The True Meaning of Atonement
This undervalued work needs careful and constant study. Not only does the author refute errors, he lays forth a solid defense of the effectual atonement that the Sacred Scriptures display. Christ’s victorious last shout from the cross, “it is finished,” finds an able exponent in what follows:
William Rushton
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.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND
1831
Table of Contents
PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
LETTER I. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
LETTER II. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
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 seen1 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
1 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.
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. 1:18; 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. 9:11. 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. 42:6,
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.” Psa. 103:7, 8.
The post The True Meaning of Atonement appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.
