A DEFENSE 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 Arminianism, 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 takes the 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, apolutrosis, to buy, and apoluo, 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 ashmoth 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, and he was numbered with the transgressors, AND HE BARE THE SIN OF MANY." v. 12.

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 came 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 s