David L. Allen’s Lecture on Andrew Fuller: Particular Redemptionist Who Held to Universal Atonement

Michael A. G. Haykin’s Account of the Alleged Statements of John Ryland Sr. to William Carey Regarding Missions

Now it was in this forum of ministerial meetings that Carey first tested his ideas concerning the obligation of believers to be involved in evangelism outside of Britain. Fuller tells us that at several of the meetings between 1787 and 1790, Carey’s convictions were the topic of conversation. ‘Some of our most aged and respectable ministers,’ Fuller added, thought that ‘it was a wild and impracticable scheme that he [i.e. Carey] had got in his mind, and therefore gave him no encouragement.’⁷⁵ Fuller did not specify which of the association’s ‘most aged and respectable ministers’ pooh-poohed Carey’s ideas. Tradition, on the other hand, has especially attributed this disdain for Carey’s vision to John Collett Ryland, the father of Carey’s close friend.

The first writer to mention the elder Ryland’s name in this connection was John Webster Morris. In the first edition of his memoirs of Andrew Fuller, published in 1816, Morris claimed that ‘before the end of 1786’ Carey and ‘another minister of the same age and standing’—in his account Morris does not indicate that this other minister was actually himself—attended a minsterial meeting in Northampton. That evening, as a number of the ministers were chatting, the elder Ryland ‘imperiously demanded’ that Carey and the other minister each propose a topic for discussion. After much hesitation, Carey suggested the topic on which he had been long ruminating: ‘Whether the command given to the apostles to “teach all nations” was not obligatory on all succeeding ministers to the end of the world, seeing that the accompanying promise was of equal extent?’ Carey’s question had obviously grown out of his reflections on Matthew 28:18–20. The promise he had in mind is clearly that given by the Lord Jesus in verse 20, and the command that in the first part of verse 19. If, Carey reasoned, Christ’s promise of his presence is for all time (v. 20), what of his command (v. 19)? As we have seen, this sort of reasoning was later made the subject of an extensive rebuttal in the first section of Carey’s Enquiry. In Morris’s narration of this event, Ryland promptly responded to Carey that ‘Nothing could be done before another Pentecost, when an effusion of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, would give effect to the commission of Christ as at first.’ Moreover, according to Morris, Ryland gruffly told Carey that he was ‘a most miserable enthusiast for asking such a question’! However, in Morris’s second edition of the Fuller memoirs, which appeared in 1826, he suggested that all of Ryland’s remarks may simply have been ‘a piece of pleasantry,’ or even ‘intended as ironical.’⁷⁶

Eustace Carey, when he recounted this event in his 1836 biography of his uncle, identified Morris as having been present on the occasion and said that Carey himself had mentioned the event to him not long after Eustace arrived in India in 1814. Eustace Carey did not remember the exact words that his uncle said were spoken to him, but he did ‘distinctly recollect that some strong epithet was said to have been used.’ Even though Eustace knew that his uncle questioned the accuracy of Morris’s recollection when it first appeared in print, he was prepared to believe Morris’s version of the event, because of ‘the characteristic vehemence’ of the elder Ryland and the novelty of foreign missions at the time when the event is said to have taken place.⁷⁷

Yet a third account comes from the hand of John C. Marshman (1794–1877), the son of Carey’s co-worker in India, Joshua Marshman. Writing in 1859, he stated that when the elder Ryland heard Carey’s proposed topic, he ‘denounced the proposition with a frown’ and told Carey in no uncertain terms: ‘Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid or mind.’⁷⁸

Understandably, John Ryland, Jr denied that his father ever uttered such sentiments. In a lengthy footnote which appeared in both editions of his life of Fuller, that of 1816 and that of 1818, Ryland questioned Morris’s dating of the event as having taken place ‘before tne end of 1786.’ Ryland stated that his father had left Northampton for Enfield, just outside of London, before any of the minsterial meetings in 1786. This is confirmed by Ryland’s diary, in which it is stated that his father left Northampton on 11 November 1785 and never returned during his entire sojourn at Enfield, where he died in 1792.⁷⁹ This narrows the event down to 1785. In addition to the annual assembly that year, there was a ministerial meeting in Northampton on 30 September. Fuller, Sutcliff and Thomas Skinner (d.1795), the Baptist minister at Towcester, preached during the day. That evening there was discussion between the pastors which centered on two questions: ‘To what causes, in ministers, may much of their want of success be imputed?’ and ‘What was a sufficient call, to attempt introducing village-preaching into places where it had not ben usual before?’⁸⁰ Since this meeting was in Northampton, the elder Ryland would almost certainly have been present. But his son, who was also present, claimed that the first time he heard of what his father purportedly said to Carey was when Morris published his life of Fuller in 1816. Moreover, Ryland maintained the words that Morris attributed to his father did not sound at all like his father! ‘No man prayed and preached about the latter-day glory, more than my father,’ Ryland said. In other words, the elder Ryland longed for the day when the knowledge of Christ would fill the earth. In sum, the younger Ryland said, it was an ‘ill-natured anecdote.’

Yet, two years before his death in 1834, Carey spent an evening reminiscing with his old co-worker Joshua Marshman about the early days of their missionary enterprise. According to a letter that Marshman wrote in the early hours of the following morning, 23 May 1832, Carey made particular mention of the way in which God had kept alive his feelings about overseas missionary work when ‘good old John Ryland (the Doctor’s father) denounced them as unscriptural.’⁸¹ Thus, despite the younger Ryland’s defense of his father, the evidence would seem to indicate that the elder Ryland, who had definite High Calvinist predilections and who could express himself quite vehemently at times, did indeed administer a sizzling rebuke to Carey during the evening of 30 September 1785.
_______________
75. Ibid. [Carey, Memoir of William Carey], p. 69.
76. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, pp. 96–7; Culross, The Three Rylands, p. 61.
77. Carey, Memoir of William Carey, pp. 47–8.
78. Marshman, The Life and Times of Carey, Marshman, and Ward, vol. I, p. 10.
79. Ryland, Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (1818 ed.), p. 112, note; Ryland, ‘Autograph Reminiscences,’ p. 11.
80. Ryland, Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (1818 ed.), pp. 111–12 and note.
81. Cited in Periodical Accounts of the Serampore Mission, N. S., (1834), pp. 638–9. For another perspective on the elder Ryland, see Iain H. Murray, ‘William Carey: Climbing the Rainbow,’ The Banner of Truth, 349 (October 1992), pp. 20–21.

Michael A. G. Haykin, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, His Friends and His Times (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 1994), 193-196.

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on Moral Inability

MORAL INABILITY.
First, You inquire "whether any person by nature possesses that honest heart which constitutes the ability to comply with the invitations of the gospel?" I believe the heart of man to be by nature the direct opposite of honest. I am not aware, however, that I have any where represented an honest heart as constituting our ability to comply with gospel invitations, unless as the term is sometimes used in a figurative sense, for moral ability. I have said, "There is no ability wanting for this purpose in any man who possesses an honest heart." If a person owed you one hundred pounds, and could find plenty of money for his own purposes, though none for you; and should he at the same time plead inability, you would answer, there was no ability wanting, but an honest heart: yet it would be an unjust construction of your words, if an advocate for this dishonest man were to allege that you had represented an honest heart as that which constituted the ability to pay the debt. No, you would reply, his ability, strictly speaking, consists in its being in the power of his hand, and this he has. That which is wanting is an honest principle; and it is the former, not the latter, which renders him accountable. It is similar with regard to God. Men have the same natural powers to love Christ as to hate him, to believe as to disbelieve; and this it is which constitutes their accountableness. Take away reason and conscience, and man would cease to be accountable; but if he were as wicked as Satan himself, in that case no such effect would follow.

Secondly, If no man by nature possess an honest heart, you inquire, "Whether, if I be not what you call an elect sinner, there are any means provided of God, and which I can use, that shall issue in that 'honesty of heart' which will enable me to believe unto salvation?" Your being an elect or a non-elect sinner makes no difference as to this question. The idea of a person destitute of honesty using means to obtain it is in all cases a contradiction. The use of means supposes the existence of an honest desire after the end. The Scriptures direct to the sincere use of means for obtaining eternal life; and these means are, "Repent, and believe the gospel;" but they no where direct to such a use of means as may be complied with without any honesty of heart, and in order to obtain it. Nothing appears to me with greater evidence than that God directly requires uprightness of heart, not only in the moral law, but in all the exhortations of the Bible, and not the dishonest use of means in order to obtain it. Probably you yourself would not plead for such a use of means, but would allow that even in using means to obtain an honest heart we ought to be sincere; but if so, you must maintain what I affirm, that nothing short of honesty of heart itself is required in any of the exhortations of Scripture; for a sincere use of means is honesty of heart. If you say, "No; man is depraved; it is not his duty to possess an honest heart, but merely to use means that he may possess it;" I answer, as personating the sinner, I have no desire after an honest heart. If you reply, "You should pray for such a desire," you must mean, if you mean any thing, that I should express my desire to God that I may have a desire; and I tell you that I have none to express. You would then, sir, be driven to tell me I was so wicked that I neither was of an upright heart, nor would be persuaded to use any means for becoming so; and that I must take the consequences. That is, I must be exposed to punishment, because, though I had "a price in my hand to get wisdom, I had no heart to it." Thus all you do is to remove the obstruction further out of sight: the thing is the same.

I apprehend it is owing to your considering human depravity as the misfortune, rather than the fault, of human nature, that you and others speak of it as you do. You would not write in this manner in an affair that affected yourself. If the debtor above supposed, whom you knew to have plenty of wealth about him, were to allege his want of an honest heart, you might possibly think of using means with him; but you would not think of directing him to use means to become what at present he has no desire to be—an honest man!

Thirdly, You inquire, if there be no means provided of God which I can use that shall issue in that honesty of heart which will enable me to believe unto salvation, "how can the gospel be a blessing bestowed upon me; seeing it is inadequate to make me happy, and contains no good thing which I can possibly obtain or enjoy?" If I be under no other inability than that which arises from a dishonesty of heart, it is an abuse of language to introduce the terms "possible, impossible," &c., for the purpose of diminishing the goodness of God, or destroying the accountableness of man. I am not wanting in power provided I were willing; and if I be not willing, there lies my fault. Nor is any thing in itself less a blessing on account of our unreasonable and wicked aversion to it. Indeed, the same would follow from your own principles. If I be so wicked as not only to be destitute of an honest heart, but cannot be persuaded to use means in order to obtain it, I must perish; and then, according to your way of writing, the gospel was "inadequate to make me happy, and was no blessing to me!" You will say, I might have used the means; that is, I might if I would, or if I had possessed a sincere desire after the end: but I did not possess it ; and therefore the same consequences follow your hypothesis as that which you oppose.

If these things be true, say you, we may despair. True, sir; and that is the point, in a sense, to which I should be glad to see you and many others brought. Till we despair of all help from ourselves, we shall never pray acceptably; nor, in my judgment, is there any hope of our salvation.

Let a man feel that there is no bar between him and heaven except what consists in his own wickedness, and yet that such is its influence over him that he certainly never will by any efforts of his own extricate himself from it, and he will then begin to pray for an interest in salvation by mere grace, in the name of Jesus—a salvation that will save him from himself; and, so praying, he will find it; and, when he has found it, he will feel and acknowledge that it was grace alone that made him to differ; and this grace he is taught in the Scriptures to ascribe to the purpose of God, given him in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Andrew Fuller, “Answers to Queries: Moral Inability,” in The Complete Works of Rev. Andrew Fuller (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845), 3:768–69. Also in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, rev. by Joseph Belcher, D. D. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 3:768–69.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Tom Ascol on John Gill (1697–1771) and the Modern Question

So well documented is Gill's conviction against offering Christ to the unconverted that one is tempted simply to conclude, on the basis of many witnesses, that Gill recognizes no universal obligation to believe in Christ.⁵³ Such a perspective, though easily supported by various passages in Gill, does not adequately appreciate the presence of a genuine tension within him (at least at the practical level) regarding this point. Fuller, commenting on the "Modern Question" debate, acknowledges that Gill's sentiments seem to lie on the negative side of the question. "At the same time," Fuller further notes,

It cannot be denied that, when engaged in other controversies, he [Gill] frequently argued in a manner favourable to our side; and his writings contain various concessions on the subject, which, if any one else had made them, would not be much to the satisfaction of our opposing brethren. However they may be inclined to represent us as verging toward Arminianism, it is certain that Dr. Gill, in his answer to Dr. Whitby, the noted Arminian, frequently makes use of our arguments.⁵⁴

Gill's general attitude toward the universalistic ideas in the gospel is governed by his insistence that the integrity of God's unconditional intention and provision of salvation for only the elect be scrupulously guarded. Language which suggests that salvation is in any manner contingent upon human intention or provision is strenuously rejected. Therefore, "that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men," Gill writes, "I utterly deny." He reasons this way not because God discriminates in such offers, but because "offer" is an illegitimate category in which to couch salvation. Not even the elect receive such an offer. Rather, "grace and salvation are provided for them [the elect] in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit." The absolute, unconditional nature of the covenant of grace must always be carefully maintained, even when discussing man's responsibility.⁵⁵

Many of the "concessions" which evoke Fuller's evaluation of Gill are found in the latter's Cause of God and Truth. This work engages his Arminian opponent in a dialogue for the purpose of first hearing, then refuting published objections to Dortian Calvinism. In Part One Gill expounds sixty passages of Scripture which are integral to the debate. His treatment of Acts 3:19 typifies his reluctance to allow repentance and faith to be regarded as duties. He contends that the nature of the repentance for which this verse calls is legal (external) and not evangelical (internal, saving). For the sake of argument, however, he allows the latter meaning to stand in order to demonstrate that, if saving repentance and faith are duties, his views of the decrees of God and the covenant of grace nevertheless remain unscathed. Were it true that evangelical repentance is the duty of all men, that fact would not contradict "its being a free-grace gift of God; nor its being a blessing in the covenant of grace." Neither does it appear "what conclusions can be formed from hence against either absolute election or particular redemption."⁵⁶

There should be little doubt that Gill tends to obviate the tension between the particular and universal aspects of the gospel by safeguarding the former at the ultimate expense of the latter. The decree occupies the foundational place in his theological system. To allow the full range of any perspective which can potentially erode that foundation is a risk which Gill refuses to take. While there are some obvious, if tentative, concessions to those who maintain the duty of faith and repentance and the attendant obligation to urge sinners as sinners to perform these duties, the thrust of his system serves to mitigate these allowances.⁵⁷ There is absolutely no hesitancy as he argues: that nowhere does scripture "exhort and command all men, all the individuals of human nature, to repent and believe in Christ for salvation;"⁵⁸ that the repentance which is enjoined universally is only legal in nature;⁵⁹ that the scriptural admonitions to turn from wicked ways regard "outward reformation of life;"⁶⁰ and that ministers ought to exhort only "sensible" sinners [those who are aware of their "state and condition"] to believe in Christ.⁶¹ The reluctance of Gill to accord full weight to the universal dimensions of the gospel is absent in classic Federalism, which employs the covenant structure to maintain the dialectic between this and predestinarian particularism.
______________________________
53. Ivimey, History of the English Baptists, 3:272-73; Underwood, History, p. 135; Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), p. 240; Robinson, "The Legacy of John Gill," pp. 116-17; Harrison, John Gill and His Teaching, pp. 15-22; Leon McBeth, "Believer's Security Almost Wrecked Denomination," Baptist Message 98 (March 3, 1983):4; idem, "Wrestler Turned Preacher Upsets Doctrine," Baptist Message (March 17, 1983):6; idem, Baptist Heritage, pp. 177-78; Nettles, By His Grace, pp. 84-89.
54. Fuller, Works, 2:422; cf. Robinson, "Legacy of John Gill," pp. 117-18.
55. Gill, Sermons and Tracts, 3:118; cf. idem, Cause of God, pp. 6-7, 34-35, 164, 181; idem, Commentary, 3:989-90; 6:90-91.
56. Gill, Cause of God, p. 35; cf. ibid., p. 159. These concessions are made not because Gill affirms them to be the proper sense of scripture's meaning, but only for the sake of demonstrating how supremely secure is his decretal theology. They are allowed hypothetically as a part of his method of argumentation. In the midst of his reasoning about Acts 3:19, Gill does make the unqualified declaration that "Men are required to believe in Christ, to love the Lord with all their heart, to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit, yea to keep the whole law of God." Yet, immediately he adds, "But it does not follow that they are able of themselves to do all these things" (ibid., p. 35).
57. As has been noted, much historical and theological scholarship has been quick to categorize Gill according to Ivimey's "non-application, non-invitation" scheme, and on that basis to dismiss him as a rigid predestinarian who recognizes no universal obligation to preach or believe the gospel. Such unqualified assessments are not completely warranted by a thorough analysis of Gill's writings and cannot avoid misconstructing his sentiments. Nettles has reacted against this modern tendency by attempting to vindicate Gill from the common charge of being a hyper-Calvinist and opposed to duty faith and duty repentance (By His Grace, pp. 94-107). His work calls attention to genuine concerns which Gill expresses over the nature and extent of gospel blessings and duties Nettles hears Gill speaking loudly where others have judged him mute. In light of the evidence presented in this chapter, it is better to hear Gill speaking on these themes in muffled tones. The implications of his theology of grace ultimately veto "duty-faith." His pastoral practice, however, will not allow him to rest completely in those implications. The resulting tension is not missed by the author of his memoir. John Rippon acknowledges that, while Gill is more "universally consistent with himself" than any other writer of his day, there is a noticeable measure of inconsistency in his views of the "Modern Question." Rippon concludes, however, that Gill is "more decidedly on the high side of the question" (Brief Memoir, p. 47). This opinion is similarly held by Fuller (Works, 2:422)
58. Gill, Cause of God, p. 167. He writes, "I know of no exhortations to dead sinners, to turn and live, in a spiritual manner" (ibid., p. 172).
59. Ibid., pp. 34-35. Gill argues that it is only when they receive the "internal revelation of Christ" that sinners are "called to the exercise of evangelical repentance, and to faith in Christ, as their Saviour and Redeemer." With this call comes the bestowal upon them of grace and power "which enables them to believe and repent" (ibid., p. 166).
60. Ibid., p. 180.
61. Ibid., p. 164; cf. ibid., p. 179.

Thomas Kennedy Ascol, The Doctrine of Grace: A Critical Analysis of Federalism in the Theologies of John Gill and Andrew Fuller (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989), 118–122.

Archibald Alexander (1772–1851) on Natural and Moral Inability

…many adopted with readiness a distinction of human ability into natural and moral. By the first they understood merely the possession of physical powers and opportunities; by the latter, a mind rightly disposed. In accordance with this distinction, it was taught that every man possessed a natural ability to do all that God required of him; but that every sinner laboured under a moral inability to obey God, which, however, could not be pleaded in excuse for his disobedience, as it consisted in corrupt dispositions of the heart, for which every man was responsible. Now this view of the subject is substantially correct, and the distinction has always been made by every person, in his judgments of his own conduct and that of others. It is recognized in all courts of justice, and in all family government, and is by no means a modern discovery. And yet it is remarkable that it is a distinction so seldom referred to, or brought distinctly into view, by old Calvinistic authors. The first writer among English theologians that we have observed using this distinction explicitly, is the celebrated Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and the able opposer of Arminianism, and advocate of the Supralapsarian doctrine of divine decrees. It was also resorted to by the celebrated Mr. Howe, and long afterwards used freely by Dr. Isaac Watts, the popularity of whose evangelical writings probably had much influence in giving it currency. It is also found in the theological writings of Dr. Witherspoon, and many others, whose orthodoxy was never disputed. But in this country no man has had so great an influence in fixing the language of theology, as Jonathan Edwards, president of New Jersey College. In his work on "The Freedom of the Will," this distinction holds a prominent place, and is very important to the argument which this profound writer has so ably discussed in that treatise. The general use of the distinction between natural and moral ability may, therefore, be ascribed to the writings of President Edwards, both in Europe and America. No distinguished writer on theology has made more use of it than Dr. Andrew Fuller; and it is well known that he imbibed nearly all his views of theology from an acquaintance with the writings of President Edwards. And it may be said truly, that Jonathan Edwards has done more to give complexion to the theological system of Calvinists in America, than all other persons together. This is more especially true of New England; but it is also true to a great extent in regard to a large number of the present ministers of the Presbyterian church. Those, indeed, who were accustomed either to the Scotch or Dutch writers, did not adopt this distinction, but were jealous of it as an innovation, and as tending to diminish, in their view, the miserable and sinful state of man, and as derogatory to the grace of God. But we have remarked, that in almost all cases where the distinction has been opposed as false, or as tending to the introduction of false doctrine, it has been misrepresented. The true ground of the distinction has not been clearly apprehended; and those who deny it have been found making it themselves in other words; for that an inability depending on physical defect, should be distinguished from that which arises from a wicked disposition, or perverseness of will, is a thing which no one can deny who attends to the clear dictates of his own mind; for it is a self-evident truth, which even children recognize in all their apologies for their conduct.

Archibald Alexander, “The Inability of Sinners,” in Theological Essays: Reprinted from the Princeton Review (New York & London: Wiley and Putnam, 1846), 266–67.

Bio:
Wiki 

For an example where the distinction has been misrepresented, see Canon XXI in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675).

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on the Sufficiency of Christ's Atonement

It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ.* But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non-elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.

I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man; whereas, in the other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and which therefore is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer in every stage of it to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable; which the other, I conceive, does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fullness 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.

* 2 Cor. v. 19-21; Matt. xxii. 4; John iii. 16

Andrew Fuller, "Conversations Between Peter, James, and John: Conv. II. on Substitution," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 3 vols. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:691–692.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

HT: David Allen

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on God's Love, Good-Will, and Saving Desire

It is admitted that God's love to man is in one sense universal. He bears good-will towards them, as the work of his hands; but it does not follow thence that he must do all that he could do for their salvation...As to God's willingness that all should turn and God's will, as live, has been observed, sometimes expresses what he approves, and sometimes what he purposes. God wills, approves, and desires a sinner's turning unto him. It is that which, through the whole Bible, is required of him; and whosoever thus returns shall live. I may add, God is willing to receive and forgive every sinner that returns to him through Jesus Christ. He desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he would repent and live. But he has not purposed the salvation of every sinner, or to incline his heart to embrace the salvation exhibited in the gospel. In this sense, the salvation of some is neither desired nor designed: if it were, it would be effected; for "his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure."--"Whatsoever his soul desireth, even that he doeth," Isa. xlvi. 10; Job xxiii. 13.

Andrew Fuller, "The Reality and Efficacy of Divine Grace," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 3 vols. (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:554.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on Pecuniary and Moral Justice

It is not true that redemption has for its basis the idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. That sin is called a debt, and the death of Christ a price, a ransom, &c., is true; but it is no unusual thing for moral obligations and deliverances, to be expressed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions. The obligations of a son to a father, are commonly expressed by such terms as owing and paying: he owes a debt of obedience, and in yielding it he pays a debt of gratitude. The same may be said of an obligation to punishment. A murderer owes his life to the justice of his country ; and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a great character by suffering death, could deliver his country, such deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. In such connections, every one perceives that the terms are used not literally, but metaphorically; and it is thus that they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ. As sin is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt; so the atonement for it is not a pecuniary, but a moral ransom.

There is doubtless a sufficient analogy between pecuniary and moral proceedings, to justify the use of such language, both in scripture and in common life; and it is easy to perceive the advantages which arise from it; as besides conveying much important truth, it renders it peculiarly impressive to the mind. But it is not always safe to reason from the former to the latter; much less is it just to affirm, that the latter has for its basis every principle which pertains to the former. The deliverance effected by the prince, in the case before stated, might, with propriety, be called a redemption; and the recollection of it, under this idea, would be very impressive to the minds of those who were delivered. They would scarcely be able to see or think of their Commander in Chief, even though it might be years after the event, without being reminded of the price at which their pardon was obtained, and dropping a tear of ingenuous grief over their unworthy conduct on this account. Yet it would not be just to say, that this redemption had for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice.

It was moral justice which in this case was satisfied: not, however, in its ordinary form, but as exercised on an extraordinary occasion; not the letter, but the spirit of it.

Andrew Fuller, "The Gospel its Own Witness," in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, rev. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:80–81.

Andrew Fuller, "The Gospel its Own Witness," in The Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (New Haven: W. Collier, 1824), 3:154–155.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

The Works of Andrew Fuller (1754–1815)

A one-volume Internet Archive edition is HERE.

More editions of these volumes are on the Internet Archive here (click).

The eight volume edition on Google Books is here:

Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6, Volume 7, Volume 8

Complete Works in Three Volumes:

Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on God's Love

It appears to me an incontrovertible fact that God is represented in his word as exercising goodness, mercy, kindness, long-suffering, and even love towards men as men. The bounties of Providence are described as flowing from kindness and mercy; and this his kindness and mercy is held up as an example for us to love our enemies, Matt. v. 44, 45; Luke vi. 35, 36. And this the apostle extols; calling it, "The riches of his goodness," &c., keenly censuring the wicked for despising it, instead of being led to repentance by it, Rom. ii. 4. And what if God never intended to render this his goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering effectual to the leading of them to repentance? Does it follow that it is not goodness? And while I read such language as this, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,"—and that the ministry of reconciliation was in this strain—"We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [men] by us; we pray [them] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."—I can draw no conclusion short of this, that eternal life through Jesus Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners, or as Calvin, on John iii. 16, expresseth it, "He useth the universal note both that he may invite all men in general unto the participation of life, and that he may cut off all excuse from unbelievers. To the same end tendeth the term world; for although there shall nothing be found in the world that is worthy of God's favour, yet he showeth that he is favourable unto the whole world, when he calleth all men without exception to the faith of Christ. But remember that life is promised to all who shall believe in Christ, so commonly, that yet faith is not common to all men; yet God doth only open the eyes of his elect, that they may seek him by faith."

Andrew Fuller, "On the Love of God, and Whether It Extends to the Non-Elect," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 3:770.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) Against Commercialism

If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of a debt - if the measure of his sufferings were according to the number of those for whom he died, and to the degree of their guilt, in such a manner as that if more had been saved, or if those who are saved had been more guilty, his sorrows must have been proportionately increased - it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations. But it would be equally inconsistent with the free forgiveness of sin, and with sinners being directed to reply for mercy as supplicants, rather than as claimants. I conclude therefore, that an hypothesis which in so many important points is manifestly inconsistent with the Scriptures cannot be true.

On the other hand, if the atonement of Christ proceed not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime - if its grand object were to express the divine displeasure against sin (Rom. 8:3) and so to render the exercise of mercy, in all the ways in which sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it, consistent with righteousness (Rom. 3:25) - if it be in itself equal to the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to embrace it - and if the peculiarity which attends it consist not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of its application - no such inconsistency can justly be ascribed to it...

There is no contradiction between this peculiarity of design in the death of Christ, and a universal obligation on those who hear the gospel to believe in him, or a universal invitation being addressed to them...If that which sinners are called upon to believe respected the particular design of Christ to save them, it would then be inconsistent; but they are neither exhorted nor invited to believe anything but what is revealed, and what will prove true, whether they believe it or not.

Owen Thomas, The Atonement Controversy in Welsh Theological Literature and Debate, 1707–1841 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 132–133. Thomas' footnote #23 says Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, in Complete Works, Vol. 1 (London, 1831), pp. 65–66. The reference in the Sprinkle edition (1988) of Fuller's Works is this: Andrew Fuller, "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 3 vols., ed. J. Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1988), 2:373–374.

The particularity of redemption 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.

Thomas, The Atonement Controversy, 133. Footnote #24 in Thomas says Ibid., Vol. II [of Fullers' Works], pp. 516, 520.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB