous
plan; it is the result of the sovereign and immutable purpose of God,
and in perfect harmony with it. It is therefore grossly inaccurate to say
that the particularity of redemption consists in that which is as
distinct from itself as cause is distinct from its effect.
But it is easy to perceive that an atonement for sin in general cannot
be particular redemption. An atonement which in itself may suffice for
an individual only, or for a world, but which was not offered for any
particular number of individuals, but merely for sin as sin; such an
atonement may be called by some other name, but particular
redemption it cannot be. The particularity of the atonement consists in
the vicarious nature of the death of Christ; in his representing the
persons of the whole elect unto God; in his bearing their sins and
sorrows; in his dying for them, and for them alone; and in thus
purchasing them, body and soul, by his most precious blood. This
view of the atonement is both the result of the sovereign purpose of
God and in unison with it; but an indefinite atonement is not only a
different thing from particular redemption, but it is also at variance
with the sovereignty of the divine purpose, and the particular
application of atoning blood.
SECOND. The holy Apostle describes the nature of a perverted gospel
as “yea, yea, and nay, nay,” 2 Cor. i. 18; by which expression he
intends to set forth its uncertainty and inconsistency; sometimes it is
one thing, sometimes another. But I know not where, in all the world,
an example of a yea and nay gospel is to be found, if it does not exist
in the extracts under consideration. In page 244, Peter asks, whether
there be any thing in the atonement which infallibly ascertains its
application to all those for whom it was made? To which James
answers, “If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was sufficient,
I answer, There is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was
intended, I answer, There is.” Now the absurdity of this appears in
several points of view.
1. If, as we have already seen, there be no particularity in the
atonement of Christ itself, but only in the sovereign purpose of God to
render it effectual to some, rather than others; then it follows
necessarily, that there is not any thing in the atonement itself which
infallibly ascertains its application to any man. Mr. Fuller has not
shown what there is in the atonement to secure its application to
those for whom it was intended, and in this he acted wisely. For on
the supposition of indefinite redemption, it is impossible to show any
necessary connection between the atonement and the application of
it; because its application whether to an individual only, or to the
whole world, will arise not from any thing in the atonement itself, but
solely from the purpose or decree of God. If, therefore, the indefinite
scheme be correct, there cannot be anything in the atonement itself
which infallibly ascertains its application to any of the human race.
2. But admitting that the extracts assert, namely, that there is
something in the atonement which infallibly ascertains its application
to all for whom it was intended; then it will follow that the salvation of
one individual only, is a thing impossible, seeing that the atonement
secures the salvation of many. In other words, it will follow that the
salvation of an individual, or of a world, does not depend only on the
sovereign purpose of God, as Mr. Fuller affirms.
3. But further absurdities will be discovered if we inquire into the
nature of that sufficiency which Mr. Fuller ascribes to the atonement.
It is sufficient, he affirms, for all mankind—intended only for the elect.
Now the fallacy of this will appear, if we attend to one simple truth;
namely, that the Scriptures always ascribe the salvation of a sinner,
not to any abstract sufficiency, but to the vicarious nature of the death
of Christ. The atonement, therefore, is in no sense sufficient for a
man, unless Jesus died for that man. Justice requires that the
satisfaction be vicarious; so that the sufficiency of the atonement
arises from this very thing, that Christ died in our stead. To this the
Scripture always traces our salvation. “For God hath not appointed us
to wrath but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ WHO DIED
FOR US.” I conclude, therefore, that it is much less absurd to affirm
with the Arminians, that Christ died for all mankind than to maintain
with Mr. Fuller, that the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of
those for whom it was not intended, and for whom the Saviour did not
die.
If the nature of that sufficiency for all men, which Mr. Fuller ascribes
to the atonement, be further sifted, it will appear to be nothing more
than a conditional sufficiency, such as the Arminians attribute to their
universal redemption. “There is,” says Mr. Fuller, “such a fulness in
the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole
world, were the whole world to believe in him.” The atonement then, is
sufficient for the whole world, conditionally—that is, if the whole world
were to believe. The condition, however, is not so easily performed.
Many professors speak of faith in Christ as comparatively an easy
matter, and as though it were within the sinner’s power; but the
Scriptures teach a different thing. They represent man by nature as
spiritually bound with chains, shut up in darkness, and in a prison-
house. To this view, Mr. Fuller’s conditional sufficiency of the
atonement stands opposed, as may be illustrated in the following
manner. A wealthy and philanthropic individual visits Algiers, and
approaches a dungeon in which a wretched captive lies bound with
chains and fetters, and strongly secured within walls and doors, and
bars. He proclaims aloud to the captive that he has brought gold
sufficient for a ransom, on condition that the captive will liberate
himself from his chains, burst open his prison doors, and come forth.
Alas! exclaims the wretched man, your kindness does not reach my
case. Unless your gold can EFFECT my deliverance, it can be of no
service to me. The offer of it on such terms can do me no good. Now,
although there is a great difference between spiritual and physical
inability, yet one serves to illustrate the other. Man by nature is
spiritually as unable to believe in Christ, as the Algerine captive is
physically unable to break his chains and the prison doors; so that all
this boasted sufficiency of the atonement is only an empty offer of
salvation on certain terms and condition; and such an atonement is
much too weak to meet the desperate case of a lost sinner.
But how different is the salvation of God! “By the blood of thy
covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no
water.”—Zech. ix. 11. Jesus, by his death, hath paid the ransom, and
made the captives his own. Therefore he has a legal right to their
persons, and with his own right arm he brings them forth. It is his
glory “to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in
darkness out of the prison house.” –Isa. xlii. 6, 7.
It has just been asserted that the sufficiency which Mr. Fuller
attributes to the atonement, is the same which the Arminians ascribe
to their universal redemption. Whatever difference exists between him
and them on other points, on redemption there is only a verbal
variation. When Mr. Fuller asserts that the atonement of Christ is
sufficient for all mankind, he does not mean that Christ so died for all
mankind as to render their salvation certain: he only means that the
atonement is sufficient for their salvation conditionally—that is, if they
will believe. Dr. Whitby, the champion of Arminanism, explains his
doctrine thus: “When we say that Christ died for all, we do not mean
that he died for all, or any absolutely, or without any conditions to be
performed on their part, to interest them in the blessings of his
passion; but only that he died for all conditionally, or so that they
should be made partakers of the blessings of his salutary passion,
upon condition of their faith, repentance, &c.” Here we find no
essential difference between Mr. Fuller and Dr. Whitby on the
atonement of Christ; the only difference between them relates to the
purpose of God in reference to its application. Both agree in regarding
the death of Christ as conditionally sufficient for all mankind; but the
Doctor denies that the purpose of God ascertains the application of
the atonement to any man; and in this respect he is more consistent
with himself than Mr. Fuller.
The coincidence of indefinite redemption with the Arminian scheme,
may be further confirmed by comparing Mr. Fuller’s words with
another quotation from the acute and learned Whitby. Mr. Fuller
defines reconciliation to be a “satisfaction of divine justice, by virtue
of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God, hinders
any sinner from returning to him; and it is upon this ground that
sinners are indefinitely invited to do so.” He considers the atonement
“as a divine extraordinary expedient for the exercise of mercy
consistently with justice, and that is in itself equally adapted to save
the world as an individual, provided a world believed in it.” Now, let us
hear the Doctor express the very same sentiments in other words:
“He (that is, Christ) only by his death hath put all men in a capacity of
being justified and pardoned, and so of being reconciled to, and
having peace with God, upon their turning to God, and having faith in
our Lord Jesus Christ: the death of Christ having rendered it
consistent with the justice and wisdom of God, with the honor of his
majesty, and with the ends of government, to pardon the penitent
believer.”
Would to God that Mr. Fuller had been found in better company!
4. If it be necessary to pursue this “yea and nay” system still further, it
is only to disclose more inconsistencies and more absurdities. If, as
Mr. Fuller allows, Christ intended that only some should be benefited
by his death, then he accomplished his intention according to
particular redemption, by paving their ransom only. It is absurd to
represent Christ as paying a ransom sufficient for all, when he
intended only to redeem some! Or to affirm that Christ is a sufficient
Saviour of those whom he never intended to save!
Whenever the Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they
always place it in the certain efficacy of redemption. The atonement of
Christ is sufficient because it is absolutely efficacious, and because it
carries salvation to all for whom it was made. It is sufficient, not
because it affords men the possibility of salvation but because, with
invincible power, it accomplishes their salvation. Hence the word of
God never represents the sufficiency of the atonement as more
extensive than the design of the atonement, which Mr. Fuller has
done. The Scriptures know nothing of a sufficient redemption which
leaves the captive to perish in slavery, nor of a sufficient atonement
which never delivers the guilty; but they speak of a redemption every
way sufficient and efficacious—a redemption which cannot be
frustrated, but which triumphantly accomplishes the salvation of all
its objects. “Let Israel hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is
mercy, and with him plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem
Israel from all his iniquities.” Ps. cxxx. 7, 8.
THIRD. Mr. Fuller’s modesty most certainly failed him, when he
reprobated, in so unqualified a manner, the representation of sin as a
debt, and the atonement of Christ as the payment of a debt. Every one
who has learned the Lord’s prayer, knows that our Lord has there
taught us to consider our sins under the notion of a debt. And yet Mr.
Fuller informs us, that “it would be improper to represent the great
work of redemption as a kind of commercial transaction betwixt a
creditor and his debtor.” But who should know best? If the wisdom of
God has thought fit so to represent it, we may be assured there is an
admirable propriety in it, whether we can discern it or not. Mr. Fuller,
however, is apprehensive of evil consequences from such a view of
sin and redemption. “I apprehend,” says he, “that many important
mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ
under the notion of paying a debt.” Really this is quite at variance with
Mr. Fuller’s usual reverence for the Scriptures: it is nothing less than
a direct contradiction of the word of God. Does not the very term
redemption plainly point at a commercial transaction? Does it not
signify buying again, in allusion to an inheritance under the law, or to
slaves in servitude? See Lev. xxv. 23- 24; Isa. lii. 3. In how many
instances are we taught that Christ “gave his life a ransom,” (Matt. xx.
28)—that the church is “bought with a price,” (1 Cor. iv. 20)—and
called the “purchased possession,” (Eph. i. 14)—redeemed, not
indeed with silver and gold, but with what is truly valuable, even the
“precious blood of Christ?” (1 Peter i. 19.) Does not our Lord
introduce a parable, one design of which is to reach us that our
trespasses are debts, even ten thousand talents, for which God
himself is our creditor? Matt. xviii. 23, &c. And does not the apostle
represent the Lord Jesus as the great paymaster of his people’s
debts, when he says, “And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new
testament, that, by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they who are
called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance?” Heb. ix. 15.
Yet, with all this, Mr. Fuller judged it improper to represent the work of
redemption as a debt cancelled, a price paid, and a purchase made.
But it may be inquired, what design had Mr. Fuller to answer by
opposing this view of sin and redemption? To this it may be replied,
that many Protestant writers, especially when defending imputed
righteousness against the Papists and Socinians, have often
illustrated the transfer of our sins to Christ, and our entire deliverance
from them, by allusion to commercial transactions amongst men.
These writers knew well that amongst men crimes could not be
transferred, though the punishment of crimes might; and, judging that
a transfer of punishment merely came infinitely short of that
wondrous exchange which is transacted in the great work of
redemption, they have often represented our sins as debts, Christ our
great surety and paymaster, and our deliverance from guilt and misery
so complete, in consequence of the transfer of our sins to him, that
the justice of God demands our salvation, in the same way that justice
amongst men requires the debtor to be set free, when the creditor has
received payment at the hand of a surety.
These are the “important mistakes” to which Mr. Fuller alludes, but
whether they are mistakes or not we shall enquire hereafter. However,
to represent the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying his
people’s debts, although nothing can be more scriptural, is so
repugnant to the view Mr. Fuller has taken of the atonement, that it is
easy to account for the unguarded and inconsiderate manner in which
he has expressed himself on the subject.
FOURTH. Mr. Fuller is singularly inconsistent with himself when he
speaks, as he sometimes does, of Christ laying down his life for his
sheep, his people, &c. If there be, as Mr. Fuller says, “such a fulness
in the satisfaction of Christ as is sufficient for the salvation of the
whole world, were the whole world to believe,” and if “the particularity
of redemption lie only in the sovereign pleasure of God to render it
effectual to some rather than others,” then it follows that Christ did
not die for any of the human race in distinction from others, but only
that it was the sovereign pleasure of God that his indefinite atonement
should be applied to some rather than others. It follows, in other
words, that Christ did not die for Paul any more than for Judas, but
only that the atonement was to be applied to Paul and not to Judas. It
is therefore highly inconsistent to say that Christ died for his sheep,
or that he laid down his life for his people, his elect, &c.
The atonement of Christ cannot be both indefinite and special. If
Christ died for his elect, and for them only, then it is not true that the
particularity of redemption lies only in the purpose of God with regard
to its application; but if Christ made an indefinite atonement for sin,
then it cannot be said with any degree of truth or propriety, that he
died for his elect in distinction from others. If the death of Christ be
special, it is no more indefinite; if it be indefinite, it is no more special.
The adoption of this uncertain self-contradictory system, has led
many to suppose that it depends on our believing, whether Christ
died for us or not. According to such persons, our believing makes it
true that Christ died for us. Such a sentiment is contrary both to
Scripture and to every principle of right reasoning. Surely if Christ
died for any particular persons, this is a fact in itself, and is true
independently of the application of the atonement; but it Christ died
indefinitely, no change which passes upon the sinner can alter the
previous fact, or make it true that Christ died for him. It is certainly
much less absurd to affirm plainly with the Arminians, that Jesus died
for all the human race, whether they believe in him or not.
FIFTH. Mr. Fuller has often spoken of the application of the
atonement, but he has not informed us what he means by that term.
The expression, in its ordinary acceptation amongst Calvinistic
writers, is altogether inconsistent with his views of the death of Christ.
The particular application of the atonement can comport only with
particular redemption. By application, in the generally received sense,
is intended that work of the ever-blessed Spirit, whereby the
consciences of those for whom Christ died are purged from guilt
through the knowledge of his blood, and faith in it, and whereby they
are persuaded of their special interest in his death. This is called in
Scripture “receiving the atonement;” Rom. v. 11, and is usually
intended by its application. Now, it is inconsistent to speak of this
particular application on the footing of indefinite redemption.
Particular application plainly presupposes a special interest or
propriety in Christ, unknown to the redeemed sinner until revealed by
the Spirit; but no such propriety can possibly exist on the supposition
of indefinite redemption. When the first Christians had received the
atonement, they believed that “Christ died for their sins, according to
the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. xv. 3. This they received as an immutable truth,
which depended not on the application, but rather the application
depended on the fact, that Christ died for their sins. When the
atonement was applied to Paul, he thereby recognized his special
interest in it, so that we find him declaring his faith in the Son of God,
“who” says he, “loved me and gave himself for me.” Gal. ii. 20. By the
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, or, in other words, by the application
of the atonement, the conscience of the apostle was purged from
guilt, and he became assured that Christ died for his sins. Gal. i. 14;
Rom. v. 11. But all this is wholly inconsistent with indefinite
redemption. Indeed it is impossible, if, as Mr. Fuller says, “the
particularity of redemption consists only in the purpose of God
respecting its application.”
Mr. Fuller’s inconsistency on this subject is not unlike that which may
be often observed among the Arminian Methodists. It is common for
some of them, when describing their deliverance from guilt, to say
that the blood of Christ was so powerfully applied to their
consciences, that they felt assured that Christ died for them. But
certainly when a man believes that Christ died for all mankind, he
cannot think he needs the Spirit of God to show him that Christ died
for him in common with all the rest! Neither is any man consistent
who asserts a particular application of the atonement, and yet
maintains, as Mr. Fuller does, that there is no particularity in the
atonement at all, but only in the purpose of God!
SIXTH. I cannot pass by the very exceptionable manner in which Mr.
Fuller has explained himself on the subject of imputation. I have
quoted his words in my first letter, to which I beg leave to refer you,
and also to the original. We are there informed what the term signifies:
we are also told that, like many other words, it has a proper and an
improper meaning. We are informed, moreover, that the word, in a
proper sense, means so and so; and in an improper sense, it means
so and so; the conclusion of all which is, that when the Scripture
speaks of the imputation of sin to Christ, or of righteousness to the
sinner, the term is to be taken not in a proper, but in an improper
sense. Now, all this sounds very philosophically; but what real
instruction or comfort can such a detail communicate to a sincere,
inquiring soul? Such a one, on meeting with this explanation of Mr.
Fuller, would immediately start, and say, “Alas! I did indeed think that
all my sins were imputed to the Lord Jesus, and this was the ground
of my comfort; but Mr. Fuller tells me that this was so only in what he
calls an improper sense. And I have comforted myself with the
thought that Christ’s righteousness was mine, being truly imputed to
me; but Mr. Fuller has perplexed and distressed me, for he says this is
not properly the case.” In this manner would Mr. Fuller’s philosophy
be worse than thrown away. But his whole statement on this subject
is badly illustrated, and essentially deficient.
In the first place, then, the statement itself is liable to be
misunderstood, owing to the indistinct and confused manner in which
he has attempted to illustrate it. To give an instance or two. The
proper sense of imputation, we are told, is, “the charging, reckoning,
or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH
PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM.” And the very first instance of the
imputation in a proper sense, which Mr. Fuller has adduced, is the
case of Eli charging Hannah with drunkenness. “Eli thought she had
been drunken.” Now there is reason to think that many of Mr. Fuller’s
readers would not clearly comprehend his meaning here; and if they
did not understand the deep metaphysical sense of the word
“proper,” they would be weak enough to imagine that Eli’s imputation
was an improper imputation. But even amongst those who are more
expert in the meaning of words, there may be some, who, being aware
that Eli charged Hannah unjustly, would perhaps not find it so easy to
understand how he imputed to her “that which properly belonged to
her.” Equally at a loss would some readers be to find that the Lord’s
not imputing iniquity to men, is to be understood in a proper sense;
that is, he does not properly impute iniquity to his people. They would
be still more at a loss, on reflecting that Mr. Fuller understands the
imputation of sin to Christ in an improper sense, and might naturally
conclude that, as the Lord does not properly impute sin to his people,
nor yet to Christ, that their sin is never properly imputed at all. It is
truly a pity to find so important, and yet so simple a subject darkened
as it is in Mr. Fuller’s explanation. Indeed, the artificial distinctions
and scholastic phrases are sometimes worse than useless, and often
good for nothing but to increase the importance of the teacher, and to
serve the same purpose in divinity as a barbarous kind of Latin is
made to answer in law and in physic.
But Mr. Fuller’s explanation of this important subject is not only
confused and indistinct, but it is essentially deficient. In short, the
imputation of sin to Christ is explained away. According to Mr. Fuller,
sin was not really, or, as he terms it, properly imputed to Christ, but
only in appearance. He was treated as though sin were really imputed
to him; he suffered as though he were guilty; but yet, according to Mr.
Fuller, guilt itself was not truly imputed to him. Not to dispute about
words, the subject may be illustrated by transactions among men.
When one man imputes sin or crime to another, this is the same thing
as charging him with that crime. Thus Saul imputed treason to
Ahimelech, when he charged him with it. But such imputation may be
real, or it may be only in appearance; an imputation may be just, or it
may be unjust. When Nathan charged David with sin in the matter of
Uriah, the imputation was both real and just. When Joseph imputed
bad motives to his brethren, he charged them not really, but only in
appearance, for he knew they were not spies; and when Eli imputed
drunkenness to Hannah he did so really, but he did so unjustly. Now,
when God imputed sin to Christ he charged him either really, or only
in appearance, justly or unjustly. With respect to justice we shall not
now inquire; but the question relates to the former, namely whether
God really imputed sin to Christ, as a sinner’s surety, or whether he
did so only in appearance. Mr. Fuller denies that he did so really, or
that Christ suffered real and proper punishment; and although he
does not say, in the very words, that this imputation was only in
appearance, yet this is his meaning. He tells us that the imputation of
sin to Christ is to be understood in an improper sense. By imputation
in an improper sense, he understands “charging, reckoning, or
placing to the account of persons and things that which does not
properly belong to them, as though it did.” As an instance of this
improper imputation, he gives us the complaint of Job, “Wherefore
hidest thou thy face and holdest me for thine enemy?” Now the Lord
did not really count Job for an enemy; he imputed enmity to him only
in appearance, or he dealt with him as though he were an enemy. Yet
in this very sense does Mr. Fuller understand the imputation of sin to
Christ. “He was counted,” says he, “in the divine administration, as if
he were, or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might
he accounted as if they were, or had been righteous.” The plain
meaning of which is, that God gave his Son to suffer, as though sin
had been found upon him, or, in other words, that Christ bore the
punishment of guilt, but not guilt itself. Now, for Christ to suffer
instead of the guilty is one thing, but to have guilt itself imputed to
him is another. The difference is so manifest that it scarcely needs the
following illustration. A certain man is found guilty of high treason,
and condemned to die. His brother, from mere compassion, offered to
die in his stead. The ransom was accepted, and the innocent man
underwent the penalty of the law as a voluntary substitute for his
guilty brother. Now, in this case, the innocent man bore the
punishment of his brother’s guilt, but not the guilt itself. He
underwent, indeed, the sentence of the law, but treason was not
imputed to him—justice forbade that it should. He was treated .as
though he were guilty, and that is one thing, but to lie under the
imputation of guilt is another. Thus Mr. Fuller explains away the
doctrine of imputation. By denying the transfer of our guilt to Christ,
he admits of no real imputation of our sins to him, but only a transfer
of punishment. Imputation of sin, therefore, in Mr. Fuller’s improper or
figurative sense, means no real imputation at all.
SEVENTH. Although Mr. Fuller has written very ably against
Socinianism, there are some of his own notions which savour most
alarmingly of that heresy, and, it may be justly feared, tend directly
thereto. The first I shall mention, is the view he takes of the chief
design of the death of Christ. The principle design of our Lord’s
atonement, he says, is the “manifestation of God’s hatred to sin, in
order to render the exercise of mercy consistent with justice.” “Its
design,” he says, “is to express displeasure against disobedience—it
is to utter such an expression of displeasure by the lawgiver that in it
every subject of his empire may read what are his views of the evil
which he forbids, and what are his determinations in regard to its
punishment; it is to answer this great end of moral government, which
could not have been answered by the sufferings of a mere creature.”
1. It is freely allowed that one design of the death of Christ is to
express God’s hatred to sin, and to answer the ends of moral
government, even as one design of it is to leave us an example of
patience and submission. But neither of these is its principal design.
To suppose otherwise, would be to assign no sufficient reason for
that great event, since the displeasure of the law- giver against sin is
already uttered in the law itself, and in the sufferings of them that
perish; and an example of patience is furnished in the conduct of the
holy prophets. Indeed the Socinians themselves ascribe almost as
much honor to the sufferings of Christ, as Mr. Fuller expresses. They
speak of the death of Christ answering the ends of moral government,
by confirming to us the will of God. And they go so far as to say, that
“there is no doubt but that Christ so satisfied God by his obedience,
as that he completely fulfilled the whole of his will, and by his
obedience obtained, through the grace of God, for all of us who
believe in him, the remission of our sins and eternal salvation.”
This fond notion of Mr. Fuller, respecting the chief design of the death
of Christ, destroys the idea of atonement. It represents the Lord Jesus
as a Lawgiver rather than a Saviour, and attributes to his death that
which belongs rather to the law of ten commands. When that holy but
fiery law came forth in terrible majesty from Sinai, its chief design was
so manifest, that Moses quaked, and all the people trembled. Its
design, indeed, is to “express displeasure against disobedience—to
utter such an expression of displeasure by the lawgiver, that in it
every subject of his empire may read what are his views of the evil
which he forbids, and what are his determinations in regard to its
punishment.” But the death of Christ is not an atonement for sin, if
this be its principal design; it is rather a law given, which, as is
supposed, is able to give life, by publishing milder terms of
acceptance than the moral law. It would then exhibit, indeed, the
purity of the lawgiver, tempered with so much mercy as to offer
salvation to men on certain terms and conditions, by the performance
of which they may obtain life. Thus we have the law and the gospel
mingled so ingeniously as to constitute a perversion of both.
2. In the next place, it is certainly a Socinian notion that all the virtue
of the atonement lies in the appointment of God; and Mr. Fuller has
argued very pertinently against this notion. But I am much deceived if
Mr. Fuller himself does not teach doctrine very like this. Does he not
teach that the atonement in itself is equally sufficient for the salvation
of a world as for an individual, and that the only reason why its virtue
reaches some and not others, is the appointment of God? Does he not
maintain that if one sinner only were saved, the atonement would be
the same as though the world were saved, and that the atonement
being once yielded, a world may be saved or only an individual,
according to the appointment of God? Now, what is this but to place
the virtue of the atonement in the appointment of God? How comes
the efficacy of the atonement to reach to the world, and not to an
individual only? Is it because of any thing in the atonement itself?
Certainly not; for Mr. Fuller says it is in itself equally adapted to an
individual, and to all mankind. Its virtue to save, therefore, must be all
traced to the appointment of God. Further; if there be nothing in the
atonement itself to secure the salvation of more than an individual,
had God so appointed, then it follows that God might not even have
appointed the salvation of one individual. Thus it appears that if there
be any virtue in Christ’s death to accomplish salvation, it must be all
placed in the appointment of God!
It is hard to say how the grace of God can be frustrated at all, if not by
doctrine like this. To what purpose do we maintain the Godhead of
Christ, if we hold so lax views of his atonement as to deny the certain
efficacy of his death, or maintain, by implication, that there is no more
power in his blood, of itself to take away sin, than there was in the
blood of the Old Testament sacrifices?
3. It is well known to all who are acquainted with the Socinian
controversy that one chief argument urged against the substitution of
Christ is, that it leaves no room for the free unmerited mercy of God in
the pardon of sin, but that it represents the salvation of men as a
matter of justice. Thus the Socinians argue against those who assert
the substitution of Christ. “The Scriptures every where testify that
God forgives men their sins freely. But to a free forgiveness nothing is
more opposite than such a satisfaction as they contend for, and the
payment of an equivalent price. For where a creditor is satisfied,
either by the debtor himself, or by another person on the debtor’s
behalf, it cannot with truth be said of him that he freely forgives the
debt.”
This reasoning is so very like that of Mr. Fuller in his objections to the
principle of debtor and creditor, as serving to illustrate the great work
of redemption, that the resemblance is both surprising and affecting.
He agrees with the Socinians in denying that Christ hath so satisfied
divine justice for the sins of his people, as that justice itself demands
their salvation. And although the comparison of the debtor and
creditor is only used to give some idea of the principle on which the
great work of redemption proceeds, yet scriptural as it is, Mr. Fuller
has had the hardihood to reject it, and, with it, the important truth
intended to be illustrated by it. “In the case of the debtor,” says he,
“satisfaction being once accepted, justice requires his complete
discharge; but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the
wounded honor of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice,
though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it, than as
it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.” The answer to
this objection, on the part of Mr. Fuller and the Socinians, is very
easy. Towards the sinner, salvation is an act of free unmerited mercy;
but towards Christ, as the sinner’s surety and representative, it is an
act of justice, arising not merely from a promise made to him of the
Father, but from the meritorious nature of his own plenary
satisfaction. In all the stupenduous plan of redemption, infinite justice
and boundless mercy are displayed. In this great work, Jehovah
shines in all his glory as a just God and Saviour.
EIGHTH. By denying the transfer of sin to Christ, Mr. Fuller has
entangled himself with many absurdities. Among other things, this
has led him to deny that the sufferings of Christ were real and proper
punishment. But by this he does not mean, as some have supposed,
that Christ did not really and truly suffer, but that his sufferings were
not really and properly punishment. Now, if the sufferings of Christ
were not real punishment, it will follow that the sins of those who are
saved are never punished at all, and thus mercy would triumph at the
expense of justice. It is allowed that sin is not properly punished in
the persons of those who are saved; and if it be not in the person of
their great Surety, it is remitted without punishment, and justice is not
satisfied. If it be, as Mr. Fuller asserts, that “guilt is not transferable,
but the desert of the criminal remains,” then justice, because it finds
guilt upon the criminal, calls aloud for his punishment; nor can it
allow the sufferings of an innocent person in his stead, because it
finds in such a one no guilt, and because it punishes sin, only where it
finds sin to punish. But if it be true that God, by a strange act of his
grace, laid the iniquity of all that are saved upon Christ, then divine
justice, finding sin upon him punished it in him; but the same justice
forbids the punishment of believers, because it finds no guilt upon
them.—Again: Mr. Fuller has said much about the sufferings of Christ,
as an expression of God’s hatred against sin; but this part of his
system is as inconsistent as the rest. The sufferings of Immanuel
were, indeed, an expression of God’s infinite abhorrence of iniquity;
and it appears in this that he would not spare sin when found upon
his Son, but punished it even in him. But if we suppose that sin was
not really transferred to Christ, then his sufferings might be indeed an
expression of love to the sinner, and of the honor of the lawgiver, but
hatred to iniquity would not be perfectly expressed. “All the world,”
says a holy Puritan, “is nothing so dear in the eyes of God as his Son;
and if it had been possible that sin could have been connived at, it
would be upon his Son, being his only by imputation. A fond father
may possibly wink at a fault in a son, which he will not pass by in a
slave; but when a father falls foul upon a dear child upon whom a fault
is found, and the fire of indignation restrains his affection, this argues
the extremity of the rage of the father, and heinousness of the crime
that incenseth it. When the Lord will lay iniquity upon Christ, and
when he finds it upon him, if he himself shall not escape—nay, if there
shall not be a mitigation of wrath, though the crime be upon him no
otherwise than only as a surety, this shews the iniquity is of such a
loathsome savour in the nostrils of God, that it is impossible he
should have any partiality or remissness wherever it is to be found.”
[Dr. Crisp’s Sermons, 4th edit. 1791, vol. ii. page 43.]
NINTH. In which way soever Mr. Fuller’s system is contemplated, its
inconsistency and absurdity appear. He admits the doctrine of
election, though experience has shewn that the tendency of his
principles is opposed to the cordial reception of it; but he admits that
God the Father chose a certain number of fallen men in Christ Jesus,
whom he determined to bring to everlasting glory through the blood
of the Redeemer; yet Mr. Fuller virtually denies that the blood of Christ
was shed for the sins of the elect, in distinction from the rest. He
admits that the design of God in giving his Son, and the design of
Christ in laying down his life, were definite; yet he asserts an
indefinite atonement. He allows that the sovereign purpose of God in
election, and the work of the blessed Spirit in conversion, respect a
peculiar people; yet he denies that the same sovereignty shines in the
death of Christ. Instead of consistently maintaining that the part which
each person in the adorable Trinity took in the great economy of
salvation, respected the same objects, we have particular election,
and effectual vocation, but not special redemption. The decree of God
the Father he allows is absolute; the operation of the Spirit is
absolute; yet, with marvelous inconsistency, he represents the
atonement of Christ as conditionally sufficient for the whole race of
Adam!
I have thus stated some particulars wherein Mr. Fuller’s sentiments
appear self- contradictory; and if you, my friend, are as heartily
disgusted with this perverted gospel, this “yea and nay” system, as I
am, and if you have any relish for an honest declaration of divine truth
in its simplicity, I will here introduce to you, by way of contrast, the
testimony of some of those churches which have been considered
almost “a perfect dunghill in society.” It is the confession of the
Baptist churches of the Norfolk and Suffolk Association, which Dr.
Rippon has done himself the honor to record in his Baptist Register.
“We are kept by the power of our Covenant God steadfast in the great
and glorious truths of the everlasting gospel—the God- honoring,
soul- enriching, and heart- warming doctrines of a Trinity in the
Godhead—of the sovereign, eternal, and immutable love of the Triune
Jehovah, centering in Jesus, and resting with all its unfading glories,
and unnumbered blessings, upon the sons of God—the eternal
election of some of the human race to everlasting, life and glory in
Christ Jesus proceeding from and directed by the absolute,
uncontrollable sovereignty of Jehovah’s will—the eternal and
indissoluble union of all the chosen in Christ, who was set up from
everlasting as their federal head and glorious representative; in whom
their persons were accepted in love—their predestination to the
adoption of children, as God the Father’s act, proceeding from the
boundless love of his heart in his Son, and designed for the praise of
the glory of his stupendous grace—the eternal, gracious, and
infinitely-wise covenant transactions of the Holy Three, relating to the
salvation of offending mortals—the transfer of all the sins of the elect
from them to Christ and the full condemnation and punishment of
them in him—the complete atonement made for them by the one
glorious and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ’s spotless humanity,
presented to infinite justice upon the altar of his divinity in all the
flames of his transcendent love—the personal and all-perfect
obedience of our great Immanuel to the holy law, performed in the
room and stead of his people, accepted for them, and imputed to them
by the God of all grace; and their free, full, and everlasting justification
by it in his sight—the glorious redemption, perfect cleansing, and full
pardon, of all the vessels of mercy, through the precious blood of the
cross—their regeneration, effectual calling, and conversion, by the
glorious, almighty, and irresistible operations of God the Holy
Ghost—the life of faith they live upon the fulness of Jesus, and the
good works they perform in love to the Trinity in Covenant, for the
honor of discriminating grace, and the glory of the Triune Jehovah—
in fine, their preservation by the power of the Almighty, through faith,
to that glory to which they were destined by electing love before the
foundation of the world. These sublime truths we consider as the
glory of the Bible, the soul of Christianity, the ground of a sinner’s
hope, and the source of a believer’s joys; and we can say in truth that
we esteem them beyond the riches of the Indies. Nor are we yet
possessed of a sufficient degree of modern candor to treat them with
cold indifference, or to view them as non- essentials, but think
ourselves bound to maintain them to the utmost of our ability, and to
reject all assertions inconsistent with them.”
And are these the doctrines which have given Mr. Fuller such
offence? Is this the profession which is so contemptible in his eyes?
Are these the churches which he compares to a dunghill in society? O
my soul, be thou contemptible too! Be thou a partaker of the
afflictions of the gospel, and have thou fellowship with those who are,
in their tribulation as well as in their joys. And what though thou be
reproached and reviled here as thy great Leader was; be assured of
thy consolation, that the reproach of his followers shall be rolled
away, when he comes in his own glory, and in his Father’s glory, and
all the holy angels with him.
LETTER III
Having in my last letter compared Mr. Fuller’s sentiments with
themselves, I shall occupy the present with a careful examination of
his peculiar views of the GREAT ATONEMENT, by bringing them to
the test of the word of God. And I entreat your attention the more
earnestly to this part of the subject, because it is my intention to
prove that the principles I am opposing are subversive of nearly all
the great and fundamental doctrines connected with redemption
through the blood of Jesus. When I first began this investigation I was
not aware that the evidence in support of this serious charge was so
abundant; but the more I study the subject the deeper is my
conviction that the difference is not in words but in things; and in
things, too, which are essential to the gospel and constitute the very
foundation of a sinner’s hope. This charge I proceed to prove in the
following manner.
FIRST. The first thing which strikes the mind on a close examination
of Mr. Fuller’s views relative to the atonement is, that upon his
principles the death of Christ is not vicarious. By vicarious I mean for,
or in the stead of others. Both Arminians and Calvinists hold that the
death of Christ is vicarious, but Mr. F., by endeavoring to go between
them, virtually denies it. When we assert that Christ laid down his life
for his sheep, or that he died in the stead of his elect, we thereby
assert that his death is vicarious; or should we affirm, with Dr. Whitby,
that Christ died equally for the whole race of Adam, we would still
assert that his death is vicarious. But Mr. Fuller agrees with neither of
these; he neither teaches that Christ died for the elect only, nor does
he affirm that he died for the whole race of Adam, but he maintains
that Christ made an atonement for sin indefinitely, for sin in general,
in such a way as that God might pardon some men if he pleased, or all
men if he pleased. Thus Mr. Fuller denies that the death of Christ is
vicarious.
This will perhaps appear still clearer by the following dilemma. If
Christ died, he died for, or in the stead of, all men, or in the stead of
some men, or in the stead of no man. Now let any person of Mr.
Fuller’s views take whichsoever of these he pleases, for one of them
must be true. If he takesthe first, and affirm with the Arminians that
Christ died for all men, he changes his ground: if he takes the second,
and asserts, that Christ died only for his elect, he gives up the
argument by uniting with his opponents; and if he takes the last, he
denies that Christ died for any of the human race! And this Mr. F. has
virtually done by his doctrine of indefinite atonement. The truth of this
has often been confirmed in conversation with persons of Mr. Fuller’s
views. Such a dialogue as the following as frequently occurred.
Question. “What is your view of the efficacy and extent of the death of
Christ?
Answer. “I consider the atonement as a divine extraordinary
expedient, for the exercise of mercy consistently with justice; and that
therein such satisfaction is made for sin, as to afford ground for
sinners to believe and be saved.”
Ques. “Good; but I wish to know whether you believe that Christ died
for all men, or only for his elect?”
Ans. “I consider he died for sin.”
Ques. “Truly he did; but he also died for sinners, and I wish to know
whether you believe he died for all sinners, or only for some sinners?”
Ans. “I consider that if one sinner only had been saved consistently
with justice, it required to be by the same all-perfect obedience unto
death; and this being yielded is itself equally adapted to save the
world as an individual, provided a word believed in it.”
Ques. “I understand you, but you have not answered my question.
You have not said whether he died for an individual or for a world.”
Ans. “I believe there is a fulness in the atonement of Christ sufficient
for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in
him.”
Ques. “You still evade my question: I wish you to say whether Christ
died for all sinners or only for some?”
Ans. “If by this you mean to ask whom Christ’s atonement is
sufficient for, I answer the whole world, but if you refer to the purpose
Of God respecting its application, I answer for some men, only.”
Ques. “Here you have artfully confounded several things; for a man
may believe in the sovereign purpose of God, respecting the
application of the atonement, and yet maintain universal redemption.
But I ask nothing about the purpose of God, nor the application of the
atonement, but I ask a plain question, to which I expect an ingenious
answer, but in vain. Let me intreat you to renounce the hidden things
of dishonesty, and walk no more in craftiness. Acknowledge boldly,
either that Christ died for all men, or that he died only for some men,
or else he died for no man. To say that he died for sin merely, is to
deny that his death is vicarious.”
I am aware that Mr. Fuller sometimes departs from his peculiar
sentiments, and speaks of Christ’s dying for his sheep, his church,
&c.; but this proves nothing but the inconsistency of error. Every
erroneous man is condemned of himself [Titus iii. 11.] It is Mr. F.’s
peculiar view of the atonement which I am opposing, and not the truth
which he sometimes acknowledges. His peculiar view is simply this:
“The death of Christ (he considers) was a satisfaction to justice, God
having hereby expressed his displeasure against sin. This
satisfaction being yielded, and this displeasure expressed, a way is
opened whereby an individual may saved, or the whole world,
according to the sovereign pleasure of God.” All particularity in the
atonement itself he denies, but acknowledges the sovereign purpose
of God with regard to its application. In short, he neither avows
universal redemption with the Arminians, nor particular redemption
with the Calvinists, but asserts what may be very properly termed
indefinite redemption and how contrary this doctrine is to the word of
God we shall presently see.
It is worthy of remark, that although there are many Scriptures which
appear to favour universal redemption, there are none which even
appear to countenance Mr. Fuller’s views. Those texts which speak of
Christ dying for the whole world, for every man, &c. prove too much
for his purpose. In vain shall we search the Scriptures for a single text
to countenance the absurd notion that the atonement is sufficient for
all, but was intended only for some; or for the least warrant to
separate the sufficiency of the atonement from the design of it. To the
law and to the testimony we will now appeal, and by this unerring rule
we will try the doctrine of indefinite redemption. To cite all the
passages which express the fixed, definite, and vicarious nature of
the atonement would be to transcribe a great part of the Old and New
Testament; a few, therefore, may suffice as an example.
And, in the first place, if we attend to the meaning of the word
redemption, we shall find it furnishes a strong argument against the
indefinite scheme. Our English word is derived from the Latin Redimo,
to buy again, to ransom by price; and the words used in the Greek
Testament to express our Redemption are, * * to buy, and * * to buy
out of the hands of another, or to obtain something by paying a
proper price for it. In Hebrew, to redeem signifies also to separate or
sever; either because a thing when it is bought is “separated” for the
purchaser’s use, or because the children of Israel were by
redemption separated to be a peculiar people unto the Lord. The very
nature of redemption, therefore, comprehends something vicarious,
something definite. This great truth shines in the types and figures of
the law, in all which the definite nature of redemption by the death of
Christ is constantly held forth. Thus, the ransom of a poor Israelite by
any of his near kin, is a lively figure of the death of Christ for his
people, who gave his life for their lives, and his person instead of
theirs. “And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy
brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the
stranger or sojourner by thee; after that he is sold he may be
redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him,” &c. [Lev. xxv.
47.] The atonement money also was typical of the redemption by
Christ, and of his giving himself a ransom for a given number of
sinners. “When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, after their
number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul into the
Lord, when thou numberest them, that there be no plague among
them when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that
passeth among them that are numbered half a shekel after the shekel
of the sanctuary. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the
children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the
tabernacle.” [Exodus xxx. 12—16.] It was commanded also that the
land should not be sold for ever, but should be redeemed or bought
back; to signify that although God’s elect have sold themselves for
nought, yet they shall not perish because they are the Lord’s
property, being certainly bought again, not indeed with silver and gold
but with the precious blood of Christ. “The land shall not be sold
forever, for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with
me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption
for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of
his possession and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he
redeem that which his brother sold.” [Lev. xxv. 23- 25.] In these
instances we learn the meaning of the word redemption, and as they
refer to our Lord Jesus Christ, we may also discern in them traces of
the vicarious nature of his death. Indeed whenever the atonement of
Christ is spoken of in the Scripture, this principle is always implied
and nearly always expressed. Accordingly we read, that he “laid down
his life for his sheep;” that he “gave himself for his Church;” that he
“give his life a ransom for many.” The prophet foretold that “Messiah
should be cut off, but not for himself;” and another prophet informs
us for whom, or in whose stead he should die: “But he was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, for the
transgression of my people was he stricken.” His blood, as the blood
of the New Testament, “was shed for many.” “He gave himself for us
that he might redeem us.” “He gave himself for our sins, that he might
deliver us from this present evil world.” And, in short, the objects of
redemption, the church of God, are “purchased with his own blood,”
[John x. 15, &c.] “redeemed from among men,” and therefore said to
be bought with a price. Now all these Scriptures with a host of others,
declare plainly that the death of Christ is not an atonement for sin
abstractedly, nor a mere expression of the Divine displeasure against
iniquity, nor an indefinite satisfaction of Divine justice, but a ransom
price paid for the eternal redemption of a certain number of sinners,
and a plenary satisfaction for their particular sins.
Neither are those passages of Scripture which appear to favor the
universal scheme, less to the point. It would he easy to show that
such passages do not really favor universal redemption, inasmuch as
they fully express the absolute satisfaction yielded to divine justice by
the blood of Christ, and the certain efficacy of his death; but this is
not our subject. The question relates not to universal, but to indefinite
redemption: the question is not for whom Christ died, but did he die
for any? Is his death vicarious?
Now we read that Jesus “died for all.” That he “tasted death for every
man;” i.e., in the stead of every man. “Scarcely FOR a righteous man
will one die; peradventure FOR a good man some would even dare to
die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were
yet sinners, Christ died FOR US.” And indeed in every passage which
appears to favor universal redemption, this great truth is conveyed,
that Christ died FOR, or in the stead of the persons referred to, and so
purchased them by his blood. “Destroy not him with thy meat for
whom Christ died.” “Shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ
died?” “They shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord
that bought them.” “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified
in due time.” [Rom. xiv. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 11; 2 Peter ii. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 6.] In
this last cited passage, the word translated “ransom” is very
significant. It is not simply a ransom, but correspondent ransom. “It
properly signifies,” says a learned critic, “a price by which captives
are redeemed from their enemies, and the kind of exchange, in which
one person is redeemed by another, and life is redeemed by life.” No
one doctrine, therefore, is more opposed to another, than this
scriptural view of redemption is to Mr. Fuller’s indefinite scheme. I
have called it by way of distinction, indefinite redemption, but it is, in
fact, no redemption at all. The absurdity of the system may be further
proved by the following arguments: viz.—
Arg. 1. If Christ died only for sin abstractedly, and his death be not
vicarious then, no sinner in particular can have any special interest or
propriety in his death, and consequently Paul labored under a
mistake, when expressing his faith in the Son of God, he added, “Who
loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Arg. 2. An atonement for sin abstractedly, and an indefinite
redemption, are both equally absurd. There can be no redemption
where individuals are not ransomed; there can be no atonement
where persons are not concerned. An atonement may be made for
offences which one man commits against another, but an atonement
for offence abstractedly is unintelligible; an atonement may be and
was made for the offences of sinners, but an atonement for sin as sin
is an absurdity. Connected with the atonement is reconciliation.
Among men, when an offence is atoned for, the injured party is
satisfied, and reconciliation ensues: so when Christ died for the sins
of his elect, atonement was made, satisfaction given, and
reconciliation took place. [Rom. v. 10.] But on the supposition that
Christ died for sin in the abstract, who or what is reconciled?
Arg. 3. This notion of indefinite atonement reflects on the wisdom of
God: for if, as Mr. Fuller allows, it was the purpose of God to render
the atonement effectual only to the elect, then this great object was
accomplished by laying their iniquities only upon Christ; and thus
according to particular redemption, Jehovah is of one mind,
abounding towards his chosen in all wisdom and prudence. But
indefinite redemption, coupled with personal election, represents our
God as halting between two opinions, as though he had not fully
determined whom he would save.
Arg. 4. The sentiment now under consideration obscures the glory of
the all perfect work of Christ. All that it ascribes to that work is the
mere possibility of salvation. In this respect the advocates of
indefinite and of universal redemption agree. Both unite in denying
that Christ made absolute satisfaction for the sins of men, and
effected their real reconciliation to God; clearly perceiving that if
Christ died for men absolutely their salvation would be certain. [See
Dr. Whitby, p. 105, 2d ed. 8vo.] Indefinite redemption does not
ascertain the salvation of a single sinner; all that it pretends to effect
is to place men in a salvable state, and render them reconcilable to
God. It pretends to be sufficient for the salvation of all men, but
secures the salvation of none. Now it is the glory of redemption that it
does not merely render God placable and sin pardonable; that it does
not render God reconcilable to man, or man reconcilable to God; but
that it hath finished transgression, made an end of sin, [Dan. ix. 24.]
justified the ungodly, reconciled sinners to God, [Rom. v. 10.] and
perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Heb. x. 14. ] Christ did not
appear to render men salvable and sin pardonable; but he appeared to
“put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” “In a word,” says one of the
valiant of Israel, “either the death of Christ was not real and perfect
satisfaction for sin, or if it was, then upon every principle of reason
and justice, all that sin must be actually forgiven and done away,
which his death was a true and plenary satisfaction for. But on the
supposition that his redemption was not absolute, it vanishes into no
redemption at all. Go over, therefore, fairly and squarely, to the tents
of Socinus, or believe that Christ is the Lamb of God, who, in deed
and in truth, beareth and taketh away the sin of the world.” [Toplady’s
Sermons. Works, vol. 3, p. 31]
Arg. 5. Mr. Fuller’s view of the atonement destroys that beautiful
harmony which pervades every part of the glorious priesthood of
Christ. This harmony appeared typically under the law. Aaron, the
high priest, was taken from his brethren, the children of Israel, to offer
gifts and sacrifices. For the sins of Israel only, was atonement made,
and not for the neighboring nations, nor yet for transgression
indefinitely. The high priest represented Israel only, when he bore
their names upon his heart in the breast-plate of judgment, and when
he entered into the holy of holies with the names of the twelve tribes
upon his breast. He bare their judgment, and theirs only, before the
Lord continually; for them he made intercession, and them he
solemnly blessed. All this represented that great high priest who is
passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God. He took not on him
human nature indefinitely, but he took on him the seed of Abraham
that he might be the Goel, the kinsman of the heirs of promise, and so
possess a legal right to redeem them. As their high priest, he made
reconciliation for the sins of his people; for them he appears in the
presence of God; them he represents; for them he intercedes, and
them he will finally bless. He saves none but those for whom he
intercedes; he intercedes for none but those for whom he died; he
died for none but those to whom he stands related as their kinsman
redeemer. This glorious subject filled the soul of the apostle with holy
rapture when he exclaimed, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is
Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” [Rom. viii. 33, 34.]
But, alas, how does Mr. Fuller’s doctrine disturb this harmony! If the
great atonement be indefinite, every part of Christ’s glorious
priesthood, resting upon it, must needs be indefinite too. If Christ died
for sin abstractedly, it will follow that he appears in the presence of
God for no man particularly, that he represents sinners generally, and
that he intercedes for men indefinitely; which doctrine, thanks be to
God, is false, otherwise not an individual of the human race would be
saved.
Thus Mr. Fuller’s views stand opposed to the vicarious nature of the
death of Christ, and are consequently subversive of one of the most
important truths of the gospel.
SECOND. Another essential doctrine of the gospel, denied by Mr.
Fuller, is the transfer of Christ. This great doctrine is not denied by
him in an indirect manner; it is not denied consequentially or by
inference; but he denies it boldly, and as plainly as language can
possibly express. It is impossible to misunderstand the following
quotations: “A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of
another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from
obligation in the offender is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are
transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are
untransferable;” (Dialogues, &c., page 209.) and again, “neither sin
nor righteousness are in themselves transferable;” and again, “Debts
are transferable, but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the
one, but he can only obliterate the effects of the other; the desert of
the criminal remains.” (Morris Memoirs of Fuller, 412.)
How cautiously soever Mr. Fuller has thought right to express himself
on some subjects, he speaks boldly on this. Here we have as plain a
denial of a great Protestant doctrine as words are capable of. But
again, care must be taken not to misrepresent him. Mr. Fuller does not
deny that it was transferred to him. What he means by the imputation
of sin to Christ, we have in his own words: “The imputation of our sin
to Christ, consists in the transfer of its effects,” but the transfer of sin
itself, he positively denies as a thing impossible. Amongst men,
indeed, it is admitted that guilt cannot be transferred, but its effects
only. It is admitted that among the sons of men, a third person may
cancel debts but not crimes, which with mortals can only be
transferrable in their effects; but in the great affair of salvation, our
God stands single and alone. In this most glorious work, there is such
a display of justice, mercy, wisdom and power, as never entered into
the heart of man to conceive, and consequently, can have no parallel
in the actions of mortals. “Who hath declared this from ancient time?
Who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no
God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside
me” [Isaiah xlv. 21.]
The question then is simply this: whether, in the great economy of
salvation, the sins of men were transferred to Christ, or the effects
only. If the former does not appear from the Scripture, then Mr.
Fuller’s reasoning is correct; but if the word of God plainly teaches
that not only the tremendous consequences and effects of sin were
transferred to Christ, but also sin itself, then all his reasonings on the
subject are words of falsehood. It is freely and joyfully admitted that
Christ did bear, as the surety of his people, the effects of their sin, the
punishment of their guilt; but to teach that he bore this only, and to
deny the translation of sin itself, is another matter, and is, as I shall
attempt to prove, a grievous error and contrary to the plainest
declarations of the word of God; as for example,
(1.) The translation of sin itself to Christ, was clearly taught under the
law. It was prefigured by the sinner laying his hands on the head of
the animal intended to be sacrificed. Thus when Aaron and his sons
were to be hallowed, they were commanded to “put their hands on the
head of the bullock,” which represented typically the transfer of their
sins to the animal which was thereby counted worthy of death; for it is
added, “And thou shalt kill the bullock before the Lord, by the door of
the tabernacle of the congregation.” [Exod. xxix 10, 11.] Still more
striking is the atonement of the scape goat, which is a lively figure of
the transfer of sin to Christ, and of his bearing it away for ever. “And
when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the
tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live
goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live
goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the
head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man
into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their
iniquities into a land not inhabited and he shall let go the goat into the
wilderness” [Lev. xvi. 20- 22. ] Here, then, we have in a figure first, the
real transfer of sin itself to Christ; secondly, the transfer of the sins of
a peculiar people, even the children of Israel; and thirdly, the transfer
of all their iniquities, all their transgressions, and all their particular
sins. In corroboration of this, it is worthy of notice that the word which
in the law of Moses is used for the sin offering, properly means sin
itself; so that the victim, in consequence of the typical transfer of
iniquity to it, was considered a mass of sin e. g.. Lev. iv. 21, and al.
freq. where the bullock is called a sin offering of the congregation, but
the animal is in the Hebrew called sin itself. “And he shall carry forth
the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first
bullock, THE SIN of the congregation is he.” Also the word which is
translated trespass offering, properly signifies guilt; because the
animal typically bore the guilt of the transgressor who brought it for
an offering. Lev. v. 6, 7, 18, and al. freq. “The victims and expiations
offered for sins,” says Calvin “were called * * a word which properly
signifies sin itself. By this appellation, the Spirit intended to suggest,
that they were vicarious sacrifices to receive and sustain the curse
due to sin. But that which was figuratively represented in the Mosaic
sacrifices, is actually exhibited in Christ, the archetype of the figures.
Wherefore, in order to effect a complete expiation, he gave his soul,
that is, an atoning sacrifice for sin, as the prophet says; so that our
guilt, and consequent punishment, being as it were, transferred to
him, must cease to be imputed to us.” [Institutes, Book 2, chap. xvi. v.
6.]
(2.) The transfer of our sins to Christ is discovered not only in the law
of Moses, but also in those parts of the prophets and of the Psalms
which testify of him. In these Scriptures it is most clearly and
distinctly revealed, not only that he bore our sorrows, and all the
consequences of our transgressions, but also that he bore our very
sins themselves; and not only so, but that his bearing our sorrows is
the effect of his bearing our sins. Mr. Fuller positively denies that our
sins themselves were, or could be transferred to Christ. The effects of
them, he says, might, but not the sins themselves. “A voluntary
obligation to endure the punishment of another,” says he, “is not
guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the
offender is innocence. Both guilt and innocence (or sin and
righteousness, as he elsewhere expresses it) are transferable in their
effects, but in themselves they are untransferrable.” Thus Mr. Fuller
teaches: now we will see what the word of God teaches. The fifty- third
chapter of Isaiah is allowed to be a prophecy of the Messiah, his deep
sufferings, and subsequent glory. In this portion of the divine word,
the Messiah is represented as a despised and rejected person, as a
man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: but it is more clearly taught
that he was so, not on his own account, but on account of his people.
Their transgressions wounded him, their iniquities bruised him. It is
indeed more distinctly revealed that the effects of their iniquity were
transferred to him. “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our
sorrows;” but it is not less clearly ascertained, that our sins
themselves were transferred to him. “All we, like sheep, have gone
astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all.” v. 6. The Messiah could not have
borne our sorrows, unless they had been transferred to him; neither
could he have borne our sins, unless they also had been transferred
to him. Accordingly we are taught, that he bore our sins as well as
their effects; “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify
many, FOR HE SHALL BEAR THEIR INIQUITIES.” v. 11. Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great—because he hath poured out his
soul unto death, he was numbered with the transgressors, AND HE
BARE THE SIN OF MANY.”
In these solemn transactions, our Lord Jesus stood as the great
Surety of many. “It was exacted and he become responsible: and he
opened not his mouth.” [See Lowth’s translation of Isaiah liii. 7.] As
debts are transferred from the original debtor to the surety, so were
the sins of many transferred to the spotless Redeemer, and he bore
them: and as the surety smarts for the debt which by transfer
becomes his own, so Christ was stricken for the transgression of his
people. Hence it is that he calls their sins his own, as he often does
when speaking in the Psalms. In the fortieth Psalm, the speaker,
beyond all doubt, is Messiah, as the apostle assures us in Heb. x. 5. In
this Psalm he calls the distress into which his covenant engagements
brought him, a horrible pit; and though he foreknew the
consequences yet in v. 7, he declares his readiness to assume a
body, and to accomplish his Father’s will in the salvation of his
chosen, agreeably to the ancient settlements written in the Volume of
the Book, saying, “Lo! I come, I delight to do thy will, O my God.”
Then in verses 11 and 12, he prays for deliverance from his deep
distresses, saying, “Withhold not thy tender mercies from me, O Lord,
let thy loving, kindness and thy truth continually preserve me. For
innumerable evils hare compassed me about; mine iniquities have
taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more
than the hairs of my head, so that my heart faileth me.” And to this
exactly corresponds the evangelical history of the sufferings of
Christ. “Now” said he “is my soul troubled, and what shall I say?
Father, save me from this hour, but for this cause cam I unto this
hour.” [John xii. 17.] The true cause of all his sufferings was this, that
God the Father laid on him the iniquity of us all; and if our iniquity,
consequently its effects. Indeed Christ could not have borne the
effects if be had not borne sin itself, because one part of the
punishment of sin is a sense of guilt and wrath. Therefore when our
sin was upon him his heart failed him, and he was not able to look up,
but cried out in infinite grief, “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me!” [Matt. xxvii. 46.]
In the sixty- ninth Psalm also, which in various places of the New
Testament is applied to Christ, we find the Messiah calling the sins of
his people his own; inasmuch as he and they constitute one body.
“Save me, O God, for the waters are come in upon my soul. I sink in
deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters,
where the floods overflow me.” And in v. 5 he ascribes his sufferings
to their proper cause. “O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my
sins are not hid from thee.” How could the spotless Redeemer speak
of his sins in any other sense than the one in question? How could
they be his otherwise than by transfer, as debts are transferred to the
surety? But thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer:
(Luke xxiv. 46) and since he became voluntarily responsible, “ought
not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?”
(Luke v. 26.)
(3.) This great doctrine is fully attested in the apostolic writings.
All the expressions of the New Testament writers in relation to this
subject seem to have a reference to the legal sacrifices. As the animal
offered in sacrifice was called sin, because it typically bore
transgression, so Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. v. 21.) Yea,
he was made a curse for us, (Gal. iii. 13.) and he was so, because he
was once offered to bear the sins of many. (Heb. ix. 28.) This one
offering was not typical, like the sacrifices of the law, but real
expiation of iniquity; nor was the imputation of sin to Jesus of a
figurative or improper nature, but an imputation connected with a real
transfer of our iniquities to him, as is clearly comprehended in those
forcible words of Peter, who his own self bare our sins in his own
body on the tree, that we being dead to sins should live unto
righteousness. [1 Peter ii. 24.]
If there be a doctrine of the gospel with which we should desire to be
acquainted, a doctrine on which our salvation and comfort depend, it
is that of the translation of our sins to Christ. If we would know Christ,
and the fellowship of his sufferings; if we would look on him whom we
have pierced and mourn; if we would die unto sin, and bring forth fruit
unto God, we must have the gift of the blessed Spirit to reveal to us
this great mystery, that the Father hath laid on Christ the iniquity of us
all. Why did the holy Redeemer go mourning to the grave? Why did
divine justice pursue him? Only because he bare the sin of many.
From this fountain the streams of free salvation flow: we die unto sin,
we live unto righteousness, only because his own self bare our sins in
his own body on the tree. O mysterious transfer! O wondrous secret!
which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor ever entered into the heart
of man to conceive, but which thou, O God, will reveal to thine elect by
the Spirit!
I shall only add, in further confirmation of this fundamental doctrine,
the following arguments:
Arg. 1. If sin itself be not transferable, but only its effects, then it is not
true that Christ bore our sins. Their consequences in part he might
bear, but our sins themselves he could not bear, unless they were
transferred to him. “He shall bear their iniquities,” saith the prophet:
for the original word signifies to bear, as a porter carries a burden.
The Old Testament saints were well acquainted with their God, as a
sin-bearing God, and considered this the glory of his character. “Who
is a God like unto thee, that beareth iniquity; and that passeth over the
transgression of the remnant of his heritage? [Micah vii. 18.] But
because it is impossible among mortals that guilt should be
transferred, Mr. F. argues that it is impossible with God.
Arg. 2. If sin itself be not transferable, Christ could not have borne all
the effects and consequences of our iniquities. The shame and pain
which the undefiled Redeemer endured from the Jews, the Roman
soldiers, the cross, the nails, and the thorns, were a very small part of
the reward of our transgressions. The principal part of the punishment
of sin, consists in a sense of guilt, and of Divine wrath: but neither of
these could Immanuel have endured, unless he had borne our sins
themselves.
Arg. 3. If sin be not transferable, then infinite justice still finds guilt
upon believers and glorified saints, and will do so for ever; in which
case, justice would require to be satisfied, and mercy would be
displayed at the expense of righteousness. But contrary to this, the
Scripture represents it as the glory of salvation, that the guilt of sin
itself is done away in the blood of the Lamb. In this consists the glory
of his righteousness, not only that the curse is removed, but the
cause of the curse also; “for as far as the east is from the west, so far
hath he removed our TRANGRESSIONS from us.” Our sins were so
transferred to Christ, that if he had not conquered and destroyed
them, they would have destroyed him. His resurrection was a proof
that sin was on him no longer; and the apostle confirms this by a
remarkable expression in Heb. ix. 26, where, after teaching that Christ
bare the sins of many, he says, “he shall appear the second time
without sin.” “Mark it well,” says a holy man, “there was a time that
Christ did not appear without sin; for he bore the sins of many; but
there is a second time when he shall appear, and then he shall be
without sin; so that believers have no sins upon them, and Christ hath
none either.” [Dr. Crisp—Christ alone exalted, vol. i. p. 428.] A
glorious truth, and worth more than a mountain of gold!
Arg. 4. If the sins of men were not transferred to Christ, then his
sufferings were not of a penal nature, nor could infinite justice be
satisfied with them. Justice requires that iniquity should be punished,
but the sufferings of Christ were not punishment, unless our sins
were transferred to him. An innocent person may suffer, but an
innocent person cannot properly be punished; nor can justice admit
that an innocent person, considered as innocent, should suffer in the
room of the guilty. But divine justice is satisfied with the sufferings of
Christ; because he bore both iniquity and its consequences, and thus
God hath “condemned sin in the flesh.”
“Penalty,” says a judicious author, “is suffering under a charge of
offence, and without a just imputation of guilt, punishment cannot in
equity be inflicted on any subject. It is a most unrighteous thing to
punish any one considered as innocent; and therefore, if it was not
possible with God to impute sin to the innocent Jesus, neither could
he inflict punishment on him; and if Christ did not endure proper
punishment, his suffering were not, nor could be, satisfactory to the
law and justice of God for our sins, and it is in vain to hope for
salvation through his sufferings and death.” (Brine’s Sermon on 2
Cor. v. 21.)
What a serious thing it is that any professed friends of Christ should
be found opposing this foundation principle of the gospel!
THIRD. Intimately connected with the foregoing, is the doctrine of
JUSTIFICATION; which important article, although it seems to have
been acknowledged with one consent by all the reformed churches, is
entirely set aside by Mr. Fuller. Justification is a judicial term, and
means an acquittal from guilt; it stands opposed, not to punishment,
but to the desert of punishment. When a man, charged with a crime, is
tried according to the laws of his country, the crime is either proved
against him or it is not. If it be, he is then pronounced guilty; but if it
be not, he is declared to be not guilty, or in other words, he is justified
from the charge. But if a man be really guilty of a crime, he may be
pardoned, but he cannot be justified. Pardon is merely an exemption
from punishment, but justification is freedom from its desert. If mercy
be extended to the criminal, he is pardoned, but no created power can
justify him. But what is impossible with men is accomplished by our
God. Wonder, O heavens! be astonished O earth, Jehovah not only
pardons, but justifies the ungodly! He not only remits their
punishment, but removes their sins also; so that heaven, earth, and
hell are challenged to bring one fault against the ransomed of the
Lord, if they be able. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s
elect? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ
that died.” (Rom. viii. 33.) Now that this great doctrine is wholly set
aside by Mr. Fuller’s principles, can be scarcely doubted by any
person who reads and understands the following quotations. “Debts
are transferable but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the
one, but can only obliterate the effects of the other: the desert of the
criminal remains.” And again, “Neither sin nor righteousness are in
themselves transferable.” And again, “That the Scriptures represent
believers as receiving only the benefits or the effect of Christ’s
righteousness in justification, is a remark of which I am not able to
see the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not
imputed to them. Obedience itself may be, and is imputed, while its
effects only are imparted, and consequently received.” If this be really
the case, then there is no such thing as the justification of a sinner,
except in the same sense which the Papists themselves allow, which
indeed is not justification but pardon only. And although Mr. Fuller
uses the term justification, because it is found in the Scripture, yet it
is evident he means no more by it than an exemption from
punishment, or treating the sinner as though he were righteous.
[Memoirs, 412.] He positively denies that sin itself is or can be
transferred from the sinner, or the desert of punishment removed, or
the righteousness of Christ imparted; which doctrine, if the Scriptures
be true, I will prove is utterly false.
The ideal meaning of the word to justify, is expressed by justice in
weights and measures: it is derived from a correct beam, just weights,
a righteous balance. “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in
mete yard, in weight or in measure. Scales of justice, weights of
justice, an ephah of justice, and a hin of justice, shall ye have.” [Lev.
xix. 35, 36.] A just or righteous man, therefore, is one who, when
weighed in the balance, is not found wanting; one whose obedience
corresponds with the holy law. “Judgment also will I lay to the law,
and righteousness to the plummet.” But that obedience which is in
any way lighter or shorter than the holy law of God is not
righteousness; for “justice and judgment are the basis of his throne.”
[Ps. lxxxix. 14.] When Jehovah, therefore, is said to justify a man, he
does more than pardon him; and as his judgment is always according
to truth, he never condemns the innocent, nor deals with any as
thought they were righteous, who are not really so.
Nothing is more common amongst men than the pardon of offences,
but the justification of an offender, consistently with truth, is with
them impossible. All that created power can righteously do, is to
justify the innocent, and condemn the guilty. But it is the glory of
Jehovah’s character, that he is a just God, and the justifier of him that
believeth in Jesus. In the stupendous work he brings to nought all the
wisdom and disputing of this world. [Is. xxviii. 21.] In this his
masterpiece of wisdom and of power, he accomplishes that which
with men is impossible; viz. a transfer of sin and righteousness, and
thus obliterates not only the effects of sin, but sin itself. And in
answer to all the objections of carnal men, as to the possibility of this
great event, it is thus written, “Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a
marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and
wonder; for the wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the
understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” This marvellous
work, if we are to believe an inspired apostle, consists not in
destroying the wisdom of the wise, but in that great event by which
this effect is produced. It is no great achievement with our God to
destroy the wisdom of this world, but to save and justify the ungodly
by his precious blood of the cross is an amazing work indeed. This is
God’s marvellous work, this is God’s wonder; by which he “destroys
the wisdom of the wise, and brings to nothing the understanding to
the prudent.”
If we attend to what the Scripture says relative to the great blessing of
justification, we shall find the term used in its strict and proper
meaning, and also in a more extended sense. This has given occasion
to many Protestant writers to teach that justification consists of two
parts, namely remission of sin, and the imputation of Christ’s perfect
obedience. Justification, in its strict and original meaning, is that act
of God’s abounding grace, whereby he takes away the guilt of his
elect, and constitutes them faultless and spotless in the eye of infinite
justice, through the death and resurrection of Christ. In this sense
believers are said to be justified from sin, and to be “justified from all
things.” In this sense the word is used in that triumphant exclamation
of the Apostle, “Who shall lay any thing, to the charge of God’s elect?
It is God that justifieth:” so that a justified man is one against whom
no charge can be righteously brought; and in this respect,
justification is ascribed to Jesus’ blood. But as the humiliation,
sufferings, and death of Christ were not only an expiation of iniquity,
but also a solemn act of obedience to the law of God, so our
righteousness consists not only in deliverance from guilt, as in Psalm,
li. 14, and Rom. iv. 6, 7, 8., but also in our standing complete in the
perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. “For as by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous.”
Having thus attempted an explanation of terms, I now proceed to
prove that Mr. Fuller’s doctrine, as above stated in his own words, is
utterly false, being directly opposed to the word of God.
1. The Scripture teaches, as plainly as words can express, that God, in
the justification of his people, not only obliterates the effects of their
sins, through the blood of the cross, but sin itself; not only does he
exempt them from the consequences of their transgressions, but
takes away the guilt of their transgressions also.
It has been proved that the iniquity of the people was transferred to
Christ, and laid on him, so that it will of course follow, that iniquity is
no more to be found upon believers, since it was all transferred to
Jesus. It is only in this sense that God “hath not beheld iniquity in
Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel.” [Num. xxiii. 21.]
To inculcate this all important truth, the Holy Spirit has been pleased
to employ many very strong expressions and figures, of which the
following are a sample.
(1.) Believers are said, in reference to their justification, to be made
“free from sin.” Rom. vi. 7. The principal part of David’s petitions in
Psalm li. relate to this blessing. He does not seem so much concerned
to be delivered from the punishment of his sins, as from the guilt of it.
But if he had believed that guilt was not transferrable, he would never
have prayed for deliverance from it. He had, indeed, murdered Uriah
the Hittite, and the guilt of this action distressed his soul. But as the
Lord had declared, by the prophet Nathan, that Jehovah had “put
away his sin,” he was encouraged to pray, v. 14, “deliver me from
blood guiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation, and my tongue
shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.” In this petition, David
expresses his conviction that the righteousness of God could take
away his guilt, and, although his soul was stained with the foul
murder of an innocent man, yet he knew that God his Saviour could
wash him clean, and render his polluted soul “whiter than snow,” v. 7.
To this agrees the language of the Apostle when describing the
blessedness of believers, he says, the “blood of Christ purges their
conscience from dead works;” and accordingly they have “no more
conscience of sins,” but are become perfect forever in the eye of the
law. Heb. ix. 14; x. 2,4. This judicial freedom from sin is confirmed and
illustrated at large by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, chap. vi. He
begins by repelling the charge of licentiousness brought against the
doctrines of grace and by establishing the holy tendency of this very
truth: “How shall we, that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” He
further illustrates the subject, by the holy ordinance of Baptism, and
the believer’s union to Christ, in his death and resurrection; who, as
the surety of many, became free from their sins in his death. “For he
that is dead, is freed from sin,” or rather is justified from sin. He then
proceeds to prove that the believer is dead with Christ, and justified
with him; and after shewing that this blessedness, so far from leading
to licentiousness, is the spring of all true satisfaction, he thus
concludes, “But now being made free from sin, and become servants
to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”
(2.) Believers receive not the remission of punishment merely, but
also the remission of their sins. This blessing, so often spoken of in
Scripture, involves pardon, but comprehends more than pardon
merely. It implies that sin is put away; 2 Sam. xii. 13. Heb. ix. 26.
Accordingly, they whose sins are remitted stand no more in need of
atonement; for “where remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin.” [Heb. x. 18.] Even as David also describeth the blessedness
of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness, saying, “Blessed
are they whose iniquites are remitted, and whose sins; are covered,
blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” And again it
is written, “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of
sins.” [Acts x. 43.] And again, “This is my blood of the new testament
which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” [Matt. xxvi. 28.]
(3.) The sins of believers are blotted out. To blot out, is to obliterate;
Mr. Fuller, however, says, that the effects only of sin can be
obliterated; be denies that sin itself is, or can be so. But what saith the
Scripture? “I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions,
and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.”
And, because this is impossible with men, and peculiar to Jehovah
himself, it is added, “Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it:
shout, ye lower parts of the earth: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob,
and glorified himself in Israel.” [Isa. xliv. 22, 23.] Agreeable to this, the
Psalmist prayed; “Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine
iniquities.” (Psalm li. 9.) And again it is written, “Repent ye therefore,
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts iii. 19.) No
figure can more strongly express the entire obliteration of all the sins
and iniquities of the people of God, than this. As the debt which has
been discharged, is obliterated from the creditor’s books; or, as the
sun dissipates for ever the thick cloud, which, in the morning, appears
in an eastern sky, so Jehovah obliterates the sins of his chosen, when
he justifies them by his grace. “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy
transgressions, for my own sake; and will not remember thy sins. Put
me in remembrance; let us plead together; declare thou, that thou
mayest be justified.”
(4.) The sins of the Lord’s people are said to be removed, or taken
away from them, and that in reference to the guilt thereof. This, like
every other gospel blessing, is taught in the law of Moses. Aaron was
commanded to lay his hands upon the head of the scape goat, to
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting
them upon the head of the goat; and he was commanded to send all
away, by the hand of a fit man, into the wilderness. It is then added,
“And the goat shall bare upon him all their iniquities, into a land not
inhabited; and he shall let go the goat into the wilderness,” (Lev. xvi.
22.) This was a lively type of the “Lamb of God, who taketh away the
sin of the world.” (John i. 29.) He taketh away not the punishment of
sin merely, but sin itself; “For, as far as the east is from the west, so
far hath he removed our transgressions from us.” (Psa. ciii. 12.) And
without doubt, it is in reference to the Messiah, the Branch, and to His
death, as the surety of the guilty, that Jehovah said by the Prophet, “I
will remove the iniquity of that land in one day,” (Zech. iii. 9) for we
know, that “he was manifested to take away our sins.” (1 John iii. 5.)
How, then, can any man who believes the Scriptures say that “sin and
righteousness are not in themselves transferable?”
(5.) The efficacy of the blood of Christ is such as to annihilate the
iniquities he bore, which comprehends the destruction of sin, in its
guilt, power, and awful consequences. Hence the lofty language of the
prophet, when predicting that Messiah should be cut off, declares, he
shall “finish the transgression, make an end of sin, and bring in
everlasting righteousness;” which is thus explained by the apostle,
“When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand
of the majesty on high;” or, in language still more similar to that of the
prophet, “but now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Although the Messiah was crucified through weakness, yet his death
is always represented as a glorious victory over our sins, which were
his chief enemies. How often is he said to come with vengeance, &c.
In Isaiah lxiii. he appears returning from the enemies territory with
garments dyed in the blood of his foes, declaring at the same time his
righteousness and ability to save, having conquered our sins and
overcome the world. In Micah vii. 19, the triumphs of Messiah are
related, in terms referring to the destruction of Pharaoh and the
Egyptian host in the Red Sea. “He will subdue our iniquities, and thou
wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” For as Pharaoh and
his host were destroyed in the deep, so the Messiah, it is foretold,
would conquer our sins, and annihilate them for ever. In the faith of a
triumphant Saviour, holy Zacharias spake, saying, “That he would
grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies,
might serve him without fear, in holiness,” &c. And in the enjoyment
of this great salvation, the Apostle exclaims, “But now, being made
free from sin, (i. e. from the guilt of sin, as in v. 7.) and become
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever
lasting life.”
If, then, believers are made free from sin; if their sins are remitted; if
they are blotted out; if they are removed from them; if they are
finished, obliterated, and put away; in fine, if believers are so justified,
that neither heaven, earth, nor hell, can righteously lay any thing to
their charge—then, that doctrine is false which asserts that sin and
righteousness are not transferable, but only in their effects.
2. The Scriptures clearly teach that the righteousness of the Lord
Christ is transferred to believers, imparted to them, and received by
them. This indeed is so clearly and unequivocally declared in the
divine word, that it is marvellous any Protestant should be found
denying it. Many of Mr. Fuller’s admirers would refuse to believe, on
any other evidence than their own senses, that so excellent a man
would assert that “righteousness is in itself not transferable, but only
its effects;” “that believers, in justification, receive “only the benefits
or the effects of Christ’s righteousness, and these only are imparted
and consequently received.” He has indeed admitted that Christ’s
obedience is imputed, but we have before learned what he
understands by imputation of righteousness; he means nothing more
by it “than the transfer of its effects, or treating the sinner as though
he were righteous.” [Memoirs, page 412.] But, alas! what corruption of
the gospel is this! What a lamentable instance of handling the word of
God deceitfully! How plainly does the Scripture declare that “the
righteousness of God is unto all and upon all them that believe;”
which cannot he true in any sense, unless this righteousness be
transferred to them. With what rapture does the redeemed church
express her triumphant faith in this sublime truth when she exclaims,
“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for
he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered
me with the robe of righteousness.” In this Scripture the church
expresses the ground of her rejoicing, which is not that the effects
and benefits merely, but the righteousness of Christ itself, was
transferred and imparted to her, as really as the best robe was
transferred to the Prodigal son and received by him. “To her was
granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white.”
So far is it from being true, that God, in the justification of a sinner,
treats him “as though he were righteous,” that the Scripture declares
in so many words that he constitutes him righteous. And to assert
that believers in justification receive only the effects or benefits of
Christ’s righteousness, amounts to nothing short of a verbal
contradiction of the word of God. The apostle in an inspired treatise of
justification, in Rom. v., illustrates the subject at large. He introduces
the first Adam as a figure or type of him who was to come. He
contrasts the offence of the first man and its aboundings, with the gift
of righteousness through the second Adam and its aboundings. He
declares that, as in Adam’s one offence, all his seed are guilty; so in
the one righteousness of Christ are all Messiah’s seed justified. And
although the offence hath abounded in the awful reign of death, yet
the free grace of God in the gift of righteousness hath much more
abounded unto everlasting life. Here we discover that the
righteousness of Christ is called the free gift, the gift by grace, and
the gift of righteousness: we also learn that it hath abounded unto
many, that the many receive it, and that it comes upon them. These
expressions, if they mean any thing, mean that the righteousness of
Christ is transferred for justification, and that the obedience of Christ
is imparted to the believer, and received by him, as a robe imparted by
the donor, and received by the wearer. “Therefore as by the offence of
one, judgment (i. e. the offence) came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift (i. e. righteousness)
came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s
disobedience many were made, or constituted sinners; so by the
obedience of one shall many be constituted righteous.” According to
Scripture, therefore, God first constitutes his people righteous, and
then treats them as such: he first transfers to them the righteousness
of Christ, and then the effects necessarily follow.
“For this Thy boundless favor,
We thank Thee, Lord of heaven;
’Tis through Thy love we daily prove,
Thou hast our sins forgiven.
Ten thousand thanks we render
To Thee, the Lord Jehovah;
For Thou dost bless with righteousness,
Thy bride, the favor’d Beulah.”
3. The Scriptures speak abundantly of the glorious state of believers
even in this life, considered as justified persons in Christ, which they
would not do if believers received only the effects of Christ’s
righteousness. They are often spoken of as persons who possess a
righteousness, and a perfect one; and this righteousness is the cause
of their glorious state and exalted character. “No weapon that is
formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise
against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn! This is the heritage of
the servant of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the
Lord.” It is in reference to her union to the Lord Christ, and her
participation of his glorious righteousness, that it is said to Zion,
“Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen
upon thee.” The word * * relates to the rising of the sun, and hence, in
the revelations, the church is said to be “clothed with the sun,” to
express her union to the Lord our righteousness, and her justification
in him; “for the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen
upon thee.”
The lofty description which the word of God gives of believers, is
scarcely short of blasphemy in the eyes of a natural man. Amidst all
their sins and sorrows, and doubt and fears, and weakness and
failings, they are perfect in the eye of the law; they are clean; they are
whiter than snow. Christ calls them his love, his dove, his undefiled,
and says, “Thou art all fair, my love, there is no spot in thee.” Even in
this life they have a completeness in him, so as to appear in the court
of God without spot. He hath loved them, and washed them from their
sins in his blood, and therefore he calls them his “undefiled.” Hence
they are exalted to be priests and kings, through the blood of the
Lamb; and shall trample upon sin, and death, and the world, and the
curse of the law; as it is written, “in thy righteousness shall they be
exalted.”
4. The Scriptures represent believers as possessing a title to eternal
life, in consequence of their justification in the righteousness of
Christ. Now this could not be the case if they were not constituted
righteous. If God merely treated them as though they were righteous,
they could possess no title to life, nor could it be demanded on the
footing of justice. John xvii. 24. Yet we find the Lord Jesus claiming
eternal life for his people, not merely on the ground of his Father’s
promise, but on the ground of his own righteousness. Indeed this is
the foundation of all his intercession for them. Rom. viii. 34. He
appears in the holiest of all, like a lamb newly slain, and every request
founded upon his righteousness is irresistible. The power which the
Father hath given him, to bestow eternal life upon his chosen, is
nothing but the reward of his righteousness. “I have glorified thee on
the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” And
as he who sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are both one in the
eye of the law, his title to eternal life becomes theirs also. Accordingly
he uses the language of confidence, when asking their salvation,
“Father, I will that they also whom thou gavest me, be with me where I
am; that they may behold my glory.”
One design of the apostle, in his dissertation on this subject in Rom.
v., is to shew that as death is the wages of Adam’s offence, so life is
the reward of Christ’s righteousness. He even ascribes much more
efficacy to the latter, than to the former, and argues, that if death reign
over all them to whom the offence is imputed, much more shall life
attend the imputation of righteousness. “For if by one man’s offence
death reigned by one; much more they who receive abundance of
grace, (i. e. who are the objects of abundant mercy) and of the gift of
righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Here the
apostle assures us that believers receive righteousness as a free gift,
flowing from abundant grace, and that, through this righteousness,
they are justly entitled to live and reign eternally with Christ; or, as be
elsewhere expresses it, “That being justified by his grace, we should
be made heirs, according to the hope of eternal life.” Hence the
heavenly bliss is called “the hope of righteousness;” and to this agree
the words of Isaiah, “And the work of righteousness shall be peace;
and the effect of righteousness shall be quietness and assurance
forever.” Indeed, eternal life is represented in Scripture, as the just
reward of Christ’s righteousness, freely given, and freely received, as
much so as, yea and much more than, the reign of death is the just
reward of Adam’s offence; “where sin abounded, grace did much
more abound ; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might
grace reign, through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ
our Lord.”
If the sins of believers are blotted out, obliterated, and put away; if the
righteousness of Christ is transferred to them, and this entitles them
to reign in life with him, then it will follow that those who are engaged,
from one Lord’s day to another, in teaching that “neither sin nor
righteousness are in themselves transferable;” that believers in
justification, “receive only the benefits or effects of Christ’s
righteousness,” are false witnesses for God, and are engaged in
speaking lies in the name of the Lord. And it should never be
forgotten, that although the heavenly Comforter, the Holy Ghost, is
the author of all meekness, and in his influences he is compared to a
dove, yet he has inspired his servants, the prophets, to write the
severest things against those who “utter error against the Lord, to
make empty the soul of the hungry, and cause the drink of the thirsty
to fail.” And, notwithstanding all the pretensions of such men to
universal charity and liberality of sentiment, he exposes the secret
iniquity of their hearts, and calls them by very foul names. He calls
them liars, and churls, and vile persons and workers of iniquity
because they “devise wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying
words, even when the needy speaketh right.” In perfect accordance
with this, was the conduct of our Lord. His whole character was made
up of meekness, kindness, and love; yet how severe were his
invectives against those builders, the Scribes and Pharisees. In this
also he is imitated, in measure, by all his faithful disciples, whom he
has so earnestly warned to “beware of false prophets who come in
sheep’s clothing.” For in the same proportion believers are humbled
with spiritual discoveries of the divine glory in the grand plan of
salvation, will their holy zeal be inflamed against every corruption of
the gospel, so as not to bear them that are evil, not even to receive
them unto their house, nor to bid them God’s speed.
I shall recapitulate the substance of what has been urged above, on
the subject of free justification, in the following arguments.
Arg. 1. If sin and righteousness be not in themselves transferable, but
only their effects; if believers receive only the benefits of Christ’s
righteousness; and if sin itself cannot be obliterated, then it follows
that there is no such thing as the justification of a sinner. Pardon
there may be, but justification there cannot be; and, consequently, the
apostle was egregiously mistaken when he uttered those memorable
words, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is
God that justifieth.”
Arg. 2. If God, in the justification of a sinner, merely accounts him
righteous, and treats him as such, when, in reality, he is not so, then
his judgment is not according to truth. But far be this from our God.
Justice and judgment are the basis of his throne. He hath declared,
that he will lay righteousness to the line, and judgment to the
plummet. He will not in judgment either condemn the innocent or clear
the guilty. If, therefore, he accounts any of Adam’s race righteous, it
is because he has first constituted them so.
It is with much pleasure I quote the sound words of Mr. Hervey on this
subject, in his letters to Mr. John Wesley. The latter had asserted that
“God through Christ, first accounts, and then makes us righteous.”
To this Mr. Hervey replies. “How? Does God account us righteous
before he makes us so? Then his judgment is not according to truth.
Then he reckons us to be righteous, when we are really otherwise. Is
not this absolutely irreconcilable with our ideas of the Supreme Being,
and equally incompatible with the doctrines of Scripture? There we
are taught that God justifieth the ungodly. Mark the words. The
ungodly are the objects of the divine justification. But can he account
the ungodly righteous? Impossible! How then does he act? He first
makes them righteous. After what manner? By imputing to them the
righteousness of his dear Son. Then he pronounces them righteous,
and most truly. He treats them as righteous, and most justly. In short,
then, he absolves them from guilt; adopts them for his children, and
makes them heirs of his eternal kingdom.” [Letters to Wesley. Letter
x.]
Arg. 3. If God merely deals with his people as though they were
righteous when he bestows eternal life upon them, then mercy indeed
may be displayed, but justice cannot be satisfied. Justice requires
equally, that the guilty should die, and that the righteous should live.
If guilt cannot be obliterated, but the “desert of the criminal remains,”
then righteousness and truth forbid that he should live: but if the
sinner be constituted righteous, then, as such, justice forbids that he
should die. In judgment, justice does not merely admit of these
effects, but it requires them. Accordingly, a believer is “passed from
death unto life,” in a judicial or forensic sense, because he has
received that great blessing which is called “justification of life.”
This wondrous display of justice and mercy constitutes the very glory
of the gospel, and renders it infinitely superior to any thing that ever
entered into the mind of man to conceive. For “eye hath not seen, nor
ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which
God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed
them unto us by his Spirit.” In the plan of salvation, infinite justice and
infinite mercy, sweetly harmonize. Mercy is not displayed at the
expense of righteousness, nor is justice so displayed as to obscure
the glory of sovereign mercy; but in the wondrous scheme of
redemption, justice goes forth in all its brightness; and mercy as a
lamp that burneth. They are greatly mistaken who imagine that if
salvation be a matter of justice, no room is left for the exercise of free,
unmerited mercy. Such objectors forget that those who receive the
gift of righteousness, do so in consequence of abounding grace. In all
the mysterious plan grace reigns. But how does it a reign? Through
righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.
FOURTH. Another doctrine, clearly ascertained in the word of God,
with which Mr. Fuller’s views are entirely at variance, is the federal
union of Christ and his people. By federal union, I mean that
covenant, or representative union, which subsists between Christ and
his elect, prior to their believing in him, and which is the foundation of
vital union to him. There is a sense in which the chosen of God are
not in Christ until renewed by his grace, Rom. xvi. 7; when by faith
and love he dwells in them, and they dwell in him; and this has been
rightly termed vital union. But there is another kind of union, which
subsisted between Christ and his elect, in every step of his meditorial
work, and in every act of his most glorious redemption; so that when
he obeyed they obeyed in him, when he died they died in him, and
when he rose they rose in him. This union is the foundation of all the
benefits which believers ever did, or ever will receive from the death
of Christ; and this union, by whatever other name it may be called, is
what I mean by federal union. It is necessary that I should first prove
the doctrine itself; and then show how Mr. Fuller’s views are opposed
to it though I do not find that he directly notices it in his “Dialogues.
&c.”
One design of the apostle, in this chain of reasoning throughout Rom.
v., is to establish this important doctrine. He introduces the two
Adams, as the covenant or federal heads of their respective seeds. He
insists upon the union of the first Adam and all his seed, so that when
he fell, they all fell in him; and when he committed the offence,
judgment came upon them, because of their federal union unto him.
Now Adam was a figure or type of him that was to come. As Adam and
his seed stood or fell together, so is it with the Lord Christ and his
seed. For as when the one federal head offended, the offence came
upon all men whom he represented; so, when the second Adam
obeyed, righteousness came upon all the men whom he represented.
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by
the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous.” All this
proceeds upon the supposition of union, and of federal union; for,
unless union subsisted at the time Adam’s offence was committed,
justice would forbid that the offence should be imputed to all men. Yet
we know that death reigns, even over them who have not sinned after
the similitude of Adam’s transgression; even so, because of the
union of the second Adam and his seed when he obeyed,
righteousness is imputed to them all, and they reign in life, although,
in their own persons, they have never perfectly obeyed the law.
Accordingly we find it clearly taught in Scripture, that Christ and his
people are one; he the head, they the members; and that, in the eye of
the law, they were one body when he obeyed, died, and rose. “Thy
dead man shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.” In
this Scripture we are taught, that those for whom Christ died are
“members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;” that federally
they died with him, revived with him, and rose with him. And this will
appear more fully, if we consider that the words together with, are a
suppliment, and that the text may more literally be thus rendered,
“Thy dead men shall live, even my dead body shall they arise,” the
meaning of which is thus explained by the apostle; “But God, who is
rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we
were dead in sins; hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath
raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places, in
Christ Jesus.” That this refers to federal union is clear; for believers
are not yet exalted in their own persons, to sit in heavenly places; but
having a representative existence in Christ, they sat down there with
him, when he entered into the holiest, and took his seat at the right
hand of God, in the highest heavens. And in reference to this federal
union, believers are said to be crucified with Christ, dead with him,
buried with him, and justified in him, and raised up together with him.
For that spiritual or vital union to Christ, which believers enjoy by
faith, is the effect of this federal union, as the word of God abundantly
teaches. “We thus judge,” says the apostle, “that if one died for all,
then were all dead;” that is, if one died as the covenant head, or
representative of all, then all died in that one. This is federal union.
“And that he died for all, that they who live, should not henceforth live
unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.”
Whereby the apostle teaches, that because Christ died as the
representative of all his covenant seed, the spirit causes them to die
unto sin, through his death, and to live unto him, through his
resurrection. This will appear still clearer, if we consider Paul’s prayer
for the believing Ephesians, that they might know the mystery of the
Spirit’s work on their hearts, and understand how it corresponds with
the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. “That ye may know, what is
the exceeding greatness of his power, to usward who believe,
ACCORDING to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in
Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right
hand in the heavenly places.” Here we see that the work of the Holy
Ghost, in the hearts of the saints, which produces spiritual union to
Christ in his death and resurrection, is a work corresponding with the
work wrought in Christ himself, and is the necessary effect of it. This
is the mystery which the apostle himself desired, above all things to
comprehend. “That I may know him, and the POWER of his
resurrection, and the FELLOWSHIP of his sufferings, being made
CONFORMABLE unto his death.”
The doctrine of federal union as the foundation of vital or spiritual
union to Christ, has been acknowledged by most writers who have
firmly maintained eternal and personal election; but it is gratifying to
know that the Lord’s people, who are more remarkable for their
attachment to the first principles of the gospel, than to the deeper
doctrines of it, have been led to see that their salvation depends upon
this very thing.
Mr. John Bunyan, in the account he has given of the Lord’s dealings
with him, has recorded, with artless simplicity, the establishment of
his soul in this most glorious truth. “Now I saw,” says he, “that Christ
Jesus was looked upon of God, and should be looked upon by us, as
that common or public person, in whom all the whole body of his elect
are always to be considered and reckoned; that we fulfilled the law by
him, died by him, rose from the dead by him, got the victory over sin,
death, the devil, and hell, by him; when he died, we died, and so of his
resurrection. ‘Thy dead men shall live,’ &c. saith he. And again, ‘after
two days he will revive us, and the third day we shall live in his sight;’
which is now fulfilled, by the sitting down of the Son of Man at the
right hand of the Majesty of the heavens; according to that to
Ephesians, ‘He hath raised us up together, and made us to sit
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.’ Ah! these blessed
considerations and Scriptures, with many others of like nature, were
in those days made to spangle in mine eye; so that I have cause to
say, ‘Praise ye the Lord in his sanctuary, praise him in the firmament
of his power; praise him for his mighty acts, praise him according to
his excellent greatness.’ ” [Grace abounding, &c.]
But, alas! these soul- comforting considerations, which have
supported the drooping and afflicted saints in all ages, are not true,
unless Mr. Fuller’s sentiments are false. They cannot stand, if it be
true that the atonement of Christ is indefinite, or that Christ died for
sin abstractedly. But if the Scripture most clearly teaches that Christ
died as the federal head of his chosen, and that their salvation
depends upon their federal union to him when he died and rose again;
then the absurd notion that the atonement of Christ was intended only
for some men, but is sufficient for all mankind will fall to the ground.
FIFTH. The Scripture clearly discovers a necessary connection
between the death of Christ, and the conversion or faith of those for
whom he died; that is, the death of Christ hath obtained faith,
repentance, and every grace of the Spirit, for those who are interested
in it. Many of our English writers, especially the old ones, have used
the term purchase, in this sense; and have often said that Christ by
his death, purchased faith, repentance, and the Spirit for his elect.
Now, although there are reasons why the term purchase should not
be used in reference to these things, yet what those writers meant by
the term is a doctrine fully ascertained in the word of God. Without,
therefore, dwelling upon words, the scriptural doctrine, that a
necessary connection subsists between the death of Christ and the
conversion of his redeemed, is entirely set aside by the doctrine of Mr.
Fuller. It must appear plainly to every one who considers the subject,
that if Christ so died for sin as to open a way for the efflux of divine
mercy to millions of sinners, or only to one sinner, according as the
sovereign pleasure of God shall decree; then it will follow, that
whatever connection there, may be between the purpose of God and
the conversion of millions, there can be none between the death of
Christ and their conversion: for, according to their scheme, one
sinner only might have been saved by the death of Christ. It is only
necessary, therefore, to prove that there is such a connection, and
that the faith and repentance of the ransomed is secured most
infallibly, by the blood of the Redeemer; and then the scheme of
indefinite atonement will appear to be entirely false.
It has been proved that a federal union subsisted between Christ and
his elect, when he died and rose again; and also that their vital, or
spiritual union to him, is the effect of his dying and rising again for
them. When the apostle says that the exceeding power displayed in
believers is according to the power wrought in Christ, he means, not
only that there is a similitude between these two instances of
Almighty power, but also that there is a connection; and that faith is
the necessary effect of the resurrection of Christ. The power of the
Spirit towards them that believe, and its connection with the work of
Christ, is thus illustrated by an excellent writer. “After that christians
are joined to Christ, and made mystically bone in his bone, and flesh
of his flesh, Christ worketh of them effectually by his Holy Spirit, and
his works are principally three. First, he causeth his own death to
work effectually the death of all sins, and to kill the power of the flesh.
Secondly, his burial causeth the burial of sins as it were in a grave.
Thirdly, his resurrection sendeth quickening power into them, and
serveth to make them rise out of their sin in which they were dead and
buried, to work righteousness, and to live in holiness of life.”
[Perkin’s Estate of a Christian, sec. 33] But the Spirit operates thus
upon none but those who federally died and rose with Christ,
otherwise the harmony of the Sacred Three, in the execution of
salvation, would be destroyed, and the regeneration of a believer
would no longer correspond with the resurrection of Christ. But that
he does thus work upon all for whom Christ died, and because he
died for them, is evident from the following considerations.
1. The new birth, and the sanctification of a sinner, are plainly
ascribed to this, as the procuring cause, namely, that Christ died for
that sinner. Thus Christ “gave himself for his church, that he might
sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word.” [Eph.
v. 26.] And again, the apostle says, “Who gave himself for us that he
might redeem us from all iniquity, and purity unto himself a peculiar
people.” [Titus ii. 14.] Here we are taught not only that there is a
connection between the death of Christ and the regeneration of those
for whom he died, but also that his death is the meritorious cause
thereof.
2. The deliverance of the people of God from the slavery of sin and
Satan, is said expressly to have been obtained for them by the death
of Christ:—“He entered in once, into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us.” [Heb. ix. 12.] This redemption, which is
said to have been obtained, comprehends entire deliverance from all
bondage, and includes the gift of the Spirit. So that there is a
meritorious power in the death of Christ to secure these blessings to
all for whom he died.
3. Faith, and consequently other spiritual blessings, are freely given
on the behalf of Christ, or for the sake of his death; which clearly
shows a necessary connection between them. “Unto you it is given on
the behalf of Christ—to believe in him.” [Phil. i. 29.] Accordingly we
find that the exalted Saviour hath received of the Father power to
bestow spiritual blessings upon his redeemed. Ps. lxviii. 18. Comp.
Acts ii. 33. And the reasoning of the apostle in another place, on this
subject, is very convincing, “He that spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give
us all things?” [Rom. viii. 32.] Here we learn that all spiritual
blessings— faith, repentance, sanctification, &c. are involved in the
gift of Christ, and bestowed for his sake; that for whom God delivers
up Christ, much more to them, will he bestow these. Now, if God gave
his Son for all mankind, he will with him freely bestow (not merely
offer, but freely give,) to all mankind, faith, repentance, and every
spiritual blessing; but this we know he does not. Yet if God gave his
Son for all his elect, he will also with him give them inferior
blessings—faith, repentance, &c.; and this we know he does. But it
God delivered up his Son to die for sin indefinitely, then there is no
reason, arising from the death of Christ, why God should bestow
spiritual blessings on any of the human race.
4. The Scripture distinctly ascertains the conversion of many
transgressors, and assigns this as the reason, that Christ bear the
iniquities of many. “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify MANY; for he shall bear THEIR iniquities. [Isaiah liii. 11, 12.] If
we ask, therefore, why any of the sons of men are justified by faith, or
by the knowledge of Christ, the answer is, because he bare their
iniquities. It is impossible that only one sinner should be saved by the
atonement of Christ, if he bare the sins of many; and it is equally
impossible that the whole world should be saved by his death, unless
he bare the sins of every man; because there exists a necessary
connection between Christ bearing the sins of a transgressor, and the
justification of that transgressor by faith. In this view, there is a
glorious harmony in the plan of salvation throughout; and divine
sovereignty shines in the redemption of Christ in all its transcendent
glory. It is far from being true, that one sinner only might have been
saved by the atonement of Christ, for “God will give his Son a portion
with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.” The
reason is, he bare the sin of many, and died for many, and made
intercession for many; and such is the merit of his death, that God will
surely give him the many for whom he died.
5. The Scripture teaches that men are converted, or brought to Zion, in
consequence of their having been redeemed. Their redemption by
blood, secures their salvation by power: and because Christ hath
redeemed them by his blood, he claims them, ipso facto, as his own.
Therefore they are called the “ransomed of the Lord.” “For the Lord
hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that
was stronger than he. THEREFORE they shall come and sing in the
height of Zion.” [Jer. xxxi. 11, 12.] “And the ransomed of the Lord
shall return, and shall come to Zion with songs.” [Isaiah xxxv. 10.] “He
shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.”
Thus it appears that there is a necessary connection between the
vicarious death of Christ, and the conversion of those for whom he
died, which cannot be the else if the atonement be indefinite.
SIXTH. The last error I shall charge upon Mr. Fuller’s principles is one
which is not openly avowed in his writings, but which follows as a
deduction from his general sentiments: namely, that not the
obedience of Christ, but the act of believing, is imputed to us for
righteousness. This is, in short, neither more nor less than a revival of
the Neonomian error, which error consists principally in the following
doctrine; viz., “That Christ, having satisfied for the breach of the old
law of works, hath procured and given a new law, a remedial law,
which is the gospel, containing precepts, promises and threatening,
and which saith, DO AND LIVE, in some milder sense than the first
covenant. That faith in Christ is the principal part of that obedience
which is required by the new law, and this is accepted for
righteousness, instead of that perfect unceasing obedience, which the
law of ten commands requires.” [See the preface to Beart’s Eternal
Law, &c.] This is the marrow of what has been called Neonomianism;
which doctrine, as to substance, is taught in the writings of Mr.
Baxter, of the Arminians, and of the most learned of the Roman
Catholics. It remains, however, to be proved, that it is substantially
taught in the writings of Mr. Fuller; and for this purpose I urge the
following reasons.
1. All the efficacy unto justification which Mr. Fuller allows to the
obedience and death of Christ is, that the Redeemer merited this great
blessing for us, on the conditions of our believing the gospel; or, in
other words, that the blood of Christ hath merited salvation for us, on
milder terms than those required by the law of works. Mr. Fuller
expressly teaches that “there is such a fulness in the satisfaction of
Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the
whole world to believe on him.” “Now this ‘fulness’ does not
absolutely secure the salvation of the whole world, but only on certain
terms;” accordingly it follows, that not the obedience of Christ itself is
the matter of our justification, but our performance of the condition;
for Christ hath only so merited that we should he justified on
condition of our obedience to the gospel.
2. It has been proved that according to Mr. Fuller’s views, the death of
Christ is not vicarious; and if not his death, so also is not his
obedience to the law. If Christ did not die in the stead of his elect. but
only made an indefinite atonement for sin, it will follow that his
obedience to the law was not for them, or in their stead, any more
than his death. This being admitted, it will follow, moreover, that
Christ’s obedience cannot be that very thing which justifies a sinner,
because it is necessary that Christ should be constituted a covenant
head of all his people, and act as their representative ere his
obedience can be imputed to them for justification. Rom. v. 14, 19. But
as this is denied, it must follow, that not the obedience of Christ, but
our believing is counted to us for righteousness.
3. We have before seen that Mr. Fuller denies the transfer of the
Redeemer’s obedience to the sinner as a thing impossible;
Dialogues, &c. page 211. and 213.] and if so, it must follow of course
that this obedience cannot be the very thing that justifies the sinner.
Mr. Fuller does indeed speak of “the obedience of Christ imputed,”
but by this expression he only means that the effects of Christ’s
obedience are conditionally imparted, and which is saying no more
than the Redeemer’s obedience has merited our pardon, on condition
of our believing; and more than this, no intelligent Arminian or
Neonomian would desire.
4. The conditional sufficiency for the justification of the whole world,
which Mr. Fuller ascribes to the work of Christ, places all the efficacy
thereof in the act of believing. It is sufficient for the whole world if they
believe; it is not sufficient if they do not believe; so that all the
stupenduous acts of Christ’s mediatorial work, are, as it respects our
salvation, only so many cyphers, and our believing is the initial figure
which renders the whole of value! What is this, but to ascribe our
justification to faith as that which constitutes us righteous, on easier
terms than perfect obedience to the law?
In opposition to this doctrine, all sound Protestants have maintained
that the elect of God are made righteous only by the obedience of the
Lord Christ, and that this is the very thing which constitutes a sinner
just in the eyes of the Lord. They have maintained constantly that
Jesus Christ, as the representative and surety of his chosen, satisfied
divine justice, and obeyed the holy law, for them, and in their stead;
and that not their believing, but his most glorious righteousness
imputed and transferred to them, is the very thing which constitutes
them righteous. They have also maintained that the people of God are
justified by faith, not as the procuring cause of justification, but only
as an instrument by which the righteousness of Christ is received; so
that not the act of believing, but the thing believed, is counted to the
faithful for righteousness. That these are sound and wholesome
words will appear from the following considerations.
1. The holy law of God is satisfied with nothing short of perfect
obedience: and this must be yielded either in our own persons, or in
the person of the great Surety, it ever we are justified. Now, if faith
itself were reckoned to us for righteousness, a sincere obedience
would be accepted in the stead of a perfect obedience; and thus the
holy law, instead of being fulfilled, would be destroyed. He, therefore,
who teaches that our believing is counted for righteousness, seeks to
establish Antinomianism of the most dangerous description. Christ
came not to destroy the law, nor to deprive it of its righteous
demands, but to fulfil it as the representative of his chosen: and in the
salvation of all his redeemed, the law is in all respects honored, its
demands are completely satisfied, and in its most extensive latitude it
is fulfilled.
2. The Lord Christ, by his obedience and blood, hath either satisfied
the law for his people, or he has not. If he has, then it must
necessarily follow that his obedience alone is the matter of their
justification or in other words, it is the very thing which makes them
righteous. If he has not, then their own obedience to the gospel, or
their believing, never can make them righteous, because the law still
insists upon an obedience absolutely perfect and sinless, and it
cannot he satisfied until this is yielded.
3. The Scripture clearly testifies, that the believer’s righteousness is
the Lord Jesus himself. “And this is the name whereby he shall be
called, the Lord our righteousness.” [Jer. xxiii. 6.] Now, if Christ
himself be our righteousness the act of believing cannot be so.
4. If the act of believing were our righteousness, then the true nature
of faith would be destroyed. It is the business of faith to look for
righteousness, not in itself, but in another; and it consists in the bare
reception of Lord Christ. “By his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.”
5. The word of God plainly distinguishes between the righteousness
by which a sinner is justified, and the faith which receives that
righteousness. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for
therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.”
[Rom. i. 17.] “And why,” says a learned and judicious writer, “is it
called the righteousness of God? Because the righteousness of man
is insufficient. And why a righteousness revealed, but because it was
another’s? For our own is known by nature, and is never said to be
revealed. But this heavenly righteousness is altogether above sense
and reason; and therefore, if it is not revealed, men are always
disputing against it. And why revealed to faith, from one degree of it
to another? Even because faith itself, or any work whatsoever, is not
that which it justifies; nor can any thing else take it in, and close with
it but faith.” [Beart’s Eternal Law, &c., part 1. chap. v.] Thus it appears
that the very thing which constitutes a believer righteous, is not any
inherent holiness of which he is the subject, nor any works of his
own, either legal or evangelical, whether performed with the help of
divine grace, or in his own strength; but that which makes the sinner
just, is the alone work of Christ, finished on the cross, imputed to all
for whom it was accomplished, and received by faith alone. This is the
grand article of Christianity, the glory of the gospel, and the very
foundation of Zion. [Isa. liv. 14.] A departure from this is the grand
apostacy so often spoken of in the New Testament, whence all the
abominations of popery arise; and that church, whatever be its
denomination which departs from this foundation principle, is anti-
christian in the sight of God.
I have now laid before you what l have to advance in proof of the
serious charge I preferred against Mr. Fuller’s principles, in the
commencement of this letter; namely, that they are subversive of
nearly all the great doctrines connected with redemption through the
blood of Jesus. Notwithstanding the speciousness and plausibility of
his sentiments, they admit of an easy and triumphant confutation,
because of their palpable opposition to the word of God. They
comprehend all that is poisonous in universal redemption, without the
same appearance of support from the Scriptures; and it would not be
difficult to show their striking coincidence with the doctrine of the
Roman Catholic Church on the subjects of justification, grace and
satisfaction. Indeed, it is much to be feared that the very soul of
popery, in its refined and most delusive parts, is flourishing amongst
us, so that we need no longer to wonder at the great decay of vital
godliness which everywhere prevails, at the loss of faith and love, or
at the carnal policy, the worldly- mindedness, the dead profession,
which are too visible in the churches. Wherever the doctrine of
imputed righteousness is given up, or held only in name, there Christ
will be lightly esteemed, and human worthiness will stand exalted;
there will a worldly profession obtain, and there will anti- christian
principles and practices appear. And what is popery, but a profession
of christianity adapted to the course of this world?
In my next letter I shall pursue this subject more fully, in which I shall
endeavor to trace the operation of Mr. Fuller’s sentiments, and to
show their effects as exemplified in the sad decline of true holiness in
our denomination. With that letter I shall conclude all I have to submit
to your consideration on this very important controversy.
LETTER IV.
DIVINE truth, when cordially received, always produces effects
corresponding to its own nature. No man who has beheld the divine
glory shining in the atonement of Christ, and who has found salvation
therein, can possibly exhibit, in his own character and habitual
conduct, the dominion of principles that are the very reverse of the
gospel which he has received. It is impossible for a genuine believer
to be an unjust man, because he has seen in the cross of Christ, such
a display of divine justice, as hath transformed his own mind into the
same image. Such a one cannot be an unmerciful or an implacable
man, because he has beheld in the atonement, the highest display of
divine compassion towards his guilty soul; and accordingly as he is
influenced by the discovery, will he be kind and tender- hearted
towards others, ready to forgive injuries, even as God for Christ’s
sake hath forgiven him. A true Christian cannot be a deceitful man or
a liar, because his mind has been deeply affected by the character of
Jehovah, as it appears in the grand plan of salvation; he has been
taught to admire the truth and faithfulness of his redeeming God, and
in some measure he exhibits the same character, agreeably to the
apostolic exhortation, “Be ye followers, (or imitators,) of God, as dear
children.” In fine, a believer in Jesus cannot live under the dominion
of sin, for as the seal makes its own impression on the melted wax, so
does divine truth, in the hand of the Spirit, on the mind of a sinner,
when his heart is softened by the melting of divine grace; “but ye
have obeyed from the heart, that form of doctrine, whereunto ye
where delivered.” [Romans vi. 17.]
Of all the presumptuous sins which may be charged upon religious
people, in this day of flaming profession, none is more awful than
their charging the doctrines of grace with a licentious tendency. To
assert that the truths of eternal election, free justification, imputed
righteousness, efficacious redemption, and invincible grace in
regeneration, lead to carelessness and an ungodly life, is to sin with a
very high hand indeed. How odious soever the loose principles of the
Sadducees may be, or the gross practices of publicans and harlots,
the iniquity of these is far surpassed by the spiritual wickedness of
self-righteous persons, who discover the enmity of their hearts
against sovereign grace, in a similar manner to those referred to by
the apostle in Rom. iii. 8: “We be slanderously reported, and some
affirm that we say, let us do evil that good may come; whose
damnation is just.” But this unrighteous reflection upon the
distinguishing truths of the gospel, is not confined to the open
opposers thereof. Many who profess attachment to the doctrines of
sovereign grace do not fully and openly exhibit them, lest evil
consequences should be the result. If they assert them at all, it is in
so guarded a manner as betrays a secret suspicion that such
doctrines are injurious in their tendency. But if those prudent men,
who are so careful to guard the gospel, really believe that the open
declaration of the doctrines thereof is dangerous, why do they
profess attachment to them? Surely the doctrines which require to be
thus guarded, are in themselves mischievous and can not be of God!
The apostles, however, did not deal thus with the gospel of Christ, nor
act so deceitfully. Having received mercy, they renounced the hidden
things of dishonesty, and by manifestations of the truth they
commended themselves to every man’s conscience. They always
represented the truths of God as holy in their nature, and holy in their
effects. All these truths, in the estimation of the apostles exhibit the
glory of Jesus, and consequently furnish an argument for universal
holiness. “We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of
the Lord, are changed into the same image.” [2 Cor. iii. 18.]
But as truth always produces effects corresponding to its own nature,
so also doth error: and as the fruit of the former is holiness, the effect
of the latter is unrighteousness. Hence the apostle contrasts the truth,
not merely with error, but with iniquity: “Charity rejoiceth not in
iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [1 Cor. xiii 6.] For a deviation from
the truth is itself iniquity. The pernicious influence of error on the
conduct of its votaries, appears in the instance of the ancient
Pharisees, who are set forth as an example of that bitter opposition to
the free and sovereign grace of God which self- righteous persons in
all ages discover. It appears also in the character of the legal teacher
who troubled the primitive churches; and, subsequently, in the effects
produced by the great apostasy, so often foretold in the New
Testament, which began by a departure from the faith. 1 Tim. iv. 1. But
as erroneous principles produce unholy fruits wherever they prevail,
so the influence of the false doctrine adverted to in the preceding
letters may be plainly perceived in the Baptist churches of the present
day. Nothing can be more applicable to our present condition than the
words of the excellent Dr. Owen, when lamenting the day of
evangelical holiness to his own time. Referring no doubt to the
influence of Mr. Baxter’s sentiments, he says, “Little did I think I
should ever have lived in this world to find the minds of professors
grown altogether indifferent, as to the doctrine of God’s eternal
election, the sovereign efficacy of grace in the conversion of sinners,
justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; but
many are as to all these things grown to an indifferency, they know
not whether they are so or not. I bless God, I know something of the
former generation, when professors would not hear of these things
without the highest detestation: and now high professors begin to be
leaders in it, and it is too much amongst the best of us. We are not so
much concerned for the truth as our forefathers; I wish I could say we
were as holy.”
Thus did this eminent saint mourn over the spiritual declension which
began to appear among the Pedobaptist churches in his own times;
but if he had lived in this day, and had intended to contrast the
present with the former Baptist churches, he could not have used
more appropriate language than he has done, in following
exhortation: “Let us carefully remember the faith of them who went
before us in this nation, in the profession of the last age. And, pray,
what faith were they of ? Were they half Arminian and half Socinian?
were they half Papist and half I know not what? Remember how
zealous they were for the truth; how little their holy souls would have
borne with those public defections from the doctrine of truth, which
we see and do not mourn over, but make nothing of the days wherein
we live. God was with them, and they lived to his glory, and died in
peace, whose faith follow and example pursue, and remember the
faith they lived and died in. Look round about and see whether any of
the new creeds have produced a new holiness to exceed theirs.”
The pernicious consequences of such a departure from the truth as
the Baptist churches are generally chargeable with, may be discerned
in the following instances:
FIRST. A certain kind of insincerity and dissimulation usually attends
the reception and the preaching of a perverted gospel. Simplicity is
the characteristic of truth, artfulness and tortuous winding are
attendant on falsehood. As in natural things, he who is guilty of one
untruth, must invent many falsehoods to conceal that one; so in
spiritual matters, a departure from the simplicity which is in Christ, is
marked by a course of craftiness and deceit. Our Lord assures us that
the leaven, i. e. the doctrine of the Pharisees, is hypocrisy [Luke xi. 1],
and his faithful apostle calls the legal teachers “false apostles,
deceitful workers.” [2 Cor. xi. 13.] Hypocrisy and unjust power are the
very support of error and of antichrist, so that the power and grace of
Jesus are displayed in delivering the souls of his saints from deceit
and violence.
But this spirit of dissimulation has appeared visibly in the conduct of
many, from whom better things might have been expected. A
disposition to conceal their real sentiments, especially at such times
as do not suit their purpose to advance them, and a professed
attachment to doctrines which they do not heartily receive, may be
often observed in many who have imbibed Mr. Fuller’s sentiments.
They profess to maintain inviolably the doctrines of eternal personal
election, free justification, and efficacious grace in regeneration; yet
in their public discourses these important points are seldom ever
advanced, or if they are mentioned occasionally, for the sake of an
orthodox reputation, it is in such a manner as shews the preacher
does not cordially receive those truths nor heartily approve them.
Such persons know well which way the stream of popular approbation
runs; and while they bear a rooted aversion towards an honest
witness for the doctrines they themselves allow, they can openly
countenance the avowed foes of sovereign electing grace. The
excellent and judicious Mr. Brine has drawn lively and so faithful a
figure of such persons, that I feel it almost incumbent on me to quote
his words.
“The secret enemies of divine truth are numerous, from whom many
temptations arise.”
“Men of his character very rarely are open and frank in declaring their
sentiments. They choose to lie concealed as to their notions, until
such time as they have been able to ingratiate themselves into the
good opinion of those whom they intend to bring over to their
sentiments. And very watchful they are for every opportunity and
advantage which offer, that are favourable to their design, nor will
they fail of improving them to the utmost. Doctrines which they have
no relish for, it may be some in their congregations firmly believed,
and therefore they dare not at once, and in plain manner, deny them;
but by long silence about them, and now and then advancing
principles not consistent with them, they insensibly instil them into
the minds of their hearers, and draw them off from that regard they
once paid to those other principles. It is very sad what influence such
conduct hath had, an still hath in many places, I had almost said to
the total subversion of Christianity. And in others, this sort of
demeanor is very likely to be productive of the same dreadful effects.
May the good Lord have mercy upon his churches, and preserve them
from being seduced by these men, who lie in wait to deceive. If
Christians are not excited to watchfulness against them, by their
insinuation and address, whereof they are perfect masters, they will
be in great danger of being drawn aside. For men are completely
qualified from that kind of disservice to the church of God whereunto
they have devoted themselves, and unto which they direct all their
studies.
“This sort of persons frequently declaim much against controversy in
religion, and against insisting on controverted points, because, as
they are pleased to say, it tends to fill men’s heads with niceties and
speculative notions, which have no great influence on their morals to
make them better; and that it is certainly best to treat on plain and
practical subjects, which are calculated to promote holiness. By this
means they bring their hearers to be content without discourses on
the important truths of the gospel, all which are controverted points,
until at length they become indifferent about them, and greatly
prejudiced against them.
“Then the fit time being come for them to be open and unreserved,
they throw off the mask, and can dare to enter upon the stage of
controversy and with downright blows oppose those doctrines they
never believed, but till now were shy of letting it be known. Now they
become zealous defenders of principles which before they but
whispered softly in the ears of some trusty friends. In this their
success they glory, as if it were a very honorable achievement. Let
them expect their reward from him whose servants they pretend to
be.” [Treatises on various subjects, 8vo. 1756, p. 324.]
SECOND. The direct tendency of a “yea and nay” gospel is to produce
a worldly profession of Christianity. Every attempt to render the
gospel more acceptable to men, by softening down any of its
offensive doctrines, is in itself an act of conformity to the world in the
very worst form. The command of God is, “let them return unto thee;
but return not unto them.” [Jer. xv. 19.] The offence of the cross never
can cease in this world, but by a corruption of the doctrines thereof;
and wherever such corruption exists, conformity to the world in other
respects will proportionately prevail. “True Christianity is,” as an
acute writer has observed, “an insult on the taste of the public; yea,
the most respectable part of the public, and that in the most important
matters.” This, it is evident, must always be the case, so long as that
which is “highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of
God.” While a church of Christ is keeping the word of his patience,
and faithfully holding forth the doctrines of the cross, it will meet with
sufficient reproach from the world to illustrate those consolatory
words, “If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified
together.” Romans viii. 17.
But if it be true that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution, what must we think of Mr. Fuller’s reflection on the older
Baptist churches, comparing them almost to a perfect dunghill in
society? A censure like this can have weight with those only who
know not the nature of Jesus’ kingdom. Such censure is in fact a
commendation: it was intended indeed for a curse, but God hath
turned it into a blessing. If the older churches were despised, they had
fellowship with their Lord in his sufferings; and the joyful hope of
reigning with him at last induced them to reject with abhorrence the
only method of escaping the cross, namely a compromise of the truth.
The very little reproach which now attends our profession proves not
that the world is better disposed towards Christ than it was, but rather
that our profession is lifeless and that we are conformed to the world.
Were an inspired apostle to appear amongst us from the dead, he
would cry out against some of our most popular ministers and our
most respectable churches, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye
not that the friendship the world is enmity with God?”
But as in a bodily consumption the patient often indulges flattering
expectations, and is not alive to his real danger, so is it in spiritual
declension. Grey hairs are here and there upon us, yet we know it not,
nor will we believe it. It is a sure mark of the Laodicean state, when we
talk more of what we have done for God, than of what he hath done for
us, and when our minds are occupied rather with our own splendid
exertions to promote the kingdom of Christ, than with his most
glorious person and work. We dream that we are rich and increased
with goods, but we know not that we are poor and miserable. In how
many instances are we elated with our respectability, our wealth, our
influence and with the great things we have done for the Lord in
missionary exertions! How often is it publicly declared from a stage or
a pulpit that our forefathers were asleep; that their missionary zeal
was contemptible in comparison with ours; and that there never was
such a day of wonderful works as at the present! But who, that knows
what primitive Christianity is, cannot discern an awful declension of
spirituality amongst us? Who that is taught of God cannot perceive
that our flaming zeal is perfectly compatible with opposition to the
righteousness of God and to the sovereignty of his grace?
If it be inquired wherein consists that worldly profession of
Christianity which the prevalence of Mr. Fuller’s principles has
promoted amongst us, the answer is given in the following facts:
1. The precious truths of the gospel which were once the glory of our
churches, and which always expose the professors of them to
reproach, are now very rarely heard amongst us. Covenant
engagements, precious promises, eternal election, immutable love,
free pardon, and complete justification, are subjects seldom insisted
on. We still profess these things in our circular letter, but the open
preaching of them is judged by no means expedient, and, as is taught,
can answer no other end than to discourage practical religion, and to
bring us into disrepute. Instead of those glorious truths of which the
apostle Paul has given a catalogue, in Ephesians, chapters i. and ii.,
as constituting the substance of his own preaching, human piety,
human worthiness, human greatness, and human influence stand
exalted, so that the glory of Jesus is eclipsed amongst us. It affords
no small proof that we have left our first love, when we grow cold
towards the doctrines of grace, and when human excellence occupies
so high a place in our esteem. And it is remarkable that our very
missionary fire is of such a nature, as to be extinguished, rather than
increased, by the free declaration of those immortal truths, which are
connected with the honor of God and shew forth the glory of Jesus.
2. With so general a departure from the truth, it is no wonder that there
is reason to lament the scarcity of a searching, faithful ministry
amongst us, and to regret the prevalence of an accomodating
ministry, inoffensive to the world and to the carnal mind. The case of
many of our churches is truly pitiful; who, instead of being fed from
time to time with sound and wholesome words, are induced to listen
to powerless discourses, without unction, without savour. Some of
our preachers, despising the majestic simplicity of the Scripture,
imitate the language of worldly philosophy. Others deliver discourses
which are little beter than moral essays. Some of the more popular
kind, with much noise and bombast, exhibit their abilities as on a
stage, and, with great swelling word of vanity, preach themselves, and
not Christ Jesus the Lord. Others are so cautious and crafty, and so
concerned not to give offence, that it is difficult to tell what their real
sentiments are. But there are now comparatively few of those faithful
men to be found, whose only aim is to exalt Christ and to lay the
sinner low: who tremble to connect their own worldly interest with the
interest of Christ; and who would rather suffer the loss of all temporal
advantages, than keep back the despised truths of the gospel. A
worldly spirit is the very ruin of us. Aversion from bearing the cross, a
determination to avoid the afflictions of the gospel, is one chief cause
of those doctrinal corruptions which have obtained amongst us; and
God hath visited this sin upon us, by giving us up to further worldly
conformity and to more iniquity, so that we have every reason to fear
that our candlestick will soon be entirely removed, unless we repent.
3. This lifeless profession appears, moreover, in the constitution of
our churches. We do not lay the stress we ought on regeneration, as
absolutely necessary to communion of saints. Persons who are
seriously inclined, whose moral character is good, especially if they
are zealous in the missionary cause, and possess a high opinion of
their minister, are judged very proper subjects for fellowship; without
much inquiry whether they are dead to the law, and possess a living
faith in Jesus, or whether they have ever been brought as lost sinners,
by the Holy Spirit, to the blood of sprinkling. In this manner are carnal
persons introduced into the church of God, and in this way the
machinations of Satan to connect the church and the world are
answered. Then are the designs of the great adversary accomplished,
when carnal, unrenewed persons are induced to profess Christianity,
and when the truth is corrupted to meet their carnal views.
The same disregard of Scripture appears in reference to offences. We
judge of these, not so much by the Word of God, as by the rule of
respectability among men. Hence scandalous offences and open
immorality are noticed, and the delinquents sometime excluded,
because sins of this description disgrace a society in the eyes of the
world. But the lusts of the mind, which are equally abominable to God,
are almost wholly overlooked. Covetousness, pride, self-
righteousness, and love of this present world, are quite compatible
with the character of an eminent professor. Persons may be
manifestly under the dominion of such lusts as these, yet if they
preserve a pious exterior, and contribute freely to the missionary
cause, they are highly extolled. And with all this, we cry out against
Antinomianism, and are afraid that unless the doctrines of grace are
well guarded, they will lead to licentiousness!
4. The dead and worldly state of the Christian profession amongst us
appears conspicuously in the carnal views of Christ’s kingdom,
which have for some time prevailed. The churches seem to have
forgotten that the Redeemer’s kingdom is not of this world. They
cannot understand how the church of Christ can be in a flourishing
state, unless it makes a respectable figure in society. They do not
consider that the special presence of Christ with his people
constitutes the alone ground of their excellency and glory; nor do
they consider that the prosperity of a church consists not in external
things, but in the things of the Spirit only; nor do they know that a
company of believers may be truly glorious though they have no
reverend gentlemen to keep them in countenance, nor wealthy
professors to support the cause. Hence the anxiety of many to engage
human power of the side of the church; hence the difference paid to
rich men; and hence the carnal policy which, in many instances,
directs religious proceedings. According to the proportion in which
this spirit prevails, will professors be ashamed of that contemptible
appearance which Christ hath made, and which his followers always
must make in the world; so that it is no wonder that such professors
look upon those churches who are suffering for their attachment to
the despised truths of the gospel, “as a perfect dunghill in society.”
These carnal notions have had the most pernicious influence on our
profession. There is now but little of that unity, that simplicity, that
gospel fellowship which the earlier churches enjoyed. Formerly
believers were hated of the world, and, being separate from it, they
found comfort in the fellowship of Zion: but now we are conformed to
the world, and the love of many waxes cold. We shall one day find that
our apparent prosperity is a poor compensation for the word of faith,
the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints. Whoever
is alive to the things of God, must acknowledge that the Spirit is
remarkably withdrawn, divine consolations are but little enjoyed, and
primitive Christianity is comparatively unknown. These complaints are
not applicable exclusively to our own denomination. The
Independents are as different from what they once were, as we are;
they even take the lead of us in respectability. There is a degree of
reproach which still cleaves to us, because of believers’ baptism, and
this clog to our feet renders it difficult for us to keep pace with those
who practice infant baptism. But some of our churches and ministers
have contrived to liberate themselves, in a great degree, from this
impediment, by the practice of open communion, so as to become
almost as respectable as their Pedobaptist brethren. Alas! alas! There
is little occasion for all the contempt which has been cast upon the
former churches. The comparison of what we are, with what we were,
is truly affecting. We may justly appropriate a smart reply of the
celebrated Thomas Aquinas to Pope Innocent IV. The former visiting
the latter, found himself surrounded with heaps of gold. “Lo!
Thomas,” said his Holiness, “the church cannot now say, as of old,
silver and gold have I none.” “No,” says the surly Doctor, “nor can
she say to the lame, arise and walk!”
5. A worldly spirit has so far prevailed as almost to extinguish
brotherly love amongst us. The decay of this grace answers to the
influence of idolatry under the Old Testament. A desire to be like the
neighbouring nations was the great sin of the Old Testament Israel,
and was the source of all their idolatrous departures from God. Under
the New Testament, the love of the world is idolatry, and nothing
tends so effectually as this to destroy the unity of saints and brotherly
affection. The, decay of mutual love is proof indisputable of spiritual
declension, even as the prevalence of it is an evidence of prosperity.
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love
one to another.” [John xiii. 35.]
But who that is spiritual can doubt of the feebleness of this grace in
the churches? So little is it in exercise, that many cannot tell wherein
it consists; nor have they any distinct idea of what it is that holds
them together as a church. They seem to have no notion of spiritual
love, beyond that friendly feeling which exist among the members of
an earthly society. Some are drawn together because they must go to
a place of worship, and they assemble where they and their fathers
have been accustomed to meet. Others are united by the spirit of a
party: a quarrel from some frivolous cause, having separated them
from their former religious connections. Others seem to be united by
the good opinion which they unanimously form of their minister; they
agree in a blind adoration of their favorite preacher, so that when he
dies there is an end of their union. This kind of subjection is of the
same nature as that one mind, which the antichristian nations have for
the Bishop of Rome, Rev. xvii. 13. But because the truth itself is fallen
in our streets, therefore the love of the brethren for the truth’s sake
faileth also.
There is, however, a kind of charity prevalent amongst us, a spurious
charity, which rejoiceth not in truth. It is now thought an evidence of a
bigoted spirit, to contend earnestly for the peculiar doctrines of grace;
and it is considered the mark of a candid disposition to bear with
doctrines opposed to the truth, and to cover such opposition with the
mantle of charity and forbearance. But how often does it occur that
those amiable persons, who can easily forbear when only the honour
of God and the glory of his Christ are concerned, have very little
forbearance when their own dignity is wounded or their pride
mortified. O how indignant are they when personally offended! how
wroth, how implacable! Who would think that these amiable creatures,
who are so charitable when the honour of Christ is wounded, could
exercise so little forbearance when their own dear selves are injured?
6. Our conformity to the world appears in antichristian manners and
institutions which have been introduced among us. Of these I shall
take notice only of two instances.
(1.) The Popish distinction of clergy and laity has been of late much
revived in the churches, although there was a time when this
distinction was generally set aside among baptized believers, as
constituting one of the pillars of Antichrist.
That the great head of the church hath mercifully appointed pastors
and teachers for the edifying of his people is beyond all doubt, but
these are never in the New Testament termed priests or clergy in
distinction from their brethren, nor are the believing brethren ever
termed the people or laity in order to distinguish them from their
pastors. Under the Old Testament, indeed, there was a distinct clergy
or priesthood separate from the rest of Israel, and as this appointment
was by the special command of God, none of the common people
could lawfully invade the sacred office. But the death of Christ hath
elevated the whole body of the saints to the dignity of priests. Jesus
hath “washed us from our sins in his blood; and hath made us kings
and priests unto God and his Father.” For thus saith the prophet
Isaiah, when he foretold the glory of New Testament saints. “But ye
shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the
ministers of God.” Hence the people of God in general are a “holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.” Hence they are called “a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood,” constituted such through the
precious righteousness of the Son of God. This is the priesthood
which God hath ordained, and every other is antichristian.
But no sooner do Christian churches lose sight of the glory of
imputed righteousness than they are brought into bondage. Then they
become an easy prey to false teachers; and the more ignorant of the
Scriptures religious persons are, the more entirely are they under the
dominion of their clergy. So bewitching is this deception, that the
people of God themselves are sometimes ensnared by it. The church
at Corinth despised the apostle because he usurped no lordship over
them, but preached the gospel unto them freely, and supported
himself by his own labor. But when false teachers came among them
preaching a perverted gospel, and thus exalted themselves, these
they gladly received. “For we suffer,” said the holy Paul, “if a man
bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a
man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.” In this manner did
the mystery of iniquity begin to work so early; but it afterwards
became fully developed in the coming of the man of sin. And who
does not see, that if opposition to the righteousness of Christ be
essential to popery, the dominion of the clergy is not less so.
It is truly affecting, however, to trace the operation of this spirit in our
own churches. We have departed from the simplicity of the faith and
are desirous to make a respectable figure in the world. Accordingly
we have begun to talk of our clergy and our laity. Ours indeed is but a
pitiful imitation of the original, but it is an imitation. In the church of
Rome the dominion of an antichristian priesthood appears in all its
grandeur, but ours has neither antiquity no splendor to support it.
“Theirs,” says the ingenious Robinson, “is nature in the theatre of the
metropolis, we are strollers, uttering bombast, in cast- off finery, in a
booth at a fair.” [Sermon on John xviii. 36.]
O that the ministers of Christ would adhere to the simplicity of the
gospel! When will they cease to imitate the hateful language and
manners of Antichrist? Their true wisdom is to stand fast in the
simplicity which is in Christ Jesus; for as they have neither authority
nor antiquity to urge in favor of their pretentions to clerical dignity,
they will always be despised by the original clergy, even as ancient
Israel, when it departed from God, was held in contempt by those very
nations from whom it had borrowed its idolatry.
NOTE.—It is well known what hot disputes have been carried on
between the clergy of England and of Rome, respecting the validity of
the ordinations of the former. It is admitted on both sides, that no man
can lawfully exercise the priestly office, unless duly called, and
properly authorized. Now the validity of the Catholic priesthood is
without dispute. Every Roman Catholic priest is regularly ordained by
his bishop, who also receives his ordination from the head of his
church, at Rome; and the pope himself, who is the fountain of all
clerical dignity and authority, says he derives his power by regular
and unbroken succession, from St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and on whom (says his holiness) he
declared he would build his church. Now all this is as clear and
satisfactory as the nature of the case is capable of. The clergy of
England admit the validity of the Catholic priesthood, but the
Catholics are not so sure of the validity of the English ordinations;
and, to say the least, it is very doubtful whether the clergy of the
church of England have ever been regularly ordained at all.
But whatever may be concluded relative to the Episcopalian clergy of
England, the Dissenters have not the least ground for their
pretensions to the high dignity. Ask a young dissenting minister,
instructed in the pious trade, who gave him authority to exercise the
clerical office? He replies, that he was set forth and ordained by the
Rev. Dr. ---------, Tutor of ---------College. But if further inquiry be made
into the authority of the Rev. Dr. himself, it will be found to rest on the
authority of some other such Rev. Doctor; and if it be traced to its
source, it will probably be found that its origin is with some preaching
mechanic, in the days of Oliver Cromwell, or later. A sorry imitation
truly!
The ministers of Jesus would do well to consider how hateful in his
eyes are all those little arts, by which false teachers keep up their
dominion over the people. He hates these things, because the: are of
all others most inimical to his kingdom, and induce the highest
contempt of his righteousness. What but self- righteousness could
ever induce a preacher to imagine that he belongs to a different order
from the church in general; and what but pride of the very worst
description could lead him to expect his brethren to call him
“Reverend?” This spirit of self- righteousness and pride in the ancient
scribes called forth the severest invective from the patient and lovely
Jesus. He even notices their carriage and their dress. “Beware of the
Scribes, who love to go in long clothing.” Not that their clothing was
in itself of any importance, but as it indicated a spirit of clerical self-
righteousness, it provoked the eyes of his glory. They loved to go in
long clothing, they loved the chief seats, they loved to be called
Rabbi, Rabbi. It was therefore on account of the spiritual pride of their
hearts that our Lord uttered his solemn “Woe to the Scribes.” It well
becomes men to tremble when they hear a woe from the mouth of
incarnate love! The “woe” of Jesus falls not upon men in this life, but
in the world to come. Many, who are too righteous in their own eyes to
imagine they are under his woe, live respectably and their death is
honourable and hopeful in the sight of the world. Our Saviour himself
has given us a solemn instance of this. [Luke xvi. 19- 31.] A certain
rich but carnal professor, a nominal son of Abraham, was of elevated
rank and enjoyed abundantly the fatness of the earth. There is reason
to believe that his religious character stood high and that he cast of
his abundance into the treasury. It is certain that he contributed to the
necessities of a poor saint, though not from a right motive. It came to
pass, however, that he died and was buried. It is highly probable that
a sort of funeral eulogium from the lips of some chief priest recorded
his pious and liberal actions and elevated him to the third heaven. But
he died under the woe of God and the next account we have of him is,
that in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments!
(2.) The stress which is now laid on academical tuition as a necessary
qualification for the Christian ministry is another proof of the
prevalence of antichristian principles. No truth is more clearly taught
in the New Testament than this, namely, that it is the sole prerogative
of the Holy Ghost, by his own gifts, and by them alone, to give pastors
unto Zion and to constitute them able ministers of the New Testament.
The question relates not to the value of human learning in its own
place. The question is not whether it be desirable that a Christian
minister should study the Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek. Most
certainly it is desirable, not only that ministers of the word, but also
that all the Lord’s people if they have time and opportunity, should
study the Scriptures in their original languages; and it would be well
for some who make great pretensions to learning and who think it
essential to the ministry, were more extensively and more critically
acquainted with sacred literature than they really are. But the question
relates solely to the power by which the ministers of Jesus are
furnished for their great work. Now, nothing is more certain than that
this power is derived immediately from the exalted head of the church.
“When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. AND HE GAVE some, apostles; and some, prophets,
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” [Ephes. iv.
11.] The same power, therefore, which constitutes some apostles,
qualifies others to be pastors and teachers; and this we know was the
power of the Spirit alone, Acts i. 8, for many of the apostles were
destitute of human learning, even after the day of Pentecost, Acts iv.
13. The apostles and primitive pastors were qualified for their work
not by the tuition of Gamaliel, or any other theological tutor, but only
by the communication of the Holy Ghost. “Our sufficiency is of God;
who hath made us able ministers of the New Testament.” [2 Cor. iii. 5,
6.] How little do they know of the gospel ministry, and of the kingdom
of Jesus, who imagine that academical instruction is sufficient for
them whose weapons are “mighty through God to the pulling down of
strong holds;” [2 Cor. x. 4,] who are “unto God a sweet savor of Christ
in them who are saved, and in them that perish. To the one, the savor
of death unto death; and to the other, the savor of life unto life.” Well
may the holy apostle add, “and who is sufficient for these things?” [2
Cor. ii. 16.]
The promise of the Spirit was given not only for the sake of the
apostles, but also to furnish ordinary pastors and teachers, to the end
of time, with power for their work, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. Accordingly the
elders or bishops of the church at Ephesus were fitted for their office
by the ever- blessed Spirit. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and
to all the flock, over the which the HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU
OVERSEERS to feed the church of God.” [Acts xx. 28.] The sacred
Spirit pervades the whole body of Christ and by the fulness of his
gracious gifts, is absolutely sufficient for all offices in the church. As
the spirit of life animated the cherubim and the wheels and directed all
their motions, so doth the Holy Ghost animate all the members of
Christ and direct all the affairs of the Christian ministry.
“Whithersoever the Spirit was to go, they went; thither was their spirit
to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them; for the spirit of
the living creature was in the wheels.” This communication of the
Spirit is both the foundation of all spiritual gifts in the church of Christ
and is of itself sufficient for all the purposes of the Christian ministry.
“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another
the word of knowledge by the same Spirit,” &c. “For by one Spirit are
we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles,
whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit.” [1 Cor. xii. 7, 8, 13.] “Having then gifts differing according to
the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy
according to the proportion of faith; or ministry,” &c. [Rom. xii. 6, 7.]
Hence the Holy Spirit in his official character and in reference to the
fulness and perfection of his gifts, is compared to “seven lamps of fire
burning before the throne;” and not only is the blessed Spirit
sufficient to qualify his ministers for their work, who for this reason
are called ministers of the Spirit, but also all the operations of the
Christian ministry are under his absolute and sovereign control. He
opens, and no man shuts; he shuts and no man opens. He sends his
ministers to some countries, to others he suffers them not to go. Thus
Paul and his companions “WERE FORBIDDEN OF THE HOLY GHOST
to preach the word in Asia. Afterwards “they assayed to go into
Bithynia; BUT THE SPIRIT SUFFERED THEM NOT.” [Acts xvi. 6, 7.]
Under his Almighty influence the gospel prevailed in primitive times.
The first Christians erected no human machinery for the spread of the
gospel. They never sought the support of the great and the rich; nor
did they ever complain of the want of pecuniary means, nor suggest
that adequate funds would enable them to convert the world.
But afterwards, when Christianity became corrupted, nominal
conversions took the place of regeneration and the kingdom of the
clergy began to rise. The nations professing Christianity had no love
for the truth, and as for the Spirit they knew him not. The simple
gospel was exchanged for a scholastic theology founded on the
philosophy of this world and the wisdom of Aristotle. Then were
universities instituted, that by them men might he fitted for the
Christian ministry. These have been the nurseries of the clergy in all
ages, vomiting forth their antichristian divinity like the smoke of the
bottomless pit, out of which a carnal priesthood, like locusts, have
proceeded and overspread the earth. Schools of learning considered
simply as a means of knowledge are good, but when they are
employed to invade the prerogative of Jesus Christ, when they are
instituted to accomplish what none but the Spirit can effect, they
become an engine of Satan and are abominable to God.
In this respect also, our Baptist Churches have begun to imitate the
antichristian apostacy. As we have our clergy and our laity, so also
have we our colleges for preparing and qualifying pious young men
for the Christian ministry. It has been often affirmed, that, although we
have our colleges and academies, these are not for the purpose of
making ministers, but for affording young men those literary
advantages which they could not so easily obtain in any other way.
But this is only another instance of that deceitfulness which always
attends a departure from the simplicity of truth. Are not young men
sent to Stepney or to Bristol for the purpose of being fitted for the
ministry? Are they not, while there, considered to be in a course of
training for the ministry? It is true that our seminaries were not
instituted to make men pious, but it is undeniable that they were
intended to make pious young men ministers. Mr. Robt. Hall, in the
preface to his Sermon on “The Discouragements &c., of the Christian
Minister,” says, “To the Bristol Academy, the only Seminary they (i. e.
the Baptists) possessed till within these few years, they feel the
highest obligations, for supplying them with a succession of able and
faithful pastors, who have done honor to their churches.” Now, why
should we owe such a debt of gratitude to the Bristol Academy for
supplying us with pastors, unless that Academy hath made these
pastors what they are? If they are so able and faithful, thanks be to the
Bristol Academy which hath supplied them!
In the report of the Bradford Academy for 1830, the writer says, page
4, “It cannot be too well understood, that we disclaim all idea of
making ministers.” Yet in the very same page he says, “most of our
churches seem to think that the young persons whom they call to the
work of the ministry should avail themselves of the best advantages
that are to be obtained for preparing them for, and assisting them in,
the important undertaking.” Now what can the writer mean by
disclaiming all idea of making ministers and at the same time
acknowledging that the academy prepares young men for the
ministry? If the latter words mean any thing they mean that the
Society furnishes young persons with that kind of education without
which they would not be fitted or prepared for the ministry; and this is
only saying, in other words, that the Society makes them ministers.
Exalted Saviour! and have thy people yet to learn that thy Spirit, and
He alone, is sufficient for this? Do they not know that thou holdest the
seven stars in thy right hand? Surely the true Christian divinity cannot
be taught as human sciences are taught. How can a theological tutor
impart to his neighbor that knowledge which is necessary for the
Christian ministry? How can he teach him to understand the mystery
of godliness, as it is opened in the wonderful person of Christ, in all
the steps of his humiliation, sufferings, and death, and in unspeakable
wonders of his blood and righteousness? Alas! the tutor cannot teach
himself these things, yet both the knowledge of these and utterance to
make them known are absolutely necessary for the Christian ministry
and are imparted by the Spirit through the medium of his ordinances.
“All my divinity,” said Luther, “consists in this, that I believe that
Christ alone is the Lord concerning whom the Scriptures speak, and
neither my grammar nor Hebrew language taught me this but the
good Spirit of the living God.” The words of the honest reformer are in
accordance with the Scripture and with the nature of the Redeemer’s
spiritual kingdom, so also are the following sentiments of an old
English writer: “Christ under the New Testament hath erected and
constituted a new ministry, not through any ecclesiastical ordination,
but merely through the unction of His Spirit, without any regard at all
to a man’s outward calling or condition in the world; but whether a
man be a scholar, or clergyman, or gentleman, or tradesman, if Christ
call him and pour forth his Spirit on him, that, and that only, makes
him a true minister of the New Testament.” How forcible are right
words, but how little understood and regarded!
Knowledge, in its most unlimited extent comprehending universal
learning, is, in itself, good and the acquisition of it desirable. If,
however, the attainment of sound learning could possibly be opposed
to the simplicity of the gospel and consequently be pernicious, our
denomination in the present day would not be in imminent danger
from that cause. If the acquisition of learning were a sin, our guilt
would not be very heinous. But the sin of the churches consists in
this, that they heap to themselves teachers, instead of waiting on the
Lord for the fulfilment of his promise to give pastors unto Zion. The
work is entirely the Lord’s, but instead of looking unto Him in the way
of his own ordinances, they vainly imagine they can provide for
themselves ministers by ordinances which he hath not instituted, but
which are of their own appointing, in imitation of the universities of
antichrist. Thus do the churches despise the promise of the Spirit. In
this manner do they trust in an arm of flesh, in respect to the ministry,
and cease from trusting in the Lord, and thus do they grieve that
adorable Comforter by whom the saints are sealed unto the day of
redemption.
THIRD. A perverted gospel tends directly to scatter the people of God
by destroying their bond of union. The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all
the saints are united, is the only foundation and bond of spiritual
union. The whole family meet and centre in him. That which unites
them in his glorious person and work, and that which demands their
obedience is his voice. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them
and they follow me.” This voice which they hear is the truth of the
gospel which they receive and love and which produce among them
brotherly love for the truth’s sake. In the exercise of his grace they
have fellowship with each other, they are despised by the world and
are separated from it. “Lo! the people shall dwell alone, and shall nor
be reckoned among the nations.”
If, therefore, the people of God are united in the bond of truth, it is
evident that nothing is so effectual to scatter them as the influence of
erroneous doctrine, especially such as affects the righteousness of
Christ which is the ground of their unity, concord and hope. Hence
the zeal of the apostle against legal doctrines and false teachers.
Hence the connection between unsound doctrines and divisions in
the church. “Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned
and avoid them.” [Romans xvi. 17, 18.] As amongst the nations of this
world, sedition and treason are punished more severely than private
offences because the former cut asunder the very bonds of society
itself, and injure not an individual, but the whole community; so in the
kingdom of Christ the advancement of doctrines which obscure the
glory of imputed righteousness and exalt human merit, is an offence
of the most malignant kind, because it tends directly to abase the
Lord Jesus and to destroy unity and brotherly love among his people.
For this reason it is, that so much is said in Scripture against the
teachers of such doctrines. “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy
and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.” (Jer. xxiii. 1.) So
indignant was the holy Paul against them that he cried out, “I would
they were even cut off who trouble you.” (Gal. v. 12.)
The effect of a legal ministry is not only to produce divisions and
offences amongst the people of God, but also to exalt the preacher.
The apostle abased himself, that the brethren might be exalted, 2 Cor.
xi. 7; but the false teachers exalted themselves, and brought the
saints into bondage, 2 Cor. xi. 20. Self- exaltation is a mark which
invariably distinguishes the preachers of a perverted gospel. While
their doctrine has a direct tendency to obscure the glory of Christ it
tends to magnify themselves; and their votaries, instead of hearing
the voice of Christ, are brought into subjection to the minister and he
becomes the bond of union among them. “Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY
DISCIPLES AFTER THEM.” (Acts xx. 30.) This spirit which began to
work in the days of the apostles, is the foundation of all that clerical
dominion which constitutes the very strength of antichrist and the
support of his accursed kingdom.
But we greatly mistake the mind of the spirit in the Scriptures if we
imagine that the marks of a false church are to be found nowhere
except within the pale of the Papacy. The Lord does not judge of men
according to the names they bear, but according to the fruits they
bring forth. Whenever antichristian doctrines are received, there
antichristian fruits will appear. For as the mystery of iniquity began to
work before the man of sin was revealed, so it is found working in
churches which are not nominally under his dominion. “—AND ALL
THE CHURCHES shall know that I am he who searcheth the reins and
hearts; AND I WILL GIVE UNTO EVERY ONE OF YOU ACCORDING TO
HIS WORKS.”
It ought, therefore, to be a matter of solemn inquiry, whether the
marks of antichrist be not plainly visible upon many of our churches
and ministers. It has been proved in the course of these letters that
the doctrine now prevailing amongst us relative to the glorious
atonement and righteousness of Christ is quite a different thing from
that which is handed down to us in the Scriptures, and it has also
been shewn that such doctrine induces worldly conformity and a dead
profession. It might therefore be inferred, a priori, that the natural
tendency of such principles is to scatter the people of God and to
destroy the unity of the Spirit. For wherever the precious doctrines of
grace are kept back in the public ministry of the word, there, though
carnal professors may be pleased, the saints will be deprived of that
rich provision which God hath laid up for them; they will decline in the
exercise of faith and love, and communion of saints will degenerate
into formal worship. That this is the sad condition of many of Zion’s
children in the present day is beyond a doubt. Many who sit under a
legal, insipid ministry are in a lean and famishing state for want of the
pure word and ordinances of the Lord, and are crying out in a soul
distress, “Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the
summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no
cluster to eat.” Micah. vii. 1.
FOURTH. The doctrine of indefinite redemption is greatly injurious to
the comforts and joys of believers.
1. The notion that the death of Christ is conditionally sufficient for all
mankind, that is if all mankind were to believe in it, leads the sinner at
once to the performance of some duty which he imagines will give
efficacy to the death of Christ and render it available to him. By this
means he is lead to draw comfort from his duties instead of the
finished salvation of Christ. This error is the fruitful cause of the
disquieting fears and legal bondage of many professors. They are
constantly in fear lest they have not performed the requisite condition
and, after much toiling, their uneasy spirits are as far from rest as
ever, and again they utter the old complaint, “What lack I yet?” They
have no notion that the alone work of Christ made manifest to the
heart by the Holy Spirit, is sufficient to give joy unspeakable without
the performance of some duty on their part, and therefore they are in
constant perplexity lest this important duty should not have been
performed. “I find,” said Mr. Owen Stockton, “that though in my
judgment and profession, I acknowledge Christ to be my
righteousness and peace, yet I have secretly gone about to establish
my own righteousness and have derived my comfort and peace from
my own actings. For when I have been disquieted by the actings of
sin, not God speaking peace through the blood of Christ, but the
intermission of temptation and the cessation of those sins have
restored me to my former peace. When I have been troubled at the evil
frame of my heart, not the righteousness of Christ, but my feeling of a
better temper hath been my consolation. I have prayed against, and
resolved against sin, striven with sin, and avoided occasions of sin;
all which a natural man may do. But how to fetch power from the
death of Christ, how to believe in God for the subdueing of sin, and
how to do it by the Spirit, have been mysteries to me.”
In this state of bondage are many precious souls detained because
they cannot see the absolute perfection of the work of Christ. They
allow that Christ has done a great deal for sinners, but something they
imagine must be done on our part to render his blood available; and
that something not being able to satisfy divine justice and being too
weak to purge their guilty conscience, they are disquieted. But when
the soul is driven from every other refuge to trust in Christ alone then
it finds rest. It no more asks, “What lack I yet?” knowing that the law
is magnified, justice satisfied, and God the Father well pleased in his
beloved Son: “for we who do believe have entered into rest.” [Heb. iv.
3.] “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye
comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is
accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned.” [Isaiah xl. 1, 2.]
2. The knowledge which believers have that Christ died in their stead,
and gave himself particularly for them, is full of the sweetest
consolation to their ransomed spirits. Who can describe the inward
peace which fortified the mind of the Psalmist, when he uttered those
memorable words, “My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing unto thee;
and my soul which thou hast redeemed?” Ps. lxxi. 23. Or can we
express the comfort which is poured into the heart of an afflicted
saint, when the Holy Spirit brings powerfully to his mind such a
precious promise as this? “But now, thus saith the Lord that created
thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel; Fear not, for I have
redeemed thee—thou art mine. [Isaiah xliii. 1.] No small part of the
consolation comprehended in such promises arises from
distinguishing love and special redemption. But if Christ died for sin
abstractedly, he died no more for one man than another, and the
comfort derived from particular redemption is vain.
3. A spiritual conviction of union to Jesus, in his death, resurrection,
and exaltation, is essential to a believer’s joy. The comfort of a saint
is, that he is dead judicially with Christ. He rejoices in this, that Jesus
is alive from the dead to die no more, having made an end of sin, and
as the sins of his people are no more found upon him death hath no
dominion over him, but he lives evermore unto God. Now, the Spirit
assures a believer’s heart that Christ and he are one. A saint, through
the Spirit, reckons himself to be “dead indeed, unto sin, but alive unto
God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He is crucified with Christ, dead
with Christ, risen with Christ, and exalted to sit in heavenly places in
Christ, and all this is the spring of his joy. “Your spirits,” says the holy
Mr. Walter Cradock, “will never be heightened and raised to live the
life of Paul by beholding any thing that is in you personally in your
possession, but what you are by relation and marriage to Christ.
Reckon yourselves dead with Christ; and so conceive, I am a just
man; I was bound once to the law of God, a terrible law; and there are
thousands in hell paying the debt, and cannot pay it; and yet I have
payed every farthing, and the law cannot ask me more. I have offered
a perfect righteousness to God; and I am now sitting at God’s right
hand in heaven, by my union with Jesus Christ.” (W. Cradock’s
works, page 25.) Another of the precious sons of Zion thus expresses
his faith in a living Redeemer, and exercises the confidence of his
ransomed spirit. Referring to the cross of Christ, he says,
“My full receipt may there be view’d,
Graven with iron pens and blood,
In Jesus’ hands and side;
I’m safe, O death, O law, and sin,
Ye cannot bring me guilty in,
For Christ was crucified.”—CENNICK
In this manner do believers joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom they have received the atonement. But all this proceeds on
the supposition of union to Jesus, when he died and when he rose
again; but no such union existed between Christ and any of Adam’s
race if the indefinite scheme be true.
4. The covenant interest which God has in his people and they have in
him, is a fruitful source of consolation to the saints. It constitutes the
grand promise of the new covenant: “I will be their God, and they shall
be my people;” and it is the bulwark of their security: “Fear not: for I
am with thee, be not dismayed, for I am thy God.” An afflicted saint
possesses a peace which passeth all understanding when the Holy
Ghost enables him to say, “The Lord is my God.” This dries his tears,
brightens his countenance and cheers his mournful heart. It
comprehends all he can desire in time and to eternity. “They shall call
on my name, and I will hear them; I have said, It is my people, and they
shall say, Jehovah is my God.” [Zech. xiii. 9.]
But the advocates of indefinite and universal redemption seem not to
acknowledge this covenant union. They believe that God has a
peculiar regard for pious people, but as for that conjugal covenant
relationship, which flows from electing love and everlasting kindness,
they know nothing of it. This federal connection arises out of
discriminating love and is consistent only with special redemption,
because all the blessings of the everlasting covenant are ratified by
that blood which was shed for many.
FIFTH. I shall only add, in the last place, that indefinite redemption is
too weak to support the mind in the solemn hour of dissolution.
Nothing short of a personal application of the atoning blood can
destroy the fear of death. To die joyfully we must possess the
assurance that Christ hath loved us and given himself for us, but his
assurance we cannot have if Christ died only for sin and not for
particular persons. Our safety, indeed, does not depend upon this
assurance, but our joyfulness does.
The most striking manner of confirming this argument is, by adducing
instances of the dying experience of the saints. Many instances are
on record of professors who held legal sentiments during life who
were glad to renounce them when they came to die. But I never heard
or read of an individual, who had been led into the glories of
sovereign grace, who did not cling to the same truth as his only
support in the hour of death. I never heard that any such when they
came to die regretted that they had carried the doctrine of grace too
far or exalted Christ too much. I never knew an instance of such a one
forsaking his principles and taking refuge in Arminianism or indefinite
redemption, for no man “having drunk old wine, straightway desireth
new; for he saith, the old is better.”
An obstinate adherence to any particular sentiments is indeed no
proof that those sentiments are right, yet the confidence of a dying
believer affords a strong argument for the truth of those principles
which enable him thus to triumph. The dying testimonies of the
Lord’s people are highly delightful in themselves, consolatory to the
brethren, and honorable to God. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is
the death of his saints.” Every testimony which the true believers are
enabled to give to the truths of the gospel and the faithfulness of God
is valuable in the sight of the Lord, but their dying testimonies are
peculiarly so, being usually attended with a richer communication of
the Spirit.
It must, however, be confessed that the Lord’s dealings with his
people are very mysterious and past finding out. It is not always in a
joyful frame of spirit that they must be witnesses to the truth.
Sometimes the Lord withdraws the light of his countenance from them
and gives them to understand that he does so in fatherly displeasure
because they have grieved his Holy Spirit. This is especially the case
if they have dealt deceitfully respecting his truth. Toplady, that valiant
man of God, relates the following memorable instances of the Lord’s
fatherly displeasure, and covenant faithfulness. “I was formerly,” says
he, “well acquainted with two worthy persons in the ministry who
were eminently pious and extensively useful. One of them died in
1759, the other in 1761. I thought that if ever any men in the world
were faithful to the light God had given them these were. And yet in
their last illness they had such a feeling sight of their past
unfaithfulness as almost reduced them, for a time, to despair of
salvation. The former of them said he only wished to live that he might
have an opportunity of preaching the gospel in a fuller manner than
he had ever yet done. The latter cried out in an agony of distress, ‘God
hides the light of his face from my soul and is putting me to bed in the
dark because out of a dastardly compliance to some of my hearers I
have not dwelt enough upon the doctrines of grace in the course of
my public ministrations, particularly the doctrine of election, in which
doctrine I now see such a glory as I never saw before.’ Yet both were
good men and went off comfortably at last; though not until they had
been led through a dismal, tedious wilderness of keen remorse and
distressing conflicts.” [Works, vol. 3, p. 133, note.] True it is, that we
cannot always interpret the Lord’s dealings with others and should
therefore “judge not;” yet God often interprets his own ways to his
own people and teaches his disobedient children that he will honor
them who honor him.
But in what manner soever the minds of the saints are exercised at
last, whether they rejoice, they are made to bear witness more or less
to the truth. Herein consists no small part of the preciousness of their
death. For herein is God glorified and his word magnified, when the
gospel appears all sufficient to support the soul in life and in death.
The following examples will serve to illustrate this subject.
DR. THOMAS GOODWIN was, it is well known, one of the ablest
writers in defence of eternal election and particular redemption that
this country ever produced. During a great part of his long life, he held
fast of these doctrines with uniform consistency and died in the
fullest assurance of their truth. In the account of his life and death,
prefixed to the 5th vol. of his works, we have the following particulars
of his triumphant departure. “In February, 1679, a fever seized him
which in a few days put an end to his life. In all the violence of it he
discoursed with that strength of faith and assurance of Christ’s love,
with that holy admiration of free grace, with that joy in believing, and
such thanksgivings and praises, as extremely moved and affected all
that heard him. He rejoiced in the thoughts that he was dying and
going to have full and uninterrupted communion with God. ‘I am
going,’ said he, ‘to the Three Persons with whom I have had
communion; they have taken me, I did not take them. I shall be
changed in the twinkling of a eye; all my lusts and corruptions I shall
be rid of, which I could not be here; these croaking toads will fall off in
a moment. I could not have imagined I should ever have had such a
measure of faith in this hour; no, I could never have imagined it. My
bow abides in strength. Is Christ divided? No, I have the whole of his
righteousness; I am found in him, not in my own righteousness, which
is of the law, but in the righteousness which is of God, which is by
faith of Jesus Christ, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Christ
cannot love me better than he doth; I think I cannot love Christ better
than I do; I am swallowed up in God.’ With this assurance of faith, and
fulness of joy he left this world in the 80th year of his age.”
DR. TOBIAS CRISP, like many others of the Lord’s people, was, in his
earlier years, a zealous Arminian and very indefatigable in his
ministerial duties. But it pleased God several years before his death to
lead his mind into the heights and depths of free grace and
everlasting love and to establish his soul in an extraordinary manner
in the faith of imputed righteousness. This soon procured for him the
surname of Antinomian, though all who knew him, both professors
and profane, were witnesses to his uncommon devotedness to God
and to the holiness of his life. After his strength was greatly spent by
constant and laborious preaching, praying, &c., often whole nights, to
the ruin of his health, he died in 1642. But the same truths which were
his support in life were his triumph in death. “He manifested,” says
Mr. Lancaster, “such faith, such joy, such a quiet and appeased
conscience, such triumph over death and hell, as made the standers-
by amazed. And withal he forgot not to profess before some present
the steadfastness of his faith to this effect; ‘that as he had lived in the
free grace of God through Christ, so he did with confidence and great
joy, even as much as his present condition was capable of, resign his
life and soul into the hands of his most dear Father.’ His son, Mr. S.
Crisp, informs us that a few moments before his departure out of this
world he said to friends by his bed-side, ‘Where are all those that
dispute against the free grace of God and what I have taught thereof?
I am now ready to answer them all;’ and so he fell asleep.”
MR. THOMAS COLE was a minister of the Independent denomination
in London, and the author of an excellent work on Regeneration,
Faith, &c. He ably advocated the doctrines of sovereign grace,
especially imputed righteousness, and zealously opposed the
Neonomian error. For the account of his last illness and death, which
took place in 1697, I am indebted to Mr. Wilson’s History of
Dissenting Churches. We are informed that, “in the prospect of his
approaching end, his mind was the most happy imaginable and he
conversed with different persons in a manner that gave great
satisfaction to those about him. Mr. Traile, who was present, said to
him, ‘Sir, you know what opposition hath been made against the
truths of the gospel and what contending there hath been, &c. But
have you no kind of repenting that you have given occasion of this
contention?’ Mr. Cole replied, ‘Repenting, no; I repent I have been no
more vigorous and active in defending those truths, in the confidence
of which I die; and if I have any desire to live it is that I may be further
serviceable to Christ in vindicating his name in the pulpit. But he can
defend his own truth when his poor creatures and ministers who
contended for them (as well as they could) are laid in the dust.’ Mr.
Traile said, ‘We desire to know the peace and comfort you have of
these truths, as to your eternal state?’ He replied, ‘It is my only
ground of comfort. Death would be terrible else. I should not dare to
look death in the face if it were not for the comfortable assurance
which faith gives me of eternal life in Christ. Not what I bring to Christ,
but derive from him, having received some beginning of it which I see
springing up to eternal life. They do not know the constraining power
of the love of Christ, who can be wicked and licentious under such a
comfortable doctrine. None feel the power of it but those whom God
enableth to believe, and it will be abused by every one that does not
believe.’
“The following are some of his occasional sayings at several times on
his death-bed. ‘I wait for a peaceable dismission, I long to see his
salvation: ere long I shall be where I shall be free from all pain. The
Spirit saith, Come, and the Bride saith, Come, O Come! Lord Jesus,
come quickly.’ To one that came to see him, he said, ‘God hath made
me a man of contention; but I would have all the world know, that the
doctrine I have been preaching I can comfortably die in.’ One friend
said to him, ‘You have been one of those that tormented the earth as
was mentioned this day in prayer.’ He replied, ‘The gospel will
torment them more and more. God will have his witnesses, a
competent number in all ages. Blessed be God, he hath called me to
his heavenly kingdom! I long to be with Christ. It is a pleasant thing to
die; I am waiting for thy salvation!’ To Dr. Chancey, who was present,
he said, ‘Though they would not suffer me to preach the doctrine of
free grace quietly, yet God suffereth me to die in the comfort of it.’ In
this resigned and happy manner, Mr. Cole departed to the world of
spirits, September 16, 1697, in his 70th year of age.”
MR. JOSEPH HUSSEY, who is best known by his works entitled,
“God’s Operations of Grace, but no Offers of Grace,” and his “Glory
of Christ Unveiled,” was, in the latter part of his life, a most zealous
opponent of Arminianism, in all its branches. In his dying moments,
though in extreme pain, he was honored to bear some precious
testimonies to the truths of discriminating grace, of which the
following are a few. “One of the church asking him how his faith was
exercised with regard to those doctrines he used to preach, he
answered, ‘I am in the firm and full persuasion of all those truths I
have preached, and die in the firm belief of them all.’ Many of the
church being in his chamber, he often dropped some spiritual
observations that expressed the feelings of his mind on the occasion.
A person asking him how he did, ‘I am,’ said he, ‘waiting for my happy
change, to be dissolved, and to be with Christ.’ ‘What do you take,
sir?’ ‘I have no palate for anything here, but my spiritual one is as
good as ever to relish the doctrines of the gospel.’ Being asked how
he found it in his soul as to those doctrines he had delivered, he
answered; ‘O bravely! They are my main supports under my trials and
pains. I find now the truth of what I have preached. They are not my
notions or fancy, but the power of Christ to my soul.’
“Dosing at time, when he waked, he would drop such words as follow:
‘I have often sung the praises of God in the low lands, but, oh! how
long will it be before I come to the height of Zion, to sing to God and
the Lamb upon the throne. Oh, blessed death, it is a sweet thing to
die, for Christ will then be all in all. O Lord, gather thine elect out of
this sinful world unto thyself.’ He would occasionally break forth with
many short sentences, such as these: ‘Blessing, glory, honor, and
praise be to God and the Lamb, for ever and ever. Sin is dreadful, but
grace triumphs through Jesus Christ. Lord, be with me in my last
conflicts, and leave me not. O let me have an abundant entrance into
glory, to sing thy praise.’ Thus he continued testifying of Jesus
Christ, and praising him, until Tuesday, Nov. 15, 1726, when he slept
in the Lord, in the 67th year of his age.” [Abridged from Wilson’s
History.]
Mr. A. M. TOPLADY. If ever a believer of modern times finished his
course with joy, and was honored to bear his dying testimony to the
truths of the gospel, it was the celebrated Mr. Toplady. For nearly two
years before the Lord took his highly favored servant to himself, he
was pleased to fill him most remarkably with the Holy Spirit, and to
give him extraordinary foretastes of glory. He was delivered from all
doubts and fears, and possessed the fullest assurance of an eternal
salvation in Christ. In public ministrations he was sometimes carried
out beyond himself, and appeared almost in an ecstasy while
discoursing on everlasting love, full redemption, free grace, and
absolute salvation. The divine consolations with which he was
favored increased the nearer he approached his end. About a month
before his decease, in consequence of a wicked report that he had
changed his sentiments, circulated by the followers of Mr. John
Wesley, he published his dying avowal of those precious truths which
he had so zealously and so ably defended. In this avowal he say,
“Should any hostile notice be taken of this paper, I do not intend to
make any kind of reply. I am every day in view of dissolution. And in
the fullest assurance of my eternal salvation, I am waiting, looking,
and longing for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In conversation with a gentleman of the faculty, not long before his
death, he frequently disclaimed with abhorrence the least dependence
on his own righteousness, as any cause of his justification before
God, and said that he rejoiced only in the free, complete, and
everlasting salvation of God’s elect, by Jesus Christ, through the
sanctification of the Holy Spirit. The same medical gentleman has
related the following particulars of their conversation. After observing
that a remarkable jealousy was apparent in his whole conduct, for fear
of receiving any part of the honor due to Christ alone, he adds, “His
feelings were so very tender on this subject, that I once undesignedly
put him almost in an agony, by remarking the great loss which the
church of Christ would receive by his death, at this particular
juncture. The utmost distress was immediately visible in his
countenance and he exclaimed to this purpose: ‘What, by my death?
No! By my death? No! Jesus Christ is able, and will, by proper
instruments, defend his own truths. And with regard to what little I
have been enabled to do in this way; not to me, not to me, but to his
own name, and to that alone, be the glory.’
“Conversing on the subject of election, he said; ‘That God’s
everlasting love to his chosen people, his eternal, particular, most
free, and immutable choice of them in Christ Jesus, was without the
least respect to any work or works of righteousness wrought, to be
wrought, or that should ever be wrought in or by them; for God’s
election does not depend upon our sanctification, but our
sanctification depends upon God’s election and appointment of us
unto everlasting life.’ At another time, he was so affected with a sense
of God’s everlasting love to his soul, that he could not refrain from
bursting into tears.
“A short time before his death, at his request, I felt his pulse; and he
desired to know what I thought of it. I told him that his heart and
arteries evidently beat weaker and weaker. He replied immediately,
with the sweetest smile upon his countenance, ‘Why, that is a good
sign that my death is fast approaching; and, blessed be God, I can
add, that my heart beats every day stronger and stronger for glory.’
“To another friend, who, in conversation with him on the subject of
his principles, had asked him whether any doubt remained upon his
mind respecting the truth of them, he answered; ‘Doubt, sir, doubt!
Pray use not that word when speaking of me. I cannot endure the
term; at least while God continues to shine upon my soul in the
gracious manner he does now. Not but that I am sensible, that while in
the body, if left of him, I am capable, through the power of temptation,
of calling in question every truth of the gospel. But that is so far from
being the case, that the comforts and manifestations of his love are so
abundant, as to render my state and condition the most desirable in
the world. And, with respect to my principles, those blessed truths
which I have been enabled in my poor measure to maintain, appear to
me, more than ever, most gloriously indubitable. My own existence is
not, to my apprehension, a greater certainty.’
“Speaking to another friend on the subject of his ‘Dying Avowal,’ he
expressed himself thus: ‘My dear friend, those great and glorious
truths which the Lord in rich mercy hath given me to believe, and
which he hath enabled me (though very feebly) to stand forth in the
defence of, are not (as those who believe not or oppose them say) dry
doctrines, or mere speculative points. No. But being brought into the
practical and heartfelt experience, they are the very joy and support or
my soul; and the consolations flowing from them carry me far above
the things of time and sense.’
“Another of his friends, mentioning likewise the report of his
recanting his former principles, he said, with some vehemence and
emotion, ‘I recant my former principles! God forbid that I should be so
vile an apostate.’ To which he presently added, with great apparent
humility, ‘And yet that apostate I should soon be, if I were left to
myself.’
“Another time he cried out, ‘O what a day of sunshine this has been to
me! I have not words to express it. What a great thing it is to rejoice in
death!’ Speaking of Christ, he said, ‘his love is unutterable.’ He was
happy in declaring that the eighth chapter of the epistle to the
Romans, verse thirty-third to the end, were the joy and comfort of his
soul. Upon that portion of Scripture, he often descanted with great
delight, and would be frequently ejaculating, ‘Lord Jesus! why tarriest
thou so long?’
“Within the hour of his death, he called his friends and his servant,
and asked them if they could give him up. On their answering in the
affirmative, since it pleased the Lord to be so gracious to him, he
replied, ‘O what a blessing it is you are made willing to give me up into
the hands of my dear Redeemer, and to part with me; it will not be
long before God takes me, for no mortal man can live (bursting, while
he said it, into tears of joy, ) after the glories which God hath
manifested to my soul.’ Soon after this, his redeemed spirit took its
flight, on Tuesday, August 11, 1778, in the 38th year of his age.”
MR. JOHN MACGOWAN, known to the world as the author of
‘Dialogues of Devils,’ and other ingenious works, was a Baptist
minister, and pastor of the church meeting in Devonshire-square,
London. In the early part of his life he was in connection with the
Wesleyan Methodists, but after his mind was enlightened to see the
glory of sovereign grace, he zealously and publicly preached all those
important truths which the Particular Baptists at that time steadily
maintained.
Mr. Macgowan’s views of the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel
may be collected from the following pathetic lines, which he
composed on the death of Dr. Gill. I quote them with much
approbation, excepting the allusion to Elijah and Elisha, which
appears to savour too much of the legal dispensation. Dr. Gill was
worthy of all the love and esteem which his brethren manifested
towards him, but he should not be regarded in any other character
than a faithful and beloved brother. Those who are of the truth,
acknowledge no leader but Christ himself. Few men understood this
principle better than Mr. Macgowan; but being a young man when Dr.
Gill died, and having lost a venerable friend, whom he loved
exceedingly for the truth’s sake, and from whom he had derived great
spiritual advantage, the ardour of his mind led him to compare his
situation with that of Elisha, when his aged companion was
transported to heaven; so that he gave vent to the feelings of his soul
in the following verses:
“Sad was the day, to young Elisha sad,
When Great Elijah from his head was taken;
Not less to me, O Gill! thy head now laid,
And this my mansion now by thee forsaken.
Those days were precious, when the lure of truth
Unmixed, by thee proclaimed, our willing feet
Drew thither, and the genial dew of youth
Shed on our hearts, and made our joys complete.
But now thy pulpit’s dumb, thy voice no more.
From thence proclaims illustrious truth divine;
Better employed on yonder blissful shore;
And here to mourn in solitude is mine.
Yet still methinks, I hear the solemn sound
Of sovereign love, as preached by thee of yore;
Of boundless heights and depths beyond profound,
Brimless and bottomless, without a shore.
O! the sweet theme! how hast my heart been warm’d
With holy gratitude to hear thee tell
Of grace foreknowing, grace selecting, arm’d
At all events to rescue me from hell!”
To Mr. Reynolds, a sound minister, who succeeded Mr. Brine, we are
indebted for the account of the dying testimony of Mr. Macgowan. “I
frequently visited him,” says Mr. Reynolds, “in his last sickness, when
he took occasion as opportunity offered, of opening to me his whole
heart.
“At one time he was in great darkness of soul, and lamented
exceedingly the withdrawings of the presence of God. Two things, he
said, had deeply exercised his thoughts. The one was, how those
heavy and complicated afflictions which God had seen fit to lay upon
him could work so as to promote his real good. And the other was,
that God, his best friend, should keep at a distance from his soul,
when he knew how much his mind was distressed for the light of his
countenance. ‘O!’ said he, turning to me, and speaking with great
earnestness, ‘My soul longeth and panteth for God, for the living God;
his love visits would cheer my soul, and make this heavy affliction sit
light upon me. The wonted presence of Jesus, my Redeemer, I cannot
do without. I trust he will turn to me soon, yea, I know he will in his
own time; for he knows how much I need the influence of his grace!’
In this conversation he often mentioned the depravity of his nature,
and what a burden he found it. ‘My heart,’ said he, ‘is more and more
vile. Every day I have such humiliating views of heart corruption as
weighs me down. I wonder whether any of the Lord’s people see
things in the same light that I do.’ And then turning to me he said,
‘And do you find it so brother?’ On my answering him in the
affirmative, he replied, ‘am glad of that.’
“The next time, which was the last of my conversing with him, I found
him in a sweet and heavenly frame; his countenance indicated the
serenity of his mind. On my entering the room, he exclaimed, ‘O, my
dear brother, how rejoiced am I to see you! Sit down, and hear of the
loving-kindness of my God. You see me as ill as I can be whilst in this
world, and as well as I can be whilst in the body. Methinks I have as
much of heaven as I can hold.’ Then tears of joy, like a river flowed
from his eyes; and his inward plausible frame interrupted his speech
for a time. He broke silence with saying, ‘The work will soon be over;
but death to me has nothing terrific in it. I have not an anxious
thought. The will of God and my will are one. ’Tis all right, yet
mysterious. You cannot conceive the pleasure I feel in this reflection;
viz., that I have not shunned to declare (according to the best of my
light and ability), the whole counsel of God. I can die on the doctrines
that I have preached. They are true; I find them so. Go on to preach
the gospel of Christ, and mind not what the world may say of you.’ All
the while I sat silent; and rising to take my leave, fearing he would
spend his strength too much, he immediately took me by the hand,
and weeping over each other, we wished mutual blessings. On
parting, he said, ‘My dear brother, farewell; I shall see you no more.’
“Thus I left my much esteemed friend and brother; and the next news I
heard from his was, that on Saturday evening his immortal spirit left
the body, to go to the world of light and bliss, and keep an eternal
Sabbath with God, angels and saints.
“Mr. Macgowan departed this life, November 25, 1780 in the 55th year
of his age.”
MR. SAMUEL MEDLEY was for twenty-seven years the pastor of a
Baptist church in Liverpool, but as he frequently preached in the
metropolis, he was well know there, and in many parts of the country,
where his labours were extensively useful. His views of divine truth
were nearly the same as those of Dr. Gill; and although he was far
removed from a party or bigoted spirit, he was too faithful to escape
the revilings of many, who were willing to bury the doctrines of the
gospel under the pretence of universal charity. In the latter part of his
time, the sentiments of Mr. Fuller were beginning to prevail, but had
not then obtained an entrance into the church at Liverpool, a
circumstance for which Mr. Medley, in conversation with a friend
expressed his thankfulness to God. In a letter written with his own
hand during his last illness, to my near and honoured relative, he thus
declares the foundation of his hope. “I know no other name, I want no
other foundation for my hope and salvation for time or for eternity, but
that of Jesus, and everlasting love. This has never failed any of God’s
chosen and called yet, and I am persuaded it never will. I do not love
trimming and half-way preaching nor professing either. You can and
will, my dear brother, I trust, bear me witness, that ever since you
have known and loved me in the bonds of the gospel and in the
bowels of Christ, that I have, as I trust by grace enabled, uniformly set
my face against all such mingle mangle. I know, and daily feel I am a
poor, dark, weak, and worthless worm; but I trust I would not walk
willingly in craftiness, nor knowingly handle the word of God
deceitfully, for all the world, or all the men in the world, whether
professors or profane, whether they frown or smile. And these things I
write not to aggrandize or set up myself, O no! God forbid, but to bear
my sincere and humble testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus.”
The following account of Mr. Medley’s dying testimony to the glorious
truths of the gospel is extracted from the memoirs of him, published
by his son, “From the first of his illness he laboured under great
depression of spirits, arising partly from the nature of his disorder,
but more especially from the frame of his mind, which was in general
low and dark, mourning much on account of the loss of sensible
comforts. During this trial he would sometimes say he ‘feared he had
only been instrumental in the salvation of others as a scaffold to the
building, which, when completed, is taken down as of no further use.’
“This dejected frame did not long continue, though the change that
took place was gradual. He was somewhat cheered by the following
passage: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest.’ ‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after
righteousness,’ &c., &c. As his bodily infirmities increased, the gloom
and darkness under which he had laboured where dispelled, and the
delightful dawn of an eternal day began to break forth. His confidence
and comfort in God, as his covenant god in Christ Jesus, constantly
increased; and he became more and more resigned to the sovereign
of his heavenly Father, casting himself on the Rock of ages, and
patiently waiting the termination of his troubles. The 17th chapter of
John was peculiarly precious to him. He often read it during his
illness. ‘It is indeed the Lord’s prayer,’ he would say, ‘none but Christ
could use that prayer.’
“In a letter which he wrote a few days before his death, he said,
‘Blessed be God, he supports and upholds my mind on and by his
good word and the Holy Spirit. Though I have no ravishing frames, or
flights of soul, yet I humbly trust the eternal God is my refuge, and
underneath are his everlasting arms.’ He then repeated those words
in the 130th Psalm, ‘I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his
word do I hope.’
“To a clergyman with whom he had lived some time in the habits of
friendship, he said, ‘Farewell, God bless you: remember I die no
Arminian, Arian, or Socinian. I die a poor sinner, saved by sovereign,
rich and free mercy.’ To another, whose occupation had formerly
been in the sea-faring line, he said, ‘I am now a poor shattered bark,
just about to gain the blissful harbour; and O how sweet will be the
port after the storm!’
“On the day before he died, he exclaimed, ‘Is there not an appointed
time to man? Sweet Jesus, thou art my strength, my support, my
salvation, my salvation. Tell my dear friends I am going: Jesus is with
me, and I am not dejected. I am full of comfort and consolation, and
able yet to recollect God’s precious word. I never saw so much of my
own unworthiness, or so much of the excellency, glory, and
suitableness of Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour. As to my
sentiments,’ he continued, ‘I am no ways altered. The doctrines I have
preached, I am fully persuaded, are of the truth. They are now the
support and consolation of my mind. That Jesus, whom I have so long
recommended to poor sinners, is my only comfort in my dying hours.
His salvation is every way perfect and complete.’
“Early in the morning of the day on which he died, he said, with a
serene and smiling countenance, ‘Look up, my soul, and rejoice, for
thy redemption draweth nigh!’ He then added, ‘I am looking up to
Jesus—but a point or two more, and I shall be at my heavenly
Father’s house.’ Though his bodily agonies were sometimes
extreme, yet the views he had of the finished salvation of Jesus raised
him above them all, and in this happy frame of mind did he continue,
till, with a smiling countenance, he yielded up his spirit into the hands
of his heavenly Father, on July 27, 1799.”
Now, what shall we say to these things? Here we have many
witnesses, who testified, with one accord, that the sovereign mercy of
Israel’s Triune God, displayed in eternal election, special redemption,
and spiritual revelation, was their support in life, and their only
consolation in death. It would be easy to enlarge the catalogue with a
cloud of witnesses; but the time would fail to tell of Owen, of Gill, of
Brine, of Hervey, of Romaine, of Hawker, and of a thousand others,
who lived and died in the faith of these truths. The Lord himself had
instructed them with a strong hand; he had shown them the infinite
evil of sin, and humbled them with such views of their real character,
as condemned sinners, that they were convinced that nothing short of
a finished and absolute salvation would meet their wretched case.
“They therefore preached the gospel fix’d and free,
Not ‘yea and nay,’—it may or may not be;
Such gospel God had taught them to detest,
And in the certain gospel gave them rest.”
But can indefinite redemption yield so strong consolation? Can a ‘yea
and nay’ gospel thus support the mind? Let the dying confession of
Mr. Fuller himself answer the question.
It is with mingled emotions of pleasure and fear that I appeal to Mr.
Fuller’s last words. Of fear, because of the delicacy of the subject; of
pleasure, because his last confession of hope, affords abundant
reason for thanksgiving to God on his behalf. It would have been a
gloomy circumstance indeed, if Mr. Fuller had gone out of the world
expressing the same confidence in the doctrine he had taught, as
Cole, Toplady, &c. did, in the immortal truths which supported their
minds.
It seems pretty evident, that, during the whole of his last illness, the
Lord was instructing him by means of his complicated afflictions and
giving him to understand, in a clearer manner than he had ever known
before, that it was not for his own righteousness’ sake that he was
about to go into and possess the land. He was subject not only to
great bodily suffering, but of much darkness and depression of spirit;
a state of mind, to which the most eminent saints are liable, and with
which all the elect of God are, at one time or other, made acquainted.
While thus exercised, he appears to have been surrounded by
miserable comforters, who reminded him of his eminent goodness,
and the consequent reward. One of this description said to him, “I
know of no person, sir, who is in a more happy situation than
yourself; a good man on the verge of a blessed immortality.” But Mr.
Fuller was not in a state of mind to be consoled by the consideration
of his goodness, though his biographer says, he “humbly acquiesced,
and hoped it was so.” But we are informed that “he afterwards lifted
up his hands and exclaimed, ‘I am a great sinner, and if I am saved, it
must be by great and sovereign grace—by great and sovereign
grace.’” [Morris’ Memoirs, 8vo, 1816, page 470.] Thanks be to God for
such an exclamation as this!
Another friend, a Mr. Burls, who witnessed his last hours, thus writes:
[Bap. Mag. 1815, page 248.] “Respecting our dear friend, many will be
disappointed as to his dying experience; so little being known as to
the feelings of his mind. While he was able to converse, the substance
of what he said was,--he had no raptures, no despondency. His
feelings were not so much in exercise as his judgment.” No doubt
many would be disappointed as to the dying experience of Mr. Fuller.
Doubtless many of his friends expected that so good, so pious a man,
would, when he came to die, reflect with joy upon his well-spent life,
and express the utmost confidence that his sincere and humble
efforts would be acceptable through the merits of our Saviour. But it
please God in mercy to disappoint their foolish expectations. It
pleased him to convince Mr. Fuller that he was altogether an unclean
thing, and that there was no hope for his guilty soul, but on the
foundation of sovereign mercy alone. The friends of truth have no
reason to be disappointed at the dying experience of Mr. Fuller, but
rather to thank God on his behalf. There is abundant reason to believe
he was fully convinced, that if he was saved, it would not be because
he was so good, so pious, so useful a man, but because Jesus bore
his sins and died in his stead. Accordingly, he expressed himself in
these appropriate words: “I am a poor guilty creature; but Jesus is an
Almighty Saviour. I have no other hope of salvation than arises from
mere sovereign grace, through the atonement of my Lord and
Saviour. With this hope, I can go into eternity with composure.”
These last expressions are contained in a very interesting and
affecting letter, which he wrote to Dr. Ryland a few days before his
death. Would to God that the whole course of Mr. Fuller’s ministry
had been doctrinally in unison with that letter! He there seems to
acknowledge divine sovereignty in all its parts. In the same letter are
the following remarkable words: “I have preached and written much
against the abuse of the doctrine of grace; BUT that doctrine is all my
salvation, and all my desire.” Now, although this is not a formal
renunciation of his former principles, yet it evidently betrays a secret
suspicion that he had gone too far in his opposition to the abuse of
the doctrine of grace. He bears no dying testimony to the truth of his
former principles, like Cole, Toplady, Macgowan; he makes no
reference to them as his support in death, but rather he discovers a
latent uneasiness, lest all had not been quite right. Else what means
that significant conjunction, but? Or why did Mr. Fuller advert
exclusively to the controversy with his Baptist brethren, especially in
a letter to Dr. Ryland, who he knew had formerly held different
sentiments from those which at that time he maintained. Mr. Fuller had
written against the Socinians; he had written against the
Sandemanians; he had written against Mr. Dan Taylor, the General
Baptist; and against Mr. McLean, of Edinburgh; but he makes not the
slightest allusion to any thing he had written against these. His mind
was quite at rest as to the parts he had taken in their controversies.
But he had written against what he considered the abuse of the
doctrine of grace; and if, as a dying man, he alluded to what he had
taught on this subject, it might at least have been expected that he
would have set his last seal to it, had he possessed the confidence
that his doctrine would stand the test. Instead of this, we have a
significant but, wherein much is implied which is not expressed; and
the whole sentence evidently discovers a secret suspicion, if not a
persuasion, that what he had written against the abuse of sovereign
grace, had a tendency to subvert sovereign grace itself; yet through
the tender compassion of God, he is made freely to confess, that
sovereign mercy, and sovereign mercy alone, in all its bearings, is the
only hope for his guilty and polluted soul.
How painful soever it may be in some respects, to contrast the dying
experience of Mr. Fuller with that of the precious sons of Zion already
referred to, the painfulness is swallowed up in the delightful
consideration, that the most subtle opponent of sovereign grace that
ever appeared in our denomination, was himself a monument of that
very grace which his writings had a tendency to destroy. There is
abundant reason to hope, that he who once laboured to prove that
guilt is untransferable, is now singing a different song. “Unto him that
loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS in his own blood.” We
have reason to indulge the pleasurable reflection, that he who
formerly denied the vicarious nature of the death of Christ, who taught
that Jesus died indefinitely, is now joining with the innumerable
multitude bought with blood, to celebrate particular redemption before
the throne, and to sing with one accord to the exalted Lamb, “Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred,
and tongue, and people, and nation.”
And now, my dear sir, adieu! May sovereign mercy be your support in
life, and your consolation in death. Glad shall I be to hear of your
becoming a more decided preacher of it, and of that glorious
righteousness which is revealed in the gospel. But, if you should be
thus honored, rest assured that you will not escape persecution.
Opposition to the truth has now become too common, not only in the
world, but amongst professors to allow you to escape. But the faith of
that glorious righteousness will make you strong in weakness, joyful
in tribulation, and triumphant in the awful moment of death. If, in your
last conflict with the king of terrors, it should please the Holy Ghost to
irradiate your soul with the glory of that righteousness, you will meet
the monster with a smile, and triumphantly exclaim, “O death, where
is thy sting,? O grave, where is thy victory?”
WILLIAM RUSHTON, JUN.
LIVERPOOL, AUG. 31, 1831.
Dear friend, If you have benefited from the reading of this book, I
would have you know that scanning, correcting, and getting this book
into electronic format took many hours of hard work. It is my plan to
do more great books of this quality in the future. If you wish to make a
donation, please send it to:
John Formsma
103 Dogwood Lane
Blue Mountain, MS 38610
May God bless you.
BACK TO TOP
Foundation of Modern Missionary Movement among Baptists
Is the Gospel an Offer? By Gery Schmidt
A Different System
by David Mattingly
Of Belief, Or Faith - by R. H. Boaz