SHCT 162 Chun - The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in The Theology of Andrew Fuller 2012 PDF

The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards
in the Theology of Andrew Fuller

Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions
General Editor
Robert J. Bast
Knoxville, Tennessee
In cooperation with
Henry Chadwick, Cambridge
Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee
Eric Saak, Liverpool
Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York
Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen
John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana
Founding Editor
Heiko A. Oberman
VOLUME 162
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/shct

The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards
in the Theology of Andrew Fuller
By
Chris Chun
Foreword by
Stephen R. Holmes
LEIDEN BOSTON
2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Chun, Chris.
The legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the theology of Andrew Fuller / by Chris Chun.
p. cm. -- (Studies in the history of Christian traditions, ISSN 1573-5664 ; v. 162)
Based on the authors thesis (Ph.D.)--University of St. Andrews, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 978-90-04-22784-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Edwards, Jonathan, 703-1758--Influence.
2. Fuller, Andrew, 1754-1815. 3. Baptists--Doctrines. I. Title.
BX7260.E3C54 2012
230.6--dc23
2012001240
ISSN 1573-5664
ISBN 978 90 04 22784 2 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 22785 9 (e-book)
Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by KoninklijkeBrillNV

provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS
Abbreviations ..............................................................................................ix
Chronology of Jonathan Edwards 17031758 ........................................xi
Chronology of Andrew Fuller 17541815 ............................................xiii
Foreword By Stephen R. Holmes .............................................................. xv
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................xix
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Overview of the Intended Course of the Investigation,
Its Method and Scope ........................................................................ 1
History of Edwardsean Scholarship to Date ....................................... 2
History of Fullerite Scholarship to Date.............................................. 5
1. Edwards on the Will ............................................................................10

1.1 Historical Background .................................................................10
1.1.1 Theological Climate of Enlightenment............................12
1.1.2 Historical Setting for Freedom of the Will .......................13
1.2 Thematic Textual Exposition of Freedom of the Will ...............14
Preface: Danger of Using Labels .................................................15
Part 1: Definition of the Will, Motives and Action ..............17
Part 2: Absurdity of Self-determination, Indifference
and Contingency ....................................................................20
Part 3: Natural, Moral Inability and Command,
Responsibility...........................................................................22
Part 4: Use of Means Response to the Arminian
Theologians Argument ...........................................................28
1.3 Recap of Freedom of the Will .......................................................31
2. Fullers Theological Indebtedness to Freedom of the Will ...............32

2.1. Historical Analysis .......................................................................32
2.1.1 Modern Question ...............................................................36
2.1.2 Northamptonshire Association ........................................38
2.2 Possible Sources Other than Freedom of the Will .....................39
2.3 Thematic Textual Exposition.......................................................45
2.3.1 Fullers Polemical Approach .............................................45
2.3.2 Fullers Metaphysics of Causality and
Volitional Freedom ............................................................46
2.3.3 Fuller on Natural and Moral Inability .............................50
vi contents
2.3.4 Philosophical Basis for Universal Offer of the

Gospel ..................................................................................58
2.3.5 Use of Means in Gospel Worthy ......................................61
2.4. Andrew Fuller as the Theological Father of the
Modern Missions ..........................................................................64
3. Fullers Missiological Optimism and Humble Attempt ...................66

3.1 Historical Analysis ........................................................................66
3.1.1 Providence of Humble Attempt.........................................67
3.1.2 Prayer Call of 1784 and the Humble
Attempt (1789) ....................................................................69
3.2. Eschatological Basis for Fullers Apocalyptic
Speculation ...................................................................................71
3.2.1 Comparing Edwardss and Fullers use of
Moses Lowman ...................................................................72
3.2.2 The Seven Seals ...................................................................73
3.2.3 Edwards on the Slaying of the Witnesses ......................76
3.2.4 Edwardss Influence on Fullers Exegesis of
Revelation 11.......................................................................78
3.3 Missiological Implications of the Optimism in
Humble Attempt ............................................................................80
3.4 Jonathan Edwardss Missiological Legacy..................................82
4. Edwards on the Affections ..................................................................84

4.1 Historical Background .................................................................84
4.2 Philosophical Background of the Sense of the Heart .............86
4.3 Thematic Textual Exposition of Edwardss
Pneumatological Epistemology...................................................92
4.3.1 Content: Theological Aesthetics in Religious
Affections..............................................................................93
4.3.2 Content: Edwardss Usage of Beauty in Religious
Affections..............................................................................94
4.3.3 Mode: Beauty, Sweetness, Sensible Knowledge,
and Understanding in Religious Affections......................96
4.3.4 Mode: A Divine Supernatural Light (1743) .....................98
4.3.5 Sensibility: The Role of Holy Spirit in the Sense
of the Heart of Religious Affections ...............................100
4.3.6 Sensibility: Personal Narrative (1722)............................105
4.4 The Sense of the Heart, Changeable Inclination, and
Connection to Holy Actions .....................................................107
contents vii
5. Fullers Theological Indebtedness to Religious Affections ..............110

5.1 Historical Background of Sandemanians ................................110
5.1.1 Sandemanianism in Scotland .........................................110
5.1.2 Fullers Disputes with Archibald Mclean ......................112
5.2 Thematic Textual Analysis of Influence of Religious
Affections on Fuller .....................................................................115
5.2.1 Appendix to the Second Edition of Gospel Worthy ...115
5.2.2 Strictures on Sandemanianism ........................................120
5.3 Effects of Religious Affections and Nature of True Virtue
in Fullers Thoughts ....................................................................132
5.4 Jonathan Edwardss Legacy in Fullers Conception of
Sense of the Heart, Changeable Inclination, Holy
Actions and their Connection to Moral Inability ...................139
6. Fullers View of Atonement and the New England

Theologians .........................................................................................142
6.1 The Controversy Between Fuller and Abraham Booth .........142
6.2 Recent Scholarship on Fullers Atonement and New
England Theology .......................................................................144
6.3 Edwardss Outlook on Grotianism and New England
Theology.......................................................................................148
6.4 Fuller and Joseph Bellamy .........................................................151
6.5 Fuller and Samuel Hopkins .......................................................155
6.6 Fuller, Edwards and Jonathan Edwards Jr. ..............................160
6.6.1 Edwards Jr. The Necessity of the Atonement and
the Consistency between that and free grace in
forgiveness: Three Sermons ...............................................161
6.6.2 Was Fullers Approach to the Atonement Nearer
to that of Edwards or Edwards Jr.? .................................164
6.7 The Nature of Atonement ..........................................................167
6.7.1 Edwards on the Nature of Atonement ...........................167
6.7.2 Fuller on the Nature of Atonement ................................170
6.8 The Extent of Atonement ...........................................................173
6.8.1 Edwards on the Extent of Atonement ...........................173
6.8.2 Fuller on the Extent of Atonement ................................176
7. Edwardss Influence on Fullers Conception of Justification

by Faith................................................................................................183
7.1 The Influence of Edwardss Interested Union in Fullers
Doctrine of Justification.............................................................185
viii contents
7.2 The Influence on Fuller of Edwardss Forensic

Justification and Figurative Imputation ...................................188
7.2.1 Edwardss Forensic Justification but Figurative
Imputation.........................................................................190
7.2.2 Fullers Forensic Justification but Figurative
Imputation.........................................................................192
7.3 Textual Analysis of Fullers Utilization of Edwardss
Sermon on Justification..............................................................193
7.3.1 Edwardss Quotation 1 .....................................................194
7.3.3 Fullers Utilization of Quotations 1 and 2 .....................195
7.3.5 Fullers Utilization of Quotation 3 .................................198
7.3.7 Fullers Utilization of Quotation 4 .................................203
7.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................204
7.5 Metaphorical Realism: Hermeneutics of Reading
Edwardss and Fullers Figurative Language ............................205
Conclusion: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the Theology

of Andrew Fuller ................................................................................209
Appendix: Fullers Access to Published Literature of Edwards

in Britain..............................................................................................215
Bibliography .............................................................................................223
I. Primary Sources .................................................................................223
a. The Writings of Jonathan Edwards ............................................223
b. The Writings of Andrew Fuller ..................................................223
c. Manuscripts and Pamphlets........................................................224
d. Other Sources Prior to the Twentieth Century........................224
II. Secondary Sources ............................................................................227
a. Monographs, Books and Booklets .............................................227
b. Journal Articles, Encyclopedia, Chapters in
Collected Works ...........................................................................230
c. Unpublished Theses, Dissertations, Papers ..............................237
Index of Names ........................................................................................239

Index of Terms .........................................................................................241
ABBREVIATIONS
WAF The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: With a

Memior of is Life by the Rev. Andrew Gunton Fuller, 3 vols
(Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1988)
WJE The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 26 vols. eds. Perry Miller,
John E. Smith, and Harry S. Stout (YUP, 19572008)
WJEEH The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols, ed. Edward
Hickman (BOT, 1974)
Journals and Series
ABQ American Baptist Quarterly

AHR America Historical Review
BHH Baptist History and Heritage
BQ Baptist Quarterly
CH Church History
CT Christianity Today
DBSJ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
EQ Evangelical Quarterly
Eusebeia The Bulletin of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies
FJ Founders Journal
FP Faith and Philosophy
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IBMR International Bulletin of Missionary Research
JER Journal of the Early Republic
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
NEQ The New England Quarterly
RHP Routledge History of Philosophy
RT Reformation Today
SBHT Studies in Baptist History and Thought
SBLT Studies in Baptist Life and Thought
SCHT Studies in Christian History and Thought
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SRTH Studies in Reformed Theology and History
TB Tyndale Bulletin
x abbreviations
TM Time Magazine
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review
WMQ William and Mary Quarterly
WTS Westminster Theological Journal
Publishers
BOT The Banner of Truth Trust

CCEL Christian Classics Ethereal Library
CLC Christian Literature Crusade
CUP Cambridge University Press
DAP Dunedin Academic Press
IUP Indiana University Press
IVP Inter Varsity Press
MUP Manchester University Press
OUP Oxford University Press
PSUP Pennsylvania State University Press
PTS Princeton Theological Seminary
PUP Princeton University Press
UCP University of California Press
UChP University of Chicago Press
UMP University of Massachusetts Press
UNCP University of North Carolina Press
UPA University Press of America
USCP University of South Carolina Press
UWP University of Wisconsin Press
WUP Wesleyan University Press
WJP Westminster John Knox Press
YUP Yale University Press
CHRONOLOGY OF JONATHAN EDWARDS 17031758
1703 Born in East Windsor, Connecticut

October 5
17161720 Undergraduate at Yale
1721 First intense religious experience
1726 Assisted Solomon Stoddard in Northampton Parish
1734 Preached A Divine and Supernatural Light
17341735 Northampton and Connecticut Valley Awakening
1737 Revival of international attention through A Faithful
Narrative
1738 Published Justification by Faith Alone
1740 Tour of New England by George Whitefield as a cata-
lyst for the Great Awakening
1741 Preached Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
1742 Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of
Religion in New England
1746 Published Religious Affections
1747 Published Humble Attempt
1749 Published Life of David Brainerd
1750 Dismissed from Northampton pastorate
1751 Settled in Stockbridge, Massachusetts as a mission-
ary to Indians
1754 Published Freedom of the Will
1755 Drafted The Nature of True Virtue and The End for
which God Created the World (Published posthu-
mously in 1765)
1758 Published Original Sin
1758 Installed as President of Princeton
Died following smallpox inoculation on March 22
CHRONOLOGY OF ANDREW FULLER 17541815
1754 Born in Wicken, Cambridgeshire

February 6
1761 Family moved to Soham
17691770 Experienced his conversion and baptized by his pas-
tor, John Eve
1775 Ordained as minister of Soham Baptist Church
Soham congregation joined Northamptonshire
Association
1777 First read the writings of Edwards in the form of
Freedom of the Will
1780 Read Religious Affections
1783 Inducted as pastor of the Particular Baptist church at
Kettering
1784 Read Humble Attempt
Issued Prayer Call of 1784
Preached The Nature and Importance of Walking by
Faith
1785 Published The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation
Read Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone
1787 Disputations with William Button, John Martin and
Dan Taylor began
1792 Carey published An Enquiry into the Obligations of
Christians to Use Means
Fuller appointed as secretary of the newly formed
Baptist Missionary Society (BMS)
Published The Calvinistic and Socinians Systems
Examined
1796 Disputations with Abraham Booth began
1798 Honorary D.D. from Princeton
1799 Published The Christian Doctrine of Rewards
First of five visits to Scotland on behalf of BMS
Disputations with Archibald Mclean began
1800 Published The Gospel Its Own Witness
1801 Published the second edition of The Gospel Worthy
of All Acceptation with Appendix
xiv chronology of andrew fuller 17541815
1802 Published The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement

1803 Composed Six Letters To Dr. Ryland Respecting the
Controversy with the Rev. A. Booth and Three
Conversations on Imputation, Substitution and
Particular Redemption
1805 Honorary D.D. from Yale
1806 Abraham Booth died in London on January 27
1810 Published Strictures on Sandemanianism in Twelve
Letters to a Friend
1815 Published Exposition of the Apocalypse
Died at Kettering on May 8
FOREWORD
Andrew Fuller has a high place in the history of the Baptist movement.
As he came to faith, the Particular Baptist denomination in Britain
was in danger of disappearing into an ultra-orthodox irrelevance,
many parts of it so fascinated with charting every twist of the labyrinth
of Calvinist practical theology that the Evangelical Revival was in dan-
ger of passing it by. Fuller is credited with writing the textThe Gospel
Worthy of All Acceptationthat enabled Baptists to become Evangeli-
cals, confident in the gospel and active in its service, instead of just
endlessly analytic and paralyzed. The greatest fruit of the Evangelical
Calvinist movementa movement that quickly became known as
Fullerismwas the foundation, in 1792, of the Baptist Missionary
Society, and with it the modern missionary movement. If William
Carey is rightly to be credited with the initial vision, and honoured as
one of the first missionaries, Fuller was the necessary home support,
tirelessly raising funds to enable the work to continue and grow.
Fullerism was not a short-lived movement, however. Its greatest
exponent was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, whose translation of Fullers
evangelical Calvinism into the vernacular of working class London
was so powerful that his sermons were published across the world, and
he became recognised as one of the dozen or so leading figures of
Victorian Britain. It is not an exaggeration to say that all mainstream
Baptists in Britain today are descendants, theologically, of Andrew
Fuller: whilst a few churches that deny (in the manner of the more
populous American Primitive Baptist tradition) the teaching of duty-
faith can be found, and whilst the present Baptist Union of Great
Britain found space in its ranks for evangelical Arminians from the
New Connexion and not just Fullerite Calvinists, the core of the tradi-
tion is the churches that came to believe as Fuller taught.
It will not be news to students of Baptist history that Fuller found
the ideas that enabled him to develop his new theologynotably the
distinction between moral and natural inabilitythrough reading
the American Congregationalist Jonathan Edwards. Fuller is open
concerning his debt, and honest about the extent of it. That said, the
details of the storywhen Fuller read this or that work of Edwardss;
the extent of Edwardss influence on Fuller; the question of whether
xvi foreword
Fuller slavishly followed, or brought something original to the develop-

menthave never been properly examined however. It is to Chris
Chuns great credit that, in this monograph, he has taken on this work.
The reasons for the previous failure are not difficult to determine:
Edwardss corpus is voluminous and theologically taxing; tracing
Fullers reading in it is not easy; adequately discounting alternative
sources demands a wide knowledge of eighteenth-century Baptist life.
If the question was an obvious one to ask, it was equally obvious that to
answer it well would require a rare combination of theological acumen
and detailed historical knowledge. There are many ways to get pub-
lished, even within academic theology, that are simply easier, if also less
worthwhile. Chun, however, brings both admirable theological ability
and historical knowledge in abundance to the task, and succeeds admi-
rably in it. He knows Edwardss thought as well as he knows Fullers,
and knows where both differ from their surrounding context. The
reader of this volume will not find simplistic assumptions that a coin-
cidence of views must demonstrate influence, but subtle, measured,
and convincing arguments based on a thorough evaluation of the
details of the data available.
To offer only one example of the point, consider the exegetical mate-
rial found in both Edwards and Fuller on the slaying of the witnesses
in Rev. 11. An earlier generation of scholarship would have hurried
past the point in both writers, seeing the attempt to read predictive
prophecy out of the Apocalypse as something embarrassing, to be qui-
etly ignored. We are not so dismissive today, but Chun does far more
than simply note a shared interpretation; he knows the exegetical tradi-
tion sufficiently well to be able to demonstrate that Edwards and Fuller
are in a tiny minority on this point, and so is able to suggest that here
we find a plausible candidate for direct influence from Edwards to
Fuller, not just because they agree, but because they agree in the face of
overwhelming disagreement. He further understands that, however
embarrassing later writers would find such exegesis, it was genuinely
important for establishing the ideas that led to the birth of the mission-
ary movement: here we have a part of the causal background for a
major moment in history, demonstrated through careful and thorough
scholarship.
That said, Chuns account is not merely a dry genetic analysis, even if
such would have been immensely valuable in itself. Fuller is less stud-
ied than Edwards, and in his reading of Fuller Chun gives us an account
that at every turn will illuminate issues and open up new questions.
foreword xvii
This book will not just interest, but excite, scholars of Fullers thought,
and indeed scholars of wider Baptist traditions, in its perceptive explo-
rations of arguments and traditions of thought. Edwards has been end-
lessly picked over by recent scholarship, but even here Chun displays
an ability to narrate in brief compass the genius and the centre of
Edwardss concerns. To take, again, just one example, the debate with
the Sandemanians is not so central a historical moment as the develop-
ment of the missionary movement, but is of genuine interest to schol-
ars of Baptist, and wider evangelical, church history; Chun illuminates
the context of Fullers engagement with these Glasite Baptists (the rais-
ing of funds for the mission), the theological contours of the debate,
and the ways in which Fuller drew on Edwards for his arguments.
Historical theology, as a discipline, is out of fashion: church histori-
ans have, with only a few exceptions, turned their attentions to social,
cultural, and even economic historyall are valuable, but that is not to
say that the history of ideas is notand theologians seem generally
impatient of the careful scholarly work needed to do history well. We
should be grateful to Chris Chun, not just for the excellence of his work
in this book, but for the timely reminder that patient and detailed his-
torical work, coupled with a perceptive theological insight, can pro-
duce results that are not just worthy in scholarly terms, but important
for wider narratives, and fascinating in themselves.
Stephen R. Holmes
Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology
St. Marys College, University of St. Andrews
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book had its genesis as my 2008 Ph.D. dissertation at the University
of St. Andrews. In completing this research, I owe a debt of gratitude to
my doctoral supervisor, Stephen Holmes. His keen interest in my topic
and the countless ways in which he made himself available with helpful
feedback and various reference letters made this project a successful
endeavor. I am also gratefully indebted to Paul Lim, my Th.M. thesis
advisor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 2004, who
encouraged me to convert this study into a monograph. Without Pauls
helpful, caring, andat timestough suggestions for a high standard
of scholarship, the quality of this book could have been compromised.
I am obliged to Peter Morden for the thoughtful conversations we
had during my research trip to Fuller Baptist Church in Kettering,
England and for his hosting me as well. My time at Beinecke Library at
Yale University was enhanced by my conversations with Ken Minkema,
and I also would like to thank Ken for allowing me to share my findings
at the Jonathan Edwards in Europe conference held at the Karoli Gaspar
University in Budapest, Hungary, and at the Jonathan Edwards and
Scotland conference held as part of the Scottish Homecoming Year at
the University of Glasgow. On a similar note, I am grateful to Michael
Haykin for giving me the opportunity to participate in the conferences
Andrew Fuller, the Reader as well as Baptists and the Cross, which were
held at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.
I also want to thank David Bebbington for accepting my paper for the
International Conference on Baptist Studies in Nova Scotia, Canada.
These conferences gave me the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas
with other academics currently active in the fields of Edwardsean and
Fullerite scholarship.
I am indebted to Doug Sweeney, Gerry McDermott, John Piper, Tom
Nettles, Paul Brewster, Anthony Cross, and Oliver Crisp for their stim-
ulating conversations, helpful correspondence, and e-mails. My friend-
ships with Darren Schmidt, Jonathan Yeager, and Allen Yeh also served
as valuable platforms from which to test my ideas.
I am thankful to Sue Mills, a former archivist of Angus Library
in Oxford University, who photocopied and mailed items that I left
behind during my visits, and also to Judy Powles, librarian at Spurgeons
xx acknowledgements
College in London, who kindly helped me to collect many of the Baptist

materials that were utilized. Similarly, I thank Jason Fowler, Special
Collections Librarian at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for
permitting me to use an embargoed photograph of an archival artifact
that was used in this book.
After my years in the quaint scenery in St. Andrews, Scotland,
I found myself teaching Church History on yet another charming
campus that sits just a few miles from the Golden Gate Bridge, with a
beautiful panoramic view of the Bay and San Francisco. As it turns out,
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminarys congenial and collegial
atmosphere is a conducive environment for further historical and
theological reflections. To that end, I would like to acknowledge a
number of my colleagues who took interest in this publication. I extend
my thanks to John Shouse, Tim Wiarda, Rick Durst, Earl Waggoner,
Dwight Honeycutt, Mary Harmon, Mike Martin, and Jeff Iorg. My
research assistant for 20112012, Steve Reynolds, must be thanked for
preparing the index of this book.
I am grateful to two of the most important mentors in my life, David
Ross and Gary Parrett, for I know I would not be where I am today
were it not for their wise counsel. Special thanks also to my mother for
her constant prayers throughout this research project.
There were many times when my two daughters, Karis and Chloe,
were unable to be with their dad as much as they wanted because in
giving my undivided attention to this project, I was obliged to under-
take research, attend conferences, and make trips away. Thank you my
little ones for being so patient with daddy.
Finally, I thank my dear wife Juliann, who stood with me faithfully
through thick and thin in the life of a doctoral student studying
abroad. As a loving mother, she sacrifices much to take care of two
young children, and being the supportive wife that she is, Juliann com-
pletely freed me to focus on my research, writing, and teaching. I can
truly say that I could not be more blessed than in having her as my
partner throughout this journey. In many ways, this book is not some-
thing for which I alone ought to be credited; it is something that we
have achieved together by Sola gratia. Juliann, as a small token of my
appreciation, this work is dedicated to you.
Chris Chun
October, 2011
Mill Valley, CA, USA
INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Intended Course of the Investigation,

Its Method and Scope
For decades historians and theologians have claimed that Jonathan

Edwards was a significant influence on Andrew Fuller, yet the amount
of scholarly attention given to such influence has been insignificant.
This study will hence position itself in the transatlantic, early modern
period and the attempts of Edwards and Fuller to express a coherent
understanding of traditional dogma within the context of the Enlighten-
ment. The scope of the research will trace the extent of Fullers
theological indebtedness to Edwards. This will be achieved through a
historical reconstruction and thematic textual expositions of specific
Edwardsean ideas as utilized by Fuller in developing evangelicalCalvin-
ism in the context of eighteenth and nineteenth century British Baptist
life. Moreover, a comparative analysis of Fullers theological positions
will be given in those places where correlative inferences have been
drawn with other historical figures by the secondary literature. The
entire fabric of the monograph will be sown throughout with relevant
theological and philosophical axioms and their implications. The pur-
pose of the discussion to be conducted in this study is, therefore, an
attempt to determine the extent to which Edwards had an impact upon
Fullers thought.
The remainder of the introduction will provide historical overview
of recent Edwardsean and Fullerite scholarship to date. In chapter 1 we
will thematically analyze those passages in Freedom of the Will that
establish the metaphysical underpinning for Fullers evangelical
Calvinism. Fullers polemical defense against the Hyper-Calvinists and
Arminians in England will be discussed in chapter 2, and in the course
of that discussion we will consider his usage of natural and moral
inability and use of means in the same treatise. Chapter 3 will exam-
ine the impact of Humble Attempts upon Fullers optimistic eschatol-
ogy and its effect on the Modern Missionary Movement. In chapter 4
we will primarily consider Religious Affections, and underscore the
pneumatological epistemology found in the conception of the Sense of
2 introduction
the Heart. Chapter 5 will trace Fullers theological indebtedness to

Religious Affections by directing particular focus on his dispute with
Sandemanianism in Scotland. Chapter 6 will consider Fullers conten-
tious position on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and com-
pare it with that of the New England Theologians and Jonathan
Edwards. As a continuation of this discussion, particular attention will
be given in chapter 7 to the doctrines of justification and imputation as
well as addressing the issue of theological language and metaphor as
used by Edwards and Fuller. Lastly, the conclusion will summarize a
comprehensive appraisal that evaluates the extent of the theological
influence of Edwards on Fuller.
History of Edwardsean Scholarship to Date
October 5, 2003, marked the tercentennial of the birth of Jonathan

Edwards. Since the publication of Perry Millers intellectual biography
in 1949, there has been a rediscovery of Edwards in North America and
Britain.1 Today, exhaustive reading of secondary sources in the field
of Edwards is virtually an impossible endeavor.2 The most significant
sources contributing to contemporary Edwardsean scholarship are
those from the Yale University Press edition of The Works of Jonathan
Edwards.3 These volumes incorporate previously published and unpub-
lished writings from Edwardss manuscripts with the editors critical
introductory essays. Miller served as general editor until 1963. His suc-
cessor, John E. Smith, served until 1991, when general editorship then
passed to Harry Stout.4 In 2010, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online
launched a digital archive of all of Edwardss writings, which amounts
to 73 volumes. Prior to this Yale University archive, scholars and gen-
eral readers had to rely on nineteenth century editions and reprints,
most notably the edition of Edward Hickman reproduced by the
Banner of Truth.5
1
For a historical survey of Edwards since Millers work, see Donald Weber, The
Recovery of Jonathan Edwards, in Jonathan Edwards and American Experience, eds.
Nathan Hatch and Harry Stout (Oxford: OUP, 1988), 5070.
2
Minkema has tried to give an overview of what has been done and provides a use-
ful table. See Kenneth Minkema, Jonathan Edwards in the Twentieth Century, JETS
47, no. 4 (December 2004): 661662.
3
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 26 vols. (Yale, 19572008). Henceforth abbrevi-
ated as: WJE.
4
See History of the Yale Edition, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, http://www
.yale.edu/wje/html/works_of_the_yale_edition.html (accessed on January 12, 2006).
5
The edition (2 vols, London, 1834), henceforth abbreviated as: WJEEH.
introduction 3
There are numerous interpretations of Edwardss writings, often-

times contradictory in their opinions. In the view of some, Edwards is
a saint, and their treatments approach in hagiography6 while others
see him as a dreadful intellectual who preached hell, fire and brim-
stone.7 Edwards is perceived as philosopher,8 theologian,9 scientist,10
6
Harold Simonson, Jonathan Edwards: Theologian of the Heart (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974); Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Carlisle: BOT,
1987).
7
Oliver Holmes wrote, It is impossible that people of ordinary sensibilities should
have listened to his torturing discourse without becoming sick of hearing of infinite
horrors see Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jonathan Edwards in The Works of Oliver
Wendell Homes, vol. 8, Pages from an Old Volume of Life: A Collection of Essays, 1857
1881 (Boston, 1892), 393. For a more recent interpretation regarding this, see Jonathan
Kvanvig, Jonathan Edwards on Hell, 111 and William Wainwright Jonathan
Edwards and the Doctrine of Hell, 1326, in Jonathan Edwards Philosophical Theologian
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003); see also, Stephen Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory:
An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 199
272. Cf. John Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell (Morgan: Soli Deo
Gloria, 1999); Chris Morgan, Jonathan Edwards and Hell (Glasgow: Mentor, 2004).
8
Miller saw Edwards as Lockean. See Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York:
William Sloane Associates, 1949), 5267. Many followed Millers line of interpreting
Edwards. See Peter Gay, A Loss of Mastery: Puritan Historians in Colonial America
(Berkeley: UCP, 1966); Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan
Edwards to John Dewy (New Haven: YUP, 1985). However, the consensus about Millers
overstatement concerning the influence of Locke on Edwards has been questioned by
Cherry, Wainwright, Delattre and Erdt. See, Conrad Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan
Edwards: A Reappraisal (Bloomington: IUP, 1990); William Wainwright, Jonathan
Edwards and the Sense of the Heart, FP 7 (1990): 46; Roland Delattre, Beauty and
Sensibility in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards: An Essay in Aesthetics and Theological
Ethic (New Haven: YUP, 1968), 3; Terrence Erdt, Jonathan Edwards: Art and the Sense
of the Heart (Amherst: UMP, 1980), 20.
9
There appears to be three general approaches in interpreting Edwards as theolo-
gian. Lee, Guelzo and McDermott primarily read Edwards as a philosophical theolo-
gian. See Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New Jersey:
PUP, 1988); Allen Guelzo, Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological
Debate (Middletown: WUP, 1989). Gerald McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the
Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths (Oxford:
OUP, 2000). Where as Cherry, Jenson and Holmeswhile keeping their academic
focusinterpret Edwards in scholastic and sometime Barthian Calvinism. See Cherry,
Reappraisal; Robert Jenson, Americans Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan
Edwards (New York: OUP, 1988); Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (New
York: OUP, 1999); Holmes, God of Grace. Helpful collections of essays that overlap
between the two approaches are Paul Helm, Oliver Crisp, eds., Jonathan Edwards:
Philosophical Theologian (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). John Gerstner, John Piper, and
R.C. Sproul made Edwards accessible to the church in their presentation of his corpus
as a traditional reformed theologian and pastor. See John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical
Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Orlando: Ligonier, 1991); John Piper, Gods
Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998);
John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990); R.C.
Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).
10
See Wallace Anderson, Editors Introduction in Scientific and Philosophical
Writings, WJE 6:3752.
4 introduction
apologist,11 revivalist12 and a leader of a contemporary charismatic

movement.13 Edwardss theology of the aesthetic has been celebrated,14
and his views on freedom,15 sin,16 and soteriological missiology17 have
11
See Stephen Nichols, Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics
of Jonathan Edwards (Phillipsburg: P&P, 2003); Michael McClymond, Encounters with
God: An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: OUP, 1998).
12
Helen Westra, Divinitys Design: Edwards and the History of the Work of
Revival, in Edwards in Our Time: Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American
Religion, eds. Sang Hyun Lee and Allen Guelzo (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 131
157; Amy Lang, A Flood of Error: Chauncy and Edwards in the Great Awakening, in
American Experience, 160173; John E. Smith, Testing the Spirits: Jonathan Edwards
and the Religious Affections, USQR, 37, no. 1/2 (1981): 2737; Richard Lovelace,
Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove: IVP, 1979); Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Jonathan
Edwards and the Crucial Importance of Revival, in The Puritans: Their Origins and
Successors (Edinburgh: BOT), 348371.
13
Contemporary charismatic movements such as the Toronto Blessing have
employed Edwards as their spokesman to justify some of their charismatic manifesta-
tions. Chevreau argues that Edwards would have undoubtedly supported the Toronto
Airport Vineyard. See Guy Chevreau, Catch the Fire: The Toronto Blessing An Experi-
ence of Renewal and Revival (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1995). Grudem also acknowl-
edges and demonstrates that many of the attacks on John Wimber are based on careless
work and amateurish analysis. See Wayne Grudem in James Beverley, Torontos Mixed
Blessing, CT 39, no. 10 (September 11, 1995): 25. On the other hand, John MacArthur
argues that Edwards would be appalled by the Toronto Blessing. See John MacArthur,
Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway Books,
1994), 163. Cf. Wendy Porter, The Worship of the Toronto Blessing? in The Toronto
Blessing - or Is It?, ed. Stanley Porter, Philip Richter (London: Darton, Longman and
Todd Ltd, 1995). See also, Philip Craig And the Prophecy Shall Cease Jonathan
Edwards on the Cessation of the Gift of Prophecy, WTJ 63 (2002): 163184; Michael
Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Webster: Evangelical Press, 2005).
14
Delattre, Beauty and Sensibility; Erdt, Art and the Sense of the Heart. Louis
Mitchell, Jonathan Edwards on the Experience of Beauty, vol. 9, SRTH (Princeton:
Princeton Theological Seminary, 2003).
15
Paul Ramsey, Editors Introduction in Freedom of the Will, in WJE; Hugh
McCann, Edwards on Free Will, in Philosophical Theologian, 2743; Stephen Holmes,
Strange Voices: Edwards on the Will, in Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 86107; Guelzo, Edwards on the Will;
Leon Chai, Jonathan Edwards and the Limits of Enlightenment Philosophy (New York:
OUP, 1998); Sproul, Willing to Believe; Sam Storms, The Will: Fettered Yet Free:
Freedom of Will, in A God-Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan
Edwards, eds. John Piper and Justin Taylor (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004); Mark Noll,
Jonathan Edwardss Freedom of the Will Abroad in Jonathan Edwards at 300: Essays
on the Tercentenary of His Birth eds. Harry Stout, Kenneth Minkema, Caleb Maskell
(Lanham: UPA, 2005), 89108.
16
K. Scott Oliphint, Jonathan Edwards on Apologetics Reason and the Noetic
Effects of Sin, in The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards: American Religion and the Evangelical
Tradition, eds. D.G. Hart, Sean Lucas, Stephen Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003);
Oliver Crisp, Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).
17
See John Bombaro, Jonathan Edwardss Vision of Salvation, WTJ 65 (2003):
4567; Anri Morimoto, Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation
(University Park: PSUP, 1995); Andrew Walls, Missions and Historical Memory:
introduction 5
been examined from various perspectives18 as well as the renowned

theocentric lifestyle that derives from his theology.
The diversity of opinions arises precisely because there are diverse
aspects within his corpus. The differing philosophical environments at
that timedifferent regions (i.e., England, Scotland, and American
New England)influenced Edwardss writings. Moreover, he was also
exposed to different areas of learning such as mathematics, geography,
natural science, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, and scripture as well as The
Westminster Confessions and other theological teachings. Edwardss
exposure to such academic disciplines may, perhaps, account for the
diversity depicted within his corpus. If this is so, what, then, is sug-
gested by the wide acceptance of his work in current scholarship? If the
works of Edwards were simply regarded as great among a few like-
minded groups of scholars for a short window of time, then we would
not regard them as being so impressive. However, the works have won
admirers from across different theological spectrums throughout the
centuries. Accordingly, the current diversity in Edwardsean scholar-
ship suggests the significance of Edwardss work not only for the eigh-
teenth century but for our time as well.
History of Fullerite Scholarship to Date
In comparison to the depth of Edwardsean scholarship, the secondary

sources for Andrew Fuller are, however, more limited. In fact, attaining
Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd, and Stuart Piggin, The Expanding Knowledge
of God: Jonathan Edwardss Influence on Missionary Thinking and Promotion, in
Jonathan Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Cultural Movements, Global Hori-
zons, eds. David Kling and Douglas Sweeney (Columbia: USCP, 2003); Ronald Davies,
Jonathan Edwards: Missionary Biographer, Theologians, Strategist, Administrator,
Advocate-and Missionary, IBMR 21, no.2 (April 1997): 6067. Norman Pettit, Editors
Introduction, in The Life of David Brainerd, WJE; Norman Pettit, Prelude to Mission:
Brainerds Expulsion from Yale, NEQ 59 (March 1986): 2850; Joseph Conforti,
David Brainerd and the Nineteenth-Century Missionary Movement, JER 5 (Fall
1985): 309329; Joseph Conforti, Jonathan Edwardss Most Popular Work: The Life of
David Brainerd and Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Culture, CH 54 (June 1985):
188201.
18
Hatch and Stout, eds., American Experience (1988); Lee and Guezo, eds., Edwards
in Our Time (1999); Hart, Lucas, and Nichols eds., American Religion and the Evangelical
Tradition (2003); Kling and Sweeney, eds., Home and Abroad (2003); Helm and Crisp,
eds., Philosophical Theologian (2003); Piper and Taylor, eds., God Entranced Vision
(2004); Stout, Minkema and Maskell eds., Edwards at 300 (2005); Gerald McDermott
ed., Understanding Jonathan Edwards: Introducing Americas Theologian (New York:
OUP, 2009). Kenneth Minkema, Adriaan Neele and Kelly Van Andel eds., Jonathan
Edwards in Scotland (Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 2011).
6 introduction
a comprehensive understanding in this field can be accomplished

within a relatively short period of time. Michael Haykin, a general
editor of forthcoming critical edition of Fullers Works observes this
scholarly neglect when he says, C.H. Spurgeon once described Fuller
as the greatest theologian of his century. Yet, it is amazing that such an
important figure in the history of British Evangelicalism has been
largely overlooked by historians of this movement since Spurgeons
day.19
Although there are a number of journal articles,20 chapters in larger
books,21 and unpublished doctoral dissertations,22 few published
19
Michael Haykin, Back Cover, as quoted in Peter Morden, Offering Christ to the
World: Andrew Fuller (17541815) and the Revival of Eighteenth Century Particular
Baptist Life, vol. 8, SBHT (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003).
20
E.F. Clipsham, Andrew Fuller and Fullerism: A Study in Evangelical Calvinism,
BQ 20, no.14 (1967); 1. The Development of a Doctrine, 99114; 2. Fuller and John
Calvin, 14754; 3. The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, 21525; 4. Fuller as a
Theologian, 26976; A.H. Kirby, Andrew Fuller, Evangelical Calvinist, BQ 15, no.5
(January 1954): 195202; J. Milner, Andrew Fuller, RT 17 (JanuaryFebruary 1974):
1829; Tom Nettles, Andrew Fuller and Free Grace, RT 183 (January 1985): 614;
Tom Nettles, Why Andrew Fuller, RT 17 (January 1985): 35. Tom Nettles, Edwards
and His Impact on Baptists, FJ (Summer, 2003): 118; E.A. Payne, Andrew Fuller as
Letter Writer, BQ 15, no.7 (July 1954):290296; Michael Haykin, Andrew Fuller
[17541815] and the Free offer of the Gospel, RT 183 (SeptemberOctober 2001):
2932; Gerald Priest, Andrew Fullers Response to the Modern QuestionA
Reappraisal of the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, DBSJ 6 (Fall 2001): 4573; D.L.
Young, Andrew Fuller and the Modern Missionary Movement, BHH 17, no.4 (1982):
1727; Peter Morden, Andrew Fuller and the Baptist Mission Society, BQ 41, no.3
(2005): 134157; Chris Chun, A Mainspring of Missionary Thought: Andrew Fuller
on Natural and Moral Inability, ABQ, 25, no.4 (Winter, 2006): 335355; Chris Chun,
Sense of the Heart: Jonathan Edwardss Legacy in the Writing of Andrew Fuller,
Eusebeia: The Bulletin of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, 9 (Spring, 2008):
117134.
21
Gerald Priest, Andrew Fuller, Hyper-Calvinism, the Modern Question, 4373;
Curt Daniel, Andrew Fuller and Antinomianism, 7482; Clint Sheehan, Great and
Sovereign Grace: Fullers Defence of the Gospel against Arminianism, 83120;
Michael Haykin, The Oracles of God: Andrew Fullers Response to Deism, 122137;
Tom Nettles, Christianity Pure and Simple: Andrew Fullers Contest with Socinianism,
139173; Barry Howson, Andrew Fuller and Universalism, 174202; Robert Oliver,
Andrew Fuller and Abraham Booth, 203222; Michael Haykin, Andrew Fuller and
the Sandemanian Controversy, 223236 in At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew
Fuller as an Apologist, SBHT, vol. 6 ed. Michael Haykin, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004);
Peter Naylor, Andrew Fuller, in Calvinism, Communion and the Baptists: A Study of
English Calvinistic Baptists from the Late 1600s to the Early 1800s, SBHT, vol. 7 (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2003), 205217; Michael Haykin, Particular Redemption in the Writings
of Andrew Fuller, in The Gospel in the World, SBHT, vol. 1, ed. David Bebbington
(Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 107128; Michael Haykin, Eighteenth-Century Baptists
and the Political Realm, with Particular Reference to the Thought of Andrew Fuller, in
Recycling the Past or Researching History?, SBHT, vol. 8, eds. Philip Thompson, Anthony
Cross (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2005), 264278; Michael Haykin, Sutcliff s friends:
Andrew Fuller, in One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his Friends and his
introduction 7
book-length secondary treatments on Fuller exist solely in those from

recent decades.23 Among the monographs, Peter Mordens Offering
Christ to the World (2003) perhaps is the most carefully researched
work on the life of Fuller.24 Insofar as Fullers thoughts are concerned,
perhaps E.F. Clipsham did the most thoroughgoing theological treat-
ment in 1963, until the collected essays edited by Haykin in 2004
Times (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1994), 133152; Tom Nettles, On the Road Again,
in By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study
of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapid: Baker, 1986), 108130; Tom
Nettles, Introduction, in WAF. Phil Roberts, Andrew Fuller, in Baptist Theologians
eds., Timothy George and David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990),
121139. Alen Sell, The Gospel its own Witness: Deism, Thomas Paine and Andrew
Fuller, in Enlightenment, Ecumenism, Evangel, SCHT (Bletchley: Paternoster, 2005),
111143; Alen Sell, Andrew Fuller and the Socinians in Testimony and Tradition:
Studies in Reformed and Dissenting Thought (Aldershot : Ashgate, 2005), 119137;
Chris Chun, Alternative Viewpoint: Jonathan Edwardss Life and Career, in
Introduction to Americas Theologian (New York: OUP, 2009), 2936; The Legacy
of Jonathan Edwards: Eighteenth Century Catalysts for the Revivals among
Presbyterians and Baptists in Scotland, in Jonathan Edwards in Scotland, (Edinburgh:
DAP, 2011), 6374.
22
A.H. Kirby, The Theology of Andrew Fuller in its Relation to Calvinism (Ph.D.
thesis, Edinburgh University, 1956); Robert Oliver, The Emergence of a Strict and
Particular Baptist Community Among the English Calvinistic Baptist, 17701850
(D.Phil. thesis, CNNA, London Bible College, 1986); Thomas South, The Response of
Andrew Fuller to the Sandemanian View of Saving Faith (Th.D. thesis, Mid-America
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993); D.L.Young, The Place of Andrew Fuller in the
Developing Modern Missions Movement (D.Phil. thesis, Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1981); Tom Ascol, The Doctrine of Grace: A Critical Analysis
of Federalism in the Theologies of John Gill and Andrew Fuller (Ph.D. thesis,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989); Paul Brewster, Andrew Fuller
(17541815): Model Baptist Pastor-Theologian (Ph.D. thesis, Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2007); Bart Box, Atonement in the thought of Andrew Fuller
(Ph.D. thesis, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009).
23
Morden, Offering Christ; Haykin, ed., Pure Fountain; George Ella, Law and Gospel:
in the Theology of Andrew Fuller (Eggleston: Go Publications, 1996). Most recently, Paul
Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model PastorTheologian, SBLT (Nashville: B&H Academic,
2010); A. Chadwick Mauldin, Fullerism as Opposed to Calvinism: A Historical and
Theological Comparison of the Missiology of Andrew Fuller and John Calvin (Eugene:
Wipf & Stock, 2011).
24
See also, Gilbert Laws, Andrew Fuller: Pastor, Theologians, Ropeholder (London:
Kingsgate Press, 1942)this monograph is not within the last decade, but it is still
worthy of a browse in Fuller studies. Biographies from Fullers days are helpful sources,
but accessibilities are very limited since they are not available via inter-library loan. To
add to this hurdle, various commentators in the Fullerite field use different editions, in
which page numbers do not correspond with one another. For example, Sheehan used
the 1816 edition of Rylands The Work of Faith whereas Morden employed the 1818
edition. See John Ryland Jr., The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love and the Patience of
Hope Illustrated in the Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller (London: Button
and Son, 1816, 1818). See also, J.W. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev.
Andrew Fuller (London: Wrightman and Cramp, 1826); Andrew Gunton Fuller, Men
Worth Remembering: Andrew Fuller (London: Hadder and Stoughton, 1882).
8 introduction
recently superseded it.25 Even so, his account of Edwardss theological

influence on Fuller cannot be seen as in-depth. It is no wonder David
Bebbington writes, An evangelical version of Calvinism [i.e. Edward-
sean Calvinism is] most thoroughly expounded by the outstanding but
largely neglected theologian Andrew Fuller.26
Nonetheless, there has been a recent resurgence of interest in Fuller
by the evangelical Baptists in North America and Britain.27 The most
notable evidence of this is the current undertaking to reproduce the
modern critical editions of the entire corpus of Andrew Fullers work.
This project, perhaps estimated to be completed in 2015, is expected to
comprise at least fifteen volumes. However, the majority of the primary
sources for this book will utilize the nineteenth century American edi-
tion as republished by Sprinkle Publications.28 Although the Sprinkle
edition suffers from shortcomings such as an incomplete collection of
Fullers work, small font size and lack of critical annotation, it is none-
theless the edition currently being relied upon by most scholars since
the critical edition is presently unavailable.
25
In Pure Fountain, the contributors depicted Fuller as an apologist against Hyper-
Calvinism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, Deism, Socinianism, Universalism and
Sandemanianism.
26
David Bebbington, The Gospel in the World: International Baptist Studies, vol. 1,
SBHT (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 6.
27
Through the Founders Journal and recent initiatives in Calvinistic Baptist life
taken by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminaryalong with other SBC seminar-
ies in North America and the SBC Founders movementinterest in Fuller has been
revitalized. In Britain, the Paternoster Press, through their new series on Studies in
Baptist History and Thought, has published some outstanding scholarly resources cov-
ering all facets of Baptist history and theology. In the series thus far, volumes 1, 6, 7, 8
and 11 include material on Fuller. The Reformation Today magazine, which adheres to
London Confession of Faith (1689), also contains helpful journal articles on Fuller. Most
recent monographs authored by Brewster and Mauldin published through B&H
Academic (2010) and Wipf & Stock (2011) further indicate these ongoing interests in
Fullerite scholarship.
28
The Complete Works of the Rev Andrew Fuller: With a Memoir of his Life by the Rev.
Andrew Gunton Fuller, 3 vols, (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1988). Henceforth,
it will be abbreviated as: WAF. This book utilizes other extracted writings of Fuller
from: Ryland Jr., The Work of Faith; Morris, Memoirs of the Life; J.W. Morris, Memoirs;
Miscellaneous Pieces: On Various Religious Subjects (London: Parternoster Row, 1826).
It also employs various Fullers Mss. from Angus Library at Oxford University; Beinecke
Rare Books and Manuscripts at Yale University; Heritage Room at Fuller Baptist
Church, Kettering. There are two more recent editions: Michael Haykin, ed., The
Armies of the Lamb: The Spirituality of Andrew Fuller, (Dundas: Joshua Press, 2001),
The Banner of Truth has released one volume nineteenth century American edition
Fullers corpus. Michael Haykin ed., The Works of Andrew Fuller, (Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth, 2007).
introduction 9
Overall, the secondary literature on Fuller is limited, especially com-

pared to that of Edwards, but the sources that deal with Fullers thought
are even fewer than those dealing with his life, since a thoroughly
researched intellectual biography on the life of Fuller has been pro-
duced by Morden. However, the critical analysis of Fullers thought,
especially as it relates to the theology of Edwards, remains shallowa
scholarly lacuna which this study will attempt to fill.
CHAPTER ONE
EDWARDS ON THE WILL
The nature of moral inability, as distinguished from natural: where it was

observed, that a man may then be said to be morally unable to do a thing,
when he is under the influence or prevalence of a contrary inclination, or
has want of inclination, under such circumstances and views.1
Jonathan Edwards
1.1 Historical Background
Debates over freedom and determinism were not new to Jonathan

Edwards. The history of Christendom locates the episode of Augustines
stress on human depravity in juxtaposition with that of Pelagius
who, in the fifth century, championed the necessity for moral account-
ability as an inherent attribute of freedom.2 The debates between Martin
Luther and Desiderius Erasmus in the sixteenth century contributed
further disputation to the issue and its relationship to the gospel.3
Then, in the seventeenth century, the verdict of the Synod of Dort
against the successors of Arminius was systemized through confes-
sional discussions on the subject.4 The challenge in the eighteenth
1
Freedom of the Will, WJE, 1:305
2
Pelagius argued that human nature was good and did not believe in the doctrine
of original sin. See Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: UCP, 1969), 340352.
See also Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings, vol. 5, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
(New York: CLC, 1887). Prior to the fifth century there were some who contested
determinist position such as Origen, Jerome, and others although not to the extent to
which the Pelagian controversy impacted upon this historical debate.
3
Erasmus was a composed and eloquent scholar but Luther, on the other hand, was
very fiery and often affronted Erasmus. For instance, in response to Erasmus Diatribe
seu collatio de libero arbitrio (Discussion, or Collation, concerning free will) Luther
wrote, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for
having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and
I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne
about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should he
carried in vessels of gold and silver. Martin Luther, De Servo Arbitrio On the Enslaved
Will (Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2005), 7.
4
Following the death of Arminius, his views were further developed by Simon
Episcopius, whose ideas were rejected at the Synod of Dort (1619). See James Arminius,
edwards on the will 11
century was however, centered on the way in which the issue of divine
sovereignty related to evangelism as expressed by George Whitefield
and John Wesley.5 Yet amongst all the voices from the theological deter-
minist camps throughout ecclesiastical history, the line of reasoning by
Edwards in Freedom of the Will is considered by many to be the finest
articulation against the libertarian notion of freedom.6 If it was not the
greatest Calvinistic defense against Arminianism, then at least it was
clearly considered so in the mind of Andrew Fuller when he described
Freedom of the Will as a book which has been justly said to go further
toward settling the main points in controversy between the Calvinists
and Arminians, than any thing that has been wrote.7 As George
Marsden points out, for at least a century after its publication, Freedom
of the Will had an enormous influence in America and Britain.
Although it was not as widely read as David Brainerd and not appeal-
ing to as broad a range of evangelicals as Religious Affections, Edwards
The Work of James Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); Philip Schaff, Henry
B. Smith, eds., The Canons of Synod of Dort in The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant
Churches (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877), 2:550597.
5
On April 29, 1739 Wesley delivered his controversial sermon entitled, Free Grace
Upon contemplating the publication of this sermon, on June 25, 1739, Whitefield
wrote to Wesley, I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestina-
tion. It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy? If
people ask me my opinion, what shall I do? It is noised abroad already, that there is
a division between you and me. Oh, my heart within me is grieved George
Whitefield, Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley (1740), http://
www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm (accessed on Feb. 27, 2006). Despite Whitefields
earnest plea to avoid the controversy of predestination, Wesley published this sermon
in 1741. In the face of these sharp theological disagreements between the two, even as
they went their separate ways, their friendships remained intact. This was most clearly
demonstrated in the sermon Wesley preached at Whitefields funeral. cf. Wesley, The
Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford (London: The Epworth Press,
1931). See also Wesley, Free Grace Sermons on Several Occasions (New York: Carlton &
Lanahan, 186-?), 482490. Coppege suggests one major factor that contributed to this
controversy was Wesleys reading of John Gill, a prominent Hyper-Calvinist figure
whom Fuller dealt with along with Joseph Hussey, John Skepp, Richard Davis, Lewis
Wayman, and John Brine. According to Coppege, it was toward the Hyper-Calvinists
and their doctrines that Wesley primarily spoke against when he preached Free
Grace. For historical and theological details, see Allan Coppege, John Wesley in
Theological Debate (Wilmore: Wesley Heritage, 1987).
6
Ramsey has observed that in surveying the history of ideas, even the most
advanced philosophy of the determinist school does not vary much in recent times
from that which Edwards articulated three hundred years ago. See Ramsey, Editors
Introduction, WJE, 1:11.
7
Andrew Fuller, The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation (Northampton:
T. Dicey, 1785), 192 in Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Henceforth Gospel
Worthy (1st ed.).
12 chapter one
on the Will became a staple of Calvinist theology.8 With this perspec-

tive in mind, our attention turns to the prevailing historical, cultural,
and theological climate of Edwardss day, and then moves into the tex-
tual exposition of the study.
1.1.1 Theological Climate of Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment that began in the late seventeenth century
and continued into the eighteenth is often regarded as being synony-
mous with the Age of Reason.9 Irrespective of the descriptor, it is com-
monly seen as the era in which the cultural ethos of the intellectual elite
emerged from a long period of irrationality and superstition into a
more progressive and receptive world. In What is Enlightenment?
(1784), Immanuel Kant defines the era as follows:
Enlightenment is mans release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is
mans inability to make uses of his understanding without direction from
another. Self-incurred is the tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of
reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction
from another. Sapere aude! [Dare to know!] Have courage to use your
own reason!that is the motto of enlightenment.10
The Enlightenment stressed a progressive maturation though reason11
and scientific12 discoveries that challenged tradition and revelation.
8
George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: YUP, 2003), 446.
9
McGrath argued that the interchangeability of these two terms is misleading since
it implies that the reason had largely been ignored in the Middle Ages or the Dark
Ages, which certainly was not the case. The key difference, however, was in the man-
ner in which reason was used between these two eras. Yet, the strong emphasis placed
upon the ability of human reasoning to solve the universal mystery can be considered
as characteristic of the Enlightenment. See Alister McGrath, Historical Theology: An
Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 220221.
10
Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? (1784), in The Enlightenment: A Sour-
cebook and Reader, ed. Paul Hyland (London: Routledge, 2003), 54.
11
Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism were two main traditions for
managing the use of reason in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For instance,
the rationalists, Rene Descartes emphasized that innate human reasoning is the source
of all knowledge, whereas, the empiricists such as John Locke rejected the possibility of
the innateness of ideas because he believed ideas transpire from the external world and
are then communicated through the human sense of perception. Kant began as a tra-
ditional rationalist, but through the influence of David Humes empiricism, attempted
the synthesis of classical rationalism with empiricism.
12
Scientists and mathematicians such as Blaise Pascal and, most notably, Isaac
Newton, created an environment where physical, scientific and logical deduction alone
was seen as the important standard for the validation of truth. This led to disillusion-
ment with what Christianity had to offer. See R.K. Webb The Emergence of Rational
The influence of the new ideologies on the politics, economics, social,

and artistic achievements of the era are incalculable,13 and far beyond
the scope of this research. Nonetheless, an aspect of theological disci-
pline during the era of the Enlightenment is worthy of note, since this
was the context wherein Edwards and Fuller attempted to formulate a
traditional notion of Calvinism; one that was compatible with the most
advanced thinking of their time that was becoming increasingly hostile
to tradition and revelation. With the dawning of such an intellectual
epoch of enlightened reasoning, many considered it necessary to legiti-
matize scripture. An increasing number of theological disciplines
became reliant on a philosophical approach that placed rational argu-
ment on an equal footing with that of revelation.14 Edwards was not
excluded from the intellectual norms of his day. Although he did not step
into the arena of those intellectuals who made reason the equal of, or
superior to the authority of scripture,15 he, at the same time, was an avid
proponent of reason and scripture being in complete harmony.16 It was
precisely these points that Edwards was attempting to demonstrate in
Freedom of the Will. Hence, to remove Edwards from the context of the
eighteenth century context would be an anachronistic reading of him.17
1.1.2 Historical Setting for Freedom of the Will

Subsequent to a bitter wrangle over the qualifications for church mem-
bership and the controversy concerning the Lords Supper, Edwards
Dissent, Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain,

ed. Knud Haakonssen (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), 1241.
13
Helpful chronological charts of the significant publications, events in the spheres
of politics, religion, the arts, science, technology, and philosophy from 1620 to 1800
can be found in Stuart Brown, ed., British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment,
vol. 5 RHP (London: Routledge 1996), xiixliii.
14
See Bengt Hagglund, History of Theology, trans. Gene Lund (St. Louis: Concordia,
1968), 339.
15
Helm wrote, if Edwards had been asked to rank Scripture, reason, and experi-
ence in order of importance for theology, he would undoubtedly have ranked Scripture
first. Paul Helm, The Great Christian Doctrine (Original Sin), in God Entranced
Vision, 177.
16
See Marsden, A Life, 5981. See also Gerstner, Rational Biblical Theology, 1:
94113.
17
Holmes has critiqued Lees interpretive methodology, which has become a stan-
dard for Edwardsean reading. Holmess assessment is critical of Lees rendering of dis-
positional ontology for inadequately considering the historical and theological con-
texts of Edwards when he writes, Lee pays great attention to Edwardss text, but little
to his context. See Stephen Holmes, Does Edwards Use a Dispositional Ontology? in
Philosophical Theologian, 100, cf. Lee, Philosophical Theology.
14 chapter one
was dismissed from his Northampton Parish in 1750. As consequence,

the Edwards family had to countenance for the first time the region
beyond their hometown. Although Edwards was invited to minister to
parishes in Scotland and Virginia, he declined both offers and accepted
a position as pastor and missionary to the Housatanic Indians in
Stockbridge, Massachusetts. It was there that he began the jottings that
led to the composition of the various treatises that secured his reputa-
tion as the greatest theologian ever born on American soil.
At the beginning of the Seven Years Wars in 1754, Stockbridge under-
went several Indian raids during which colonists were taken captive and
slaughtered. To safeguard the family from a similar tragedy, Edwardss
house was quartered and defensive ramparts established by soldiers.
Kenneth Minkema describes this era as of Edwardss life as, living in
daily fear of attack, and made preparations to evacuate his family. It is
therefore interesting to note that at the precise time these events were
occurring Edwards was writing what is probably his most renowned
work, Freedom of the Will.18 Thus, such pressing conditions account
for why it only took a half year to compose this celebrated treatise.
1.2 Thematic Textual Exposition19 of Freedom of the Will
The purpose of the exposition contained in this and the following

chapters is not to provide a comprehensive coverage of Edwardss cor-
pus nor to provide a full account of Fullers theology, but rather to
highlight aspects that may useful in appraising Fullers theological
indebtedness to Edwards. Hence the primary concern is to identify
Edwardsean ideas, methods and language within Fullers writing to
determine the extent to which Fuller is accurately interpreting Edwards.
To accomplish this end and ensure succinctness, I will not deal exhaus-
tively with Fullers polemical primary sources in their detailed histori-
cal context,20 but will place the principal focus upon Fullers usage
18
Kenneth Minkema, Jonathan Edwardss Life and Career Jonathan Edwards in
Europe Conference, sponsored by Yale University. Delivered at the Karoli Gaspar
University, Budapest, Hungary (May 8, 2007), 5.
19
Throughout the entire monograph, the single quotation mark will be used in gen-
eral to indicate technical terms. The double quotation will be used to indicate direct
quotes from the text, and italics will be used to indicate my emphasis as well as original
textual underscoring.
20
Morden has already contributed in this area in Offering Christ. For the debates
with Button and Martin, see 5563; with Taylor 6368.
of Edwardsean concepts within those polemical debates. While the

exposition will follow the structures of Edwardss original divisions in
Freedom of the Will, Fullers usage of Edwardsean ideas within each
part will be treated in a thematic fashion.
Preface: Danger of Using Labels

Shortly after leaving his pastorate in Northampton, Edwards published
Freedom of the Will (1754). As the full title21 of this composition puts
forward, he wrote it in response to the modern prevailing notions22
which makes the treatise a polemical work in its genre. However, before
Edwards engaged his theological opponents, it is intriguing to see the
kind of spirit in which he framed his arguments. The Preface can be
easily overlooked as an insignificant part of Freedom of the Will, yet it
contains much wise counsel and attitudes of mind as to the manner in
which one ought to express a polemical idea. Before Edwards launches
into one of the most sophisticated arguments against Arminian
theological framework, he identifies some of the dangers in such an
undertaking:
Many find much fault with the calling professing Christians, that differ
one from another in some matters of opinion, by distinct names; espe-
cially calling them by the names of particular men, who have distin-
guished themselves as maintainers and promoters of those opinions: as
the calling some professing Christians Arminians, from Arminius; oth-
ers Arians, from Arius; other Socinians, and the like.23
Edwards concurs with the problems associated with finding fault and
the labeling of Christians who maintain different views because when
a label becomes linked to a specific person it becomes marked out by
these names. Therefore just as the followers of Christ are called
21
A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of That Freedom
of Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and
Punishment, Praise and Blame.
22
One of Edwardss polemical antagonists who maintained the prevailing notions
was Daniel Whitby, an Arminian minister in the Church of England, who wrote trea-
tises against Calvinism in Discourse on the Five Points (1710). In addition to Freedom
of the Will, Whitbys Unitarian propensities were also rigorously opposed by an influ-
ential Baptist theologian, John Gill, in The Cause of God and Truth (1735). Two other
significant polemicists were Thomas Chubb, an English deist, and Isaac Watts, a famous
hymn-writer, who was theologically closer to Edwards than other opponents. For more
information, see Ramsey, Editors Introduction, WJE, 1:65118.
23
FW, WJE, 1:129.
16 chapter one
Christians after his name, the founder of such movement becomes

their Head and Rule, and this would be unjust and groundless impu-
tation.24 In Edwardss view, a person labeled as Arminian does not nec-
essarily mean that person believes what Arminius taught nor does it
mean Arminius actually caused this individual to believe certain
things. The label is nothing more than a suggestion that the person and
Arminius could share similar views on certain issues. Thus, the label-
ing often created needless emphasis on the differences, and hides the
agreements between the two camps, which may well have arisen from
certain uncharitableness towards those who vary in religious opin-
ions.25 Accordingly, Edwards argued that, odious names make
unnecessary a wide distinction between themselves and others, stig-
matize those that differ from them.26
Hence, having articulated his full agreement with objections to the
widespread misusages that accompany such labeling, Edwards none-
theless acknowledged and affirms that distinguishing persons of dif-
ferent opinions in religious matters, may not imply, nor infer any more
than there is a difference in such cases, to be obliged to make use of
a description, instead of a name.27 Despite such legitimacy for the use
of descriptive labels, it is interesting to note that Edwards still considers
their non-use: I had thoughts of carefully avoiding the use of the
appellation Arminian in this treatise, but as soon as he attempted to
do this, he found that the discourse would be so encumbered with an
often repeated circumlocution, instead of a name 28 As a result, since
labels are indispensable shortcuts for Edwards, he finally decides, with
a fair amount of reluctance, to use labels as descriptors for his ideas.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., 130.
26
Ibid., 129130. Cf. Fullers modern critic Ella often uses labels in a manner which
Edwards cautions against: Baptists of all kinds and even Independents and
Presbyterians are once again leaving the old Biblical paths for Fullers mixture of
Grotianism, Chandlerism, New Divinity teaching and Socinianism. It is astonishing to
find professedly Reformed magazines such as Reformation Today, Banner of Truth and
Evangelical Times now opening their pages to full-blown Fullerite propaganda George
Ella, The Atonement in Evangelical Thought: Part IV, http://www.evangelica.de/The
_Atonement_IV.htm (accessed on February 15, 2006).
In other places Ella wrote: a deviation from the witness of the Bible has resulted in
the clear teaching of Particular Baptist John Gill being rejected for the syncretism of
Andrew Fuller who succeeded in combining Arminianism, Baxterism, Latitudi-
narianism and Socinianism and presenting it as the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation
Ella, John Gill and his Successors, http://grace-for-today.com/559.htm (accessed on
February 15, 2006).
27
FW, 1:130.
28
Ibid., 131.
As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, it is intriguing to

note how closely Fullers polemical method parallels Edwardss own
approach. Just as Edwards had reservations associated with labeling,
Fuller likewise showed a similar hesitation, especially when addressing
the Arminians since it can create unnecessary distinction between
polemical opponents.
Part 1: Definition of the Will, Motives and Action

In finding it necessary to vindicate the rather unfortunate need for
clarification on the definition of the will, Edwards begins Part 1, sec-
tion 1 in a witty manner by writing that philosophers and metaphysi-
cians have complicated the matter into obscurity. Had it not been for
the overtly complex conceptions assigned by these philosophers, there
is no great need of going about to define since the definition of the
will for Edwards is a very basic concept:
The will (without any metaphysical refining) is plainly, that by which the
mind chooses anything more perfect definition of the will, to say, that
is they by which the soul either chooses or refuses 29
The will for Edwards is nothing more than a medium that the human
mind or soul applies to choose, or to express one preference over
another. He then quotes Essay Concerning Human Understanding to
contrast how John Lockes view of desire and will is different from his
own view. For Locke, The will is perfectly distinguished from desire30
which means that the human agent may desire one thing, yet choose
another, thus will and desire may therefore run contrary to one another.
However, according to Edwards, a man never, in any instance, wills
anything contrary to his desires, or desires anything contrary to his
will.31 This is the precise point Fuller also affirmed when he wrote, No
one can conceive of a power of voluntarily acting against the prevailing
inclination, for the thing itself is a contradiction.32
At any rate, on the surface, Lockes proposition appears to be plau-
sible, since one can give an account of such a principle from a dailyexpe-
rience. Suppose Jill made a New Year resolution to lose weight (desire),
but when she went to a birthday party, the host offered a chocolate cake
29
Ibid., 137.
30
Ibid., 139.
31
Ibid.
32
The Free Agency of Man, WAF, 2:657.
18 chapter one
to eat (an opportunity to choose) and so she ate the cake (an exercise
of her volition). Here is a case where Lockes principleappears to work
since Jill has apparently chosen against her desire thereby putting
Edwards and Fuller in a rather precarious situation. Nevertheless, the
proper Edwardsean notions of desire, will, and inclination avoid
this conundrum. In the case of Jill, her New Year resolution was a gen-
eral desire, and the act of eating of the cake was a particular exercise
of her volition. However, when Edwards argues, a man never, in
any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires he is referring to a
particular desire for that specific action in an individual instance at
the precise point in time when the act of volition is being exercised. It
is true that Jill has chosen against her general desire to lose weight, but
this is because when she was faced with an opportunity to choose,
her particular desire to eat that cake at that specific moment exceeded
her general desire to lose the weight. Therefore, Jill has not chosen
in contradiction of her particular desire at that moment but rather,
has exercised her will according to the strongest motive at that
moment.
In Edwardsean logic, this is not to say that Jill would not regret her
decision soon after eating the cake, but at that specific moment she
exercised her volition according to what she most wanted. In short, on
the matter of nature of the will, the general desire and particular act of
volition may not always concur, yet the particular desire and the par-
ticular choices are always in accord. For this reason, as we will see,
acting against the prevailing inclination for Fuller is none other than
a contradiction.33
Having defined the will, Edwards continues his discussion concern-
ing the determination of the will. The will is determined by the stron-
gest motive in the mind at a specific moment. Nonetheless, this is not
to suggest that there is always one single motive determining the will
to act, and it is certainly possible for the human agent to have multiple
motives. Edwards therefore defines motive as the following:
By motive, I mean the whole of that which moves, excites or invites the
mind to volition, whether that be one thing singly, or many things con-
junctly. Many particular things may concur and unite their strength to
induce the mind; and when it is so, all together are as it were one complex
motive.34
33
Ibid.
34
FW, 1:141.
Edwards further clarifies this by saying that, the strongest motive, is

the strength of the whole that operates to induce to a particular act of
volition, which could be the strength of one thing alone or of many
together.35
To illustrate this principle, again consider the case of Jill eating the
cake during her diet. The example given earlier would fall into the cat-
egory of the single strongest motive at that particular moment. How-
ever, it can just as easily be modified to fit many things that, once
united, develop a strength that may become a much more complex
motive. Suppose this chocolate cake was not just an ordinary cake, but
it was her favorite kind; a dark, rich, German chocolate cake. It was just
the type that her grandmother used to make when she was a child.
Since she skipped her breakfast for that morning, Jill also was very
hungry on that particular day and the people around her were eating
and telling Jill how wonderful the cake was. All these variables com-
bined to exceed Jills desire to lose weight at that particular moment.
But, what if Jill did not eat the cake? This means Jill must have had an
even stronger motive in the opposite direction to counter the act of eat-
ing. Perhaps the reason behind wanting to lose weight was the fact that
she was a severe diabetic patient. Lets say, Jills recent visit to the medi-
cal doctor may have indicated that her production of the hormone
insulin was not regulating her blood glucose level, a potentially life
threatening condition. In this scenario, Jill resisted eating the cake
because her desire to live longer exceeded all other previous contrary
motives. Each of these factors coalesced to produce what Edwards
would describe as the strongest motive where will and volitional
action inevitably follow. Thus, the act of the will for Edwards is utterly
predetermined by the causal condition of the agent, whether it is attrib-
utable to personality, character, upbringing, genetic inheritance, exter-
nal circumstances, and life experience, and so on. The true freedom
is, according to Edwards, just as Holmes puts it: the ability to be the
person you are, nothing more complex or abstruse than that.36 In Part
2, Edwards argues that the will is determined by causal conditioning
that leads to the strongest motive in the mind at a specific moment.37
35
Ibid.
36
Holmes, Strange Voices, in Listening, 105.
37
Rather than arguing from the basis of divine decree (with an exception at the
conclusion), this is the main ground for Edwardss argument in this treatise for predes-
tination. See, FW, 1:434.
20 chapter one
The Arminian account of freedom leads to illogicality because it denies

this principle.
Part 2: Absurdity of Self-determination, Indifference and

Contingency
Part 2 is Edwardss reductio ad absurdum to prove that if the Arminian
account of freedom is true, then its logical conclusion will lead to
absurdity. Before proceeding with this argument, Edwards frames the
object of Arminian fallacies at the end of Part 1 in the following
manner:
What has been said may be sufficient to shew what is meant by liberty
as used by Arminians, Pelagians and others, who oppose the Calvinist,
has an entirely different signification.38
He then lists three characteristics of freedom possessed by the Armin-
ian notion. First, it has, self-determining power of will, or a certain
sovereignty that the will has over itself, and its own act. This means the
will is able to determine itself. Second, it argues that indifference
belongs to liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind previous to the
act of volition. The agent is therefore able to choose even though there
are no strong motives upon which volition is based. Third, the Arminian
tenet on freedom asserts, contingence is opposed to all necessity
and unless the will of man is free in this sense he has no real freedom.
In other words, in order to have freedom the agent must be able to
choose without any causal connection to a previous ground.39 In
short, according to the Arminian framework the qualification for true
freedom comprises self-determination, indifference and contingency.40
According to Edwards, it is illogical for Arminians to argue that an
agent can make such choices without a causal connection to a previous
ground since Arminians speak as though the choices are without cause.
The choice is whatever an agent chooses, without a causal relationship
to past, present or future. However, Edwards argues that in order for
this type of choice to occur, the choice has to be made in a state of pure
indifference. This would mean that volition must arise without any
background motivation; nothing at the moment of choice, and no
causal motive in the foreground of the mind when such a choice is
38
FW, 1:164.
39
Ibid., 164165.
40
See Ibid., 171273.
made. Thus, according to Edwardss observation of the Arminian

notion of an act of the will, the choices are then an uncaused entity.
Speaking from a philosophical perspective, Hugh McCann, who thinks
compatibilism and Edwards are on the wrong track41 but nevertheless
admits:
Edwardss objections to the libertarian concepts of agent causation are,
I think, well taken. I know of no way to make it plausible that we can
confer existence on our own act of will. And as long as their existence is
not brought under the direct power of God as creator, I know of no
way to preserve a thoroughgoing conception of divine sovereignty and
omniscience.42
John Gerstner summarizes Part 2 as if choice is by self-determination,
from a condition of being indifferent in a contingent or uncaused
sequencehis definition of Arminianismthen, choice would never
occur43 since they preclude the means of volition. The absurdity of
Arminian logic is quite simple for Edwards. If no means exist to influ-
ence choice then there would be no choice at all.
Prior to plunging into natural and moral inability in the following
segment, and since this is the issue with which Fuller was most con-
cerned, it is worthwhile examining the last two sections44 of part 3 for
the theological implications behind objections to self-determination,
indifference and contingency in the context of evangelism. One of
the chief bases for this prevailing notion is the idea that Calvinism
would nullify true moral action since in order to have a genuine rela-
tionship with Christ (to use evangelistic terms), a person must be able
to choose Christ in a state of an indifferencea neutral state. In con-
trast, Edwards contends the exact opposite reasoning for the same
claim. He argues that if an agent brings about choice without any back-
ground factor, or if the will is engaged in volition without the power of
attraction as a strong motive, then there would be no genuine relation-
ship with Christ.
Suppose Jack is attempting to choose Christ from a state of absolute
indifference, in other words, to choose Christ without any background
factor, and Jim is attempting to evangelize Jack. To follow the Arminian
logic, this would be an immoral thing for Jim to do since he is thereby
41
McCann, Edwards on Free Will, in Philosophical Theologian, 40.
42
Ibid., 37.
43
Gerstner, Rational, 2:180.
44
FW, 1:320333.
22 chapter one
attempting to influence Jacks free will.45 In order for Jack to make a

true choice; that is to say, make a choice from a position of total
indifference or a neutral state, Jim ought not influence Jack with any
strong motives (e.g., attraction of salvation, fear of damnation and so
on), otherwise Jim would be guilty of impinging upon Jacks freedom
to make such a choice. In order for the Edwardsean rendering of
Arminian logic to work, Jack would have to make his decision in a
vacuum, one where choices are made without any causal relationship
to previous groundsan impossible condition for Edwards.46 However,
for the sake of argument, if Jack does make such a choice based on
indifference and chooses Christ, Edwardsean logic would argue that
no genuine relationship with Christ has been cultivated and there-
foretrue morality has been nullified. The reason for such scandal in
true virtue is because the action has been transpired by a motive that is
completely indifferent and arbitrary in its nature. In other words, if
Jack makes a self-determined choice in a state of indifferencewithout
causal contingency or other preceding or proceeding factorsthis
would not be considered a moral action since the volition involved
in choosing Christ in such a case would be completely arbitrary.
Hence, the choice would be neither worthy of praise nor blame.
Edwards turns the tables back on the prevailing notion by charging
Arminians with the very same indictment that has been made against
Calvinism.47
Part 3: Natural, Moral Inability and Command, Responsibility

In its contribution to Fullers evangelical Calvinism, Part 3 of the Free-
dom of the Will is one of the most significant parts of the Edwardsean
corpus. There are two lengthy sections in this treatise where Edwards
concentrates on natural and moral inability although this notion is
scattered throughout its entirety. Part 1, section 4, gives the fundamen-
tal definition of these concepts but, more importantly, in Part 3,
sections 3 and 4, Edwards provides a full explanation of how natural
45
It is immoral since Jim would be portrayed as providing Jack with an antecedent
to the strong motive, in which case it would no longer be free choice in the Arminian
sense. To some degree, although not entirely since it is not dealing with natural neces-
sity, what Jim is doing contributes to that which Edwards described as constraint and
restraint. See FW, 1:164.
46
FW, 1:320.
47
Ibid., 323327.
and moral inability relate to the divine imperative. Fuller, of course,

applies these concepts as one of his crucial arguments in the Gospel
Worthy of All Acceptation. The lengthy discussion regarding the extent
of this influence and the careful analysis of Fullers use of the Edwardsean
notion of natural and moral inability will be considered in next chap-
ter. However, in order to proceed with this undertaking, a solid com-
prehension of Edwardsean rendering is necessary.
According to the Arminian theological framework, the conception
of a divine requirement of obedience in areas within which humans
are unable to comply is absurd since it adheres to a concept whereby
freedom requires the will to be free to qualify as the justifiable reward
and punishment. For Edwards, the seeming discrepancy exists because
Arminians do not allow for any difference between natural and moral
inability.48 After having made assertions that God and Jesus are inca-
pable of sinning yet still worthy of being praised, and that fallen
humanity is unable not to sin yet is blameworthy for their sins, Edwards
gives three further cumulative rationales as to why the divine com-
mand is consistent with the moral inability of the human agent. First,
Edwards asserts, the will itself and not only those actions which are
the effects of the will, is the proper object of precept or command.49
The object of such command for Edwards is none other than the will.
In other words, the commands are directed at the will.
Let us suppose that Jill gives the following command to Jack, kick
that ball to me. What this command actually implies is that Jack is to
make a choice in his mind to cause his body to function in a manner
that first, requires him to elevate his leg and, second, kick the ball in the
direction where Jill is standing. This process, however, is not a case of
Jill giving a direct command to Jacks leg but rather, is an order directed
at the will. Edwards defines obedience as the submitting and yielding
of the will of one, to the will of another,50 whereas disobedience is, not
consenting, not complying of the will of the commanded to the mani-
fested will of the commander.51
The second proposition deals with the entity that comprises
moral inability. According to Edwards, the very fact that opposition to
the will exists within the thing being commanded implies a moral
48
Ibid., 302.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
24 chapter one
inability to that thing.52 This means that whenever a command requires

the act of the will, and if the agent who is receiving the command fails
to act according to that requirement due to his will being inclined to
the opposite bearing, then the agent is morally unable to obey that
command.53 For Edwards this unableness of moral inability is just as
debilitating as the natural one, and indicated when he writes that
moral necessity may be as absolute, as natural necessity, effect may be
as perfectly connected with its moral cause as a naturally necessary
effect with its natural cause.54 To gain full comprehension of how this
moral inability and the strongest motive functions in the process of
requiring and commanding, careful analysis of the following statement
would be helpful:
The nature of moral inability, as distinguished from natural: where it was
observed, that a man may then be said to be morally unable to do a thing,
when he is under the influence or prevalence of a contrary inclination, or
has a want of inclination will is always, and in every individual act,
necessarily determined by the strongest motive; and so is always unable to
go against the motive 55
According to this definition, the clear implication is such that every
instance of disobedience is one of moral inability. Yet natural inability
would not be considered disobedience or at least it would be measured
as excusable disobedience. Edwards describes natural inability as aris-
ing from the want of natural capacity, or external hindrance (which
alone is properly called inability) without doubt wholly excuses of
command.56
In terms of natural capacity let us consider that Jill orders Jack to
pick up the rubbish, but he did not want to act upon that command
because Jacks strongest motive at that moment was for him to stay
put on the sofa. In Edwardsean terms, Jack was morally unable to go
against his strongest motive. Therefore the situation resulted in the
state of disobedience. However, had Jack been paralyzed from a car
accident and thereby lost all ability to move his muscles, this would be
an instance of natural inability since this may be an instance of
what Jack would do, if Jack could do it. Insofar as external hindrance is
52
Ibid., 305.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid., 157.
55
Ibid., 305, italics mine.
56
concerned, were Jill to be incarcerated she would have a natural inabil-

ity to leave that prison.57 Furthermore, degrees of natural inability may
vary, greater in some instances than others.58
Suppose another injured person exists who is named Jim. Unlike
Jack, Jim did not lose all ability, but lost most of his ability to move his
muscles. Jim is still physically incapable of picking up that rubbish yet
Jim is viewed as being naturally closer to picking up the rubbish than is
Jack. In other words, Jim has lesser degrees of natural inability than
does Jack. The same logic also applies in the realm of moral inability.
Even though every instance of disobedience is one of moral inability,
Edwards distinguishes that which is habitual from the occasional.59
This division within the concept of moral inability was first intro-
duced in Part 1, section 4, where Edwards defined numerous terms. To
illustrate the point, Edwards gave five examples of the strong habit of
virtue against a great degree of habitual wickedness.60 An honorable
woman has a moral inability to prostitute herself and a loving child also
has a moral inability to kill his father. The same reasoning in reverse
positions the drinker on a course where, he becomes intoxicated
because he is morally unable to restrain himself from taking that strong
drink. When a lascivious man is situated in a place of sexual tempta-
tion, he is morally unable to forego his lust.61 Lastly, a malicious man
has a moral inability to extend an act of kindness to his enemy. Each of
these examples illustrates what Edwards classifies as a habitual moral
inability, which is inability in the heart to all exercises or acts of will
of that nature or kind, through a fixed habitual inclination.62 It is a
strong and settled habit.63 In short, it is the inability of the agent to
57
Edwards described this as: constraint is a persons being necessitated to do a
thing contrary to his will. See FW, 1:164.
58
FW, 1:307.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid., 160.
61
Nevertheless, according to Edwards, natural man can abstain from outwards grat-
ification of lust through his natural ability. a man Can abstain from the outw.
Gratifications of his Lusts. the Inclinations & Principles of the Heart are not may not be
in his Power but his outw. behaviour. wherein the voluntary motions and acts of the
body are Concernd they are in a mans Power. a man may not be able to help the Being
of a Lust in his heart & may not be Able to hinder the Internal motions of it so but that
it will Excercise it self in some measure But yet y he Can avoid the outw. Gratifications
of it. Unpublished MS sermon of Eccl.9:10 (2) (December, 1733). Quoted with per-
mission by the courtesy of Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale Divinity School.
62
FW, 1:160.
63
Ibid., 307.
26 chapter one
make certain choices because it is contrary to the agents extremely

powerful inclination or stronger motive. Edwards then juxtaposed this
with an occasional moral inability, which is an inability in the will
or heart to a particular act, through the strength or defect present
motive on this occasion.64 These two concepts imply that it would
be harder for a person who has been habitually drunk for ten years to
stay sober than it would be for someone who has been drunk for only
ten days. The person with a background of ten years of habitual drunk-
enness would have a greater extent of moral inability than the person
who has been drunk for ten days. Just as Jim has a lesser degree of natu-
ral inability than Jack to pick up the rubbish, a person with occasional
moral inability has a lesser degree of inability than a person with habit-
ual moral inability. Nonetheless, for Edwards, every occurrence of dis-
obedience in volition is a moral inability of some sort.
The third schema that Edwards offers is somewhat multifaceted but
is nonetheless an extremely crucial component in Fullers universal
offer of the gospel and thus worthy of careful attention:
Though the opposition of the will itself, or the very want of will to a thing
commanded, implies a moral inability to that thing; yet, if it be as has
been already shown, that the being of good state or act of will, is a thing
most properly required by command; then, in some cases, such a state or
act of will may properly be required, which at present is not, and which
may also be wanting after it is commanded. And therefore, those things
may properly be commanded, for which men have a moral inability for.65
In order to comprehend this paragraph, the cumulative application of
previously defined terms such as, will, strongest motive, multiple
motives, occasional and habitual moral inability ought to be in view,
which is to say that these ideas should be functioning as hermeneutical
lenses. According to Edwardsean terms, having the opposite will to a
thing being commanded entails the existence of moral inability to keep
that command. Moreover, he has argued that the commands are
directed to the will. Therefore, if being of good state or act of will is
what is being commanded, then in some cases the command is suc-
cessful in engaging the will, which inevitably produces the act of obedi-
ence. However, prior to the command being given, the reciprocity
agent of that imperative does not choose consistent with the command
64
Ibid., 160.
65
since he did not possess a strong enough motive to choose otherwise.

Yet, there still exists a metaphysical possibility of change in the disposi-
tional inclination, and it is through that possibility, after the command,
that a change may be effected in the strong motive of the agent. This
alteration may occur because the new inclination that comes from this
imperative contributes to multiple motives which beget one strong
complex motive that determines the final outcome of the obedient voli-
tion. Edwards carefully qualifies this as being in some cases since the
outcome is largely dependent upon how effectively the stronger motive
may overcome the occasional or habitual moral inability. The more
closely a particular act of volition is bonded to that of habitual moral
inability, the greater the degree of strong motive for the command at
that specific point is required in order to override the contrary inclina-
tion to disobey. On the other hand, in the instance of occasional moral
inability, lesser degrees of strong motive will be necessary for the agent.
Hence, even though the agent may possess moral inability (whether
occasional, habitual or anything in between), Edwards asserts those
things may properly be commanded, for which men have a moral
inability. Having established this premise, he further explains the
notion in relation to excuses and disobedience:
If merely that inability will excuse disobedience, which is implied in the
opposition or defect of inclination, remaining after the command is
exhibited, then wickedness always carries that in it which excuses it.66
According to Edwards, and despite moral inability, not only should
the command be properly given but if moral inability excuses
disobedienceas his Arminian opponents suggestedthen there
can be no such act of disobedience since the very concept of disobedi-
ence entails the inability of the agent to navigate his will in choosing
the will of the commander. Taking into account that for Edwards every
instance of disobedience is one of moral inability, if disobedience to
any given command is excused by moral inability then disobedience is
an impossible concept to attain.
Consequently, if these three principal Edwardsean arguments are
sound, then moral inability alone never renders anything improp-
erly the subject matter of precept or command. Moreover, it never
can excuse any person in disobedience to a command.67 For example,
66
Ibid., 309.
67
Ibid.
28 chapter one
if a mother tells her child, eat the broccoli on your dinner plate, know-
ing full well that her child will refuse, then the fact of the childs moral
inability to eat does not warrant him disobeying his mother, nor does
it invalidate the command given to the child. By the same reasoning,
the agents unwillingness due to moral inability to obey the command
neither excuses the disobedience nor invalidates the nature of the
moral imperative. This is precisely what the Arminian tenets found so
difficult to accept as a true proposition, and why they argued it was
absurd to suppose God by his command should require that of men
which they are unable to do.68 Nevertheless, Edwards identifies the
predicament in which the Arminian objection finds itself, which is not
allowing in this case for any difference that there is between natural
and moral inability.69 As will be demonstrated in next chapter, this
idea was central to Fullers thoughts and he used its logic in answering
the Modern Question.
Part 4: Use of Means Response to the Arminian Theologians

Argument
After having thoroughly cross-examined the Arminian indictment,
which has been charged against Calvinism, Edwards then raises in Part
4 the argument in favor of the Arminian view. If readers of Freedom of
the Will were persuaded by Edwardss arguments in Parts 1 through 3,
then Part 4 would not be necessary, but in case of dissatisfaction with
the arguments presented to that point, Edwards attempted to do justice
to Arminianism by quoting extensively from the Arminian theological
corpus. Again, for the sake of brevity, and especially since a fair amount
involves reworking of ideas already covered, this study will only high-
light those objections that are most relevant to Fuller.
Perhaps one of the weighty and certainly most common objections
of the Arminians against Calvinism is that it turns human agents into
robots or puppets. In other words, Calvinism makes human choices
into fatalistic accounts,70 for without the Arminian view of freedom,
striving towards noble behavior is a useless endeavor.71 Hence,
Calvinism promotes licentiousness.72 The logical inference is therefore
68
Ibid., 302.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., 372.
71
Ibid., 365.
72
Ibid., 420.
to the general effect that if the future is previously determined from

all eternity, then nothing can be attained through an agents choice.
Whether the agent is obedient to God or not would make no differ-
ence whatsoever to the outcome since the future has been already
determined. Thus, there are no needs for which the agent should strive
to attain obedience since if the agent is predetermined to obey God,
then he will obey; if he is predetermined to disobey, then he will
disobey.
Edwardss responses to these objections are quite skillful. First, he
begins his answer to the objection concerning no need for striving or
endeavor is useless by granting a concession:
For endeavors to be in vain first, that although the means are used, yet
the event aimed at dont follow secondly, if the event does follow, it is
not because of the means, from any connection or dependence of the
event on the means, the event would have come to pass, as well without
the means, as with them.73
In establishing these two premises, Edwards is ensuring the necessary
connection between the cause and effects, antecedent and consequent
or means and end. He therefore asserts, If either of these two things
are the case, then the means are not properly successful, and are truly
in vain.74 However, he continues to reason, If there be such a con-
nection as this between means and end, the means are not in vain and
then adds, the more there is of such a connection, further they are
from being in vain but the less of such connection, the more are they
in vain.75 And since Edwards believes absolute connections exist
between means and end, he contends:
Endeavor which we use belong to the general chain of events; all the
parts of which chain are supposed to be connected; and so endeavors are
supposed to be connected with some effects or consequent 76
Therefore, according to Edwards, the necessary connection does not,
as Arminian thinking presumes, eliminate means in accusing Calvinism
as fatalism, but such connection does make the means effective in the
causal chain of events. He writes it is so ridiculous, as to say, that a
connection between antecedents and consequents stands in the way to
73
Ibid., 365.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid., 366.
76
Ibid.
30 chapter one
hinder a connection.77 Nevertheless, the establishment of the neces-

sary connection alone does not remove Arminian objections in rela-
tion to striving or endeavoring, since it is conceivable that the necessary
connection can be held and, at the same time, invites the question that
if the future is determined, why should an agent strive to obey; why not
simply indulge in sloth and sin? In his answer to this objection, Edwards
gives an illustration that is a pointer to the inherent contradiction
within it:
If he says within himself, What future happiness or misery I shall have,
is already in effect determined by the necessary course and connection of
this; therefore I will save myself the trouble of labor and diligence, which
cant add to my determined degree of happiness, or diminish my misery;
but I will take my ease, and will enjoy the comfort of sloth and negli-
gence. Such a man contradicts himself: he says, the measure of his future
happiness and misery is already fixed, and he wont try to diminish the
one, nor add to the other: but yet in his very conclusion, he contradicts
this; for he takes up this conclusion, to add to his future happiness, by the
ease and comfort of his negligence; and to diminish his future trouble
and misery, by saving himself the trouble of using means and taking
pains.78
A man who asks why strive, if the future is determined? is in contra-
diction with his own principles because if he truly claimed to believe
that the future is determined and fixed in the state of necessary connec-
tion, he is therefore claiming that he will not contribute to welfare of his
future, yet he in fact does contribute to his future happiness by adding
to the comfort of his negligence. This man was using means to
determine his future happiness, which is none other than being in the
state of sloth. The act of the will was determined for him by his stron-
gest inclination through a causal condition. Hence, it was impossible
for him to exercise volition in a manner consistent with the belief that
action did not matter to him since he had chosen the comfort of sloth.
This was the means that made the end come to pass in the causal chain
of events. It was not the case that he made the decision in a state of
indifference, but his will was caused and the action determined simply
by the belief (strong motive) at that moment. The act of striving or
endeavoring therefore is not in vain, thus Edwards avoids fatalism
because in the state of necessary connection, the striving is the very
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid., 370.
means that establishes the obedient act that comes to pass. Consequently,
according to Edwards, Calvinism does not promote sinful behavior
since it was impossible for this man to act in a way consistent with the
belief of determination, and act as if things did not matter to him.
As will be discussed in the next chapter, this notion of use of means
provided the base from which Fuller addressed soteriological matters
as, for example, when he wrote, we never think of being idle in com-
mon business, because God has decreed what we shall possess of this
worlds goods; so neither should we be slothful in the business of our
souls, because of our final state is decreed.79
1.3 Recap of Freedom of the Will
This chapter has underscored ideas from Freedom of the Will as they
correlate with those of Fuller. First, it drew attention to Edwardss wis-
dom in approaching the polemical debate in the Preface. In Part 1, he
carefully defines various terms in the context within which subsequent
arguments will be madea particularly effective way of underscoring
his elucidation on the will, motives, and action. Although philosophy
underpins the entire work, Part 2 may be seen as the philosophical por-
tion of this treatise. The metaphysical psychology involved in the exer-
cise of human volition is thoroughly examined by Edwards, but specific
consideration has been given to the concept of absurdity as he per-
ceived it in Arminian notions of self-determination, indifference, and
contingency. Part 3 is an especially crucial component insofar as Fuller
is concerned, since I have chosen to place the Edwardsean treatment of
natural, moral inability and command, responsibility in this seg-
ment. In Part 4, Edwards engaged the Arminian theologians through
extensive citations and his responses to the common objections
expressed by Arminians were examined. In particular, if an outcome is
predetermined, all human endeavors to achieve otherwise are in vain.
To this protest, Edwards reasoned that, use of means responded to
their objections. As will be addressed in the next chapter, all of these
are ideas that provided an important foundation for the establishment
of Fullers evangelical Calvinism.
79
Fuller, Letter to two relatives (Kettering, August 1784), Armies, 88.
CHAPTER TWO
FULLERS THEOLOGICAL INDEBTEDNESS

TO FREEDOM OF THE WILL
It is abundantly, improved for this purpose by President Edwards, in his

Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will. A book which has been justly said to
go further toward settling the main points in controversy between the
Calvinists and Arminians, than any thing that has been wrote.1
Andrew Fuller
2.1 Historical Analysis
The period from the early 1770s until publication of the first edition of
Gospel Worthy (1785) can be seen as the years when Fuller worked
through his theology and actively sought to find an adequate intellec-
tual basis for his evangelical understanding of Christianity. Out of this
search arose Fullerism, this transplanted Edwardsean Calvinism.2
This evangelical development then became an important source for
revival among English Baptists, which ultimately gave birth to the
Modern Missionary Movement. In the preface to the first edition of
Gospel Worthy, Fuller wrote:
I had read and considered, as well as I could, Mr. Jonathan Edwards
Enquiry into the Freedom of the Will on the distinction of natural
and moral ability, and inability. I always found great pleasure in this
distinction 3
Why should such an idea have given him so much pleasure? Perhaps
Fuller saw in the concept an opportunity to deliver others from a seri-
ous theological dilemma, one which Fuller himself knew all too well.
His own doctrinal quandary stemmed from personal struggles with
the Hyper-Calvinistic4 background in which a subjective warrant was
1
Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), 192.
2
Holmes, God of Grace, ix.
3
Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), v.
4
The terms high, hyper, false, even pseudo Calvinism are used synonymously by
Fuller to describe a strand of Calvinism was that prevalent in Particular Baptist
fullers theological indebtedness to freedom of the will 33
considered necessary for a person to approach God for salvation.

However, since Fuller could not find sufficient basis to conclude defini-
tively that he was one of the elect, during the three-year period between
1766 and 1769when he believed he was not qualified to come to
Christhe suffered intense agony. Fuller understood in retrospect that
this painful and delayed conversion experience had been unnecessary.
Consequently, his yearning for others to have a somewhat smoother
path5 became a significant motivation for his development of an evan-
gelistic soteriology.
As a result, in the midst of a rapid decline among Baptist denomina-
tion in England, Fullers Gospel Worthy fell, according to Timothy
George, like a bombshell on the playground of theologians, Fuller was
pilloried by Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists alike.6 While Edwardss
original intention for natural and moral distinctions was chiefly used
in New England to argue against the prevailing notion of Arminian-
ism, Fuller, however, used these distinctions to contend with two
opposing fronts and succeeded.
On one side were the Particular Baptists, of which Fuller was a mem-
ber, and which ledthrough the influence of John Gill (16971771)
and John Brine (17031765)to Hyper-Calvinism. After Fullers pub-
lication of Gospel Worthy, William Button (17541821) and John
Martin (17411820) of the Particular Baptist camp responded to Fuller
in a critical manner. Although Fullers friendship with Button remained
intact,7 his arguments with Martin appear to be less discreet.8 However,
it was not only the Hyper-Calvinists who accused Fuller of alleged
errors. Dan Taylor (17381816), a General Baptist minister who
published under the pseudonym Philanthropos, contested Fullers
arguments in Observations on the Rev Andrew Fullers Late Pamphlet
churches during the eighteenth century England. This monograph however, has cho-
sen to use hyper Calvinism rather than less the pejorative term, high, to avoid poten-
tial equivocation. This clarification is needed by the fact that high Calvinism is some-
time insinuated Calvinism of John Owen, which in Fullers mind, was not hyper, since
he saw himself as aligning with the tradition of Owen and other sixteenth and seven-
teenth century puritans. In fact, this is the precise distress Fuller had with the eigh-
teenth century Hyper-Calvinism, namely, the particular Baptists has drifted away from
previous their Reformed predecessors.
5
See, Morden, Offering Christ, 2829.
6
Timothy George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey
(Birmingham: New Hope, 1991), 56.
7
See, Morden, Offering Christ, 55, see also Roberts, Andrew Fuller, in Baptist
Theologians, 122127.
8
See, On Mr. Martins Publication, WAF, 2:716736.
34 chapter two
Entitled The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation (1786). Fuller

then responded in 1787 to the critiques of both Button and Taylor in
A Defense of a Treatise Entitled The Gospel of Christ With a Reply to
Mr. Buttons Remarks and the Observations of Philanthropos. The dis-
pute between Taylor and Fuller was conducted within a framework of
mutual respect.9
These debates on two opposite fronts could have been another rea-
son why Fuller may have found great pleasure in Edwardss distinc-
tions, for he not only saw them as central in terms of being a key to
unlock the shackles of Hyper-Calvinism, but he also describes the
Edwardsean logic as nothing better calculated to destroy10 Armin-
ianism. Fuller was enormously successful in revitalizing the denomina-
tion. Based on a close reading of Edwards on the Will, Fuller not only
provided the theological underpinning for a revival among Baptist
denomination, but also became the foremost theologian in the
ModernMissionary Movement. As Bruce Hindmarsh noted, the con-
clusions that were drawn in the Gospel Worthy gave expression to
evangelical Calvinism, injected new life into English Baptist denomi-
nations, and stimulated prayer for the unconverted heathen and for-
eign missions.11
The notable example of this might be when William Carey attempted
to convey his understanding of the missiological implications of the
Great Commission during a ministerss meeting at Northampton,
England, in 1787. To this remark, John Ryland Senior (17231792)
reacted with the notorious rebuke, Young man, sit down, when God
pleases to convert heathens, He will do it without your help or mine!
Underpinning this often-quoted remark again was the strand of Hyper-
Calvinism that ran throughout Particular Baptist churches.12 Despite
the setback presented by this rebuke, Carey did not lose his missionary
vision. Instead he carefully composed An Enquiry Into the Obligations
of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792),
9
However, this was quite the contrary in Fullers debate with Hyper-Calvinists
such as Martin. See, Morden, Offering Christ, 6567, see also Frank Rinaldi, The Tribe
of Dan: A Study of the New Connexion of General Baptists, 17701891 (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2008).
10
11
Bruce Hindmarsh, The Reception of Jonathan Edwards by Early Evangelicals in
England, in Home and Abroad, 207.
12
Many Particular Baptist ministers discarded Careys call to missions but not did
write off Fullers treatises. Thus, Carey found in Fuller his theological bases for his own
receptiveness towards missions.
a work that Ralph Winter refers to as the Magna Carta of the Protestant
mission movement.13 Led by Carey, the new movementin spite of
its rather humble beginnings14did indeed offer an unprecedented
account15 of missionary endeavors. In many ways Carey is justly
described as the Father of Modern Missions, but he certainly was not
alone. Included among those who were very much part of this mission-
ary effort, and who were also numbered among Careys influential
friends,16 of course was Fuller. According to Haykin:
From a merely human perspective, if Fullers theological works had not
been written, William Carey would not have gone to India. Fullers theol-
ogy was the mainspring behind the formation and early development of
the Baptist Missionary Society Carey was most visible at the fountain-
head of this movement. Fuller, though not so visible, was utterly vital to
its genesis.17
The question then arises as to how Fullers theology came to be the
mainspring in the genesis of the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS).
Gerald Priest states that if Careys Enquiry was the ethical impetus for
the missions movement then Fullers Gospel Worthy, was its doctrinal
basis.18 In other words, Fuller was the theologian and Carey the activ-
ist and visionary of the missionary awakening. Hence, among many
evaluations of this Edwardss impact on England, it is no wonder that a
historian David Bebbington concludes probably most important in
the reception of Edwards by the English Baptists was the impact on
Andrew Fuller.19
13
Ralph Winter, Four Men, Three Eras, Two Transitions: Modern Missions, in
Perspectives: on the World Christian Movement, eds. Steve Hawthorne and Ralph
Winter (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1999), 254.
14
George, Faithful Witness, 6679; Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in
Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (New York: Orbis, 1996),
241261.
15
Of course, Jesuits were conducting missions long before the Protestant mission-
ary movement. Before Careys time the Moravians were very active with missions. Yet
mainstream Protestant involvement, with the new emphasis on Bible translation in
missionary enterprise, was pioneered by Carey.
16
In addition to Carey and Fuller, this movement was also led by such leaders as
John Ryland Jr, John Sutcliff, John Erskine, Joshua Marshman, William Ward and
others.
17
Haykin, Andrew Fuller Project, http://haykin.luxpub.com/index.php?option
=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=47 (accessed on June 13, 2006).
18
Priest, Modern Question, 50, n.19.
19
David Bebbington, Remembered Around the World: The International Scope of
Edwardss Legacy, in Home and Abroad, 184. For supplementary discussions, see Noll,
Freedom of the Will Abroad, 89108.
36 chapter two
2.1.1 Modern Question

There is no need to expand here on the genetic history of Hyper-
Calvinism since there are several reliable secondary sources20 that give
a proper portrait of these theologians.21 However, for the purpose of
this study, the most pressing issue is the controversy involving Fuller
and Hyper-Calvinism that surrounds the Modern Question.
Matthias Maurice (16841738), was a congregational minister who
first raised the so-called Modern Question in A Modern Question mod-
estly Answerd (1737). A posthumous publication entitled The Modern
Question Affirmd and Proved (1739) revisited the issue. The question
concerns whether God makes it a duty of unconverted sinners, upon
hearing the gospel, to repent and believe in its teachings. Maurices
answer is quite clear. Any person who, unfeigned makes the Bible the
Rule of his Faith, must say that God does by his Word Plainly and plen-
tifully make it the Duty of unconverted Sinners, who hear the Gospel,
to believe in Christ.22 Joining his crusade against Hyper-Calvinists,
Abraham Taylor (fl. 17261740)23 followed up Maurices efforts in the
form of The Modern Question Concerning Repentance and Faith Exam-
ined (1735). This led Gill, and Brine to take up further theological arms24
20
See Morden, Offering Christ, 161, 2729. For a helpful discussion regarding
Hyper-Calvinism among the Particular Baptists see Naylor, Andrew Fuller, 164182.
For a comprehensive survey of Hyper-Calvinism, see Peter Toon, The Emergence of
Hyper Calvinism in English Nonconformity 16891765 (London: Olive Tree, 1967).
21
Starting from Joseph Hussey (16601792), a congregational minister, Tobias
Crisp (16271642), a rector of Brinkworth, but more importantly three particular
Baptist pastors, Gill, Brine, and Eve. This brings us down to Fullers own day. Amongst
the three, Gill is the most influential figure. There is a current debate whether
Gill properly can be labeled as Hyper-Calvinist. Nettles has argued Gills so-called
Hyper-Calvinism is less hyper than John Brine for example. Nettles, By His Grace,
84107. However, Priest finds this to be unconvincing. Priest, Modern Question,
46, n.11.
22
Matthias Maurice, A Modern Question modestly Answerd, (London: James
Buckland, 1737), 4.
23
Abraham Taylor was a theological tutor at the Independent Academy in London.
John Handby Thompson describes him as a classical scholar and trenchant defender
of Calvinist orthodoxy who is well known for writing against Isaac Wattss sympathy
towards Unitarians and Arians.
See, John Handby Thompson, Taylor, Abraham (fl.17261740), Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography, (OUP, 2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27016,
accessed July 4, 2007]
Isaac Watts was also Edwardss one of antagonists in Freedom of the Will. See,
Ramsey, Editors Introduction, WJE, 1:89107.
24
John Gill, The doctrines of Gods everlasting love to his elect and their eternal
union with Christ: together with some other truths, stated and defended. In a letter to
Mr. Abraham Taylor (London: A. Ward and H. Whitridge, 1732).
against Taylors position in arguing that the preachers should not offer
the gospel to the non-elects who do not possess the ability to respond
positively due to their total depravity. The chief concerns of Gill and
Brine were to guard against the Arminian and Socinian notion of
human ability.
To be sure, Fuller, having been reared in this Particular Baptist
setting under the ministry of John Eve (d.1782),25 who, in Fullers
words, had little or nothing to say to the unconverted,26 was painfully
aware of the debate. Thus in 1775, when Fuller was wrestling with its
evangelical proposals, he discovered Taylors The Modern Question
Concerning Repentance and Faith Examined and his impression of this
pamphlet is as follows: I had never seen any thing relative to this con-
troversy before I have stated, had occupied my thoughts. Even
though Fuller was little impressed by his reasonings, when Taylor
began to cite the biblical figures, it caught Fullers attention. It is there-
fore not surprising to find these same figures later turning up in the
Gospel Worthy. Having read Taylors biblical arguments, Fuller recorded
the following in his diary:
John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, which he proved to be deliv-
ered to the ungodly, and to mean spiritual repentance and faith, inas-
much as they were connected with the remission of sin. This set me fast.
I read and examined the Scripture passages, and the more I read and
thought, the more I doubted the justice of my former views.27
The former view, comprised the doctrines as taught Fuller by Eve
who had been influenced by the once prevailing position of Gill and
Brine. The view was one of Hyper-Calvinism as expressed in Fullers
words: I use to think too, that the doctrine of election was a reason
why we need not pray no purpose to pray as things will be as they
will be.28 However, Fullers commitment to scripture was the chief fac-
tor for his rejection of Hyper-Calvinism, and he therefore actively
worked through his theology to give a proper theological base for his
John Brine, A refutation of Arminian principles, delivered in a pamphlet, intitled, The

modern question concerning repentance and faith, examined with candour, &c. In a letter
to a friend (London: A. Ward, 1743).
25
Eve was Fullers pastor at Soham Baptist Church from 17521771, who was for-
merly a sieve maker from Chesterton in Cambridgeshire. He was a typical Hyper-
Calvinist minister among the Particular Baptists who was a great advocate of Gill. See
Morden, Offering Christ, 1516.
26
Fuller, Letter to Charles Stuart (Kettering, 1798) in Armies, 59.
27
Ordained Pastor WAF, 1:15.
28
Fuller, Letter to two relatives (Kettering, August 1784) in Armies, 88.
38 chapter two
ever-increasing evangelical convictions. Fullers search would eventu-

ally find the solution in a like-minded group of friends in Northampton,
England.
2.1.2 Northamptonshire Association

One of the most important factors that shaped Fuller into the man
he was, may be his cordial connection with the Nothamptonshire
Association. His initial contact with the Association came about when
Fuller accepted the ministerial call to succeed Eve in his parish in
Soham. In the summer of 1775, Robert Hall Sr. (17281791) gave
Fullers ordination charge which brought Fuller into contact with
members of the Northamptonshire Association members, most nota-
bly John Sutcliff (17521814), John Ryland Jr. (17531825), and later
William Carey. At nearly the end of his life, Fuller nostalgically looks
back on those years:
In 1776 I became acquainted with Mr. Sutcliff, who had latterly come to
Olney; and soon after with Mr. John Ryland, jun. then of Northampton.
In them I found familiar and faithful brethren; and who, party by reflec-
tion, and partly by reading the writings of Edwards, Bellamy, Brainerd, &
c. had begun to doubt of the system of False Calvinism 29
Fullers active involvement in the Nothamptonshire Association cannot
be overstated. The Association not only served as the base from which
virtually all of Fullers ministry would later develop, but was a crucial
link that gave Fuller access to the writings of Edwards.
Fullers first spurious encounter with Jonathan Edwardss writ-
ings carried humorous overtones. In recognizing Fullers struggles
with Hyper-Calvinism in 1775, Hall recommended that Fuller read
Edwards on the Will. However, at the age of twenty-one, and not
being very well acquainted with Jonathan Edwards, Fuller mistakenly
read John Edwardss work entitled Veritas Redux in the belief that it
was Freedom of the Will! Amusingly enough, Fuller thought that John
Edwards had actually written a pretty good book yet he oddly won-
dered about it since it did not seem exactly to answer Mr. Halls recom-
mendation.30 Thus it was not until two years later, in 1777, that Fuller
realized his mistake and finally got hold of the correct book.
29
Andrew Fuller Letter to My Dear Friend [John Ryland Jr?]., Feb, 1815, Typed
Fullers Letters, Box 4/5/2, Angus Library, University of Oxford.
30
Ordained Pastor, 1:15.
Fullers kindred spirited connection with familiar and faithful

brethren certainly shared their esteem for Edwards. For example, in
1814, a few weeks before the death of Sutcliff, Fuller writes to his long-
time friend Ryland Jr.: We have heard some who have been giving out,
of late, that if Sutcliff and some others [that is, the Northamptonshire
Association] had preached more of Christ, and less of Jonathan
Edwards, they would have been more useful.31 To these rather mock-
ing remarksoften as not denying the allegation of preaching Jonathan
EdwardsFuller unashamedly replied to them with this witty com-
ment: If those who talked thus, preached Christ half as much as
Jonathan Edwards did, and were half as useful as he was, their useful-
ness would be double what it is.32 Given this type of admiration for
Edwards not only by Fuller, but reflected in the entire membership of
the Association, such comments may represent a challenge to this
investigation. In particular, this may be revealed in sifting through
Fullers theology to determine how much of it was actually derived
from Edwards himself, as opposed to the second-hand reception of his
theology as filtered through the Association.
2.2 Possible Sources Other than Freedom of the Will
My Ph.D. dissertation discussed Peter Mordens interesting comments

about Andrew Fullers son, Andrew Gunton Fuller (17991884), who
claimed to have found his fathers initial draft of Gospel Worthy (not
designed for publication) as early as 1776, one year prior to when Fuller
first read Freedom of the Will. In raising this issue, Morden was refer-
ring to the following quotation from Gunton Fuller:
Author of this treatise [Andrew Fuller] tells us in the preface that it was
written in 1781, yet a paper which he has endorsed with the date of 1776,
the year after his entrance on his pastorate, contains the elements of it,
written probably at intervals, and neither designed nor adapted for publi-
cation, and must have been written in the 23rd year of his age.33
31
Correspondence with Friends WAF, 1:101. According to Haykin, what initially
attracted Fuller and Ryland to one another was the discovery that they shared a
strong predilection for same authors, in particular, Jonathan Edwards. Haykin,
Introduction, in Armies, 43.
32
Correspondence with Friends, 1:101. This statement is yet another example of
Sutcliff and Fullers esteem for Edwards.
33
Andrew Gunton Fuller, Men Worth Remembering: Andrew Fuller (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1882), 168.
40 chapter two
Morden also noted, the paper to which Gunton Fuller referred is now
lost. From this he concludes it may be too simplistic to infer that
because Fuller read Edwards, and he wrote the view as expressed in the
Gospel Worthy.34 My dissertation in 2008, while fully acknowledging
Mordens warning about the dangers of being too simplistic, com-
mented that his cautionary remarks may contain elements of an argu-
ment from silence, since this paper is presumably lost.35 For the sake of
the argument, if such a mysterious document exists and is never to be
rediscovered again, what would its contents entail? Prior to drawing
any value judgment, perhaps Gunton Fullers assessment of it ought to
be the subject of scrutiny since his father specifically stated in the pref-
ace that Gospel Worthy was first written in the year 1781.36 Thus, with-
out hard evidence of this endorsement being dated in 1776, Andrew
Fullers published and explicit words in the preface ought to take prece-
dence over the vague testimony of his son. Indeed, this must be given
more weight, especially in light of the fact that Gunton Fuller even uses
provisional phrases, such as written probably at intervals, to date this
mysterious paper.
As of 2010, however, this document has been rediscovered,37 and as
it turns out, this handwritten draft is entitled Thoughts on the Power
of Men to do the Will of God, dated approx on 1778 [sic]. If thishand-
written script of the approximate date, as indicated in the photograph,
is indeed accurate, then Gunton Fullers previous comments about a
paper which he has endorsed with the date of 1776 need to be cor-
rected. Based on this rediscovered artifact, an even more compelling
34
Morden, Offering Christ, 47,50.
35
In 2007, my research for this paper went through several stages without enor-
mous success. It commenced with correspondence with Morden regarding this paper.
He kindly informed me that Haykin had seen a reference to this paper somewhere in
America. When I inquired of Haykin regarding this, he remembered seeing a reference
to it in the archives of the American Baptists in Colgate-Rochester a number of years
ago, but he could not verify it, as he had not checked the reference. It was supposed to
be in the librarys safe, rather than archived. During that time, the main obstacle to
verification of this document was that the American Baptist Historical Society was
moving to Macon, Georgia, and the Rochester library has been closed to research. But
since 2010, this paper has been rediscovered and is presently located in the Archives of
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.
36
Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), a 2.
37
Manuscript of Andrew Fuller on Thoughts on the Power of Men to do the Will
of God, approximately 17771778, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Archives. Electronic version of this document is housed in the Archives of SBTS and
will be available electronically for researchers at URI once the scheduled embargo ends
on May 24, 2013: http://hdl.handle.net/10392/2890.
Permission to use the embargoed photograph was granted by The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Archives, Louisville, KY.
case could be made for a direct or perhaps even sole influence of

Edwards at this early stage on Andrew Fullers thinking could be
amounted. Given that Fuller read Freedom of the Will in 1777, this new
date of 1778 would make Edwards a more likely candidate to trace the
influence than any other possible sources. In other words, this artifact
would increase the likelihood of making Freedom of the Will the first
exposure that Fuller had to the concept of natural and moral inability.
42 chapter two
For the sake of argument, let us say that Gunton Fuller was accurate
in asserting that this handwritten notebook (or some other hypotheti-
cal source) was in fact the seminal draft dating from 1776. Does this
undermine the influence of Edwards on Fuller in Gospel Worthy? This
hardly seems the case since this monograph is not intending to argue
simplistically that Fuller read Edwards, therefore he wrote Gospel
Worthy. In actuality, Fuller himself never clamed this be the case.
Having already listed many reasons for writings Gospel Worthy, it is
only then that he mentions, To this I may add, I think, another cause,
which contributed to the same end.38 Fuller, of course, then talks about
the importance of Freedom of the Will, particularly his indebtedness to
Edwardss natural and moral inability. Would it have been possible for
Fuller to have gained the idea of natural and moral inability from
someone other than Edwards? Among all his friends,39 the most eligible
candidate might have been the Principal of the Bristol Baptist Academy,
Caleb Evans (17371791). According to Roger Hayden, Evanss ordi-
nation statement in 1767 indicated his early commitment to the evan-
gelical Calvinism propounded by Edwards.40 Evans recommended
38
Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), a 3.
39
Sutcliff, for example, published a catechism that includes a section on the indoc-
trination of natural and moral inability. See questions 4448 and corresponding foot-
notes. John Sutciff, The first principles of the oracles of God, represented in a plain and
familiar catechism, for the use of children (Printed and sold at Ewood Hall, near Halifax.
Sold also by the author, at Olney, and by W. Button, London, [1795?]), 78, in Eighteenth
Century Collection Online. Also in Nettless Introduction to WAF, he suggests that
John Ryland Jr. makes the similar point in Serious Remarks on the Different Represen-
tations of Evangelical Doctrine by the Professed Friends of the Gospel. Furthermore, on
October 14, 1788, John Erskine wrote to Sutcliff regarding the circulation of various
evangelical magazines including Religious Intelligence Collection. This letter could
be located in: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, Isaac Mann
Autograph Collection, Box 1, Folders 19. There are other relevant correspondences in
Isaac Manns collection: Erskine to Ryland Jr., Box 1, Folders 18, 49; Erskine to Fuller,
Box 1, Folder 23; Erskine to Samuel Pearce, Box 1, Folder 40. At Beinecke, I was able to
locate an extract from the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine vol.2 no.4 (October,
1801), which contained extract from the previous Religious Intelligence Collection
where it had expounded, at some great length, about Edwardss category of natural and
moral inability. For further discussions on Erskine to Ryland Jr. see 3.1.13.1.2
and 7. n.7.
40
Caleb Evans was born in November, 1737, in Bristol, and was a Particular Baptist
minister and college head. Hayden notes that it was Sutcliff who introduced Fuller to
Edwards in Evanss An Address to the Serious and Candid Professors of Christianity
(1772) in which Evans employed the thinking of Edwards to explain the distinction
between natural and moral ability. Fullers Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), which quoted
pages 1113 of Evanss book verbatim, provided the theological key to liberating
English Baptists from a sterile high-Calvinism into a vibrant, worldwide, missionary
Edwards to all his students including Sutcliff and Ryland Jr., who were
profoundly influenced by Evanss commendation of Edwards.
Evans, indeed, was an important figure for Fuller, especially in the
first edition of Gospel Worthy. This is confirmed by the fact that the
lengthiest quotation41 deals with the natural and moral category and is
not from Edwards, but from Evans. Furthermore, at least two years
before Fuller read Freedom of the Will there was a hint that Fuller was
already aware of such distinctions. This is why, when Robert Hall rec-
ommended that he should read Edwards on the Will, Fuller already
had a general working knowledge of natural and moral inability as
early as 1775, and could discern that it did not seem exactly to answer
Mr. Halls recommendation.
These indications are tantamount to a suggestion that the category of
natural and moral inability was not a completely novel idea for Fuller
when he first read Freedom of the Will in 1777. Despite Evanss length-
ier excerpt as quoted by Fuller on this issue, Fuller wroteas has
already been notedin the Preface to the first edition of Gospel Worthy,
I had read and considered, as well as I could, Mr. Jonathan Edwards
Enquiry into the Freedom of the Will on the distinction of natural
and moral ability, and inability. I always found great pleasure in this
distinction.42 In the second edition, he likewise said that he found
much satisfaction43 in Edwardss distinction.
Why did Fuller find pleasure and satisfaction in the distinction
made by Edwards rather than of Evans? Perhaps the key is in the beau-
tiful manner in which Edwards expresses those ideas and the depth to
which he explores them. When Perry Miller concludes that Edwards is
one of Americas five or six major artists, who happened to work with
ideas instead of with poems or novels,44 he was noticing a unique char-
acteristic of what is a common feature of Edwardss literary tapestry.
community (Roger Hayden, Evans, Caleb (17371791), in Oxford Dictionary of

National Biography, (OUP, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/40192
(accessed June 18, 2007).
41
Evans, Address to the Serious and candid professors of Christianity as quoted in
42
43
Gospel Worthy (2nd ed.) WAF, 2:330. In the second edition, Fuller also omits this
long quotation of Evans.
44
Miller, as quoted in The Sense of the Heart TM (Monday, Dec. 26, 1949) http://
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8011972,00.html (accessed on July 4,
2007). See also, Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards on the Sense of the Heart, HTR 41
(1948): 123145.
44 chapter two
Thus Fuller could conceivably be experiencing what many secondary

literatures of Edwardsean scholarship have observed during the twen-
tieth and twenty-first century,45 namely his eloquent manner of expres-
sion. More notably, Fuller may have been pleased with the Edwardsean
categorization because of the intellectual depths of its explanatory
power, which proved so profoundly satisfying in the context of the
Enlightenment. While Edwards was not an innovator who made use of
this natural and moral distinction,46 Ramsey rightly argues that he was
the first to formulate fully adequately this distinction.47 Hence if these
are accurate representations, could they account for Fuller finding so
much more pleasure in Edwardss distinctions than in those of anyone
else?48 What then of value or judgment could be attributed to Fullers
use of Evanss quotation concerning natural and moral inability?
Hayden presents a helpful perspective that gives some balance to the
issue: Fuller regarded [Evanss material] as work to be consulted along-
side of Edwards.49
For this reason, the case for the alternate sources asserting signifi-
cant influence on Fullers natural and moral category is not substantial.
To recap from above, while it is historically interesting to bring up
Gunton Fullers testimony on the mysterious early draft of Gospel
45
Delattre, Beauty and Sensibility; Erdt, Art and the Sense of the Heart; Mitchell,
Experience of Beauty. Wilson Kimnach, Jonathan Edwards and Literature, cf. Anna
Svetlikova, Alternative Viewpoint: The Literary Life in Introducing Americas Theo-
logian, 145149.
46
Sweeney suggests general habits of making distinction between physical and
moral causes came from Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine (15421621) but the lan-
guage of natural and moral inability first gained currency though the Scottish theolo-
gian, John Cameron, during the seventeenth century. More prominently, it was
Camerons pupil, Moise Amyraut (15961664), who put the categories of natural and
moral on the theological map. See Douglas Sweeney, Nathaniel Taylor, New Haven
Theology, and the Legacy of Jonathan Edwards (New York: OUP, 2003), 73. Moreover,
Clipsham also points out that Joseph Truman (16311671) also made similar distinc-
tions in A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency. See Clipsham, 1. The Develop-
ment of a Doctrine, 114, n.28.
47
Ramsey, Editors Introduction, WJE, 1:37.
48
On this point, my personal experience relating to this distinction might shed
some light into what Fullers meant by pleasure. Prior to writing my Ph.D. disserta-
tion in 2008, I was familiar with the category of natural and moral inability by way of
interacting with the secondary sources (conceivably bearing some resemblance to
Fullers understanding prior to 1777), but it was not until I had read and studied
Freedom of the Will firsthand that I began to develop an appreciation of the complex
artistry and force of argument that is to be found in Edwardss unique expression.
49
Roger Hayden, Evangelical Calvinism Among Eighteenth Century Particular
Baptists with Particular Reference to Bernard Foskett, Hugh and Caleb Evans and the
Bristol Baptist Academy 16901791 (Ph.D. thesis, Keele University 1991), 218.
Worthy, this does not undermine Fullers indebtedness to Edwards.

Although Evanss writings were valuable resources for Fuller, it was
helpful in the manner in which a respectable secondary literature
would give aid to a primary source. As Hayden stated, Evans uses
the insights of Edwards to explain the distinction between natural
and moral ability in man.50 This suggests that when Fuller is utilizing
Evanss natural and moral distinctions, this still could be viewed as
Edwardss influence on Fuller, since Evanss distinction itself is actually
a derivative of Edwardss. My arguments thus far have highlighted
important historical factors involved, however this was not an exhaus-
tive account to eliminate all other possibilities that might have been
influential factors for Fuller. This alone is not convincing enough to
establish Fullers indebtedness to Freedom of the Will. Yet, having
addressed the preliminary issues, we are in a position to assess the
extent of Edwardss influence on Fuller by way of examining the textual
evidences.
2.3 Thematic Textual Exposition
2.3.1 Fullers Polemical Approach

Fullers polemical method against Dan Tayor often resembles Edwardss
own approach in addressing Arminians. As we recall the Preface of
Freedom of the Will, Edwards addressed the problems associated
with labeling because it created an unnecessary distinction and stigma-
tism between polemical opponents. In the end, however, he decided to
use labels as descriptors to avoid a discourse that would otherwise be
so encumbered with an often repeated circumlocution.51 Edwards
reluctantly used the term Arminian and only that content to be labeled
Calvinist for the purpose of distinction.
In comparison with the Preface of Freedom of the Will, the opening
to Fullers Reply to the Observations of Philanthropos, the cautionary
injunction regarding the usage of labels appears to be not only similar
to that of Edwards, but even textually dependent as in the final analysis
when Dan Taylor is labeled52 an Arminian and he, Fuller, as a Calvinist.
50
Hayden, Evans, Caleb.
51
FW, 1:131.
52
Fuller addresses Taylor by his pseudonym P, which is his abbreviation for
Philanthropos.
46 chapter two
Fuller writes: As to calling P or any other person, an Arminian, I never

desire to affix to an honest man a name by which he would not
call himself.53 Moreover, Fuller was quite reluctant to call himself a
Calvinist but in order to avoid unnecessary circumlocution, I have
used the term Calvinist.54 Although on this occasion Fuller does not
cite Edwards, his attitude towards theological polemics and the vocab-
ulary used to give strong expression to those ideas are strongly sugges-
tive of the influence of Edwards.
2.3.2 Fullers Metaphysics of Causality and Volitional Freedom

Fullers notions of the will, affection and understanding are thoroughly
Edwardsean as defined in Part 1 of the Freedom of the Will, and will be
further demonstrated in this study when examining Fullers Sande-
manian controversy. However, for the time being, it will suffice for
attention to be focused on demonstrating that Edwardss conception of
the will and the metaphysics involved in making human choice, and
exercising the volitional element of human faculties, does actually
work itself out in the writings of Fuller. In The Free Agency of Man
(1793), for instance, Fuller argues that free agency or action is inherent
in the power of following the inclination.55 Such a statement assumes
that the Edwardsean trajectory of will and inclination is navigated by
the strongest inclination or affection. Fuller confidently asserts, No
inclination, for the thing itself is a contradiction.56 In essence this is
similar to Edwardss statement that a man never, in any instance, wills
anything contrary to his desires, or desires anything contrary to his
will.57 Here Fuller and Edwards refer to the particular desire for a spe-
cific action in an individual instance at the precise point in time when
the act of volition is being exercised.
Returning to the earlier illustration from the previous chapter
(Part 1), if it is true that Jill has chosen against her general desire to lose
weight, when she was faced with an opportunity to choose, her partic-
ular desire to eat the cake at that moment exceeded her general desire
53
Philanthropos, WAF, 2:459
54
Ibid.
55
Free Agency,WAF, 2:656. The series of Dialogues and letters between Crispus
and Gaius began in 1793 and it lasted until 1795, through Evangelical Magazine.
56
Free Agency, 2:657.
57
FW, 1:139.
to lose weight. Therefore Jill has not chosen contrary to her particular
inclination at that moment, but has exercised her will according to her
prevailing inclination, intensified by the strongest motive at that
moment. In the light of such an Edwardsean metaphysical backdrop,
Fullers following assertion becomes pellucid:
If a person go [sic] about to change his prevailing inclination, he must, in
so doing, be either involuntary or voluntary, if the former, this can be no
exercise of free agency; if the latter, he must have two opposite prevailing
inclinations at the same time, which is a contradiction.58
In Fullers schema, if Jill had in fact exercised her volition, it would be
impossible for her to have two prevailing inclinations. Since by defini-
tion prevailing entails one inclination offering a greater inducement
than another, were that not to be the case it would no longer be pre-
vailing. This does not mean Jill may later regret her decision, but at that
specific moment, she exercised her volition according to her prevailing
inclination. All this is tantamount to saying that general inclination
and a particular act of volition may not always be congruent, but for
Fuller the particular inclination and the specific choices that follow are
always in accord. In speaking to this aspect of Christian sanctification
or maturity, Fuller not only calls Christians to make holy resolutions
(i.e., general desire), but to keep up those resolutions till they are put
in execution.59 In other words, the process of sanctification occurs
when the general inclination of an agent is increasingly aligned with a
particular act of volition.
While Clipsham is correct in accessing that Edwardss Inquiry into
the Freedom of the Will provided Fuller with a philosophical basis,60
yet it is equally important to note that Fuller often omitted Edwardss
metaphysics to make a text more accessible to a wider audience. In fact
it is quite customary for Fuller to take the logical conclusion from such
Edwardsean philosophical outworking and apply it within his own
theological and evangelistic contexts. Perhaps Fuller did not feel the
need to rehash the metaphysics of Edwards since the intellectual
justification for his thinking had already been established by Freedom
of the Will in the form of reductio ad absurdum,61 and the absurdity of
58
Free Agency, 2:657.
59
60
Clipsham, 1. The Development of a Doctrine, 110.
61
Fuller was similar to employ of logical structure which can be seen as analogous
to Part 2 of FW. Clint Sheehan observes Fullers most frequently used logic against
48 chapter two
thinking that choices resulted from an uncaused entity had been

refuted by him. Thus, as previously noted, and consistent with Edwardss
rejection of self-determination, indifference and contingency, the
free action is likewise caused according to Fuller. If Edwards was
restating traditional Calvinistic divine sovereignty in terms of the law
of cause and effect, then, in the context of the Enlightenment, Fullers
expression can be seen as being similar to that of Edwards. Without
going through all the detail of Edwardss metaphysics, Fuller succinctly
takes those conclusions to make his case against Dan Taylors Arminian
scheme by assuming an Edwardsean supposition: God is the proper
and efficient cause of a sinners believing in Jesus Christ He adds
that the Holy Spirit is causing that word to be embraced by one per-
son.62 Fullers notion of causality has an interesting sequel and one that
we are already familiar with;63 namely, If freedom from influence of
motive, (i.e., if choices are not causally linked), then the Divine Being
Himself is not free.64
At this point, however, it is crucial to avoid potential confusion by
identifying what Fuller means by the term free. Sheehan warns that If
a person read no more Fuller than exposition of free will, they could
easily mistake him for an Arminian.65 Fuller defines a free agent as an
intelligent being, who is at liberty to act according to his choice, with-
out compulsion or restraint.66 However, this is the precise freedom
that Ramsey designates in explaining Edwardss conception of free-
dom: a man is free to do what he wills, but not to do what he does not
will.67 Moreover, Holmess distinction is helpful in this regard: People
are agents possessed of wills; wills themselves are not. Thus, people are
free, wills are not.68 The human is free in the sense that he is free to
Tayor when he writes: Fullers primary focus is on the logical flaws within Taylors
system rather than a systematic rebuttal against Arminianism. (Sheehan, Fullers
Defence against Arminianism, 89).
62
Philanthropos, 2:463. Fuller also wrote: regeneration preceding our coming to
Christ, since the cause always precedes the effect. Edwardsean metaphysics of choice
as they relate to the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting a strong motive or an inclination
of the human heart are vital to Edwardss epistemology as well as Fullers argument
against the Sandemanians.
63
As we saw in previous chapter Edwards on the Will, part 2 layout the philo-
sophical base and part 3 gives this particular example.
64
Free Agency, 2:657, cf. Part 3 of FW.
65
Sheehan, Fullers Defence against Arminianism, 94.
66
The Reality, WAF, 2:519. This is the point that Edwards made when he described
it as constraint and restraint. See Chapter 1. Part 2, n. 45, see also FW, 1:164.
67
Ramsey, Editors Introduction, 1:13.
68
Holmes, Listen past, 97.
make a choice according to his strongest inclination in that moment

when volition is being exercised. Hence, Fuller would agree with
Edwards in arguing that, man is fully and perfectly free, according to
the primary and common notion of freedom.69 On the other hand, for
both Edwards and Fuller, the human being is not free in that the agent
is unable to make a choice contrary to the strongest inclination when
volition is being exercised. If the agent were able to make a choice
against a prevailing inclination, then that volition would no longer be
constituted as deriving from the prevailing inclination since it would
be subservient to an even stronger inclination with its own correspond-
ing volition. Furthermore, this notion of freedom in Fullers thought
was revealed when he insisted that free agency is in the power of being
what they are!70 For Fuller, free agency is in the power of following
the inclination71 according to the agents causal condition. To be pre-
cise, the freedom would be found in the ability to be the person that
one is, and the agents ability to do otherwise than X will always be
navigated by who the agent may be. This entails, as it did for Edwards,
the free action being casually determined by the condition of the agent,
whether it is attributable to personality, character, upbringing, genetic
inheritance, external and internal circumstances, life experiences, etc.
Thus if the choices are uncaused,72 as Arminianism often presumes,
then even God himself would not possess free agency, but the clear
implication for Fuller is that since God does possess free agency, the
choice must be caused by His attributes. Fuller therefore states that the
Arminian notion of free-will is what I have all along been opposing
since Fullers notions of free-will consist merely in the power of fol-
lowing our prevailing inclination, whereas the Arminian conception is
the power of acting contrary to it, or at least of changing it.73 Hence,
the incapability of God and Christ to do wrong would fall into the cat-
egory of what Edwards and Fuller described as the moral inability to
sin. This inability does not limit free agency since the First and Second
69
FW, 1:164.
70
The Reality, 2:521
71
Free Agency, 2:656.
72
As we saw earlier, in Part 2 of FW, Edwards deals thoroughly with this objection.
Since Arminians speak as though the choices are without cause, they argue that an
agent can make such choices without a causal connection to a previous ground. The
choice is whatever an agent chooses without a causal relationship to past, present or
future. Edwards argues that for this type of choice to occur, it has to be made in a state
of pure indifference, which in Edwardss mind is quite absurd.
73
Free Agency, 2:657.
50 chapter two
Persons of the Godhead are freely choosing to act according to what

their holy nature wants.
2.3.3 Fuller on Natural and Moral Inability

In contributing to Fullers evangelical Calvinism, Parts 3 and 4 of
Freedom of the Will are arguably one of the most significant sections
of the Edwardsean corpus.74 As we saw in Part 3, Edwards provides a
full explanation of how natural and moral inability relate to the divine
imperative, and in Part 4, he gives account of the use of means in rela-
tions to the causal chain of events. Fuller, of course, applies these con-
cepts as crucial arguments against the Hyper-Calvinists and Arminians
of his day.
Part 3 of Freedom of the Will deals with two of the most pressing
Arminian challenges from Fullers point of view. The first sets of objec-
tions are to the general effect that, unless one is able to admit evil, he
should not be praiseworthy. The second one is the flip side of the same
logical inference; namely, unless one is able to do good, he should not
be blamed for evil. It is in this context that Edwards uses his recurring
distinction of natural and moral inability.
Fuller read and understood75 Edwards as negating the first objection
with his argument that if Arminians adhere to what the scripture testi-
fies as the doctrine of God, then it does not follow that God must be
capable of evil in order to be praiseworthy. Edwards continued to make
the case that even though Gods incapability to do evil does not contain
free agency in the uncaused Arminian sense, God is still supremely
praiseworthy. Hence the statement that says unless one is able to do evil
he should not be praiseworthy, must be false according to the scrip-
tures.76 Edwards also applies similar reasoning77 to Christs praisewor-
thiness of his inevitable holy acts. Having read these sections, it is
perhaps no coincidence when Fuller articulates:
74
There are two lengthy sections where Edwards concentrates on natural and
moral inability. Part 1, section 4, gives the fundamental definition of these concepts
but, more importantly, in Part 3, sections 3 through 5 of FW are especially significant
since the text is directly cited by Fuller; see Philanthropos, 2:477478. Further citation
of Part 4, sections, 3,4,13 of FW are also noted by Fuller. See The Reality, 2:529.
75
See Philanthropos, 2:477478.
76
Part 3, section 1, in FW, 1:277280.
77
To be precise, there is some different reasoning as well within the First and Second
Persons of the Trinity. Although many affirmed that God cannot sin, many also
believed that Christ was able to sin after the incarnation. Edwards also addresses this
problem in this section.
But has Mr. T. forgot that neither God, nor Christ, (even when upon
earth,) nor saints in glory, are capable of doing wrong? The bias of their
minds is so invariably fixed to holiness, it is impossible they should, in
any instance, deviate from it; and yet will he deny them to be the subjects
of free agency?78
In Freedom of the Will, Edwards further responds to the objection
with an argument based on the actions of Judas Iscariot: If not only
coaction, but all necessity, will prove men blameless, then Judas was
blameless since Christ already declared his certain damnation, and
that he should verily betray 79 If the proposition that says, unless
one is able to do good, he should not be blamed for evil is sound, then
according to Edwards, Judas could not be subject to blame in the
betrayal of Christ, since it was already certainwhich is to say that
Judas could not have done otherwise but to act according to his betray-
ing inclination. It is from this perspective that Edwards brings forth the
distinction between the natural and moral categories. However, notice
how Edwardsean ideas permeate the debate as Fuller brings up a dis-
cussion of the natural and moral classification in the context of Judass
culpability:
If, then, there is no difference between natural and moral impotency, those
who are become unimpressible, and are given up of God to sin, (as were
Judas and murderers of our Lord,) are not free agents, and so are not
accountable beings.80
Dan Taylors Arminian theological framework opposed Fullers con-
tention of a divine requirement of obedience in which humans are
unable to comply. Fullers position is considered absurd because it does
not adhere to a concept whereby freedom requires the ability to be able
to choose otherwise in order to qualify as justifiable reward and pun-
ishment. In evangelistic terms, Taylor argued that since God com-
mands all men to believe the gospel, unregenerates must possess the
ability to respond positively to the call. Interestingly, Hyper-Calvinists
such as Brine and Eve, argue the same points as Taylor, although from
entirely the opposite end. The Hyper-Calvinists believed that since not
all have the ability to respond positively to the gospel, its message is
only for the elect. Consequently, preachers must not offer the gospel
to all, but should first identify those who have the inner warrant to
78
The Reality, 2:520.
79
FW, 1:296.
80
The Reality, 2:520, italics mine.
52 chapter two
come to Christ, and then preach to them exclusively. Ironically, both

Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists share one commonality; namely, that
unregenerates ought not to be required to do that which they are inca-
pable of doing.81 The difference between Edwards and Fuller was that
the former was primarily dealing with the Arminians whereas the lat-
ter also applied this distinction to the Hyper-Calvinists.82 They both
recognized that this discrepancy existed because they did not consider
the difference between natural and moral inability.
Although Fullers definition of natural and moral inability is consis-
tent with that of Edwardss, again it is not as nearly as philosophically
in-depth. Instead, Fuller goes straight into the heart of the matter when
he defines the natural ability as, the enjoyment of rational faculties,
bodily powers, and external advantages.83 Haykin sometimes depicted
this as physical84 rather than natural ability, which has an advantage
of avoiding frequent equivocation in thinking that this refers to the
sinful nature.85 Yet, one drawback is that it may be taken as overly
81
Fuller writes, false Calvinism, in its ardent desire to steer clear of Arminianism,
is brought to agree with it Both are that where there is no grace there is no duty
(Gospel Worthy (2nd ed), 2:379).
82
Edwardss articulation of natural and moral inability was used by his polemical
opposition against the prevailing notion. Daniel Whitby, an Arminian minister in the
Church of England, wrote treatises against Calvinism in Discourse on the Five Points
(1710). In addition to Freedom of the Will, Whitbys Unitarian propensities were rigor-
ously opposed by Gill in The Cause of God and Truth (1735). Two other significant
polemics were Thomas Chubb, an English deist, and the famous hymn-writer Isaac
Watts, who was theologically closer to Edwards than other opponents. For more infor-
mation, see Ramsey, Editors Introduction, 1:65118.
83
Gospel Worthy (1st ed), 185. See also, Moral Inability, WAF, 3:768769.
84
Haykin, One Heart, 146.
85
For instance, Priest recently established a strong dichotomy between Edwards
and Fuller on the issue of the noetic influence of sin upon an unregenerate person.
Priest depicts that the imago dei was preserved intact, but in Edwardss view, the sin
is so pervasive and pernicious that man is naturally a sinner. See Priest, Modern
Question, 67. Fullers words, however, do not lead to such a conclusion. It seems Priest
has misinterpreted Fuller on this point because he fails to read Fuller in his own terms.
When Priest accuses Fuller of believing in natural human ability to the extent of deny-
ing man as a natural sinner, he equivocates on the use of the term natural. Then again,
a historical precedent suggests he was not the first to misunderstand Fuller on this
issue. Dan Taylor also raised a similar concern, but from an Arminian perspective.
Fuller therefore responded to Taylors objection by arguing about sinful nature mixed
up with the notion of natural inability. According to Taylor, if humanity does not
possess the natural ability to avoid sinful nature (since humanity does not have the
option to be born pure or impure), then humanity must be innocent of sinning. To
illustrate this point, Taylor alludes to the perception that no one blames a lion for
having a natural disposition to eat a lamb. However, Fuller clarifies his equivocation
in labeling such an inability as this natural I apprehend, to apply the term in such a
narrow since physical ability can easily be misconstrued as referring

only to bodily abilities and external circumstances without precluding
rational faculties.86 This confusion can be avoided by a careful qualifi-
cation that the meaning of physical ability also refers to the rational
faculty. Fuller defines moral ability as a disposition to use our natural
ability to right purpose.87 Moreover, in Fullers view moral inability is
closely related to the inclination of the heart,88 and it is for this reason
that unregenerate sinners are unable to use their natural ability to right
purpose. Because their bias perception are already inclined to sinful
disposition, the rational mind of the unregenerate cannot be used for
right purposea belief in Christ, for examplesince they will the use
of their rational faculty to justify the heart of their unbelief. This notion
is clearly stated in Fullers letter to Ryland Junior:
Mr. Edwards explains the will being governed by the last dictate of the
understanding, by its being as the greatest apparent good is. Now I should
manner as tends to produce a confusion of ideas. Fuller suggests, When we speak of

it as being the sin of our nature, we use the term in a very different sense from what we
do when speaking of natural inability. He adds, By the sin of our nature, we mean not
any thing which belongs to our nature as human, but what is, by the fall, so interwoven
with it as it were, though in fact it is not, a part of it; and so deeply rooted in our souls
as to become natural, as it were, us. In other words, for Fuller, the fall did not have a
direct physical impact upon human nature; nevertheless, it still had an extremely sig-
nificant impact given that sinful propensities are interwoven within the moral fabric of
the human soul. We are still left with the question of how sin is so interwoven and
becomes natural, yet according to Fuller, the sinful nature is quite distinct from natu-
ral inability, since sin in itself does not constitute physical nature as a human. Fuller
therefore argues, When terms [such as] cannot, inability, &c. are used in these con-
nexions, they are used not in a proper, but in a figurative sense. Hence, the deprav-
ity is not natural to us, in the same sense as ferocity is to a lion because depravity does
not lie in physical faculty but in moral constitution. Insofar as the objection of
not having the option to be born without such depravity is concerned, Fuller wisely
clarifies this equivocation by noting that the theological issue does not belong in the
doctrine of natural and moral inability, but to that of original sin. See Philanthropos,
2:475476. By similar reasoning, it can be deduced that this is where Priests misreading
of Fuller originatedby doing the very thing that Fuller specifically said not to do,
namely, merging the differentiation between natural inability and that of sinful nature/
original sin. Hence, to avoid such confusion, it is prudent not to discuss natural
inability in the context of a discourse on original sin.
86
For example, Priest accuses Fuller of including rational factuality as an aspect of
physical ability, No one would disagree that the natural man has physical abilities, but
to include rational powers as part of them is to make the soul corporeal (Priest,
Modern Question, 64, n.78). However, in Edwardss anthropology, and as Fuller also
affirmed, a rational faculty is still part of natural faculty that remains intact even after
the fall. See Oliphint, Noetic Effects of Sin, 136137.
87
Gospel Worthy (1st ed), 186.
88
For Fullers account of the relationship between moral inability and desire or
inclination of the heart, see Moral Inability, WAF, 3:768.
54 chapter two
ask, How comes sin to be the greatest apparent good in the view of the
mind? Is it owing to a natural or a moral defect that men call evil good
and good evil? If the former, why was Israel blamed for so doing? If the
latter, then it is to be imputed, as you say, to the depraved state of the
mind, which views things different from what they are: Like a jaundiced
eye, that discolours an object; or an eye that sees things double, and so
gives them a false appearance.89
As will be further demonstrated in 5.4, Fuller agues along this line
because the state of the mind is morally (as opposed to naturally)
unable to view things properly due to a corrupted perception arising
from the heart of human depravity.
This being the case, an interesting question is raised; namely, if in an
evangelical context free action is determined by the predisposition of
an agents causal condition, what would be the purpose of preaching to
the unregenerate heathens who possess moral inability? By way of
explaining Fullers categories dealing with natural and moral distinc-
tions, this study will use a modern example to supply his variables.
Suppose a bad person has an inner disposition to drive his automobile
at 80 miles per hour on road X. Realizing the danger that accompanies
high speed, the government issued a law setting the speed limit at
40 miles per hour on road X. Had the government possessed knowl-
edge about this bad persons predisposition for driving at 80 miles per
hour on road X, would this knowledge in itself invalidate the new speed
limit to this individual? Alternatively, in the case of a good person, he
reads the sign for the 40 miles per hour (natural ability) and will have
the inner disposition to drive more slowly (moral ability). Yet for the
bad person, even though he could see the sign for the speed limit of
40 miles per hour (natural ability), he will be unwilling to drive slowly
(moral inability). Why? Perhaps driving fast (prevailing inclination)
for this bad person was more desirable to him than slowing down.
Maybe he does not believe in jail, or does not believe that the law is real
or any one of a number of other factors influencing his strong, complex
motive. Thus whether the agent is elect or reprobateimplicating from
a good or bad person analogythe basis for indiscriminate preach-
ing is the fact that in both cases the agents have inner, moral disposi-
tions that must be actualized through their natural ability in order to
89
Andrew Fuller Letter to John Ryland Jr., March 22, 1783, Typed Fullers Letters,
Box 4/5/1, Angus Library, University of Oxford. All spelling errors and underline
emphasis is original.
be saved. Of course, if the unregenerates rejected the message of the

gospel, they would be choosing to do so in accordance with their own
desires. Their volition simply reveals who they are, as individuals
whether or not they are reprobate or electshould they respond posi-
tively. This is why, for Fuller, the natural ability became the basis for
heathens having the duty to respond in faith and repentance regard-
less of their status in eternal decree and election.
Moreover, if freedom is the ability to be the person that one is, could
a person change? In other words, can the disposition of a person be
altered? According to Edwards and Fuller, when the change does occur
in the context of soteriology it has to do with the metaphysics of choice
relating to the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting a strong motive or an
inclination of the human heartor, as Robert Jenson puts it, partici-
pation in God at the depth of the soul.90 However, in the interests of a
systematic presentation that has a bearing on these topics, this segment
will be postponed until we come to the chapters 4 and 5.
Although Fuller makes use of the conclusions drawn by Edwards, he
typically does not use in-depth Edwardsean reasoning to arrive at
them. It is possible for the skeptic to doubt whether Fuller actually
grasps the authenticity of Edwardss argument. George Ella has accused
Haykin of associating rank Fullerism with the noble name of
Edwards to give it an aura of respectability.91 Fuller had obviously read
Edwards and was very fond of him, and even Fullers harshest critics
would not deny this point. Yet Ella claimed that the theological influ-
ence of Edwards on Fuller is based on the mere presumption that
Fuller read much of Edwards. In other words, Ellas main objection is
that merely reading Edwards does not make Fuller an Edwardsean in
his thinking. To counter Ellas accusation and put it beyond doubt, it
must be shown that Fuller not only read, liked, and used Edwardsean
terms, but that his theological reliance on Edwards can be demon-
strated tangibly. Such dependence could be established in Fullers
phrase: excusable in exact proportion.92 Both Edwards and Fuller
90
Jenson, Americas Theologian, 162.
91
Ella, Law and Gospel, 167.
92
There are three reasons for choosing the phrase excusable in exact proportion to
prove this objective. First, this argument deals with the category of natural and moral
inability and this may therefore have been a key theological insight that Fuller gained
from Edwards. Second, even though Fuller does not use a direct quote from Edwards,
he nonetheless cites part 3 and section 3 of Freedom of the Will when making this claim
against Taylor. Hence this makes a good case study to judge insofar as the extent to
56 chapter two
raised this as their reductio ad absurdum in responding to Arminian

objections on the issue of divine requirement in areas within which
humans are unable to comply. According to Edwards, if in fact, there
are no differences between natural and moral inability, the following
deduction must be based on an Arminian conclusion:
1) If an impossibility of avoiding sin wholly excuses the agent, for the
very same reason, and because it is difficult to avoid, we ought to
excuses him in part according to the proportion of that particular
degree of difficulty.
2) If moral inability also excuses a person for not avoiding (much like
natural inability), then this implicates that the moral difficulty has
an excusable quality as natural difficulty.
3) But if we allow the natural impossibility to wholly excuses, and also
natural difficulty to be also excused in part, then the culpability
would be in proportion to the difficulty of the task.
4) Since natural impossibility also means wholly excuses, the closer
the difficulty approaches the impossibility, the closer the person is
blameless.
5) Hence, the greater the difficulty, the more excusable it is in proportion
to the increased of level of difficulty.
6) Having set up these premises, here is the core of Edwardss argument:
If the moral impossibility is just the same as natural impossibility
in respect to influence to excuse a neglect, then for the same reason
the natural difficulty is not different in its influence to excuse a
neglect from the moral difficulty that has arisen from a strong
inclination towards sin, and then the level of fault of such persons
must be less, in proportion to this difficulty.
7) Edwards then illustrates this in numerical terms. If a 10 level of moral
difficulty makes it impossible to take an action, it is thereby wholly
excused, and in 9 level of moral difficulty, such action is partly
excused. Edwards then asks whether this make 9 and 10 levels less
blameworthy than if there had been no difficulty at all.93
To put it another way, if this is the case then the evil agent who has no
conscience, and no resistance to that moral difficultyin other words,
a person with a moral difficulty of level 10he is not culpable for his
wrong doing. Such an abstract way of thinking about Edwards can be a
which Fullers argument is actually derived from the thinking of Edwards. Third, since
Edwardss argument is fairly complex on this particular issue, this makes an excellent
place to determine whether Fuller comprehended Edwardss argument in its all com-
plexity and nuances or was merely using Edwardsean language to bring about an aura
of respectability.
93
FW, 1:297.
conceptual challenge, but Fullers concrete application of Edwardsean

reasoning certainly sheds light on this matter and demonstrates Fullers
ability to grasp the complexity of Edwardss argument. In response to
Dan Taylors objection to the Arminian objections, Fuller wrote:
If, therefore, such reasoning to be just, it must follow that men are excus-
able in exact proportion to the strength of their evil propensities; that is,
they are excusable in just the same proportion as, according to the com-
mon sense of mankind, they are internally wicked, or culpable! If we sup-
pose a man, for example, in his younger years to have had but very little
aversion to Christ, and his way of salvation; he is then exceedingly wicked
for not coming to him. As he advances in years, his evil propensities
increase, and his aversion becomes stronger and stronger; by this time,
his guilt is greatly diminished. And if it were possible for him to become
so much of a devil as his prejudices to be utterly invincible, he would
then, according to P., be altogether innocent!94
It is apparent that in using premises 1,2,3,4 and 5 as his underpinning,
and if there is no difference between natural and moral inability, then
Fuller argues, Men are excusable in exact proportion to the strength of
their evil propensities. By way of example, suppose a young man had a
little dislike for Christ as his savior. Let us say, level 3 of the scale of
Edwardss moral difficulty, but as the years went by, his dislike for
Christ grew along with his wickedness to the level 5 then a few years
later to 7. At the same moment the level of his resistance to that wick-
edness also drops. And if, just like the devil, the young man can reach
level 10 on this wickedness scale, Fuller then points out the absurdity of
Taylors idea, stating that this young man then would be altogether
innocent (based on premises 6 and 7). If there is no difference between
natural and moral inability, this young mans moral difficulty has
reached its maxim potential of level 10, and the moral impossibility
therefore falls into the category of a wholly excusable act as indeed
it would for a natural impossibility. On this occasion Fuller not only
grasped the complexity and force of the Edwardsean argument, he
understood it well enough to show that if Taylors claim was true, then
even the devil would be innocent.
While Fuller does not usually give as detailed account of natural and
moral inability as Edwards, evidence such as this suggests that Fuller
understood Edwards correctly. Moreover, Fullers direct quotations
94
Philanthropos, 2:477. A similar reasoning could be found in the section Moral
Inability WAF, 3:769.
58 chapter two
from the Freedom of the Will,95 also proposed that his reflection of it is
not merely second hand from Caleb Evens or other members of
Nothamptonshire Association, but from the actual source. Hence, it
could be construed that even though Fuller does not give a detailed
rendering of natural and moral inability, as did Edwards, yet Fullers
distinctions are more inclined to be practically as well as soteriologi-
cally focused. It is as if the results of the complex mathematical formula
solved by Edwards were taken to their maximum potential by Fuller
and applied to the formulation of a precise theology, which became
the basis for what was to become known as the Modern Missionary
Movement.
2.3.4 Philosophical Basis for Universal Offer of the Gospel

In their fallen state, how can humans overcome or change their prevail-
ing inclination, which is innately sinful and totally depraved? With-
out veering towards the Arminian or Hyper-Calvinistic routes, what
is Fullers philosophical and theological ground for indiscriminate
preaching? To answer this inquiry, it is crucial to understand the man-
ner in which Edwardss distinctions are employed in Fullers thought.
At this juncture there are several Edwardsean concepts from the previ-
ous chapters that need to be restated in order to enable Fullers duty in
faith to work.
The first Edwardsean concept is that opposition to the will exists
within the thing being commanded and is implicated as a moral inabil-
ity to that thing.96 This means that whenever a command requires an
act of the will, and the agent receiving the command fails to act accord-
ing to that requirement due to his will being inclined to the opposite
bearing, then the agent is morally unable to obey that command;97 and,
this unableness of moral inability is just as debilitating as the natural
one.98 Secondly, this implicates that every instance of disobedience is
one of moral inability. Yet natural inability would not be considered
95
For example, Appendix to the second edition of Gospel Worthy, Philanthropos,
The Reality and Strictures cite Freedom of the Will, See WAF, 2:411, 477478, 529, 598;
To The Rev. Mr. Griffin, in Armies, 204. See also 6.4, n.50.
96
See FW, 1:305.
97
Ibid.
98
This was indicated when he writes that moral necessity may be as absolute, as
natural necessity, effect may be as perfectly connected with its moral cause as a natu-
rally necessary effect with its natural cause (FW, 1:157).
disobedience or at least it would be measured as excusable disobedi-

ence. Third, and perhaps the most crucial principle, is that moral
inability is most properly required by command because in some
cases such a state or act of will may properly be required, which at pres-
ent is not, and which may also be wanting after it is commanded.99 As
noted earlier, the application of Edwardsean (or Fullerite)100 definitions
of terms such as, will, strongest motive, multiple motives, occasional
and habitual moral inability ought to be retained in full appreciation
of their cumulative weight.
According to Edwards, if the obedient act is what is being com-
manded,101 in some cases the command successfully engages the will
and inevitably produces an act of obedience. However, prior to the
command being given, the reciprocity agent of that imperative does
not choose consistent with the command since there is not a strong
enough motive to choose otherwise. Yet, there still exists a metaphysi-
cal possibility of change in the dispositional inclination, and it is
through that possibility, after the command, that a change may be
effected in the strong motive of the agent. This alteration may occur
because the new inclination, stemming from the imperative, contrib-
utes to multiple motives and begets one strong, complex motive that
determines the final outcome of the obedient volition. Hence, even
though the agent may possess moral inability (whether occasional,
habitual, or anything in between), Edwards asserts, Those things may
properly be commanded, for which men have a moral inability.102 This
concept was a crucial building block in Fuller establishing the founda-
tion for evangelical Calvinism.
Consequently, if these Edwardsean premises are true, then moral
inability alone never renders anything improperly the subject matter
of precept or command. Moreover, it never can excuse any person in
disobedience103 to a command. In Edwardsean fashion, Fuller also
suggests, moral inability is so far from blame, that it is the thing itself
wherein blame consists.104 This was the philosophical underpinning
which allowed Fuller to make it a duty for unregenerates to accept
the gospel. In other words, this schema permitted Fuller to argue that
99
FW, 1:308, italics mine.
100
Free Agency, 2:656658.
101
FW, 1:302.
102
Ibid, 1:308.
103
Ibid, 1:309.
104
60 chapter two
unregenerate sinners are still under the obligation, upon hearing the
gospel, to repent of their sins and believe in Christ for their salvation.
Missiologically, as Doyle Young points out, Fullers theology clearly
influenced Carey, and Careys call to missions was the logical conclu-
sion of Fullers insistence that all men are duty-bound to believe the
gospel.105
Furthermore, the Edwardsean idea of moral inability not being hin-
dered by the qualification of proper command provided the philosoph-
ical basis needed for Fullers exegetical arguments. As Mordenaccurately
states, Fullers biblicism was thoroughgoing and central and he was
very much willing to submit his theological system to a rigorous bibli-
cal critique and revise it accordingly.106 The secondary exposition of
Fullers solid biblical arguments from Psalm 2 and John 12 has already
been demonstrated107 and does not need to be repeated here. Still, it
was Edwardss argument together with Fullers exegesis that established
the duty for unregenerates to accept that gospel but, more importantly,
it obligated all the ministers to call upon the unregenerate heathens to
exercise faith and repentance, which was the central message of Careys
Enquiry. But how could this be theologically defensible?
According to Fuller, Faith in Christ is commanded in the Scripture
to unconverted sinners,108 which is to say, the Bible said so, therefore
we ought to believe it. However, for the standards of the Enlightenment,
or the Age of Reason as it was also known,109 the truth of the claim the
Bible says was often not enough. But, in Fullers mind, the exegesis was
not at odds because behind these Biblical arguments was the Edward-
sean category of moral inability, which afforded Fuller a coherent
affirmation relative to those things that may properly be commanded,
but for which an agent may have a moral inability. This philosophical
105
Young, Fuller and the Modern Mission, 18.
106
107
See Morden, Offering Christ, 3738, 2426, see also Haykin, One Heart, 14244.
108
Gospel Worthy (1st ed.), xiii.
109
While the interchangeability of these two terms is misleading since it implies that
the reason had largely been ignored in the Middle Ages or the Dark Age, it certainly
was not the case. See, Thomas Aquinas (12251274), Summa Theologica and Luis de
Molinas (15251600) De liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, praedesti-
natione et reprobatione concordia. The key disparity, however, was in the manner in
which reason was used before and after the Enlightenment. The emphasis placed upon
the ability of human reasoning to solve the complete mystery can be rightfully consid-
ered as characteristic of this era. Thus, the natural and moral distinctions can also be
seen as Edwards and Fuller attempt to express a coherent understanding of traditional
dogma within the context of the Enlightenment.
foundation allowed Fuller to offer the gospel (or the command to

believe) to unregenerates who were morally unable to respond posi-
tively to the gospel at that precise moment in time. If, in fact, unregener-
ates were to exercise faith and repentance, then in some cases, the
invitation would be successful in bringing about a change of desire
within the reciprocity agent pursuant to that command. However, prior
to the invitation being given, the persons heart was not inclined
towards repentance. Yet, there still exists a metaphysical and physical
possibility of change within the dispositional inclination, and it is
through that possibility, after the proclamation (e.g. attraction of salva-
tion, fear of damnation and so on) that persuasion can come about, and
that the moral inability of unregenerates could be overcome by an even
stronger inclination that comes from the Holy Spirit through the
gospel.
Still, it is absolutely crucial to remember, according to Fuller, no
inclination,110 yet this alteration may occur because the new inclina-
tion that comes from this imperative contributes to what Edwards calls
multiple motives which beget one strong complex motive that
determines the final outcome of the volition. Fuller still maintains that,
although it is impossible to choose against ones prevailing inclination,
if the agent should respond positively to the gospel that the persons
inclination has been overcome by an even stronger inclination. In other
words, the agent still cannot choose against the prevailing inclination,
but the inclination that once was prevailing is no longer prevalent since
it has been swept away by a new prevailing inclination that came
through a new sense of the heart. This can only occur through what
Fuller calls use of means or Gods appointed way of salvation111
which is none other than the act of offering the gospel to all sinners
without partiality.
2.3.5 Use of Means112 in Gospel Worthy

In the face of the Modern Question that asks, Why preach, if elec-
tion is already determined, the metaphysics found in Part 4 of Freedom
110
Free Agency, 2:657.
111
112
Gerstner categorizes the use of means of Edwards under the broader label of
doctrine of seeking, which is seen as Calvinistic preparatory work (i.e., wake up,
repent, deny, use means, and strive) that the unregenerate can do with their natural
62 chapter two
of the Will provided Fuller with the intellectual groundwork to discuss

the means of salvation in the Gospel Worthy. Ontologically, in the
context of evangelical soteriology, these means are nothing more than
letters, syllables, words, and propositions,113 yet Fuller referred to
them as Gods appointed way of salvation.114 If inability is moral
inability, it is nothing more than a voluntary ignorance of, and total
aversion to, the nature of God and spiritual things. The way to change
such a disposition is through the use of all means including calls, com-
mands, threatening, invitations, and it would be a great absurdity to
refuse the use of them, since to do so would be as ludicrous as it would
be to lay aside the means in order to effect the end!115
Edwardsean logic paved the way for Fuller to build his case on this
point, since it was Edwards who first articulated the concept of neces-
sary connection not eliminating the means, but in those connections
reside the variables that make the means effective in the causal chain of
events. For Fuller, indiscriminate preaching is actually the means that
brings to pass the salvation of the elect116 from their unregenerate state.
The gospel is to be offered to sinners without distinction since these
means are intended to be accomplished through indiscriminate proc-
lamation. Fuller grounds this argument by discussing what Christ, the
Apostles, and his Reformed predecessors did for the unregenerates
who do not have the inner warrant to come to Christ for their salva-
tion. In quoting the command by Jesus to strive to enter the narrow
gate in Luke 8:24, Fuller contends that these are means that ought to
be used both in and out of the pulpit.117
ability in preparation to receive grace. However, later Princetonians were not too
enthusiastic about this aspect of Edwardss thoughts. In addition, Gerstner argued that
this doctrine barely survived even among the New Divinity school: not Bellamy,
Hopkins, Edwards Jr., Dwight or Emmons. See Gerstner, Rational, 3:95, 100101. In
assessing the validity of Gerstners argument, his point concerning the Princetonians
not giving home for this doctrine has merit, but the reference to the doctrine barely
surviving in New England theology is not convincing cf. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will,
117123. Moreover, the doctrine of seeking or use of means has thrived in
Edwardsean tradition across the Atlantic, and Fullers Gospel Worthy can be seen as an
expression of a full-blown evangelical extension of the Edwardsean doctrine of seek-
ing in the context of the Northamptonshire Association in England, See Answers to
Queries, WAF, 3:768.
113
114
Ibid., 48.
115
Ibid., 177.
116
For Fullers view of unconditional election, see Nettles, By His Grace, 115119.
117
Similarly, these are the means used by John the Baptist in proclaim-
ing Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand! in Matthew 3:2.118
These means were also used by Fullers reformed predecessors: if we
look at the great work which God hath wrought by Luther, Calvin,
Latimer, Knox, Bunyan, Elliot, Edwards, Brainerd, Tennent, Whitefield,
and numberless others of our reformation champions; we shall find
they all went forth in the use of these weapons.119 Since Christ, the
Apostles, and other saints had also used these means in their addresses
to their carnal auditors instead of railing objections from metaphys-
ical subtleties, Fuller so reasons, we ought to follow their example in
preaching the gospel to unregenerate, carnal heathens.120
In spite of such indiscriminately driven evangelical preaching, con-
trary to Arminianism, Fuller never advocated unregenerate sinners use
their self-determining will as the basis for their exercise of will. Instead,
Fuller would exhort, command, and plead (that is, use means) with
sinners in their unconverted state to use their will, for they have the
natural and physical ability to exercise such will that has to be exercised
to draw nearer to Christ. As shall be demonstrated in the discussions
on Religious Affections, this is because the existence of the holy disposi-
tion that inclines sinners in their unregenerate state to come to Christ
is none other than the work of the Holy Spirit within their lives. Fuller
believed in the doctrine of total depravity: the natural man is dead in
trespass and sin, and therefore cannot come to Christ of himself.
However, unlike the Hyper-Calvinists, Fuller believed that in their
unregenerate state, the sinners do not need a subjective warrant to
come to Christ. Rather, the warrant is found in objective biblical ground,
which is Christs atoning work. This is why it is their duty to come to
Christ. In the light of such a mainspring within Fullers thinking, it
is not too difficult to see how Carey was inspired to write, An Enquiry
Into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the
Heathens.121
118
Ibid.
119
Ibid., 178.
120
Ibid., 182.
121
In 1785 Carey would have heard Fuller preach the following message to the
Northampton Association: ministers to preach the gospel to every creature, private
Christians, situated in this or that dark town or village, to use all means to have it
preached. However, these means are poles apart from Charles Finneys notion since,
according to Fuller, without Gods grace, all means are without efficacy, and every
effort for revival will be in vain. See, Fuller, Letter to a member of Kettering Baptist
Church (January, 1792) in Armies, 104, 108. Hence Fullers understating of use of
64 chapter two
2.4 Andrew Fuller as the Theological Father of the Modern Missions
The tenets of both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism maintain that

unregenerate sinners ought not to be required to perform that which
they are incapable of doing. From the Hyper-Calvinist perspective,
preachers must not offer the gospel indiscriminately. They need to first
look for those who have the inner warrant to come to Christ for their
salvation and then preach to them exclusively, whereas the Arminians
maintain that sinners ought not to be required to respond positively to
the gospel unless they have the ability to do so. However, for Fuller in
following the Edwardss line, this dilemma existed for them because
they made no differentiation in the distinctions between natural and
moral ability. The natural ability was the basis upon which heathens
have a duty to respond in faith and repentance. The fact that they have
moral inability to do so does not in any way invalidate this duty. If the
unregenerate heathens rejected the message of the gospel, they would
be choosing to do so in accordance with their own desires. Their voli-
tion simply reveals who they are, as individualswhether or not they
are reprobate or electshould they respond positively. In either case,
the unregenerate are making choices without outside constraints other
than those they themselves impose; that is, their own moral inability.
Fuller therefore states:
No man in the world, in his right senses, ever thought of excusing another
in unreasonable hatred towards him, merely because his propensities
that way were so strong that he could not overcome them. And why
should we think of excusing ourselves in our unreasonable and abomi-
nable enmity to God?122
Since God used the preaching of missionaries to the unregenerate as
his means of salvation, in Fullers thought, he was both logical and
coherent in illuminating Carey to thus ensure the obligation of mis-
sionaries to offer the gospel to all.
As its secretary, Fullers contribution to the formation of the BMS
was pre-eminent. The perception of him as the Rope Holder of Careys
ministry in India is also an accurate portrait, but perhaps it was in his
means is fundamentally Edwardsean and differ from that of Finney and the second
Great Awakening in America.
122
capacities as theologian and apologist that Fuller made his most vital
contribution to the Protestant missions. Therefore, if a case can be
made for Jonathan Edwards as the grandfather of modern missions
(see, chapter 3.4), then Fuller might be portrayed appropriately as the
theological father of the modern missionary movement.123
123
Young has actually argued, [Fuller] no less than Carey, deserves the title, Father
of Modern Missions, Young, Fuller and the Modern Mission, 27. Still, since Fuller
was the evangelical theologian directly behind Carey and the BMS, it may be more fit-
ting to regard him as the Theological Father of Modern Missions. Morden disagreed
significantly with Young on this point. See Morden, Andrew Fuller and the Baptist
Mission Society, 136, see also, Morden, Offering Christ, 130135. While Young could
have overstated his case, in his deliberate attempts to avoid hagiography Morden may
have understated Fullers importance in Modern Missions.
CHAPTER THREE
FULLERS MISSIOLOGICAL OPTIMISM

AND HUMBLE ATTEMPT
Some serious tenderness of spirit and concern for the carnality of my

heart, for some days past. Read to our friends, this evening, a part of
Mr. Edwards Attempt to Prayer for the Revival of Religion, to excite
them to the like practice. Felt my heart profited and much solemnized
by what I read.1
Andrew Fuller
3.1 Historical Analysis
Due largely to the ecclesiastical division caused by the aftermath of the

Great Awakening, there were few reasons to be optimistic about the
religious climate in New England. In the face of this setback, Edwardss
encouragement nevertheless came from his correspondence across
the Atlantic and the invitation to participate in the ecumenical move-
ment known as the Concert of Prayer, which began in October of
1744, in Scotland.2 Through these organized, regular prayer meetings,
the Scottish evangelicals3 had implemented the means4 of advancing
1
Extracts from his Diary July 9, 1784, WAF, 1:36.
2
Some minority reports suggest that the Concert of Prayer had its origins in the
work of Edwards, but Stein argues that a similar plan was already in motion in Scotland
prior to 1743. See Stephen Stein, Editors Introduction, WJE, 5:36, n.5. For more
information on the history of the Concert, see Marsden, Life, 334335, see also, Haykin,
One Heart, 158159.
3
Edwardss connection to such Scottish evangelicals as, John MacLaurin, William
McCullosh, James Robe, Thomas Gillespie and John Erskine is of critical importance in
the reception of Edwards in Britain. Of all of them, however, Erskine is the most nota-
ble link for our purpose. For broader discussions regarding Edwardss relationship with
the Scottish evangelicals, see Christopher Mitchell, Jonathan Edwardss Scottish
Connection in Home and Abroad, 222239. See also, Susan OBrien, A Transatlantic
Community of Saints: The Great Awakening and the First Evangelical Network, 1735
1755, AHR 91(1986): 811832.
4
Prayer as a means in Edwardss thinking is found as early as 1743: [It] is Gods
will, through his wonderful grace, that the prayers of his saints should be the one
great and principal means of carrying the designs of Christs kingdom in the world
fullers missiological optimism and humble attempt 67
the revival. Prompted by the invitation implicit in their transatlantic

connection, Edwards accepted the challenge of promoting such prayer
meetings in colonial America. In February of 1747, he therefore began
a series of sermons based on Zechariah 7:2022, and the result of this
effort was later expanded into a book entitled: An Humble Attempt to
promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of Gods People in Extraor-
dinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christs
Kingdom on Earth, Pursuant to ScripturePromises and Prophecies of
concerning the last Time.
3.1.1 Providence of Humble Attempt

The Humble Attempt was completed and ready for publication in
September of 1747, but due to the lengthy printing process in Boston,
it was not published until January of 1748.5 The extent of access to the
work by Scottish evangelicals in the 40s and 50s may be the subject of
debate since the first indisputable publication in Scotland did not occur
until 1789.6 It is interesting that, according to Sereno Dwights Memoirs
of Jonathan Edwards, an edition of the Humble Attempt was immedi-
ately republished in England and Scotland7 after the 1748 Boston edi-
tion. However, Christopher Mitchell firmly denies this claim since
there is no extant evidence.8 While the existence of the publication of
the so-called first edition in Britain is disputable, the circulation of the
Humble Attempt in the 40s is quite certain.
Almost immediately after the publication in Boston, Scottish evan-
gelicals had access to Humble Attempt. In a letter dated as early as
August 31, 1748, to John Erskine (17211803),9 Edwards confides some
(Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival, WJE, 4:516 italics mine). Edwardss philosoph-
ical articulation of this principle is stated in Chapter 1, Part 4 of this book.
5
See, Marsden, Life, 334; Murray, New Biography, 295.
6
Lesser confirms this point. M.X. Lesser, An Honor Too Great: Jonathan Edwards
in Print Abroad in Home and Abroad, 304319. See also, Appendix.
7
Sereno Dwight, Memoirs, WJEEH, 1:xcii.
8
Christopher Mitchell, Jonathan Edwardss Scottish Connection and the
Eighteenth-Century Scottish Evangelical Revival, 17351750, (Ph.D. Thesis, University
of St. Andrews, 1997), 283.
9
Erskine was a Church of Scotland minister, a prolific author, and an avid reader
of theology. Yet for our purpose, his role as the hub for transatlantic correspondence
is crucial. According to Yeager, Erskines preoccupation with books donated many lit-
eratures to numerous leading Academic institutions in America including, Harvard,
Princeton, Dartmouth and Yale. Erskine did not began his epistolary correspondence
with Edwards until 1747 but he continued to nurture this relationship until Edwardss
68 chapter three
of his frustration with Thomas Prince (16871758)10 who forgot to

send him a copy of the work. Evidently the last year, (presumably,
1747) refers to the date when Edwards had sent books on the subject
of the Concert for Prayer to Erskine via Prince, but Erskine did not
receive it. Edwards then took some further care to have the books con-
veyed to Erskine, and this time, he will surely receive it.11 Likewise,
in his letter to William McCulloch, dated September 23, 1747, Edwards
complains to McCulloch that Prince had forgotten that he had any
such letter to give to McCulloch. Edwards also refers McCulloch to
another letter that he wrote to John MacLaurin, which McCulloch
doubtless should have had the opportunity to see. While it may not
have been in the final form of the Humble Attempt, the contents of such
a letter represented, as Edwards writes, a particular account of what
I know concerning the propagation of the Concert for United Payer in
America.12 From this it is quite reasonable to implicate that in spite of
the obstacles caused in part by the slowness of communication, and
particularly that occasioned by Princes carelessness, Edwards was still
not deterred from insuring that these Scottish evangelicals at least
received the content of the Humble Attempt. In conceding that the first
British publication in the 40s is rather improbable (if, in fact it was
death in 1758. His bond with Edwards was cordial, and this is visible in a series of
letters by which Edwards confides in Erskine about the painful inner experiences
as he faced the Lords Supper controversy. When Edwards was dismissed from the
Northampton parish, he experienced considerable financial struggles. During this
time, Erskine extended the invitation for ministerial employment in Scotland. Erskines
loyalty to Edwards was extended in strenuous times as well as after his death. The
remaining years of his life, Erskine dedicated much time, money, and efforts to pro-
mote Edwardss writings. Such a significant role that Erskine played in the circulation
of Edwardss corpus in Britain cannot be overstated. His epistolary friendship with
John Ryland Jr. is particularly noteworthy to consider, since this was the vital link in
which Fuller received many of writings of Edwards. For a biography Erskine, see, Sir
Henry Moncreiff Wellwood, Account of the Life and Writings of John Erskine, D.D., Late
One of the Ministers of Edinburgh, (Edinburgh: Archibald Constable and Company,
1818). For recent treatments, see, Jonathan Yeager, Puritan or Enlightened?: John
Erskine and the Transition of Scottish Evangelical Theology, Evangelical Quarterly 80
no. 3 (2008): 237253; see also, Jonathan Yeager, Enlightened Evangelicalism: The Life
and Thought of John Erskine (New York: OUP, 2011).
10
Thomas Prince, Edwardss ministerial colleague in Boston, took care of Edwardss
correspondence with the Scots, but his forgetfulness often tested Edwardss patience.
It may be hypothesized that Princes disagreements about Edwardss interpretation of
prophecy in Revelation 11 might have contributed to his carelessness in delivering the
post. See the discussions on section 3.2.3.
11
To the Reverend John Erskine, WJE, 16:246.
12
To the Reverend William McCulloch, WJE, 16:237.
published at all, the numbers must have been miniscule), because

Edwardss relentless labors to circulate his books,13 the Scottish coun-
terpart of the Concert would have had reasonably easy access to the
substance of the Humble Attemptand probably the actual copies of
the Boston edition, or perhaps even the first British edition, if such
edition was extant at the time.
Insofar as the subject matter is concerned, the full title of the Humble
Attempt well summarizes the gist of the treatise. Edwards thought that
uniting in prayer was a solution to the problems of dissection that he
was facing in the post Great Awakening. The catholicity of the prayer
meeting for the common purpose could serve as the means of advanc-
ing and even expediting Christs kingdom, which Edwards believed to
be in the imminent future. In the American colonies, Stephen Stein
has claimed that the Concerts of Prayer had rather limited success.
His assertion builds upon from Joseph Bellamys statement in 1749:
To this day, I believe not half the Country have ever So much as heard
of Mr. Edwards peice upon the Scotland Concert.14 Haykin agrees with
Stein that the initial stages of what began with the poor response15
but he argues that A significant number of congregations in America
and Scotland observed the Concert of Prayer throughout the 1750s,16
especially during the French and Indian War (17551760). In Britain,
the Humble Attempt had more profound repercussions. The ramifica-
tions of this in the eighteenth century can be viewed in two main stages:
1) during Edwardss lifetime in the 40s and 50s,17 and 2) his posthu-
mous influence in the 80s and 90s. The latter has much to do with
Andrew Fuller and the Northamptonshire Association.
3.1.2 Prayer Call of 1784 and the Humble Attempt (1789)

Recapitulating from last chapter, Fullers first encounter with the writ-
ing of Edwards was in 1777, when he finally got hold of the right copy
of the Freedom the Will. Fuller had an opportunity to peruse Humble
Attempt when John Ryland Jr. received a parcel of books from Erskine
in April of 1784. Ryland, fully aware of the esteem in which Fuller and
13
See, WJE, 16:255.
14
Joseph Bellamy as quoted in Stein, Editors Introduction, 5:48.
15
16
Ibid., 162.
17
For a detailed discussion of this, see Mitchell, Eighteenth-Century Scottish
Evangelical, 258261.
70 chapter three
John Sutcliff held Edwards, wasted no time in sending the books to

them and thus making a profound impact upon missiological history.
The acquisition of the Humble Attempt by Fuller,18 Sutcliff and other
Northamptonshire members returned the flame to the Concert of
Prayer, which had its origin in the 1740s between Scotland and New
England, but which almost forty years later in England gave rise to the
Prayer Call of 1784. Under Edwardss inspiration for prayer, a meeting
of the association took place in Nottingham. There, Fuller preached
and published two sermons under the title, Persuasives to general Union
in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival and Extent of Real Religion19 and
The Nature and Importance of Walking by Faith. Furthermore, they
established the practice of keeping the first Monday of the month to
pray for the advancement of Christs Kingdom. Thus, apart from the
context of this Call, the beginnings of Careys ministry could not be
fully appreciated. This is why Thornton Elwyn has argued that the Call
was one of the most decisive events in the life of in that period, and
probably for all Christendom.20 What is more, in 1789, for the purpose
of wider circulation, the prayer movement republished the pocket-
size edition21 of the Humble Attempt. In describing the significance of
the new edition, Murray states, It is arguable that no such tract on the
hidden source of all true evangelistic success, namely prayer for the
Spirit of God, has ever been so widely used as this one.22 Should Elwyn
18
See Extracts from His Diary WAF, 1:35.
19
See Persuasives to Union in Prayer, WAF, 3:666670. In Persuasives Fuller makes
seven points that are all significant in subsequent developments for the formation of
BMS and LMS. Notice the theme of Edwardss Humble Attempt reiterated in Fullers
seven points: 1) Consider Christs readiness to hear and answer prayer, especially
on these subjects; 2) Consider what the Lord has done in times past, and that in
answer to prayer; 3) Let the present religious state of the world be considered to
this end; 4) Consider what God has promised to do for his church in times to come;
5) If we have any regard to the welfare of our countrymen, connexion and friends, let
this stimulate us in this work; 6) Consider what is suggested is so very small; 7) And
lastly, It will not be in vain, whatever the immediate and apparent issues of it. These
themes are scattered throughout Humble Attempt and is especially noticeable in Part II
that is entitled, Motives to a compliance with what is proposed in the memorial. See,
Humble Attempt, WJE, 5:329367 (Henceforth, HA). Morden describes this similarity
as striking and comments that Fuller was echoing Edwards Call to Prayer and re-
applying it strongly to his own context (Morden, Offering Christ,124).
20
Thornton Elwyn, Particular Baptists of the Northamptonshire Baptist Association
as Reflected in the Circular Letters, BQ, 37, no.1 (January, 1997): 380.
21
To borrow Haykins description of this edition, which contains 168 pages, and
measures only six and a quarter inches long, and three and three-quarter inches wide.
22
Murray, New Biography, 299.
and Murray have overstated their case in assessing the magnitude of

the influence of these events, I am of the opinion that they have grounds
for their argument, since this Call, together with the re-publication of
the Humble Attempt in 1789, paved the way for the formation of the
BMS in 1792, and the LMS in 1795, which was the genesis of the
Protestant missionary movement.23
The acknowledgement of the Humble Attempt as an inspiration for
the Prayer Call of 1784 is generally recognized in the secondary litera-
tures, but the apocalyptic portion that drove this eschatology, which in
some sense was the engine for the optimism of this missionary effort, is
often ignored. It is therefore to this apocalyptic element that we now
turn our attention.
3.2 Eschatological Basis for Fullers Apocalyptic Speculation
John Calvin is often celebrated for commentating on most of the books

of the Bible, although he intentionally left out the Book of Revelation.
Being the frequent, yet anecdotal, writer that Edwards was, most of his
works are prescriptive or pertain to some sort of response to the prob-
lematic issues that prevailed at that time. The Humble Attempt was no
exception. In contrast to Calvin, for Edwards, the apocalypse of the
Revelation was a subject of fascination and he studied it rigorously.
Stein observes that the Revelation was the only book of the Bible that
Edwards favored with a separate commentary.24 However, a similar
observation could be made of Fuller who did not write volumes of sys-
tematic theology as was the case with Charles Hodge,25 nor primarily
saw himself as a Bible commentator like Calvin.26 Instead, in common
23
This is not to simply argue that the Humble Attempt was Edwardss missiological
imperative as was Careys Enquiry. Walls writes, The Humble Attempt is not a book
about missions; it is a book about prayer. It became a book about missions because the
group of people who were reading it already had the germ of the idea of oversea mis-
sionary enterprise (Andrew Walls, Missions and Historical Memory: Jonathan
Edwards and David Brainerd, Home and Abroad, 252).
24
Stein, Editors Introduction, 5:1. For a verse by verse commentary of Revelation,
see Notes on the Apocalypse, 5:97218.
25
Of course, Fullers writings are characteristic of systematic theology, but what is
meant here is that he did not neatly package his thoughts into volumes of dogmatic.
26
This does not suggest that the Bible is of any less importance than for Calvin.
For instance, Fuller prayed, Lord, thou hast given me a determination to take up no
principle at second-hand; but to search for everything at the pure fountain of thy word.
(Extracts from his diary, 1:20).
72 chapter three
with Edwards, Fullers writings mainly arose in the context of episodic

and often polemical situations. For this reason it is interesting to note
Fullers immense labors over the verse-by-verse, commentary-like
biblical exposition of the Book of Revelation. As matter of fact,
this apocalyptic discourse is lengthier than most of his celebrated
publications.27
3.2.1 Comparing Edwardss and Fullers use of Moses Lowman

Moses Lowman (16801752) is relevant to these eschatological discus-
sions because he is one of the most frequently cited figures in Edwardss
Humble Attempt and Fullers Exposition of the Apocalypse (1815).
Lowman was a nonconformist minister and writer whose commentar-
ies on the Book of Revelation were widely read by both dissenters and
churchmen. According to Alan Ruston, virtually, Nothing is known of
Moses early schooling, but it is unlikely to have taken place among the
dissenters.28 Lowman began his career as a professor of law, but left
that occupation to study theology at the universities of Leiden and
Utrecht. Lowmans most notable work in dealing with the apocalyptic
of the Revelation was Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation (1737)
where he considered each seal, trumpet and vial as a chronological
descent from the preceding level. Anti-Papal propaganda as the symbol
of Beast is also an important feature of his scheme.29 Regarding this
apocalyptic reading, there is little doubt Lowman had significantly
influenced Edwards and Fuller. At this point, a case could be made for
Fullers bibliographical indebtedness30 to Edwards in terms of Lowmans
influence on Fuller. However, caution must be exercized on certain
eschatological issues where Edwards differs from Lowman, and Fuller
is actually closer to Lowman than Edwards; whereas on other issues,
Fuller concurs with Edwards rather than Lowman. Of course, there are
instances when Fuller demonstrates his theological independence by
27
Exposition of Apocalypse, WAF, 3:201307 (106 pages); The second edition of the
Gospel Worthy of All Acceptations with added Appendix, 2:328416 (88 pages);
Strictures of Sandemanianism, 2:561646 (85 pages); Gospel Its Own Witness, 2:3107
(104 pages).
28
Alan Ruston, Lowman, Moses Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (OUP,
2004) http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17097, (accessed April 11, 2007).
29
Moses Lowman, A paraphrase and notes on the Revelation of St. John. (London:
printed for John Noon, 1737), xxixxxxiv, Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
30
Chapter 4 examines a stronger version of Edwardss bibliographical influence on
Fuller in his use of Chamberss Cyclopedia and Owens Pneumatologia.
mediating between Edwards and Lowman. The following chart is a

brief overview of some of the similarities and discrepancies between
the three concerning the Seven Seals of the Revelation.
3.2.2 The Seven Seals
Moses Jonathan Edwards32 Andrew Fuller33

Lowman31
1. 95100 1. Heathen 1. Despite persecution,
Christianity Persecution success of gospel in the
Prevails early church
2. 100138 2. Heathen 2. Judgments of God
Destruction Persecution upon Churchs enemies
of Jews (i.e., Jews and Romans)
3. 138193 3. Heathen 3. Famine
Famines Persecution
4. 193270 4. Heathen 4. 193270 Great mortality
Mortality Persecution through sword, hunger;
and pestilence to Jews and
Pestilence Romans for persecuting
the church
5. 270304 5. Heathen 5. 270 Persecution under
Diocletians Persecution Diocletian and
Persecution Maximian; numerous
martyrdoms; and cries
of prayers for retribution
6. 304323 6. Heathen 6. Overthrow of the pagan
Imperial Persecution empire by Constantine.
Commotions The prayers are answered
7. Not Listed 7. Calm under 7. Subdivision of the
Constantine Seventh Seal into the
Arianism, Julian the Seventh Trumpets
Apostate, and
East-West Struggles
31
Adopted from Stein, Editors Introduction, 5:58.
32
Adopted from Ibid., 5:14.
33
See WAF, First Seal 3:224; Second, Third, Fourth Seals 3:225; Fifth Seal 3:226;
Sixth Seal 3: 227; Seventh Seal 3:230.
74 chapter three
The above chart and Fullers frequent citations34 of these sections is

indicative of the significance of Lowmans apocalyptic interpretations
on Fullers thinking, which was greater than Lowman on Edwards.
However there are a few points where Fuller hesitates to follow
Lowmans interpretation of the Seals. On the matter of the Sixth Seal
in Revelation 7 that leads to the Seventh Sealwhich in Fullers view is
the subdivision of Seventh Trumpetswhile agreeing with Lowman
that it refers to Constantine, Fuller opposes Lowmans interpretation
of it:
Mr. Lowman and others have been lead to interpret this sealing of the
servants of God in their foreheads of the numerous conversions made in
those times of Christian faith. But sealing denotes, not conversion, but
the preservation of those who are converted. Those who were sealed did
not by this become the servants of God, but are supposed to be such
already.35
Had this Constantine event been the enormous conversion that
Lowman suggested, there ought to have been a great celebration, but
instead of striking up the heavenly choir, (as is usual in prophecy when
new and glorious events occur,) on this occasion, Fuller observes, the
choir is mute.36 The silence is due to Arian heresy and, according to
Fuller, the sixth seal is the preservation of servants who are preserved
from the heretical teachings of Arius.
It is fascinating to note that it is on this topic of Constantine, in
Part 3 of the Humble Attempt, Edwards criticizes Lowman. He believed
that Lowman was mistaken in thinking that Constantine and his
successors were the Beast, when in fact Constantine was the instru-
ment of giving mortal wound to the heathen Roman Empire.37
Moreover and interestingly, Fuller is in only partial agreement with
Edwardss critique of Lowman, thereby demonstrating his theological
independence. Taking neither side on these issues, Fuller commences
his case by writing, Whatever virtues attached to Constantine or
his successors, the fact of the matter is, the protection of Constan-
tines government proved to be ruinous38 for the church. Fuller
remains silent about whether this is the actual the work of the Beast
34
See, Exposition of Apocalypse, WAF, 3:210, 222227, (henceforth, Apocalypse).
35
Ibid., 227228, italics original.
36
Ibid., 228.
37
HA, 5:400401.
38
Apocalypse, 3:230231.
(Lowmans view), or, as Edwards has suggested, the work of Constantine

as the instrument of God. Instead, Fuller uses this opportunity to talk
about his own agenda, namely the preservation of the true church. In
this era of ruinous apostasy, the seal on their forehead is the preserva-
tion of Gods true servants.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of Lowmans influence on
Edwards is, as Stein claims that, It was Lowman who persuaded
Edwards to push forward his own interpretive scheme.39 Coming out
of the time of the Protestant Reformation, the true church is inaugu-
rated into a gradual release from the invasion of papal authority. How-
ever, it also appears that it was on this specific political and exegetical
order that Fuller did conceive with Mr. Lowman as well40 although
the three men vary from one another in the degree of detail concern-
ingthe apocalyptic certainty as it correlates with the unfolding of the
order of worldly events. Edwards thought that Lowman was too eager
to specify 1260 years, because its not reasonable to expect that God
should make known to us beforehand, the precise time of Christs
coming in his Kingdom.41 Fuller likewise was wary of Lowmans
understanding of 1260 years and the precise sequence of the seals,
trumpets, and vials as they correspond to the dates and events: I am
not solicitous to determine the year when each begins or ends.42 Yet,
more than Fuller, Edwards is willing to speak explicitly about the end
time being near. Since the unstable days of the church were of the past,
things were increasingly favorable for the true church. Both Edwards
and Fuller equally stressed prayer as the means to expedite the king-
dom. God has heard the cries of the faithful in the past, and for Edwards,
prayer ought to continue to be the means to inaugurate the Kingdom:
The duty of the church, in an extraordinary manner, to be by prayer
inquiring of him concerning it, and saying, How long, Lord! and waiting
for it, day and night crying to him with exceedingly importunity that he
would bring it on, that he would come quickly, that he would hide him-
self no longer, but would arise and have mercy upon Zion, and awake as
one out of sleep, only manifest himself, and make bare his holy arm for
the salvation of his people 43
39
Stein, Editors Introduction, 5:59.
40
Apocalypse, 3:243; For Fullers discussions on vials as it relates to the Holy Roman
Empire, see 3:276283.
41
HA, 5:395.
42
Apocalypse, 3:223.
43
HA, 5:395.
76 chapter three
However, notice Fullers comparable conviction of God hearing the

cries of the faithful when he articulates:
The terrible things which God is now in righteousness inflicting on the
nations may be in answer to the prayers of his servants of the former ages,
who century after century have been crying, How long, O Lord, holy and
true, doest thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on
the earth? Such cries enter the ears of the Lord of hosts, and must be
answered.44
Likewise, observe the similar confidence of Fuller in seeing prayer as
the means to inaugurate the Kingdom:
The events would occur in answer to those prayers; which might be so
many intercessions for the success of Christs causes, and against that of
its adversaries. Heathen Rome was overthrown in answer to the prayers
of the soul 45
All these features can be seen as crucial genetic components of robust
missological hope for an optimistic Post-millennialism. However,
there may still be impediments to this positive outlook that, in the
interests of certainty, require the study of an interpretation of the
Slaying of the Witnesses in Revelation 11.
3.2.3 Edwards on the Slaying of the Witnesses

Atypical of Edwardss work, the 1748 Boston edition of Humble Attempt
was received with a cautionary note from the usual supporters of
Edwards. In the preface, the five ministerial friends in Boston, includ-
ing Prince, who was mentioned earlier, furnished a rather lukewarm
endorsement for this work: As to the authors ingenious observations
on the prophecies, we entirely leave them to the readers judgment.46
In particular, they had problems with Edwardss understanding of
Slaying of the Witnesses47 in Revelation 11, which was believed to be
too optimistic. By far the prevailing interpretation during that era was
44
Apocalypse, 3:245.
45
Ibid., 230.
46
Joseph Sewall, Thomas Prince, John Webb, Thomas Foxcroft, and Joshua Gee,
Preface, HA, 5:310.
47
Regarding the ruin of the Antichrist in Rev. 11:315 five clergies publicly disagree
with Edwards by writing in the Preface, yet we cannot see that this is any just objec-
tion against our joint and earnest prayer for the glorious age succeeding, or for the
hastening of it (Preface, 5:310).
that the horrendous persecution was yet to be seen. Nonetheless,

Edwards went against the widely accepted explanation in arguing for a
more hopeful interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
In part 3 of Humble Attempt, Edwards answered several objec-
tionsthat threatened the concept of the Concert of Prayer. This section,
however, will confine itself to underscoring a particular argument of
Edwards, one that Fuller quotes in his Exposition of the Apocalypse.
In the face of those who interpret the Slaying of the Witnesses in
Revelation 11 as the future event that implies a forthcoming cata-
strophic occasion for the church, Edwards not only disagrees with
such an interpretation, but argues for the exact opposite in order to
promote concerts of prayer. The reason for the disagreement is firmly
grounded in his optimistic eschatological framework. If the Slaying
of the Witnesses was a future event to be fulfilled, it would be a great
hindrance to the Concert. If people were merely waiting for a time
when the church [is] almost extinguish, and blotted out from under
heaven, he writes, It will tend to damp, deaden and keep down, life,
hope, and joyful expectation in prayer before it is actually fulfilled.
Instead of such a pessimistic attitude, Edwards exhorted his readers to
expect that God will answer their prayers by speedily bringing on the
promised glorious day.48 For Edwards, the Slaying of the Witnesses is
not an event that remains yet to be fulfilled, for these witnesses signify
an epoch under the oppression of Antichrist (the papacy), when the
true church is at the lowest ebb of her historyto the point of near-
est to an utter extinction. Needless to say, since the Reformation, the
Antichrist hath fallen, at least, halfway to the ground, from that height
of power49 and the readers could be assured that that event lay safely
in the past.
In Edwardsean perspective, the true church is on the rise. The Slaying
of the Witnesses cannot refer to the upcoming tragic episode, but
rather to the faithful witnesses of the past who were under severe per-
secution by the Antichrist prior to the Protestant Reformation. Among
others, these witnesses were particularly identified by Edwards as the
Waldenses, Albigenses and Bohemians.50 Therefore, as Marsden
rightly assessed, in estimating the sequence toward Christs Kingdom,
Edwards did not draw any sharp line between the spiritual and the
48
HA, 5:378379.
49
Ibid., 381.
50
Ibid., 390.
78 chapter three
political the Concert of Prayer, and the war with the French and
their Indian allies were all of one piece.51 For instance, Edwardss view
of divine providence in history was evident in 1745, the era when
Protestant New England was threatened by Roman Catholic control.
But he believed that the mind-boggling victory by the British forces
over the French at the Louisbourg fortress on Cape Breton was a sure
sign of the commencement of the latter-day glory found in Revelation.52
Edwards was convinced that the Concert of Prayer was Gods ordained
means to establish this end.
3.2.4 Edwardss Influence on Fullers Exegesis of Revelation 11

In the preface to the 1789 edition, John Sutcliff, who furnished the
new preface for Humble Attempt and was a great admirer of Edwards,
distances himself from some of the prophecies. In the preface, Sut-
cliff records, I do not consider myself as becoming answerable for
every sentiment it contains. An author and an editor are very distinct
characters.53
While Sutcliff wholeheartedly endorsed Edwardss encouragement
for corporate prayer in order to advance the Kingdom, on the particu-
lar point concerning the Slaying of the Witnesses, he may be yielding to
the former preface (1748 edition) as written by five evangelical mem-
bers of the Boston clergy. In other words, in aligning himself with the
more established interpretation of Revelation 11, Sutcliff could be per-
ceived as disassociating himself from the Edwardsean interpretation of
prophecy.54 However, it is extremely interesting to note that Andrew
51
Marsden, A Life, 338.
52
See HA, 5:361362.
53
John Sutcliff, Preface to 1789 edition HA, WJEEH, 2:278, (henceforth, Preface
1789).
54
To my knowledge, this argument is novel. George interprets this as saying how
Sutcliff did not endorse every detail of dating in Edwardss eschatology. See, George,
Faithful Witness, 51. Alternatively, Haykin seems to suggest Sutcliff could be referring
to Edwardss interpretation of Ezekiel 36:37, see Haykin, One Heart, 166. However,
given that Sutcliff is writing a preface to the new edition, in a tradition of those
who argued that Edwardss interpretation of the Slaying of the Witnesses could not be
just objection, he could be merely agreeing with those men. While Sutcliff abso-
lutely endorses Edwardss notion of the corporate prayer for the advancement of
the Kingdom, yet he may not see any good reason to follow Edwards in such an inter-
pretation of Revelation 11. See, Preface 1789, WJEEH, 2:278, cf. Preface, WJE,
5:310. If my hypothesis is correct, Sutcliff s disagreement with Edwards is consistent
with Dwights testimony that identifies the interpretation of prophecy as the Slaying
of the Witnesses in Revelation 11. See, Sereno Dwight, Memoirs, WJEEH, 1:xciii.
Fuller, a devoted friend and a close associate of Sutcliff, with whom he

had preached and written books,55 nevertheless follows the Edwardsean
stance56 on this controversial, minority viewpoint.
The situation in which Fuller amplifies Edwardss interpretation of
Revelation 11 in his Exposition of the Apocalypse is remarkably similar
to that in Humble Attempt. In keeping with Edwardss critics who saw
the Slaying of the Witnesses merely as a future event, in Fullers setting
Bishop Newton and Doctor Gill have interpreted the Slaughter of the
Witnesses as an event yet to be fulfilled. If they are right, Fuller impli-
cates that it is vain to look for corresponding facts in past event. That
said, Fuller rejects their understanding when he says, I cannot but
consider this as a mistake.57 In the face of Newton and Gill who argue
for the same reading of the witnesses as did the critics of Edwards, the
claim of Edwards is supported by Fuller stating, I cannot therefore but
think with him that the persecution and slaughter of the witnesses pre-
ceded the Reformation.58 The grounds for Fullers assertion can be seen
in his quotation of Humble Attempt:
The time in which the witnesses are slain, and their bodies lie unburied,
appears to be a time in which the best is in the height of his power, or,
as President Edwards says, in which the true church of Christ is lowest
of all, most of all prevailed against by the antichrist, and nearest to an
utter extinction; a time in which there is left the least visibility of the
church of Christ, yet subsisting in the world, and the least remains of any
55
John Sutcliff and Andrew Fuller, Jealousy for the Lord of Hosts: and, The pernicious
influence of delay in religious concerns. Two discourses delivered at a meeting of ministers
at Clipstone, in Northamptonshire, April 27, 1791. (London: sold by Vernor; Ash;
Matthews; Button; Gardiner; and by Smith, at Sheffield, [1791]) Eighteenth Century
Collections Online.
56
This was not the only instance when Fuller disagreed with his friends and adopted
Edwardss position. On the issue of the Lords Supper, Fuller argued for the closed com-
munion of Edwards, whereas Ryland Jr, Carey, and the Serampore missionaries were
for open communion. Fuller rigorously opposed his friends stance but they remained
devoted to one another in the partnership of ministry. The fact that Edwardss An
Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications
Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church
was republished at Edinburgh in 1790, might have contributed to Fullers disagree-
ments with some of his closest friends. See, Thoughts on Open Communion,; Strict
Communion in the Mission Church at Serampore,; The Admission of Unbaptized
Persons to the Lords Supper Inconsistent with the New Testament, WAF, 3:503515.
Cf. Humble Inquiry, WJEEH, 1:433484.
57
Apocalypse, 3:250.
58
Ibid., 251. cf. Edwards also believed that the witnesses represented the faithful
who had been slain in the days before the Reformation. HA, 5:380.
80 chapter three
thing appertaining to the true religion whence a revival of it could be

expected,59
Who then, according to Fuller, were these witnesses? Like Edwards,
Fuller saw them as the faithful witnesses who were persecuted prior to
the Reformation, and among many others he also identified them as
the Waldenses, Albigenses and Bohemians.60 Fuller also saw the ran-
sacked days of the church as a thing of the past, for he interpreted the
French Revolution as a crucial sign that that shook the papal world to
its centre. In the current events, All things considered, Fuller writes,
France may have the honour to have the last great stroke in the ruin-
ing of Rome.61 The fact that the year 1789, when the Humble Attempt
was reprinted, also happens to be the year that saw the commencement
of the French revolution, only served to confirm the positive eschato-
logical framework that Fuller inherited from Edwards. Therefore, if
Marsdens assessment, vis--vis with Edwards in not drawing a sharp
line between the spiritual and the political is correct, the same verdict
could be given of Fuller. In hindsight, we could say that both Edwards
and Fuller misinterpreted these apocalyptic prophecies in term of
their correlation between the events of the Book of Revelation and
world events. Nevertheless there is no doubt that in the wellspring of
Andrew Fuller, the missiological theologian, was the Edwardsean
optimistic worldview that underpinned his exhortation in the Prayer
Call of 1784.
3.3 Missiological Implications of the Optimism in Humble Attempt
Fuller believed that under Edwardss influence, the kingdom of Christ

was not to be thought of as arriving instantaneously through some
59
Apocalypse, 3:251, cf. HA, 5:379380. On this points, a skeptic may raise the ques-
tion of whether Fuller could be indebted to Lowman rather than Edwards, since
Lowman has also argued that from the Protestant Reformation onwards, the true
church is inaugurated into a gradual release from the invasion of papal authority.
However, it is improper to question this account. First, Fuller credits Edwards, not
Lowman, with this insight. Second, unlike Edwards and Fuller, Lowman does not make
this point in the context of Revelation 11, but waits until his discussions on the Fifth
Vial. Nevertheless, Edwards and Fuller have strong parallels with Lowman insofar as
their understanding of the Reformation and the Pope. See Moses Lowman, A para-
phrase and notes on the Revelation of St. John (London: printed for John Noon, 1737),
xxxii, 195198. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
60
Apocalypse, 3:248249, 251.
61
See, Ibid., 3:252253. See also, Morris, Memoirs of the Life, 206209.
cataclysmic event at the end of the age. Therefore, they did not envision
the dreadful devastation of the true church prior to the downfall of the
Antichrist. Instead they supposed quite the contrary in their belief
that there would be enormous advancement in Christs kingdom,
which was in the imminent future. Although Fuller did not stress
immediacy in the way that Edwards did, they still firmly believed that
the latter days were publicly discernible and the current escalation
of the Protestant Church at the expense of what appeared to be dimin-
ishing papal authority in Europe and America, was evidence of the
unfolding apocalyptic reality that they had read about in the Book of
Revelation.
Although Edwards believed there would be some setbacks as the
advancement took place, he looked forward to the unprecedented
outpouring of the Spirit of God; when the whole world would embrace
the light of the gospel and the victory of Christs kingdom over the
present dark world. This optimistic eschatological outlook encouraged
Fuller and motivated those in Northamptonshire to pray more fer-
vently. It became the groundwork for courage to engage in rigorous
foreign missions. In describing the 1789 edition of the Humble Attempt,
Fuller speaks about how much this publication contributed to
that tone of feeling and gave the confidence to venture, and face
their fear in taking on a missionary task of such magnitude. He
adds, Icannot say; but it doubtless had a very considerable influence
on [BMS].62 In such a setting, it is not surprising that Carey was able
to find confident expectation in propagating the success of the
Great Commissions to the church, and thus coined his famous
phrase, Attempt great things; Expect great things.63 It could therefore
be reckoned that while Edwards and Fuller may have been mistaken
about their interpretations of the apocalyptic particulars in the history
of the world, but there is no doubt behind the formation of
BMS in general, and Fullers view in particular that this was the world-
view that fuelled the global missions. For good or ill, it is in this escha-
tological climate, that BMS and the Modern Missionary Movement
was born.
62
Principle and Prospects of a Servant of Christ, WAF, 1:351.
63
This celebrated sermon was based on Isaiah 54:23 and initially delivered on May
30, 1792, at Nottingham.
82 chapter three
3.4 Jonathan Edwardss Missiological Legacy
Edwardsean scholarship widely recognizes that The Life of David

Brainerd is a standard text for domestic and foreign missionaries.64
Although this legacy is certainly not incorrect, I am convinced that it is
incomplete. While The Life of David Brainerd was rightly celebrated as
the exemplar of a pietistic reference manual for many missionaries
from the late eighteenth century through the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, there are two other significant corpus that are often over-
looked in Edwardss missiological genre. They are, Freedom of the Will
and Humble Attempt.
Suffice to say, many Edwardsean scholars are correct when they
link Brainerds piety as a role model for incoming missionaries in BMS
and later LMS. Yet this was certainly not the only, or even the most
important, of Edwardss influences upon the Protestant missionary
awakening. As we have seen, because of the evangelistic restraint of
Hyper-Calvinism and without Fullers employment of the metaphysics
of natural and moral inability and the use of means found in Freedom
of the Will, the BMS might never have gotten off the ground. We could
speak similarly of the Humble Attempt. Had it not been for Edwardss
optimistic outlook, exhortation to communal prayer, and eschatologi-
cal hope for future success, the fuel for the rigors of the foreign mis-
sions might well have been depleted. Therefore Edwardss missional
legacy is far greater than that of simply editing The Life of David
Brainerd. The historians and missiologists recognizes that Edwards
lived too long before Carey, and too far away from London, and
had too many non-missionary-specific thoughts to be a candidate
for Father of Modern Missions. Nevertheless, Edwards deserves
the title grandfather of modern Protestant missions, on both sides
of the Atlantic.65 In addition to being Americas theologian66 in the
64
See Conforti, David Brainerd and the Nineteenth-Century Missionary
Movement, 309329; Conforti, Most Popular Work: The Life of David Brainerd,
188201. See also Pettit, Prelude to Mission: Brainerds Expulsion from Yale, 2850;
Walls, Missions and Historical Memory, Home and Abroad, 248265.
65
Piggin and Davis has argued this point. See Steward Piggin, The Expanding
Knowledge of God, 266, 287 n. 2. See also, Ronald Davies, Advocate-and Missionary,
6067.
66
Jenson, Americas Theologian.
eighteenth century, Edwards had significant impact on England and

Scotland. The repercussions of Edwards on the modern missionary
movement through Fuller and the Northamptonshire Association
are enough to conclude that his theology has bestowed a glorious
legacy in Britain.
CHAPTER FOUR
EDWARDS ON THE AFFECTIONS
All spiritual and gracious affections are attended with, and do arise from
some apprehension, idea, or sensation of mind, which is in its whole
nature different, yea, exceeding different, from all that is or can be in the
mind of a natural man; and which the natural man discerns nothing
conceives of no more than a man without the sense of tasting can con-
ceive of the sweet taste of honey, or a man without the sense of hearing
can conceive of the melody of a tune, or a man born blind can have a
notion of the beauty of the rainbow.1
Jonathan Edwards
4.1 Historical Background
Followed by the very sudden and awful death of a young man that
stirred up all kinds of upheaval,2 the Connecticut Valley Revival in
America began in the early 1730s due to religious enthusiasm within
the Northampton community. Accompanied by a glorious outpouring
of the Holy Spirit in Northampton parish in 17341735, these series of
events led to another great spiritual renewal in 17401742. This renewal
was partly fostered through the English revivalist George Whitefield
who, together with Edwards, was at the center of these eighteenth-
century revival activities.3
Edwards wrote A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections during
the Awakening in America but, contrary to common perception,
the revival was in factas Susan OBrien has argueda transatlan-
ticphenomenon.4 Both sides of the Atlantic were very much aware of
the others revivalistic activities and this was especially the case among
the Calvinist evangelicals who created the durable chain of corre-
spondence that built a community of saints that cut across physical
1
Religious Affections, WJE, 2:207208.
2
For a historical account of this tale, see Marsden, Life, 150163.
3
John E. Smith, Editors Introduction, WJE, 2:45.
4
Susan OBrien, A Transatlantic Community of Saints: The Great Awakening and
the First Evangelical Network, 17351755, AHR 91(1986): 812.
edwards on the affections 85
barriers.5 The friendship between Whitefield and Edwards can be seen

as the principal link in this transatlantic network and was established
over the course of the seven preaching tours that Whitefield conducted
in America.
In addition to Religious Affections, Edwards wrote three other works
aimed at interpreting the work of the Spirit of God in New England:
A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God (1737), The
Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741), and Some
Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England
(1741).6 Each of these treatises was a commentary on the revival and
attempted to distinguish true piety from the false. The Awakening that
rippled throughout New England was complicated by lay preachers,
critics of the learned clergy, and by the over-zealous, even bizarre,
behavior on the part of alleged converts.7 These extraordinary manifes-
tations subsequently became the point of contention between the
camps of the Old Light and those of the New Light. One of the princi-
pal criticisms of the revival, as represented by the Old Light, came from
Charles Chauncy (17051787), who denounced overt enthusiasm and
called for a return to what he described as sane, rational religion. In
response to Chauncy, Edwards defended the revival against the Old
Light as a divine work. Because of the growing controversy over the
nature and signs of the gracious operation of Gods Spirit, Edwards
preached a long series of sermons based on 1 Peter 1:8. Some of the
core ideas from these sermons gave expressions to the nature of true
religion, which later became the foundation for Religious Affections.
At this point, there are some historical parallels between the setting
of Religious Affections and Andrew Fullers Strictures on Sandemanian-
ism. Just as Religious Affections responded to Chauncys reaction to
the worst kind of emotionalism, the rejection of affections of the heart
in the nature of Sandemanian faith may have had its origin in similar
historical circumstances (see 5.1). Haykin reports, Sandeman does
appear to have been responding to the unduly introspective temper
of some circles of eighteenth-century Evangelicalism.8 As Walter
Eversley points out, while in the minds of many Edwards personifies
5
Ibid., 813.
6
In addition to Religious Affections, Fuller read Faithful Narrative and Some
Thoughts on the Revival, see WAF, 2:123; Ryland Jr., The Work of Faith, (1st ed), 371.
7
Westra, History of the Work of Revival, in Edwards in Our Time, 151.
8
Haykin, Sandemanian Controversy, in Pure Fountain, 227.
86 chapter four
the pastor as revivalist. Yet, unlike typical revivalists who may have
anti-intellectual tendencies, the soteriology of Edwards makes an
appealing proposition to the academically inclined.9 As was the case
with Edwards, Fullers voice was well respected in his own historical
setting among the cerebral Particular Baptists when he addressed
Sandemanianism, perhaps more than Carey, who sometimes was
labeled as an enthusiast.
4.2 Philosophical Background of the Sense of the Heart
In 1948, a year prior to the great rediscovery of Edwards that he initi-

ated, Harvards Perry Miller wrote an article entitled, Jonathan
Edwards on the Sense of the Heart.10 Since then, this phrase represents
what many consider to be one of the most unique traits of Edwardss
ideas.11 Miller attributes a great deal of the conception of the sense of
the heart or new sense to the influence of the British empiricist John
Locke, yet Iain Murray has argued to quite the contrary:
The plain fact is that Edwardss excursions into philosophy were only
occasional and peripheral to his main thought; it was theology, or divin-
ity, which belonged to the warp and woof of his life. Edwardss place in
history is not alongside of Locke, Berkeley or Kant. His life and impact
were essentially religious.12
How substantial was Edwardss philosophical indebtedness to Locke in
sense of the heart? According to Conrad Cherry, Terrence Erdt,
Murray, and Gerstner13 the answer is rather minimal, but according to
9
Eversley, The Pastor as Revivalist Edwards in Our Time, 114.
10
Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards on the Sense of the Heart, HTR 41 (1948):
123145.
11
Delattre, Beauty and Sensibility; Erdt, Art and the Sense of the Heart; Mitchell,
Experience of Beauty.
12
Murray, New Biography, xx.
13
The interpretation of Edwards as Lockean has been challenged since Millers
groundbreaking work. Cherry was the first to argue that Miller has overlooked
Edwardss emphasis on Calvinism. He argues that Edwardss philosophical and scien-
tific interest were bent to a theological purpose. See, Cherry, A Reappraisal, 34. Erdt
is in accord with Cherrys contention in identifying Edwards as Calvinist as opposed to
Lockean. While Erdt argues against Miller in attributing that Calvin rather than Locke
was influential in Edwardss writing, his take is different from Murrays location of
Edwards in the Calvinistic tradition. For Erdt writes, it would be equally erroneous to
regard [Edwardss] reading of Locke as unimportant to his conception of the sense of
the heart. See, Erdt, Art and the Sense of the Heart, 20. This statement is quite contrary
the statement of a confessional Calvinist, Murray who argued, The plain fact is that
Perry Miller, Peter Gay, Bruce Kuklick and Wayne Proudfoot, the influ-
ence of Locke on Edwards was immense.14 The following statement was
made by Miller regarding the Lockean influence on a simple idea in
Edwardss writings: [Edwards] grasped in simplicity, not as a collegiate
thesis, the Christian insight is what Locke called a simple idea, an irre-
ducible unit of experience 15 Smith further explained that Locke had
described the idea of sense of the heart as a simple idea, but that such
simple ideas are not created by human beings. Simple ideas can be
combined and compared, but human minds cannot originate them.
Likewise, Edwardss concepts of the new sense is a new simple idea
which no man creates16 Notice the epistemological mechanics that are
involved in the perception of mind which Edwards views as a new
simple idea.
If God produces something thus new in a mind, that is a perceiving,
thinking, or conscious thing; then doubtless something entirely new is
felt, or perceived, or thought; orwhich is the same thingthere is some
new sensation or perception of the mind, which is entirely a new type,
and which could be produced by no exalting, varying of compounding
of those types of perceptions or sensations which the mind had before;
or there is what some metaphysicians call a new simple idea.17
Edwardss excursions into philosophy were only occasional and peripheral to his main
thought and [Edwards] was not an originator. He proposed no-reformulation of the
doctrine he was content with the theology of Westminster Confession and of the
Shorter Catechism. See, Murray, New Biography, xx, 468. In his criticism of Miller,
Murray fails to notice the strength of Edwardss philosophy, and this led to his failure
to view the uniqueness of Edwardss rendering of Calvinism. Like Murray, a conserva-
tive Calvinist like Gerstner would sometimes downplay the Lockean influence on
Edwards.
14
Since Miller, many scholars have followed the line of interpreting Edwards as
Lockean. See Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 5267; Gay, Historians in Colonial America;
Kuklick, From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewy. Wayne Proudfoot observes that this
references to Lockes doctrine of the simple idea and the metaphor of the taste of honey
are one of the most prevalent themes in Religious Affections. Wayne Proudfoot, From
the Theology to a Science of Religions: Jonathan Edwards and William James on
Religious Affections, HTR, 82(2), (1989): 154155. There are recent debates among
those who are primarily interested in Edwardss philosophy as to the influence of either
Locke or Nicholas Malebranche (16381715), a rationalist French philosopher who is
known for occasionalism. For Philosophical influence of Malebranche on Edwards,
see, Fiering, Jonathan Edwardss Moral Thought, 4045. See also Paul Copan, Jonathan
Edwardss Philosophical Influences: Lockean or Malebranchean? JETS 44.1(March
2001), 107124.
15
Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 154.
16
Smith, Testing the Spirits, 34.
17
RA, 2:205, italics mine.
88 chapter four
At this point, Edwardss notion of the perception can be seen as close to

that of Locke:
Our Senses, conversant about particular sensible Object, do convey into
the Mind, several distinct Perceptions of things, according to those vari-
ous ways, wherein Objects do affect them: And thus we come by those
Ideas, we have of Yellow, White, Heat, Cold, Soft, Hard, Bitter, Sweet, and
all those which we call sensible qualities18
Edwards articulates that it is God who produces a new idea in the
mind, which comes through the senses of the perceiving human agent,
but Locke also mentions that the idea comes to the mind through the
senses when the external object affects the perceiving human.
According to Leon Chai, the simple idea is related to the role that the
sense of perception plays in the knowledge of external objects since the
external object yields simple qualities because of our senses.19 In
both cases, either the external object (Locke), or God (Edwards) pro-
duces a simple idea in the mind of the perceiving agent; or the link
between the external object or God and the perceiving agent is the
sense of perception of that agent. In the light of such a comparison,
Lockes epistemological mechanics is valuable for identifying empiri-
cism in Religious Affections.
In Book II of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke
defends his non-innate view against rationalists and other critics. He
defines the meaning of a simple idea as, the power to produce any idea
in our mind I call a quality of the subject wherein that power is.20
Lockes definition of the meaning quality is: A quality is the power to
produce any idea in our minds.21 Human understanding and percep-
tion are caused by a collection of micro-physical particles and the
objects quality, which can produce ideas in our minds.22 That is to say,
18
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. As quoted in Chai,
Limits of Enlightenment Philosophy, 11, italics mine.
19
Chai, Limits of Enlightenment Philosophy, 16.
20
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding eds, Robert Cummins,
David Owen. History of Modern Philosophy, (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, 1992), 129, italics his.
21
Essay, Book II, Chapter 9, sections 815. This scenario represents Lockes view
regarding perception: an idea in a subjects mind is created by the qualities of an object.
In other words, the qualities are features of the object, not of the subject, yet ideas are
features of the subject rather than the object. In section 8 of Essay, Locke attempts to
find two different ways in which humans arrive at understanding and begins by distin-
guishing between two types of qualities, the primary and the secondary.
22
Locke, Essay, Book II, Chapter 8, Section. 8.
the object transfers the quality into the subject (i.e. the human agent),
which then imprints the idea upon the human mind. For example, sup-
pose there is an apple, and the sense organs are working properly.
Presume that there is a proper environment in which to perceive that
apple; Locke would then argue that the apple has the causal power to
produce an idea in the agent who is in the act of perceiving. For Locke,
the quality is the feature of the apple and not a feature in the agent.23
In contrast to the primary quality,24 Locke defines secondary quali-
ties as extrinsic properties and relational. He writes, [The secondary
qualities] are nothing in the objects themselves, but powers to produce
various sensations in us by their primary qualities.25 This statement
means that secondary qualities are not in the object itself, but in the
way in which the subject (the agent) perceives and responds to the
object. The examples that Locke gives for secondary qualities are col-
ors, sounds, [and] tastes,26 However, the language of taste and sensa-
tion27 is prominent in Religious Affections.28 As Robert Jenson points
out, in Edwardss epistemology, mere intellectual judgment does not
grasp value as value but in its role as the sense of the heart. There is a
difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and
23
Compare this with Edwards, who believes that the primary quality described by
Locke is a feature of God, not of humans.
24
Locke describes the primary qualities by saying, They are utterly inseparable
from the body. See, Essay, Book II, Chapter 8, section 9. Moreover, primary qualities
are intrinsic, and produce a particular type of idea in the mind. Primary qualities are
properties that are completely independent from the mind. The ideas that relate to the
extension, figure, and mobility of an object are some of the examples of primary quali-
ties at work. In addition, primary qualities are qualities in the object that allow the
object to exist, whether anyone is there to perceive it or not. To illustrate the point,
suppose that a tree exists in an agents (subjects) yard. The tree continues to exist
whether the agent is in the back yard to perceive it or not. This is because the tree has a
primary quality that allows the idea of spatial extension in the agent. It is this idea that
enables the agent to believe the tree is completely independent of the subject and con-
tinues to exist despite the lack of perceiving it on the part of the subject.
25
Locke, Essay, Book II, Chapter 8, section 10.
26
Ibid.
27
Locke argues that secondary qualities, combined with primary qualities, can pro-
duce states of sensation within us. Suppose that greenness exists. In order for me to let
you know that there is greenness, it would appear that my sense of vision is required for
the initial perception of such a condition. If that is true, then the property of greenness
is contingent on my sense of vision (secondary quality). This entails the concept that
the property of being green is extrinsic. Therefore, any sensation of that quality exists
only in my relationship to the property of greenness. With this distinction, Locke
asserts that secondary qualities can produce states of sensation within us when they are
in combination with primary qualities.
28
See, RA, 2:205206.
90 chapter four
having a sense of its sweetness.29 Thus, Edwards uses a form of empiri-

cal reasoning that is similar to that of Locke.
After observing a resemblance in the area of perceptions involving
Essay and Religious Affections, and nevertheless seeing Edwards as an
empiricist and, in particular, as Lockean, Miller went too far when he
described Edwardss thought as Puritanism recast in the idiom of
empirical psychology.30 In viewing Edwardss epistemology as simply
changing empirical psychology to fit Puritanism, Miller has failed to
notice the importance of Edwardss original expansion of Lockes Essay
to furnish the idea of the sense of the heart.
Stephen Nichols rightly asserts that Edwards went far beyond
Lockean empiricism because Edwards included emotion in his under-
standing of perception.31 This had enormous implications for Fullers
debate with Sandemanianism, as will be demonstrated in chapter 5. In
any case, Sang Hyun Lee also argues that due to Edwardss elaboration
of the minds active role in the knowledge process, he moves even fur-
ther than Locke:
Edwards in a sense did not reject Lockean empiricism but rather
expanded its meaning. Edwards viewed the perception of reality that is
now made possible through the indwelling divine disposition as an imag-
inative sensation - an intuition that constitutes an act of receiving the
objective structure of reality into the minds consciousness Edwards
did affirm, in his own way, the Lockean principle that knowledge must be
a knowledge gained through the experience of the objective world.32
The basis from which Lee has argued is quite different from that of
Miller, who saw Edwards as Puritanism recast in the idiom of empiri-
cal psychology. If Lees view is accurate insofar as the acquisition of
knowledge from the experience of the objective world, then the case
may be made that Edwards affirmed that the knowledge must be
attained through the sensory experience of the objective world of
God.33 Gerstner moves a step further even than Lee in arguing for the
29
A Divine and Supernatural Light, as quoted in Jenson, Americas Theologian, 66.
30
Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 62.
31
Nichols, Absolute Sort of Certainty, 48.
32
Lee, Philosophical Theology, 146, italics mine.
33
However, Miller argues that Edwardss passages of sermons are a dramatic per-
ception and the truth is in the seeing, not in the thing. (Miller, Jonathan Edwards,
330). Here, by emphasizing the subjectivity and perceptively in the new sense,
Miller has portrayed perception as the truth. Therefore, Edwards would be closer
to William James than Proudfoot would acknowledge. However, Proudfoot makes a
expansion of Lockes empiricism by Edwards. This is because Locke did

not know what was behind34 all those things that were apprehended
through the senses as described above.35 Consequently, Gerstner writes,
When Locke said the beyond is I know not what, Edwards virtually
replied: I will tell you. It is God.36 He further writes:
Locke during his lifetime never got beyond pointing in this direction. If
this be so, why did Locke mean so much to Edwards, who could
have been Lockes teacher? It would seem that Locke explained the pro-
cess by which Edwards could see what he saw and Locke could not see. It
is as if Edwards had been delightedly scanning the heavens through a
telescope and Locke came along and explained how the telescope
worked.37
Therefore, according to Lee, even though Locke and Edwards share
epistemological similarities, Edwards has significantly expanded
Lockes empiricism. Yet from entirely a different theological trajectory
than Lee, Gerstner likewise argued, Lockes philosophy did not account
for what was behind those empirical senses that caused the simple idea
in the mind. But in the account of Edwards, it was God. Thus, it can be
concluded that Locke had understood the manner in which the episte-
mological mechanic operated on the function of the senses as it pene-
trated the mind, but Locke was unable to locate the source of the
ontological reality that Edwards saw as God. Even Chai, who is poles
apart from Gerstner,38 would be in accord with him on this particular
point in seeing God as the source:
helpful contrast between William James and Edwards regarding the subjects experi-
ence of the object in general and religious experience in particular. James writes in
Varieties: Religion shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individu-
als in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to what
they may consider the divine. Yet, unlike Edwards, James argues that apprehending to
stand in relation to what the subject considers the divine is a way of identifying the
experience in their terms. Therefore, for James, religion is a matter of feeling rather
than thought. See, Wayne Proudfoot, Jonathan Edwards and William James on
Religious Affections, 160.
34
Locke did not know what was behind secondary quality.
35
36
Ibid., 41.
37
Ibid.
38
Leon Chai has argued that Edwards is closer to the European Enlightenment than
Puritanism, a point with which Gerstner could not disagree more. Moreover, in con-
trast with Chais view, Gerstner saw the Freedom of the Will as one of Edwardss sound-
est works.
92 chapter four
Edwardss solution is to postulate that God produces something in mind

that allows us to have a new sensation or perception. Since God himself
is directly responsible for what we feel.39
Thus, if Lee, Gerstner and Chai, who are reading Edwards from com-
pletely different theological and philosophical viewpoints, can agree on
this site, then Edwards ought to be read as going far beyond Locke in
locating God as the source of ontological reality behind these episte-
mological mechanics. Hence, Marsden must be correct when he
depicted Miller as the most influential historian of Edwards yet one
who, despite his eloquence, is mistaken in seeing Edwardss thinking as
primarily Lockean.40 He writes, Locke opened up exciting new ways of
looking at things, especially regarding the relation between ideas and
reality yet Edwards was no Lockean in any strict sense.41
4.3 Thematic Textual Exposition of Edwardss Pneumatological

Epistemology
One of the hallmarks of the theological works of Edwards is an aes-

thetic and mystical vision of the excellence of God as manifest in all
creation. In Religious Affections, Edwards articulates the view that it is
through a new sense of heart that holy affections are triggered whence
one is able to truly acquire the knowledge of God. The presence of this
new sense begets a sensible knowledge, which is the sign of the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit in true regeneration. The sense of heart is there-
fore Edwardss spiritual epistemology of the perceiving agent. Michael
McClymonds has helpful categories to analyze this pneumatological
epistemology.42 By utilizing this classification, the sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.6
will treat the content, mode, and sensibility of Edwardsean perception.
This chapter will initially investigate the content of perception, and par-
ticular focus will be on those segments that are the aesthetical compo-
nent of Edwardss thought by examining the conception of spiritual
beauty which is also referred to as excellency. The second category
is the mode of perception. Under this heading, the study will examine
39
Chai, Limits of Enlightenment Philosophy, 26. Thus, Lee, Jenson, Chais interpreta-
tions of Edwards is quite different from Miller and Gays because they do not present
Edwardss philosophy in antagonism to his theology, but in complimentary relations.
40
Marsden, Life, 60.
41
Ibid., 63.
42
See, McClymond, Encounters with God, 17.
the Edwardsean relationship between beauty, sweetness and sensible

knowledge as related to human understanding. In addition, it will
include an exposition of Edwardss Divine Supernatural Light as a
means of underscoring the mode of divine light that operates in natural
human faculties. The third category is the sensibility of perception.
Under this category, the Edwardsean conception of the sense of heart
in Religious Affections will be explored in light of his pneumatology. By
way of illustrating the sense of heart the personal religious experience
of Edwards that can be found in his Personal Narrative will be discussed
and analyzed. In section 4.4, the study will consider the theological
repercussions of a sense of the heart and its effects upon human incli-
nation and connection to the holy action of the saints.
4.3.1 Content: Theological Aesthetics in Religious Affections

The aesthetical vision of Edwards is a crucial element in the under-
standing of his epistemology. Consequently, to comprehend his episte-
mology we must examine his conception of the sense of the heart,
which comprises his theology of the aesthetic. Roland Delattre has
stated that beauty is fundamental to Edwardss understanding of
being, the inner, structural principle of being-itself, according to which
the universe system of being is articulated.43 Nonetheless, what consti-
tutes beauty can be controversial, especially in the post-modern rela-
tivistic ethos. This inevitably leads to the classical problem of taste,
because the notion of discerning taste presupposes the element of stan-
dards of some sort. However, Edwards would oppose such relativistic
and subjective notions of beauty; instead he would be in accord with
one of Edward Farleys descriptions of the concept:
Beauty, then, is not simply a referentless [sic] passion, an inner disposi-
tion. These dispositions are at the same time perceptions which can be
disciplined (refined) to certain non-subjective properties in nature or in
the arts 44
According to this definition, beauty is not mere subjective perception
but possesses points of reference by which the perception can be
disciplined and refined to enhance perceptivity. However, notice the
43
Delattre, Beauty and Sensibility, 1, n.1.
44
Edward Farley, Faith and Beauty: a Theological Aesthetic (Burlington: Ashgate,
2001), 36, italics mine.
94 chapter four
striking similarity between Farleys refined taste and Edwardss con-

cept of rational knowledge in perceiving beauty:
The more you have a rational knowledge of divine things, the more
opportunity will there be, when the Spirit shall be breathed into your
heart, to see the excellency45 of these things, and to taste the sweetness of
them.46
Here the Edwardsean view about the rational knowledge of divine
things as a means to see the excellency (or beauty) of God correlates
with Farleys notion of the discernment of taste as something that can
be disciplined or refined. As ones taste becomes more refined so too
does the ability to appreciate and perceive the beauty of God increase.
In part 3, section 4, of Religious Affections, Edwards reaches for Ephraim
Chamberss Cyclopedia, or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and
Sciences47 for his definition of taste. Edwards comments that just as in
taste of the mind, the Cyclopedia avers that persons are guided in their
judgment of natural beauty by the standard of inward sensation and
the impression of the object. Divine taste, Edwards also argues, is
maintained by the Spirit of God, in the hearts of the saints and that
divine taste is the quality by which they are guided in discerning and
distinguishing the true spiritual and holy beauty 48 Therefore,
according to Edwards, true beauty would not be in the eye of the
beholder as Shakespeare wrote, but in the eye of the refined beholder
when the Holy Spirit breathed into the heart of the saint. In developing
the subject of beauty in this context, the study will now discuss the
concept as appears in Religious Affections.
4.3.2 Content: Edwardss Usage of Beauty in Religious Affections

In Religious Affections, the word beauty is used 169 times. The use
of the word by Edwards has a variety of meanings depending on its
context. Beauty can be personified in the trials of life as the expression
45
The words excellence and beauty are interchangeable term in Edwardss
writings.
46
Christian Knowledge, in WJEEH, 2:162, italics mine.
47
RA, 2:283. See, Ephraim Chambers, ed., Cyclopedia, or, An Universal Dictionary of
Arts and Science 2 vols. (London, Printed for James and John Knapton, 1728), 2:181.
The two volumes were an 18th century encyclopedia made available by Chambers.
It was one of the first general encyclopedias produced in English. See, http://digital
.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/HistSciTech.Cyclopaedia02.
48
RA, 2:283.
of a form of true religion: these trials are of further benefit to true

religion they make its genuine beauty and amiableness remarkably
to appear.49 But more importantly, beauty is the content of the divine
attribute that makes worship possible by locating the object of wor-
ship: The glory and beauty of the blessed Jehovah, which is most
worthy in itself, to be the object of our admiration and love 50
Additionally, beauty is crucial in understanding the essence of divine
attributes since Gods beauty is derived from His moral perfection.
According to Edwards, the shining face of Jesus Christ is the moral
perfection and beauty of Gods nature.51 This perfect moral attribute
whence beauty is located, is none other than the holiness of God:
As the beauty of the divine nature does primarily consist in Gods
holiness, so does the beauty of all divine things.52 Edwards also adds,
Holiness, which is as it were the beauty and sweetness of the divine
nature is proper nature of the Holy Spirit53 However, it is important
to note that this beauty of God is the source of human beauty because
human beings are the reflection of the image of God: beauty of his
divine nature, of which the beauty of his human nature is the image
and reflection, does also primarily consist in his holiness.54 Edwards
says, Herein consists the beauty of the saints55 that they are saints, or
holy ones; it is the moral image of God in them, which is their beauty;
and that is their holiness.56 Consequently, Edwards argues that true
understanding of this knowledge in beauty of holiness necessarily
leads to perceiving the hatefulness of sin, which has enormous implica-
tion to Fullers conception of moral inability. For Edwards, the content
of spiritual perception is the beauty of Gods holiness, and when it is
truly perceived by the human agent, it necessarily will produces holy
affections.
49
Ibid., 93.
50
Ibid., 123.
51
Ibid., 248.
52
Ibid., 258.
53
Ibid., 201.
54
Ibid., 258.
55
According to Edwards, there is such thing as false beauty which is opposite from
beauty of the saints: joy of hypocrites is in themselves .admiring their own experi-
ences; and what they are principally taken and elevated with, is not the glory of God, or
beauty of Christ, but the beauty of their experiences (RA, 2:251). Natural beauty falls
under the realm of general and natural revelation, such as: the justness of a speech, the
goodness of style, the beauty of a poem, the gracefulness of deportment (RA,
2:282).
56
Ibid., 258.
96 chapter four
4.3.3 Mode: Beauty, Sweetness, Sensible Knowledge, and

Understanding in Religious Affections
The notable observation that needs to be made at this point is the fact
that Edwardss concept of beauty is closely related to his epistemology
because the beauty of which he speaks is a quality that can be recog-
nized through perceptional senses. It is here, in this place, where many
scholars57 have identified Edwards as an empiricist. Just as physical
eyes can see the beauty of a rainbow, a tongue can taste the sweetness
of honey, and ears can hear beautiful music, so too do the spiritual
senses bring about spiritual knowledge.58 Edwards writes, spiritual
knowledge primarily consists in a taste or relish of the amiableness and
beauty of that which is truly good and holy 59 The image of the
sweetness of honey that Edwards uses is an exquisite picture that adds
a unique dimension to this otherwise sensible knowledge in that its
sweetness underscores the role of the perceiving agent as the very
essence of knowledge. To know the sweetness of honey requires more
than the agent simply being an idle spectator; it requires the active par-
ticipation of the perceiver. Hence, it is through the spiritual aspects of
the senses, particularly in being able to see the beauty of Gods attri-
butes and taste the sweetness of that which is divine, that the saint
comes to know God:
Gods kindness to [saints] is a glass that God sets before them, wherein to
behold the beauty of the attribute of Gods goodness: the exercises and
displays of this attribute, by this means, are brought near to them, and set
right before them 60
By this means, that is to say, through these spiritual senses, one is able
to see the beauty and taste the sweetness of God. The knowledge
attained from these senses is closely connected to the conception of a
sense of the heart, since the combination of beauty and sweetness
comprises the Edwardsean vision of aesthetic spiritual understanding:
a sense of the heart, of the supreme beauty and sweetness of the holi-
ness or moral perfection of divine things, together with all that discern-
ing and knowledge of things of religion, that depends upon, and flows
57
See, Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 5267; Lee, Philosophical Theology, 148; Robert
Brown, Edwards, Locke, and the Bible The Journal of Religion 79 (1999): 3684.
58
See, RA, 2:259.
59
Ibid., 281.
60
from such a sense. Spiritual understanding consists primarily in a sense

of heart of that spiritual beauty. I say, a sense of heart; for it is not specula-
tion merely that is concerned in this kind of understanding.61
For Edwards, understanding gained of the content of beauty through
spiritual perception links the faculties of mind and heart, cognitive and
affective. As McClymond puts it, It meshes experiential manifestation
with philosophical reflection.62 It is through these lenses that the fol-
lowing statement from Part, 1, Section 2, of Freedom of the Will ought
to be read:
The will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears most
agreeable, is, than to say that will is determined by the greatest apparent
good, or by what seems most agreeable; because an appearing most
agreeable or pleasing to the mind, and the minds preferring and choos-
ing, seem hardly to be properly and perfectly distinct.63
At this juncture, it is vital to note that Edwards did not collapse the
distinction between will and strong motive as some have suggested.64
Rather Edwards contended that the strongest motive of agreeing, pleas-
ing, preferring or choosing for the mind are functions of the will (and
vice versa).65 Therefore it is only in this specific meaningthe activity
of the minds esteemingis it virtually impossible to distinguish it
from the act of willing. However, this does not entail a suggestion that
there are no distinctions between the will and strong motive, since
motive is external to mind which moves, excites or invites the mind to
volition.66 Therefore, when Edwards argues that the action of seeing
61
62
McClymond, Encounters with God, 26.
63
FW, 1:144.
64
James Strauss Jonathan Edwards: A Puritan in a Post-Puritan World, in Clark
Pinnock, ed. Grace Unlimited (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Press, 1975), 252. For
a response to Strauss interpretation, see John Piper, James D. Strauss Critique of
Jonathan Edwardss Freedom of the Will, (November 1, 1976) www.desiringgod.org,
(accessed on July 20, 2007). For further treatment that contextualizes this discussion of
intellectualism vs. voluntarism in the history of theology, see Norman Fiering, Will
and Intellect in the New England Mind, WMQ, 3rd ser., 29 (October 1972): 515558.
65
According to Edwards, the will may be defined simply as the mind choosing:
whatever names we call the act of the will bychoosing, refusing, approving, disap-
proving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding,
forbidding, inclining or being averse, a being pleased or displeased withall may be
reduced to this of choosing (FW, 1:137). Thus, Edwards makes it clear that the will is
not some separate partthat is, the will is not a part of the mind-like, for example, a
liver is part of the human bodyinstead the will is simply a name for a particular func-
tion that the mind performs.
66
FW, 1:141.
98 chapter four
that which is most agreeable or pleasing, is in fact hardly distinct

from the act of willing, he is simply stressing the nature of true under-
standing which encompasses both mind and heart. This is most thor-
oughly quantifiably actualized in the agents volitional action. This is
why the holy action as seen in Religious Affections is one of the chief
signs of holy disposition. Thus, it is through the sensible knowledge of
beauty in the sense of the heart, that one is able to choose holy living
based on spiritual understanding, rather than mere on speculation.
This leads us to consider how, epistemologically, the sensing agent
acquires such knowledge. The answer is most clearly stated in A Divine
Supernatural Light.
4.3.4 Mode: A Divine Supernatural Light (1743)

Another important rationale for why A Divine Supernatural Light mer-
its our attention is, not only because it aids us in interpreting the sense
of the heart in Religious Affections, but Fuller had full access to this
sermon67 and utilized its ideas in his polemical dialog as it will be
demonstrated in chapter 5. In any case, in A Divine Supernatural Light,
Edwards accentuates, from among all the sensory perceptions, meta-
phors of light and sight. In this sermon, he depicts divine light as Gods
supernatural means by which perceiving human agents come to appre-
ciate the beauty inherent within their faculties. In this context,
Edwardss description of the condition of the natural mind is signifi-
cant: The mind of man is naturally full of prejudices against divine
truth of divine things: it is full of enmity against the doctrines of the
gospel.68 Thus, the epistemological mechanic of this divine light69 is
such that the light penetrates into the darkness of the depths of the
human soul in a way that is not obtain[ed] by natural means but
produce[ed] by God immediately. Still, this is not to say that these
human faculties are merely passive, but active in this process.70 In this
67
See, Appendix, n.4 under Twenty Sermons, on Various Subjects (Edinburgh:
M. Gray, 1789). Moreover, Fuller also interacts with the reviewer of Edwardss col-
lectedsermons. See, WAF 2:155.
68
A Divine Supernatural Light, WJE, 17:414 (Hereafter, DSL).
69
These are some characteristics of the divine light when it penetrates into the dark-
ness of natural mind: it not only remove the hindrances of reason, but positively helps
reason. It makes even the speculative notions more lively (DSL, 17:415). This destroys
the enmity, removes those prejudices, sanctifies the reason, and causes it to lie open to
the force of arguments for their truth (DSL, 17:414).
70
DSL, 17:416.
context Edwardss comments on 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 4:6 may prove

particularly noteworthy since Fuller also employed these verses:
v. 4 In whom [those who are perishing] the god of this world hath blinded
the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto themv. 6 For
God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in
our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ. (KJV)
Edwards exclaimed that 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 4:6 are the way in which
the gospel is made use. The light that reveals the glorious gospel of
Christ is the divine supernatural light and when this light shines, it
does not suggest any new truths but, by this light [is] only given a
due apprehension of the same truths.71 There are no hidden truths that
need to be revealed in the gospel, but the light shining into the human
heart enables one to see the spiritual realities of glory through spiritual
eyes. Based on verse 6, Edwards states, this plainly shows, that there is
such a thing as a discovery of the divine superlative glory and excel-
lency of God and Christ; and that peculiar to the saints.72 Henceforth,
Edwards paraphrases and interprets verses 4 and 6 in the following
manner:
The light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, hath
shined into us, giving us light of knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ; whether we have seen the Son, and believed on him,
or have that faith of gospel doctrines which arises from a spiritual sight
of Christ.73
It is through these supernatural measures, Edwards argues, that such
knowledge from divine spiritual light is more excellent, than any
human learning; tis far more excellent than all the knowledge of
the greatest philosopher or statesmen.74 Yet, in the same breath, he
also affirms that spiritual light is not the suggestion of new proposi-
tions not contained in the word of God.75 Regarding Lockean influ-
ence on Edwards, perhaps as McClymond accurately notes, this is
where Edwards stood Locke on his head, since Edwards uses Lockes
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid., 418.
73
Ibid., 423.
74
Ibid., 424.
75
Ibid., 412, see also RA, 2:278 n.2 where Edwards quotes Calvins Institutes to make
this point.
100 chapter four
empiricist reasoning that sight is necessary to perceive, but departed

from Locke in that the intellectual certitude of the believers spiritual
perception is greater than certitude gained by mere human reason
about God.76 Consistent with the view expressed in Religious Affections,
according to A Divine Supernatural Light, the knowledge gained
through sense of the heart is more than mere speculative knowledge,
[the saint] does not merely rationally believe that God is glorious,
but he has a sense of gloriousness of God in his heart there is a dif-
ference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious and
having a sense of loveliness and beauty 77 Again, notice the intimate
connection between the aesthetic component (i.e., loveliness and
beauty) and its epistemology (i.e., sense). It is no overstatement when
Marsden ascribes that, more concisely than anywhere else, in A Divine
and Supernatural Light [Edwards] relates his most profound theologi-
cal reflections on his understanding of true Christian experience.78
4.3.5 Sensibility: The Role of Holy Spirit in the Sense of the Heart of
Religious Affections
A crucial hermeneutical key in understanding the spiritual epistemol-
ogy in Religious Affections is Edwardss conception of the new sense or
the sense of the heart.79 The theme of the sense of the heart is a con-
stant motif woven throughout the fabric of Religious Affections. This
sense is Edwardss description in his epistemology as to how the sub-
ject comes to know the object, namely God. It is through this sense that
the individual attains a new disposition of the heart because in having
these new sensations, the perceiver is inclined towards the object that
brings about the new affections. In Religious Affections, the word sense
occurs 211 times; the heart has 560 mentions; the phrase sense of
heart occurs twice and a very similar phrase sense of the heart, three
times. Edwards describes the sensation as follows:
Whence oftentimes arises some bodily sensation, especially about heart
vitals, that are the fountain of the fluids of the body: from whence
it comes to pass, that the mind, with regard to the exercises of this
faculty.80
76
McClymond, Encounters with God, 17.
77
DSL, 17;413, italics mine.
78
Marsden, A Life, 157, italics mine.
79
New sense and sense of heart are used interchangeably.
80
RA, 2:9697.
Notice how closely this sensation relates to understanding the sense of

the heart and beauty when Edwards writes, Spiritual understanding
consists primarily in a sense of heart of that spiritual beauty.81 According
to Edwards, beauty comes through the sense of perception, which
Edwards often describes as sense of the heart in dealing with spiritual
or sensible knowledge. This sense perception has the power to change
the inclination or disposition, thereby changing the object of the affec-
tions, what is in view, as will be further argued in 5.2. Edwards defines
this new sense by making a sharp distinction between speculative
knowledge and the knowledge that was received through the sense of
the heart:
A sense of heart; for it is not merely speculation but when the mind is
sensible of the sweet beauty that implies a sensibleness of sweetness
and delight in the presence of the idea and this sensibleness of the
amiableness or delightfulness of beauty, carries in the very nature of it
the sense of the heart There is a distinction to be made between a mere
notional understanding wherein the mind only beholds things in the
exercise of a speculative faculty; and the sense of the heart, wherein the
mind does not only speculate and behold, but relishes and feels The one
is mere speculative knowledge, the other sensible knowledge, in which
more than the mere intellect is concerned; the heart is the proper subject
of it, or the soul, as a being that not only beholds, but has inclination 82
Edwards describes a sense of the heart as a form of sensation that is
not mere speculation or doctrinal understanding but a type of knowl-
edge that it relishes and feels.
What then is the role of the Holy Spirit83 in the sense of the heart?
To answer this question, this study must examine the relationship
between the role of Edwardss pneumatology within his epistemol-
ogy. In Religious Affections, the phrase Holy Spirit occurs 11 times;
Spirit of God 171 times, and Holy Ghost 27 times. They are
used interchangeably in reference to the third person of the Trinity
and, as a result, Edwards addresses the third person by these names
81
Ibid., 272.
82
Ibid. italics mine. This quote is especially significant since it is a fragment of
Fullers lengthiest quoted excerpts. For Fullers usage of relish, see 5.2.1.
83
Edwardss pneumatology is scattered throughout his corpus but its abstract and
theoretical form is found in two places. Although there are overlaps in the two trea-
tises, his pneumatology on the ontological form and Edwardss explanation of the
nature are the Holy Spirit is contained within his Discourse on the Trinity, while the
pneumatology on the functional form is further clarified in his Treatise on Grace. See,
WJE 21:184187.
102 chapter four
at least84 209 times. At this stage, it is noteworthy that, in Religious

Affections there are aspects of the Holy Spirit acting as a common grace
to the counterfeit Christians and unbelievers, as was the case with the
Israelites in Sinai.85 Edwards raises a pertinent and interesting rhetori-
cal question in his Treatise on Grace regarding this matter:
If a natural person has the fruit of the Spirit, which is of the same kind
with what a spiritual person has, then he experiences within himself the
things of the Spirit of God: and how then can be said to be such a stranger
to them, and have no perception or discerning of them?86
The answer that Edwards gives to this question is startlingly lucid and
simple: The reason why natural men have no knowledge of spiritual
things is because they have nothing of Spirit of God dwelling in them.87
Therefore, having the appearance of the saints through the common
work of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are exceed-
ingly different for Edwards who said, there are many things in the
minds of some natural men that are from the influence of the Spirit, but
are by no means spiritual things in the scriptural sense of the word.88
84
It is at least, a minimum possible frequency these phrases since this study did not
account for Edwardss usage of Spirit refer to the third person of the Trinity because of
the ambiguity of discerning which human spirit and Holy Spirit. See John Piper,
Desiring God: Mediations of a Christian Hedonist (Sister: Multnomah Press, 1996), 77.
Again, these numbers are minimum possible frequency since it did not account for all
the metaphors used for the Holy Spirit.
85
For Edwards, the Israelites in Mount Sinai saw the great manifestations God yet
distrusted God by making the golden calf. Edwards concludes that such disobedience
is a sign of unsoundness of affections (RA, 2:372). He then alludes to the Pneumatologia
in arguing that, Owen is speaking of a common work of the Spirit (RA, 2:373, n.3).
Edwardss usage of Owens excerpt implies that the events of the Israelites at Mount
Sinai is nothing more than the common work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, further
implies that the affections of the Israelites who were involved in making the golden calf
did not have true religious affections, but only the appearance of such affections. For
Edwardss reference to the mind and its significance on Fullers employment of
Pneumatologia see, 5.2.2, n.87. In Edwardss view, the acts of the Spirit of Godthe
work of the Holy Spiritwithin the human agent is a work that is not limited to the
lives of saints, but extends to those of non-believers as well: The Spirit of God is sup-
posed sometime to have some influence upon the minds of men that are not true
Christians (Treatise on Grace, WJE, 21:153). Nevertheless, this act of Spirit does not
entail the positive soteriological viewpoint argued by McDermott, but instead it ought
to be seen as the common work of the Holy Spirit. See, McDermott, Confronts Gods,
130145. The conception of common grace is an important idea that Edwards
expresses in Religious Affections because this category is the basis in which he makes
the distinction between true and false affections.
86
Treatise on Grace, 21:156157, italics mine.
87
88
Ibid., 179.
He adds, natural men may have common grace, common illumina-

tions and common affections, that are from the Spirit of God in his
common operations and gifts89 yet these are nothing more than a nat-
ural principle in a greater degree. Notice the role of the Holy Spirit in
the mind of natural person:
The Sprit of God, in all his operations upon the minds of natural men,
only moves, impresses, assists, improves some way acts upon natural
principles; but gives no new spiritual principle [the Spirit of God] only
assists natural principles to do the same work to a greater degree, which
they do of themselves by nature.90
The natural persons are not inclined to, nor do they feel the irresistible
compulsion towards, the sense of the heart because for them it only
engages the mind as reasonable speculative knowledge. This occurs in
the life of the natural persons because the Spirit of God did not work
in them beyond the common affections. The natural persons may
improve their acts through logical reasons and intellectual consent of
certain true propositions, but there are no renewed spiritual princi-
plesin their heart of those actions. On the contrary, in the case of the
saint, the Holy Spirit operates in a manner that is entirely different
from the natural persons:
The Spirit of God in his spiritual influences on the hearts of his saints,
operates by infusing or excising new, divine and supernatural principles;
principles which are indeed a new spiritual nature, and principles vastly
more noble and excellent than all that is in natural man.91
There is an intricate role that the Holy Spirit plays in the hearts of the
saints for the Spirit is the agent that infuses the divine and supernatural
principle92 which is no other than the renewal of spiritual nature.
89
Ibid.
90
91
92
However, it is important to note that this renewed principle is not some new
revelation that the Holy Spirit pulls from thin air, but the sound understanding of a
principle already existing in Scripture. For Edwards, spiritual understanding of
Scripture through the illumination of the Holy Spirit is one of the key components in
this new supernatural principle in the heart of the saints as opposed to the making of
a new meaning (See, RA, 2:280). Craig points out the possibility of the Holy Spirits
communicative works concerning the new revelations has been a point of contention
between the Puritans and the Quakers in England. He argues that Edwards owned a
copy of Baxters Reliquiae Baxter that contains the argument against the Quakers, and
that Edwards supported Bunyan, Owen and Baxter in opposition to the Quakers on
this issue. See, Craig, Edwards on the Cessation of the Gift of Prophecy, 169170.
104 chapter four
The following is the mechanics within which the Holy Spirit brings
about this new spiritual nature in the heart of a saint:
The Spirit of God so dwells in the heart of the saintsexerts and com-
municates himself, in this his sweet and divine nature making the soul a
partaker of Gods beauty and Christs joy, so that the saint has truly fel-
lowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, in thus having the
communion participation of the Holy Ghost.93
First, the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of the saint as opposed to hav-
ing the appearance of the saint through the common work of the Holy
Spirit. Second, the Holy Spirit exerts and communicates the sweet
divine nature, and opens the spiritual eyes to see Gods beauty and
makes the saints soul a partaker of Christs joy. The sensory percep-
tions of the saints are engaged at this point. According to Lee, Edwardss
epistemology and the logic of disposition require that appropriate sen-
sory data be received from outside the mind in order for the internal
disposition to be triggered into exercises.94 Since this disposition
involves the Holy Spirit as Lee argued, the appropriate external sensory
data would come from earthly embodiment of the transcendent
beauty of God.95 In other words, the pneumatology of Edwards is the
locus of spiritual epistemology for sensing the beauty and sweetness of
God. The Spirit of God is the person that triggers this external sensory
data that leads to the sensible knowledge of God, which is none other
than the sense of the heart. Therefore, the sense of the heart is the core
element in how the Holy Spirit works in the heart of the saint. The pur-
pose of this sense of the heart is so that the saints have truly fellow-
ship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, in thus having the
communion participation of the Holy Ghost. Here, the Holy Spirit is
continually functioning as a cohesive agent, much the same as within
the Godhead, but this time, it is with the creaturesnamely, the saints.96
The sense of the heart has a purpose in that the human agent might
have fellowship with the triune God by having a new spiritual nature
that is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit himself within the hearts of
93
94
Sang Hyun Lee, Editors Introduction, WJE, 21:57.
95
Ibid.
96
For detailed discussions on this, see Chris Chun, The Role of the Holy Spirit in
the Conception of Sense of Heart in Jonathan Edwards Treaties Concerning the
Religious Affections, (Th.M. thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2004),
4751.
saints. This new sense will play a vital role in Edwardss own religious
experience as described in his Personal Narrative and that will shed
further light on Religious Affections.
4.3.6 Sensibility: Personal Narrative (1722)

Murray dates the conversion of Jonathan Edwards to about a year and
a half 97 before August, 1722. The probable date might be somewhere
between May and June of 1721.98 If Murrays estimation on Edwardss
conversion is accurate, then in spite of the fact that he began his Masters
in Theological Studies at the age of seventeen99 he apparently did not
experience regeneration until the age of nineteen. This implies that
even though Edwards was already in training to be a minister, he did
not experience regeneration until 1722. However, Stephen Holmes
would oppose such a mechanical dating of Edwardss conversion since
he read Edwardsean experiential affections as a difference of degree,
not of kind.100 In other words, for Holmes the experience described in
Personal Narrative would be classified as a heightened sense of already
existing holy affections. Yet, in relation to this narrative, Murray and
Holmes both could have valid points which may not be mutually exclu-
sive. Perhaps, the young Edwards thought he was not converted, when
in fact he was.
Whichever may be the case, as George Claghorn states, the Personal
Narrative certainly is an incomparably rich source for understand-
ing Edwards.101 The religious experience that Edwards encountered
was his description of the overwhelming sense of the beauty, sweet-
nessand majesty of Gods love in nature. This, however, is a different
approach from A Divine Supernatural Light in that the sermon primar-
ily deals with the illumination of special revelation, whereas Personal
Narrative is an account of the Edwardsean experience of general
revelation. A heightened sense of Gods holiness and beauty in his
aesthetical theology is captured in the following description:
97
Memoirs of Jonathan Edwards in WJEEH, 1:xiii-iv.
98
According to Murray, there is no suggestion of such an experience in any of
Edwardss personal letters. Thus, he concludes that these new sense and dispositions
took place in May or June of 1721. See, Murray, New Biography, 35.
99
Murray, New Biography, 55.
100
Stephen Holmes, Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards, in Devoted Life
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 291, see also, Holmes, God of Grace, 172174.
101
George Claghorn, Editors Introduction, WJE, 16:750.
106 chapter four
Not long after I first began to experience these things I walked abroad
alone, in a solitary place in my fathers pasture, for contemplation. And as
I was walking there, and looking up on the sky and clouds; there came
into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God,
that I know not how to express. I seemed to see them both in a sweet
conjunction: majesty and meekness joined together: it was a sweet, and
gentle, and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; an awful sweet-
ness; a high, and great, and holy gentleness. After this my sense of divine
things gradually increased, and became more and more lively, and had
more of that inward sweetness. The appearance of every thing was altered:
there seemed to be, as it were, a calm, sweet cast, or appearance of divine
glory, in almost everything. Gods excellency, his wisdom, his purity and
love, seemed to appear in every thing; in the sun, moon, and stars; in the
clouds, and blue sky; in the grass, flowers, trees; in the water, and all
nature; which used greatly to fix my mind. I often used to sit and view the
moon for a long time; and in the daytime, spent much time in viewing
the clouds and sky, to behold the sweet glory of God in these things; in the
meantime, singing forth, with a low voice, my contemplations of the
Creator and Redeemer.102
As Edwards walked in solitary contemplation, a sweet sense (or sense
of the heart) came into his mind. The sense of a perception which he
described as sweetness was actively involved in producing an idea
within his mind. Continuing, Edwards notes that, senses of divine
things gradually increased. This indicates that these new senses were
capable of being experienced in a greater or lesser degree. He then
writes that the appearance of every thing was altered which pre-
supposes the existence of objective103 external objects.104 Yet it is vital to
see that Edwardss perspective of these unchanged objects had been
altered since his experience of the sense of the heart. Edwards further
describes:
Among all the works of nature, [nothing] was so sweet to me as thunder
and lightning. Formerly, nothing had been so terrible to me. I used to be
102
Personal Narrative, WJE, 16:793794, italics mine.
103
McClymond argues that Douglas Elwood and Clyde Holbrook went too far in
labeling Edwards as an objectivist in that he was more interested in the divine object of
religious experience than the way the subject responded. Nevertheless, McClymond
acknowledges Edwards links his carefully crafted theory of human religious sensibil-
ity with an equally nuanced theory of divine objectivity. Therefore, in McClymonds
view, the subjective and objective aspects of religious experience come together in what
he describes as spiritual perception. See, McClymond, Encounters with God, 16, n.44.
104
In this particular case would be the sun, moon, stars, clouds, sky, grass, flowers,
trees, etc.
uncommonly terrified with thunder: and it used to strike me with terror,

when I saw a thunderstorm rising; but now, on the contrary, it rejoiced
me. I felt God, at the first appearance of a thunder storm. And used to
take the opportunity at such times, to fix myself to view the clouds, and
see the lightnings play, and hear the majestic and awful voice of Gods
thunder: which oftentimes was exceedingly entertaining, leading me to
sweet contemplations of my great and glorious God.105
Ontologically, the thunder has not been altered, but Edwardss relation-
ship to that thunder has been radically changed. Prior to the sense of
the heart, thunder struck terror; but after attaining spiritual knowledge
of this natural phenomena, Edwards began to see the glory of God in
the thunder. This new sense altered Edwardss sensibility to matters of
perception. As a result, it changed his disposition of a willing heart and
mindit brought about a new inclination to that which had once been
distasteful, but subsequently became pleasing. In this instance, fearful
thunder became a way of experiencing the awesome and majestic pres-
ence of God. This concept of a new sense comes through more clearly
in Religious Affections, which dates to 1746. However, in 1722, twenty-
four years prior to the Religious Affections, he was already linking this
new sense with his spiritual knowledge in understanding God. This
concept of the sense is well imbedded in Religious Affections when he
writes, A sense of heart; for it is not merely speculation but when
the mind is sensible of the sweet beauty.106 It therefore is not overly
difficult to make the connection that the sense of the heart in Religious
Affections is the same sense that Edwards personally experienced as he
walked in contemplation through his fathers pasture.
4.4 The Sense of the Heart, Changeable Inclination, and

Connection to Holy Actions
In Freedom of the Will Edwards argues that the human will is caused by,
and navigated through the strongest of desires, and it is the condition
of human depravity that results in those desires being attracted to sin,
which is none other than a moral inability not to sin. Simultaneously,
in Religious Affections, he argues that the mark of true religion is in
overcoming depravity by living the sanctified life. However, this cannot
be achieved simply through the effort of a human being trying to force
105
Personal Narrative, 16:794
106
RA, 2:272.
108 chapter four
ones will to act more virtuously but, rather, by the act of that will being
navigated through inclination. According to Edwards, inclination is
the faculty by which a soul is drawn to its likes or dislikes, its pleasure
or displeasure with what is in view. As a result, inclination has a direct
influence on the actions that are determined and governed,107 and
when this transpires, Edwards defines it as the will.108 He asserts that
In every act of the will the soul is in some degree inclined to that
thing, and that inclination, if in a considerable degree, is the very same
with the affection of desire.109 This means that in every action, whether
good or bad, regretful or in satisfaction, the act of will is entailed and
is to some degree always motivated by the strongest inclination of
that moment. Even with such a drastic example of a person deciding
to commit suicide, the concept of inclination suggests that the tragedy
occurred precisely because the inclination to die exceeded the inclina-
tion to live at that moment in time. A person takes their own life
because dying appears a more attractive option than to continue
living.
In the same manner, in Religious Affections, holy action is possible
only when the inclination to live the holy life is greater than living a
sinful life. Accordingly, on the one hand, in every degree of the act
of the will, wherein the soul approves of something present, there is a
degree of pleasedness 110 but, on the other hand, the very same
thing with the affection of love; and that disliking and disinclining, if in
a greater degree, is the very same with hatred.111 This juxtaposition is
the backdrop against which Edwards posits his assumption for arguing
that the beauty of holiness, must necessarily see the hatefulness of
sin.112 Edwardss emphasis on true holiness being the chief sign above
all signs, insofar as a new spiritual nature is concerned, derives from his
seeing the innate nature of this new spiritual principle in the heart of
the saints as the act of the Holy Spirit in the role of special grace (as
opposed to common grace).113 Thus, the holiness seen in the lives of
saints is the external sign of the inwardly operating Holy Spirit in the
heart of the saints, which is contains the essence of the holy principle.
107
Ibid., 96., italics mine.
108
Ibid, 97.
109
Ibid., italics mine.
110
Ibid., 97.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid., 274.
113
See, Treatise on Grace, 21:191.
In view of this, if the mark of true religion is the action of the will
(i.e. holy action), the nature of this holiness does not come from forcing
the inclination, but by changing the inclination that governs the per-
ception of what is in view. How can this inclination be changed? The
transformation occurs when the perceiving agent sees the beauty of
Gods holiness through divine supernatural light. Because the Holy
Spirit awakens the sense perceptions, as saints taste the sweetness of
God, they actively participate in God at the depth of the soul. Since
their taste buds have been fundamentally reshaped at the substratum
level, in the innermost chambers of the human heart, the inclination
has been radically altered. Consequently, true religion, according to
Edwards, is not submission of the will into a more virtuous act neither
by God nor humans, but rather, that the virtuous act is motivated by
the hatefulness and distastefulness of sin because of the saints sensible
knowledge of beauty of holiness in his sense of the heart. As a result,
the inclination then points towards hatred for sin, and necessarily leads
to the affection for holy living, because the disposition of the heart pre-
fers the holy acts typified in the lives of saints.
CHAPTER FIVE
FULLERS THEOLOGICAL INDEBTEDNESS

TO RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS
I think I am by the ministry, as I was by my life as a Christian before

I read Edwards on the Affections. I had never entered into the spirit of
a great many important things. O for some such penetrating, edifying
writer on this subject! Or rather, O that the Holy Spirit would open my
eyes, and let me into the things that I have never seen!1
Andrew Fuller
5.1 Historical Background of Sandemanians
What should a secretary of a newly formed missionary organization

do when one of their largest financial supporters accuses him of
abandoning the Reformation dogma of sola fide? This was the touchy
predicament in which Andrew Fuller found himself when he visited his
trusted Scotch Baptist denomination. As Fuller was based in England,
he was quite familiar with Sandemanianism, yet he did not have either
the time or, indeed, cause to engage it until he faced a strand of
Sandemanianism within the Scotch Baptist churches. Prior to plunging
into this dispute, a historical background of Sandemanianism may be
helpful.
5.1.1 Sandemanianism in Scotland

As mentioned in chapter 2, the religious climate in an Age of Reason
may be one of the main factors in explaining the presence of Hyper-
Calvinists and Unitarians among the Baptists in England. Yet, in
Scotland, one way the Enlightenment developed was through Sandema-
nianism. The eighteenth century Presbyterian intolerance in Scotland
gave birth to the dissection of that church, and from that disconnec-
tion, there were those who saw the New Testament as the only rule of
faith and practice. The founder of this camp was John Glas (16961773)
1
Extracts from his Diary on February 3, 1781, WAF, 1:25.
fullers theological indebtedness to religious affections 111
who was born in Auchtermuchty, and raised in Perthshire where he

became proficient in Greek and Latin. He studied at the University of
St. Andrews and Edinburgh, and was the fifth generation of successive
ministers in his family.2
Glas and Glasites formed a new church based upon what they saw as
a literal interpretation of the New Testament, insisting on weekly com-
munion, foot washing, love feasts and holy kissing. Perhaps the most
significant contribution of Glas was the concept of local congregational
autonomy based on what he considered to be the authority of the scrip-
ture. For this reason he is sometimes known as the Father of Scottish
Congregationalism.3 However, with his fierce Calvinistic background,
Glas believed that human effort had no part in acquiring salvation,
thus rendering the concept of faith one of total objectivity. According
to Thomas South, Glas spoke only of the subjection of the mind to the
testimony of the Gospel. He made no reference to the subjection of
the will.4
Even though the origin of Sandemanianism can be traced to Glas,
the name of the sect is derived from his son-in-law, Robert Sandeman
(17181771) who was born in Perth and educated at the University of
Edinburgh in preparation for the ministry. Sandeman met Glas at the
university and was converted to Glass persuasions within a few weeks.5
Through Sandemans influential writings, most notably Letters on
Theron and Aspasio, he was able to disseminate the teachings of Glas.
Sandemanianism first gained popularity in Dundee and Edinburgh
and unlike Glas, who avoided contentious issues, Sandeman thrived on
controversial debates. In stressing what he saw as the Reformation
principle of sola fide, Sandeman elaborated on Glass concept of bare
faith. Sandeman argued that justification comes by bare faith.6 He
proclaimed that keeping the bare truth, and to live by it alone,7 and to
2
See, D.B. Murray, Glas, John in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and
Theology ed., Nigel M. de. S. Cameron (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 364.
3
Harry Escott, A History of Scottish Congregationalism (Glasgow: Congregational
Union of Scotland, 1960), 17, n.1. For more information on Glas, Sandeman, and
Mclean, see, Brian Talbot, The Search for a Common Identity: The Origins of the Baptist
Union of Scotland 18001870, SBHT, vol. 9 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 2945.
4
Thomas South, The Response of Andrew Fuller to the Sandemanian View of
Saving Faith (Th.D. thesis, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993), 5556.
5
South, The Response,58.
6
Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio (Edinburgh: Sands, Donaldson,
Murray, and Cochran, 1759), 2:330, Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
7
Ibid., 338.
112 chapter five
possess the saving faith in any way other than mere mental assent to
what Christ had accomplished was tantamount to human endeavor
to merit salvation. Sandman saw that faith was wholly passive (not
active) on the part of the human minds (not hearts) persuasion
(not conviction). He therefore argued that the inclusion of will and
affection into faith comprise sola fide.8
5.1.2 Fullers Disputes with Archibald Mclean

Fullers actual encounter with Sandemanians arose during the course
of five visits to Scotland during the late 1790s and early 1800s to raise
funds for the BMS. But for all intents and purposes, the most impor-
tant figure in relation to Fullers controversy with the Sandemanians
was Archibald Mclean (17331812), since it was Mcleans rendering of
Sandemanianism that chiefly engaged Fuller in Scotland. Mclean was
born in East Kilbride and he was educated first at Cathcart, then at
Cowcaddens in 1746. He taught himself Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In
1759 Mclean married Isabella, the youngest daughter of William
Moore, with whom he obtained a small property, enabling him to set
up as a bookseller and printer in Glasgow in 1760. Mclean was a Scotch
Baptist minister who was raised in the Church of Scotland, but later
discovered the writings of Glas and Sandeman and became convinced
of their doctrine in 1762. Mclean became an elder in the Edinburgh
Scotch Baptist church after leaving the Church of Scotland in 1768.
Mclean was an ardent advocate of Sandemanianism and was an
influential writer on many controversial subjects. His most prominent
works are Letters to Mr Glas in Answer to his Dissertation on Infant
Baptism (1767), which is the first Scottish defense of the baptism of
believers by immersion, and The Commission Given by Jesus Christ to
his Apostles Illustrated (1786), which sets out Scotch Baptist beliefs in
full. In addition, he contributed an essay on Baptists in Scotland to
Rippons Annual Register (1795), and a commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews (1820).9 D.B. Murray describes Mclean as, the most
considerable writer among the Scotch Baptists.10 He also corresponded
8
Ibid., 330.
9
Thompson Cooper, McLean, Archibald (17331812), D.B. Murray, Oxford Dic-
tionary of National Biography, (OUP, 2004) www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17648
(accessed November, 10, 2006).
10
D.B. Murray, The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in Baptists in Scotland:
A History, ed. D.W. Bebbington, (Glasgow: The Baptist Union of Scotland, 1988), 21.
with Fuller and was a supporter of the BMS, promoting mission work
in Scotland. During his debate with Fuller, Mclean sometimes detached
himself from Sandeman, but neverthelessas South observed
Mcleans view of faith so closely resembled [that of] Sandeman that
there can be little doubt of his great indebtedness to the latter.11
The relationship between Scotch Baptists and English Particular
Baptists in the early nineteenth century was, according to Brian Talbot,
not of a variant branch of their own denomination but of a sister dom-
ination.12 Both Mclean and Fuller were part of this larger network, one
that featured a particular and remarkable unity in its support of over-
seas missions. Fuller was familiar with Sandemanianism, yet he did not
engage them until he realized that Mclean had been teaching a form of
Sandemanianism in his own sister denomination.
Fuller and Mclean often exchanged letters regarding various theo-
logical and ecclesiastical issues. For instance, they wrote about the form
that church discipline took amongst the different English and Scotch
churches.13 Subsequently, they even met at Kettering to discuss the dis-
crepancy between their understandings of the nature of faith. It was on
this specific issue that Mclean used their correspondence to attack
Fullers position in Commission of Christ.14 Fuller responded to Mcleans
rendering of Sandemanianisms issue of faith in the Appendix to the
second edition of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1801), under
the heading of Whether a holy disposition of heart is necessary in
order to believing. As usual, Fuller did not wish to engage in a dispute
of a polemical nature, especially since Mclean was a strong supporter15
of the BMS and a friend of Fuller. However, Fuller felt the need for a
retort to Mcleans accusation in Commission of Christ, charging Fuller
with abandoning the Reformation dogma of sola fide. Despite such an
indictment, Fullers response is rather charitable, I have the pleasure
to agree with Mr. Mclean in considering the belief of gospel as saving
11
South, The response,80. For instance, Mclean heavily cites Glas and Sandaman.
See, Archibald Mclean, The Commission Given by Jesus Christ to his Apostles Illustrated
(Edinburgh: Printed for W. Gray, Paternoster Row, 1786), 9497.
12
Talbot, Search for a Common Identity, 115. For more information regarding type
of relationships they held among the Baptists, see also, 15, 4553, 113120.
13
Discipline of the English and Scottish Baptist Churches, WAF, 3:478481.
14
Haykin, Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanian Controversy, 228229. For a full
exposition of Fullers response to Mclean, see South, The response, 88150.
15
To the extent which Mclean financially supported the work of the BMS, see
Talbot, The Search for a Common Identity, 5152.
114 chapter five
faith, but the point of disagreement is identified by Fuller as the issue

of What the belief of the gospel includes.16 The Appendix was writ-
ten in reply to the teaching of Mclean, but the debate did not end there,
which led to a further publication, Strictures on Sandemanianism in
Twelve Letters to a Friend (1810). In the judgment of Lloyd-Jones, Fuller
really dealt with Mclean in the twelve lettersto the point where he
considered that Fuller had more or less demolished the position
taken by Mclean.17
What was the theological ammunition that Fuller used not only to
acquit such an indictment, but also demolish Mcleans position? Apart
from Fullers usual robust exegetical works from the scripture, it is
quite customary for Fuller to appeal to his favorite theological mentor,
Jonathan Edwards. The debate with Mclean was no exception to this
norm. Edwardss Sermon on Justification by Faith Alone,18 and his two
treatises Freedom of the Will19 and Religious Affections20 were Fullers
main theological weapons.
On the issue of what the gospel includes, Fuller suggests that Mclean
is careful to exclude every exercise of the heart or will when it comes
to material pertaining to the ontological composition of faith. In
Mcleans view of faith, the heart or will of a believer is considered as
belonging to effects of faith, rather than to faith itself,21 whereas Fuller
renders that the heart and the will are very much part of faith, since
spiritual knowledge includes approbation in its very nature, and not
merely in its effect.22 Fuller therefore contended that belief includes
more than mere intellectual consent, that true spiritual knowledge of
the gospel contains both mind and heart. It is on this point of conten-
tion that Fullers theological indebtedness to Edwards becomes quite
apparent. Having already articulated a thematic textual exposition of
Religious Affections, our attention is now directed to a demonstration of
Edwardsean sensible knowledge through pneumatological epistemol-
ogy as found in the sense of the heart as it works itself out in Fullers
thoughts.
16
Appendix, WAF, 2:393.
17
Lloyd-Jones, Sandemanianism, in The Purtians, 173.
18
Strictures, WAF, 2:572.
19
Appendix, 2:411, n. ; Strictures, 2:598 n. .
20
Appendix, 2:411412 n. ; Strictures, 2:602606.
21
Appendix, 2:393.
22
Strictures, 2:602.
5.2 Thematic Textual Analysis of Influence

of Religious Affections on Fuller
The thematic textual exposition will encompass four main divisions.

First, segments 5.2.1 to 5.2.2 will treat Fullers polemical dialogues with
Mclean by examining the Appendix to the second edition of Gospel
Worthy and Strictures which will highlight the Edwardsean influence
on Fullers pneumatological epistemology. In that process, we will take
a close look at the subject of sense perception, sensible knowledge,
and spiritual understanding. Second, the exposition of Strictures will
further investigate the possible Edwardsean influence on Fullers utili-
zation of Ephraim Chamberss Cyclopedia. In addition, it also will com-
pare and analyze Religious Affections with Fullers employment of John
Owens Pneumatologia in Strictures to determine the potential biblio-
graphical influence of Edwards on Fuller. Third, 5.3 will persist with a
thematic textual analysis of the wider influence of Religious Affections
and Nature of True Virtue on the corpus of Fuller. Lastly, 5.4 will inves-
tigate and draw conclusions about Fullers theological indebtedness to
Edwardsean notions of Sense of the Heart, as well as changeable incli-
nation, holy actions, and their connection to moral inability.
5.2.1 Appendix to the Second Edition of Gospel Worthy

While both Mclean and Fuller agree that divine influence is the ulti-
mate cause of perception and belief, the point of disagreement is the
manner in which this causa occurs. According to Mcleans maxim, the
Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, to discern and believe spiri-
tual things, and thereby renders it spiritual.23 This is to say that for
Mclean the gospel can be discerned and believed by the mind without
any aversion or approbation of the heart. In contrast, Fuller argues that
causality is in the Holy Spirit such that the Spirit imparts a holy sus-
ceptibility and relish for the truth.24 At this point, careful readers of
Edwards may be able to identify the Edwardsean influence since he
also wrote in Religious Affections, spiritual knowledge primarily con-
sists in a taste or relish of the amiableness and beauty.25 In opposing
23
Appendix, 2:410.
24
As a result, the human agent will discern its glory, and embrace it. In this con-
text, Fuller relies on Edwardss pneumatological epistemology. See, Appendix, 2:410.
25
RA, 2:281.
116 chapter five
Mcleans position, Fuller appears to be picking up both the ideas and

the phrases to be found in Edwardss statement. Although Edwards did
not originally intend his ideas to be used against Sandemanianism,
Fuller elaborates on these concepts to make his case against Mcleans
understanding that spiritual knowledge is not merely a doctrinal mas-
tery, but a type of knowledge that such mastery relishes.
Fuller then establishes three grounds on which to support his stand-
points. First, based on Ephesians 4:18, he argues that the domination of
sin in the agents heart is utterly inconsistent with the stance taken by
Mclean on spiritual perception or belief because Spiritual blindness is
ascribed to aversion of the heart.26 Fuller illustrates this principle as:
the obstinacy and aversion of the heart is the film to the mental eye,
preventing all spiritual glory entering into it.27 Although spoken from
the opposite end of the spectrum of understanding, the metaphor of
film has enormous similarity in its functionality to Edwardss use
of glass: Gods kindness to [saints] is a glass that God sets before
them, wherein to behold the beauty of the attribute of Gods good-
ness.28 Both are instruments of visual imagery that can either prevent
or permit the glorious beauty of God to be absorbed by the perceiver.
Fuller contends that the reason underlying the imagery of a mental eye
and film is that the unregenerate person will not receive the Divine
since it will appear as foolishness to him29 which can also be consid-
ered the metaphysical construction that comprises the function of
moral inability in Fullers mind.30 In Edwardsean fashion, Fuller argues
that the Holy Spirit does not work in causing the mind to see notwith-
standing the obstruction but rather, the Holy Spirit works by remov-
ing the obstruction itself out of the way. In other words, God does not
forcefully cause the unregenerate mind to receive spiritual knowledge,
but removes the obstructing film in order that the human agent may
discern spiritual knowledge.
The second basis for Fullers contention that the Holy Spirit imparts
susceptibility and relish for the spiritual truth is the fact that scripture
frequently ascribes holiness as a spiritual perception of the truth
which has a notable resemblance to the Edwardsean rendering of
26
Appendix, 410411.
27
Ibid., 411.
28
29
Appendix, 2:411.
30
See, chapter 2.3.3.
beauty as holiness (4.3.2). Fuller writes that the very essence of spiritual
perception itself is the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.
On this particular issue, Fullers notion of spiritual perception is
comparable to that of Edwards (4.3.5). According to Fuller, It is impos-
sible to discern the glory of Christ without imparting a sense of love-
liness.31 Fuller comments that spiritual perception is the sense, or
the judgment arising from holy sensibility. What then are the mechan-
ics of such perception? A sense of these mechanics may be gleaned
by observing Edwardsean pneumatological epistemology at work in
Fullers writing:
It is by this unction from the Holy One that we perceive the glory of the
Divine character, the evil of sin, and the lovely fitness of the Savior; nei-
ther of which can be properly known by mere intellect, anymore than the
sweetness of honey or the bitterness of wormwood can be ascertained by
the sight of the eye 32
As was observed in Edwardss writings, the argument being made
here by Fuller is that the Holy Spirit not only causes the mind to under-
stand external sensory data as speculative knowledge that upsets mere
intellect, but also causes the human agent to sense the loveliness and
sweetness that is innate within such perceptual data. Likewise, Fuller
uses the metaphors sweetness of honey and sight of the eye to
describe the perceived reality of sensing the glory of God. The Unction
from the Holy One, or the oiling of the Holy Spirit, is the action that
engages the heart in a such way that it changes the inclination of the
heart. From a reading of Religious Affection, it is clear that these con-
cepts were well embedded in Fullers devotional life. As early as 1781,
twenty years prior to the writing the Appendix Fullers diary records,
O that the Holy Spirit would open my eyes, and let me into the things
that I have never seen!33 In Fullers Answers to Queries, he then asks a
rhetorical question, in what manner [does] the Holy Spirit operates
[sic] upon the human mind ? The answer that he provides lays bare
the mechanics of Fullers pneumatological epistemology: The Spirit of
31
Appendix, 2:398.
32
Ibid, 413, italics mine.
33
Extracts from his Diary, 1:25. To my knowledge, the earliest known instance of
Fuller mentioning Religious Affections was in his observation of various texts in 1780.
Aug. 16.Some savour, today, in reading Edwards on the Affections. Sept. 11.
Much affected, this morning, in reading Edwards thoughts on evangelical humility,
in his Treatise on the Affections (Fuller, as quoted in Ryland Jr., The Work of Faith
(2nded.), 90).
118 chapter five
God in regeneration does produce a new principle in the heart, and

not merely impart a new light in understanding.34 In support of his
assertion, in both Appendix and Answers to Queries, Fuller then
alludes to 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 4:6. However, for the benefit of a sys-
tematic presentation bearing on this issue, further discussion will be
postponed until a thematic textual exposition of Strictures has been
developed.
The third argument explains why Fuller believed that spiritual blind-
ness and unbelief have their origin in the depravity of the heart.35
Fuller then makes an appeal to Edwards to counter why such is not the
case and quotes two of Edwardss treatises in support of his rationale.36
The first is Freedom of the Will and the second, Religious Affections.
Fuller begins his argument declaring that no man will be allowed to
have possessed a clearer insight into these difficult subjects37 than
Edwards. He adds, because Edwards speaks with such great caution on
the will being determined by the understanding, Fuller would likewise
deny Mcleans supposition, unless Mclean also adhered to that which
Edwards meant by understanding. As Fuller observes, the Edwardsean
large sense of understanding includes the whole faculties of percep-
tion or apprehension.38 Fuller then quotes from Freedom of the Will
to mount his case against the narrow view of understanding taken
by Mclean:
When taken in this large sense, [Edwards] rather chooses to say, that the
will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears most agree-
able, is, than to say that will is determined by the greatest apparent good,
or by what seems most agreeable; because an appearing most agreeable
or pleasing to the mind, and the minds preferring and choosing, seem
hardly to be properly and perfectly distinct.39
For Mclean, an understanding or judgment determines the exercising
of a human faculty such as heart, will, volition and so on. By quoting
34
Answers to Queries, WAF, 3:776.
35
Appendix, 2:411.
36
Mclean affirms particular volitions are caused by ideas received into mind to
which Fuller flatly says that it is not so (Appendix, 411).
37
Appendix, 2:411, n. .
38
Edwards, as quoted by Fuller in Appendix, 2:411, n. ; cf. FW, 1:148.
39
Edwards, as quoted by Fuller in Appendix, 2:411, n. , italics Fullers; cf. FW,
1:144. This extract also appears in Strictures, 2:598. A letter addressed to Ryland Jr., in
March 22, 1783 appears to have elements of Fullers commentary of this quotation. See,
2.3.3, n.88.
Edwards, and contrasting with Mcleans point of view,40 which goes to

great pains to exclude heart and will as aspects of understanding, Fuller
contends that the line of demarcation between these faculties is very
fine. This is because Edwards saw that agreeing, pleasing, preferring or
choosing for the mind are functions of the will and its strongest
motives. Given that Edwards and Fuller did not collapse the distinction
between the will and strong motive, based on this premise, Fuller simi-
larly argues that the activity of the minds esteeming is virtually impos-
sible to distinguish from an inclination of the heart. Hence, when Fuller
underscores the Edwardsean statement that the will always is as the
greatest apparent good than to say that will is determined by the
greatest apparent good, he is distancing himself from Mclean who
thinks the judgment of the mind (which is independent from the heart)
is the determining factor in an act of willing. Rather than seeing the
narrow definition of the minds judgment as excluding faculties of
understanding, Fuller employs the larger Edwardsean definition of
spiritual understanding, one that embraces a holy susceptibility and
relish for the truth.41 Just as Edwards viewed the action of seeing that
which is most agreeable or pleasing as in fact being hardly distinct
from the act of willing, Fuller equally stresses the nature of true under-
standing that encompasses both mind and heart. If Mcleans view of
understanding is erroneous, then the question needs to be asked as to
the ontological essence of this misstep. This time, Fuller looks to
Religious Affections to find his solutions. By quoting Edwards, Fuller
claims, Spiritual understanding consists, primarily in a sense of the
heart of spiritual beauty. Contrary to Mcleans conception of knowl-
edge, this understanding is based on the sense of the heart. According
to Fuller, the knowledge attained from such understanding is neither
mere speculation nor a clear distinction made between the two fac-
ulties of understanding and will, as acting distinctly and separately in
this matter.42
Similar to Freedom of the Will, Edwards identified in Religious
Affections two faculties within the human soul. One is called
40
For instance, Mclean argues that the proclamation nothing more than persuasion
of the human mind: they not only declared the gospel-testimony, but called everyone
to believe it onto their salvation; and urged this call by every motive and argument
which the gospel furnished them with, and which are the strongest that possibly can be
proposed to the human mind (Mclean, Commission Given by Jesus Christ, 8586).
41
Appendix, 2:410.
42
Edwards, as quoted by Fuller in Appendix, 2:411, n. , italics Fullers, cf. RA,
2:272. These segments also appear in much greater length in Strictures, 2:602606.
120 chapter five
understanding,43 which is capable of perception and speculation, and

discerns, regards and judges an object. The other faculty is called incli-
nation,44 in which the soul is drawn to like or dislike, and responds
with pleasure or displeasure, to what is in view. Moreover, Edwards
defines human action, as determined or governed by inclination, as
the will. Hence, in attempting to acquire new knowledge, the human
agent is exercising understanding as opposed to making a choice and
is thereby exercising the will consistent with the inclination. When
this inclination results in vigorous excitement, the condition is defined
as affections. All of the Edwardsean concepts in Religious Affections
act as fundamental preconditions that underpin the definitions used
in Fullers pneumatological epistemology. These concepts are also evi-
dent in his treatment of sense perception, sensible knowledge and spir-
itual understanding, and in his debate with Mclean in Appendix and
Strictures.
Chapter 4 underscored the Edwardsean aesthetic vision of beauty
as one of the defining hallmarks of his theological framework. How-
ever, as observed in the Appendix and to be further demonstrated
in Strictures, this notion has a great deal of importance for Fuller. In
Religious Affections, Edwards articulates the view that it is through a
new sense of heart that holy affections are triggered whence one is able
to truly acquire the knowledge of God, which Fuller also affirmed in
his argumentation against Mclean. The sense of heart is therefore
Edwards and Fullers spiritual epistemology of the perceiving agent.45
With this conception in view, the study will now examine the Strictures.
5.2.2 Strictures on Sandemanianism

Due to the fact that his Appendix did not resolve his initial debate
with Mclean, Fuller wrote Strictures to end the dispute. He evidently
succeeded since there were no further publications regarding the
issue.46 The lengthiest47 of Edwardss quotations in Fullers corpus can
43
RA, 2:96.
44
Ibid.
45
In response to Mcleans view of faith being merely intellectual, Fuller writes, sem-
inal principles of holy affection (namely, a sense of heart) tends to produce spiritual
knowledge. (Strictures, 2:599), italics his.
46
It is no wonder Lloyd-Jones said, It is generally agreed that Fuller more or less
demolished Sandemanianism in those twelve letters (Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans, 173).
47
The excerpt from part 3, section 4, of Religious Affections occupies six pages from
the Yale edition, see RA, 2:270275; it is nearly five pages in Fullers Sprinkle edition
of Fullers Works despite its minuscule font, see Structure, 2:602606; according to
be located in letter six of Strictures entitled, The Connexion Between

Knowledge and Disposition48 where Fuller utilizes the pneumatologi-
cal epistemology found in Religious Affections to challenge Mcleans
system of the theory of knowledge in Sandemanianism.
Fuller opens letter six of Strictures by discussing how Mclean mis-
represented him by maintaining that human understanding governs
will and inclination.49 This caricatures Fullers views since he actually
argued, it is not that the understanding is in all cases governed by the
will; but rather that they have a mutual influence on each other.50
Fuller then spells out the metaphysics involved in volition, which
resembles part 2 of Freedom of the Will where Edwards addressed the
absurdity of indifference. Fuller states, the volitions are influenced by
motive or considerations which exist in the view of the mind, yet it is
equally apparent that our judgments are, determined by a previous
state or disposition of the soul.51 In Fullers thinking, volition andjudg-
ment must arise from background motivation. He argues that in order
for Mcleans view of the judgment to be purely intellectual, it must not
have any interested affections at all. This then, as Fuller again points
out, is an idiosyncratic assertion since this is certainly not the way we
live the reality of life in our universal experience.52 Just as it was
absurd for Edwards to suppose that choice is made in a state of pure
motiveless indifference, so intellectual judgment completely isolated
from any interests in affection is, according to Fuller, equally absurd.
Another crucial difference with Mclean is that for Fuller, judgment
is determined by the state of the mind, whereas for Mclean state of the
mind [is determined] by the judgment.53 Repeating the modified argu-
ment from the Appendix, Fuller bases his supposition on the reading
of Part 1, Section 2, of the Freedom of the Will. Mclean is confused on
this matter, since Fuller thinks that although simple knowledge can be
clearly distinguished from the will, the approbation cannot be distin-
guished from the will, because seeing it includes it. As observed in the
Haykin, this quote will take up six pages in forthcoming critical editions
of Fullers Works, see Haykin, Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanian Controversy,
232, n.51.
48
Strictures, 2:597606.
49
Ibid., 597.
50
Ibid., 599.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid., 598.
122 chapter five
corpus of Edwards, perception or metaphor of sight plays a crucial role

here. Fuller asserts that approbation cannot, in a practical sense, be dif-
ferentiated54 from the will since by virtue of seeing with the eyes of
esteem, approbation is included in the will. This is why Fuller is able to
say that spiritual knowledge includes approbation in its very nature.55
On this occasion it is quite apparent that Fuller is utilizing Edwardss
theory of perception and knowledge. And because of the remarkable
similarity between Edwards and Fuller, I am able to reuse McClymonds
categories that were originally designed to classify Edwardss episte-
mology to identify Fullers perceptual schema. The content, mode, and
sensibility of perception in Fullers thoughts on this subject matter are
evident. Fuller writes, the object perceived are [sic] of such nature as
to be known only by a sense of their Divine excellency.56 From this
remark it is clear that the object is the perceived content. It is also an
entity external to the perceiver, and the substance of the content is
none other than the excellence or beauty of God. Moreover, God com-
municates the content by using the mode of divine light, and the sensi-
bility to this light is received through a human beings spiritual sense.
Based on 2 Corinthians 4:4, as we saw in Edwards, Fuller likewise noted
that the god of this world has blinded the sight, therefore, to possess
spiritual discernment of the glory, Fuller argues, Seeing the Son is
necessary to believing in him. For this reasons, Unbelief is attributed
to spiritual blindness.57 Here, Fuller even employs an Edwardsean ren-
dering of what many attribute to Lockean empiricism when he states
that spiritual perception necessarily precedes believing, or that seeing
the Son goes before believing him.58
The mode of this divine light is the glory of God found in 2 Corin-
thians 4:6.59 Fuller writes, The very essence of Scriptural knowledge
consists in the discernment of Divine beauties, or the Glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ.60 An important element to be aware of in
Fullers epistemology is the intimate connection between the aesthetic
54
Not in the ontological sense, but in the pragmatic sense, see 4.3.34.3.4.
55
Strictures, 2:602.
56
57
Appendix, 2:410. Fuller also makes a similar point in Structure: spiritual blind-
ness includes in its very nature, and not merely in its effect, an aversion to the truth
(Strictures, 2:602).
58
Appendix, 2:413.
59
Ibid., 411.
60
Strictures, 2:602.
content (divine beauties) and the mode of illumination (glory) that

parallels the Edwardsean notion of divine supernatural light. How
then, does Fuller describe the sensibility of perception? Fuller pulls an
Edwardsean-like definition of sense from Ephraim Chamberss Cyclo-
pedia. Fuller quotes, we receive ideas of beauty by means of having
a sense, an internal sense.61 Once again, the importance of the rela-
tionship between the idea of beauty that is being perceived and the
human perceptual sense cannot be overstated, as was also the case for
Edwards. It is as if Fuller was so deeply immersed62 in the writings of
Edwardsthat he heard overtones of Edwardsean epistemology in such
other sources as Cyclopedia.
In maintaining all of this, Fuller was not simply replicating Edwards
in such matters. As mentioned Chapters 2 and 3, Fullers main contri-
bution was to expand, implicate and apply Edwardsean ideas in his
own historical setting. Fuller fully absorbed Edwardsean concepts and
made them his own, later applying them in his polemical debates.
In the course of these he often cast new light on the ideas of Edwards
by implicating the corresponding positive as well as the negative.
For instance, in the face of the Arminian polemics, Edwardss original
articulation was natural and moral inability, thereby placing the
emphasis on the issue of inability. However, since Fuller was engaged in
the disputes on two opposing fronts, he would stress the corresponding
positive of the concept, natural ability, when he was in disputation
with the Hyper-Calvinists. On the other hand, when dealing with the
Arminians, he would of course call attention to moral inability, as
Edwards had done in relation to his Arminian opponents. While there
is a remarkable parallel in spiritual epistemology between Edwards and
Fullers conception of the sense of the heart, Fuller puts a new slant on
it by underscoring the corresponding negative.
Fuller had adopted the Edwardsean notion of sense of heart, but on
this particular occasion, his thinking was quite novel in describing
61
Strictures, 2:602, italics in the original. Fuller footnotes this as: Chamberss
Dictionary, Art. Sense.
62
The base of such deep immersion is the fact that Edwardsean language and ideas
permeate Fullers writings even he does not cite or mention his name. For example,
Fuller writes, If [the gospels] were merely objects of speculations, mere light in the
understanding would be sufficient to receive them; but they are of a holy nature, and
there require a corresponded tempter of the heart to enter into them. The sweetness
of honey might as well be known by the sight of the eye as the real glory of the gospel
by the mere exercise of the intellectual faculty (Answers to Queries, 3:777778,
italics mine).
124 chapter five
Mcleans notion of ignorance as an insensibility of heart. Mcleans

assertion of the faith was purely intellectual assent, and indicated that
the approbation of spiritual knowledge was seen only as mere effects
of these intellectual agreements. This also denoted that the aversion
was the result of an ignorance of spiritual knowledge. In contrast, Fuller
believed spiritual knowledge by nature included approbation, he argued
in contrast that, Ignorance, therefore, is ascribed to obduracy or insen-
sibility of heart.63 Here, Fuller expanded Edwardss sense of the heart,
through implicating the corresponding negative to employ further rea-
soning against Mcleans notion of ignorance.
As noted earlier, contained within Strictures is part 3, section 4, of
Religious Affections, which is the lengthiest Edwardss quotations in
Fullers entire corpus. In the context of this discourse on taste and
beauty,64 the interesting fact is that in part 3, section 4, Edwards
turned,as we have already witnessed in 4.3.1, to Ephraim Chamberss
Cyclopedia for his definition of taste. This is worthy of note since in the
context of a similar discourse in Strictures, and scarcely before Fuller
quotes Edwards at length, he too derives his concepts of sense from
Chamberss Cyclopedia. Although Cyclopedia was a quite widely recog-
nized source during this period, the fact that it is cited by Fuller just
four sentences prior to the lengthiest quotation of Edwards appears to
be more than mere coincidence. This seems especially to be the case in
light of the fact that Fullers quotation of Edwards, and Edwardss quo-
tation of Cyclopedia, are both found in the same portion of Religious
Affections (i.e., part 3, section 4), and also in the context of similar dis-
cussions. Taking into account the evidence of these seeming coinci-
dences, this study will now develop the case that Strictures not only had
a theological and textual indebtedness to Religious Affections, but also
had a source and bibliographic dependence as well.
My postulation is that Fuller, having observed Edwardss use of
Cyclopedia for his definition of taste, may have been prompted to
see Cyclopedia as a suitable theological resource to make his point
about sense. There are some hard evidences as well as interesting
hypotheses to support this assertion. First, as already mentioned, the
Cyclopedia is quoted in part 3, section 4 of Religious Affections whereas
the Strictures utilized Cyclopedia just four sentences before Fullers
63
Appendix, 2:398.
64
RA, 2:282284.
quotation of part 3, section 4 of Religious Affections. Second, the dis-

course context and content within which these two men quote
Cyclopedia are quite similar. The subject matter being discussed by
both men was beauty, taste, sense perception, judgment and so on. This
accounts for the reasons why the definition of Cyclopedias taste is
quoted in part 3, section 4, in Religious Affections, and why Fuller like-
wise cites Cyclopedia for his understanding of sense just before quot-
ing part 3, section 4, of Religious Affections. Third, there is an interesting
orientation as Fuller appears to be quoting Cyclopedia from memory
rather than verbatim when he wrote: that whereby we receive ideas of
beauty and harmony as having all the characters of a sense, an internal
sense.65 However, notice how closely Cyclopedia resembles Edwardss
epistemology in the following statement:
The power whereby we receive Ideas of Beauty, and Harmony, has all the
Character of a Sense. Tis no Matter, whether we call these Ideas of Beauty,
and Harmony, Perceptions of the external Senses of Seeing, and Hearing,
or not; we should rather chose to call these Ideas an internal Sense 66
There are clear parallels between these two quotations, yet Fuller is
more succinct. Nonetheless it is a fairly accurate summary of the origi-
nal Cyclopedia. If Fuller is quoting Cyclopedia from his memory (and it
is extremely difficult to prove his intentions on this), it could be yet
another instance of the influence of Edwards upon Fuller. While it may
be possible that Fuller is summarizing the Cyclopedia independent of
Edwardss use, it is more plausible to see this as an instance when Fuller
is leaning on Edwardss learned ability in order to select fitting sources.
There are some reasons for thinking why the concise paraphrased ver-
sion may indicate Edwardss influence on Fuller.
First, Fuller was traveling extensively during the course of his debates
with Mclean, and he therefore might not have taken the trouble of
looking up Cyclopedia in order to quote verbatim. The act of quoting
from memory appears to be Wesleys general habit as well as common
practice during the eighteenth century.67 Moreover, if it is true that
65
Strictures, 2:602.
66
Sense in Cyclopedia or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Science, 2:55, italics
in the original.
67
Outler notes John Wesleys quotations are rarely exact because even though he
never expected to be edited critically, it is even probable that he would have deplored
such exercise as pedantic. See, Albert Outler, Editors Introduction, in The Works of
John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 1:6667. Fuller appears to quote
126 chapter five
people in general tended to remember whatever had significance for

them, the manner in which Fuller quotes Cyclopedia from memory
might be a window into Fullers psychological state. When comparing
these two quotations, it is clear that the whole notion of the manner in
which we receive ideas of beauty via an internal sense had become
extremely significant for Fuller. As has already been demonstrated, this
is, however, the constant motif of how the perceiving agent attains
spiritual understanding in Religious Affections. If these are accurate
assumptions, could it be another instance of Fuller being so affectingly
immersed in Edwardsean ideas that the manner in which Fuller
remembers Cyclopedias definition from memory turns out be, in fact,
a succinct summary of Edwardss own epistemology?
One is left to ponder whether this was done consciously or subcon-
sciously on the part of Fuller; nevertheless, Edwardsean ideas did
appear to permeate Fullers thoughts. Even if my historical and psycho-
logical reconstructions are mistaken, the hard evidences still stand.
Namely, the Cyclopedia is cited just four sentences before the longest
Edwards quotation, and the context within which Cyclopedia is quoted
in both Religious Affections and Strictures is exceedingly similar
perhaps too much of a coincidence to be seen as merely serendipitous.
As to exactly why Fuller quotes from memory rather than verbatim
may well be subject to further historical speculation, yet the answer
to the question as to how Fuller uses the Cyclopedia is quite clear; to
uphold Fullers articulation of Edwardsean epistemology against the
position of Mclean. Fullers use of the Cyclopedia, therefore, suggests
another variation of Edwardsean persuasion. Accordingly, Edwards
not only influenced Fuller in terms of theological ideas and vocabu-
lary, but it is probable that Edwards also influenced the sources and
bibliographical materials that he chose to read.
Indeed, if Edwards had some bearing on Fullers citation from the
Cyclopedia, another hypothesis that can be developed on a similar
trajectory, namely, Fullers frequent citations of the English Puritan,
John Owen. This may have been further reinforced and fostered by
Edwardss usage of Owen in Religious Affections. While fully acknowl-
edging that Fuller had read Owen before discovering Edwardss
Edwards from his memory as well. See, Ecclesiastical Polity, WAF, 3:459 cf. Notes on the
Bible, WJEEH, 2:799800. Given such a historical context, in terms of proper citation,
it is not surprising to find Fuller also quoting the Cyclopedia from his memory.
writings,68 and conceding that citing Owen as their authority was the
usual practice for Particular Baptists during the eighteenth century,69
if Fullers handling of Cyclopedia had been fostered by Edwardss usage,
then a plausible case can be made that Edwards may have been at
least as important factor in advancing Fuller forward to have a closer
look at Owens work, Pneumatologia, or A Discourse Concerning the
Holy Spirit.
Owens immense influence on Fullerespecially in his earlier
yearshad been that of the puritan convention of self-examination,
and it cannot be underestimated. Peter Morden suggests these tenden-
cies are reflected in Fullers diary in the form of unhappiness when
reading Owen whereas when Fuller was pondering on Edwardss writ-
ings he had a more optimistic tone. Although it may have been
unconscious of Fullers part, he was moving away from Owen and
more towards Edwards as his theological mentor.70 If this is so, as Fuller
became further established in his evangelical Calvinism he relied more
on Edwards than Owen. Clint Sheehans confirms these sentiments by
writing, if Owen was instrumental in the development of Fullers
theological foundation, the writings of Jonathan Edwards were instru-
mental in the development of his theological maturity.71 For these rea-
sons, it is crucial to notice how Fuller draws upon Owens corpus in his
later writings, such as the Strictures. In his earlier works, in the first
edition of Gospel Worthy for example, Fuller quoted extensively from
Owens Mortification of Sin,72 which provides an account of Fullers
emphasis on self-examination in his diary. However, when Fuller
makes use of Owen to argue against Mclean, there are considerable
similarities between the ways in which Fuller and Edwards employ
Owens Pneumatologia.
68
Morden dates Fullers discovery of John Bunyan taking place in the late 1760s. But
by this time, Fuller was already convinced that Owen theology was more in harmony
with Bunyan than Gill. See, Morden, Offering Christ, 31. However, Fullers first expo-
sure to Edwards was not until 1777.
69
For example, Booths Glad Tidings is filled with citations of Owen. The dating of
Fullers theology became exceeding important in his debate with Abraham Booth
on the issues of atonement and imputation. But it is also relevant to his debate with
Mclean, since Booths view of passive faith had, at some point, a resemblance
to Mcleans position. Fuller treats both Booth and Mclean as one in the Appendix. See,
WAF, 2:307.
70
71
Clint Sheehan, Great and Sovereign Grace: Fullers Defence of the Gospel against
Arminiansim, 85.
72
Gospel Worthy, (1st ed.), 170171.
128 chapter five
The most obvious similarity is the fact that Religious Affections and
the Strictures both use Pneumatologia. Another likeness is that they
both quote from the same Book, even though these quotations are from
different chapters of Pneumatologia. Religious Affections contains two
main excerpts73 where Edwards quotes extensively from Pneumatologia.
These excerpts are cited from Book 3, Chapter 2, of Pneumatologia. It is
important to observe that they are both located in part 3 of Religious
Affections, which also happens to be the same part where Fullers
lengthiest Edwardss quotation concerning sensible knowledge and
sense of the heart are located. Fullers usage of this lengthy quotation
is in the fourth of the twelve signs in Religious Affections, and Edwardss
quotation of Pneumatologia is found in the second and tenth signs. The
Strictures likewise cites Book 3, but they are taken are from Chapters 1,
3 and 5 of Pneumatologia instead of 2.74 Among these cited chapters of
Owens Pneumatologia, the particular sections from chapter 2 (Edwardss
quotation of Owen) and chapter 3 (Fullers quotation of Owen) are
most worthy of comparison.
When Fuller saw Mclean consider the blindness or Hardness of
heart as referring to ignorance in the Strictures, he first cites the
eighteenth century lexicographer John Parkhust75 to define the verbal
root meaning of Pwrow in Ephesians 4:18, then he quotes Owen:
s76 Parkhust observes, is from o, and signifies hardness,
callousness, or blindness. It is not mere ignorance, says Dr. Owen, but
a stubborn resistance of light and conviction; an obdurate hardness,
whence it rejects the impressions of Divine truth.77
In the original context, Owen was writing about the heart, that is, the
light is received by the mind, applied by the understanding, used by
73
In pages 250251, n.7, and 372373, n.3 of RA, Edwards quotes extensively from
Owens Pneumatologia, Book III, Chapter 2, Sections 16 and 18. Edwardss references
to section 16 and 18 of Pneumatologia are actually taken from Religious Affections
which employs the 1674 edition, but the modern reprint editions treat the material
differently. Cf. John Owen, Pneumatologia in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H.
Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 3:238, 239240.
74
Strictures, 2:600, 612. Cf. Pneumatologia, 3:252, 207228, 297337.
75
John Parkhust (17281797), a prolific lexicographer, published both Greek and
Hebrew lexicons. See, A Greek and English lexicon to the New Testament (London:
printed for W. Faden; B. Law; E. and C. Dilly; J. Robson; and F. Newbery, 1769); An
Hebrew and English lexicon, without points (London : printed by and for W. Faden,
1762), Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
76
Fuller, in following Owen, provides the nomitive form, whereas in Nestle-Aland
27, it is (accusative, feminine, singular).
77
Structure, 2:600, n.. cf, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 3, in Pneumatologia, 3:252.
the heart. Fuller then uses Parkhusts lexical meaning of s

to affirm that Owen was indeed right when he ascribed it meaning
not only mere ignorance or incomprehension of the notions, but also
stubborn resistance.78 This interpretation of Owen has Edwardsean
nuances all over it. Even though it was Owen who significantly influ-
ences Edwards, there are still reasons to think that such an interpreta-
tion of Owen by Fuller has its origin in Edwards.
The main question is how feasible was it for Fullercompletely
independent of Edwardsto have come up with such an interpretation
of Pneumatologia in the Strictures? It would have been unlikely for sev-
eral reasons. While Edwards and Fuller used different chapters of
Pneumatologia, the same book 3 of the Pneumatologia was also used in
both Religious Affections, and Strictures which, at a minimum, allows
the possibility of Edwards being a source of influence on Fuller. How-
ever, would it be equally plausible to view this as an instance of Owens
influence on Fuller? In other words, would it be possible to read this
phenomenon as an Owenite79 interpretation of Edwards rather than
vice versa? If, as mentioned above, Morden and Sheehan are correct in
their assessment about Fullers later writings, then this is implausible
in the context of Strictures. If it is true that, Fuller used other parts
of Owens corpus in his earlier writings (rather than Pneumatologia),
what could be the factor in selecting Pneumatologia on this occasion?
78
Strictures, 2:600, cf. Pneumatologia, 3:252.
79
The significance of Owens influence on Fuller cannot be underestimated.
This point was highlighted by John Piper when he said, by [Fullers] own testi-
mony, John Owen ranks first in his esteem of all the writers that influenced him.
Piper then quotes one of Fullers statement regarding Owen: I never met with
anything of importance in his writings on which I saw any reason to animadvert;
so far from it, that I know of no writer for whom I have so great an esteem (WAF,
1:39). Having made this point, Piper observed, But even if [Fuller] esteems Owen
above all others, almost everyone who studies Fullers works agree that Jonathan
Edwards was the most decisively influential in helping him break free from his
Hyper-Calvinistic roots (John Piper, Holy Faith, Worthy Gospel, World Vision:
Andrew Fullers Broadsides Against Sandemanianism, Hyper-Calvinism, and
Global Unbelief, Desiring God, 2007 Conference for Pastors). www.desiringgod.org/
ResourceLibrary/EventMessages/ByDate/1977_Holy_Faith_Worthy_Gospel_World
_Vision/ (accessed on February 7, 2007).
Without minimizing the importance of Owen in Fullers thought, Pipers comments
about Fullers testimony ranking Owen as the first of in his esteem need to be qualified.
This is because Fullers diary that Piper quotes is from July 27, 1784, which could be
classified as one of Fullers earlier theological reflections. I am in full agreement that, in
1784, Owen was Fullers most esteemed writer; however, the same cannot be said about
his later years.
130 chapter five
Could Edwards be this cause, especially in light of the fact that Fullers
quotations in Pneumatologia and Religious Affections are both located
in letter six of Strictures? Moreover, if Edwards had some bearing
on Fullers use of Cyclopedia, (although different terms are used),80 it is
not completely out of character for Fuller to quote Owen under the
bibliographical influence of Edwards, even though different chapters of
Pneumatologia are quoted. The weightiest argument that suggests an
Edwardsean interpretation of Owen may perhaps be the substance of
Fullers usage of Pneumatologia itself.
In Religious Affections, Owens quote is located in the context of
the second sign, distinguishing the nature of true affections from those
of the false.81 However, in the immediate context where Owen is so
precisely cited, Edwards states, [Saints] hearts [are] filled with sweet-
ness, from the view of Christs excellency and beauty of the way of
salvation by him 82 Having argued this point, Edwards then alludes
to the following quote from chapter 2 of Pneumatologia to support his
argument:
The effects of this work on the mind, which is the first subject affected with
it, proceeds not so far as to give it delight, complacency, and satisfaction in
the lively spiritual nature and excellencies of the things revealed unto it.
The true nature of saving illumination consists in this, that it gives the
mind such a direct intuitive insight and prospect into spiritual things
such a light, such a knowledge it communicates, as that a man may like it
well in its effects, as a way of mercy and salvation.83
When Owen mentions the effects of this work on the mind, he is con-
veying the sense of those effects under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Thus he writes, as to give it delight, complacency, and satisfaction in
the lively spiritual nature and excellencies of the things revealed unto
it. Then again, as was observed in 4.3.4 to 4.3.6 of this book, terms
such as delight, excellence and light as written by Owen are frequently
used in Edwardss writing to describe spiritual knowledge. Further,
Owen adds, The true nature of saving illumination consists in this,
that it gives the mind such a direct intuitive insight and prospect into
spiritual things. It is conceivable that Edwards could have picked
up on this concept when he wrote that a spiritual illumination or
80
I.e,taste for Edwards and sense for Fuller.
81
RA, 2:240.
82
Ibid., 250.
83
Pneumatologia 3:238239, italics mine. Cf, RA, 2:250251.
discovery, then is the affection84 and John E. Smith therefore rightly

pointed out that Religious Affections is internally related to Owens
argument, especially insofar as the work of the Spirit as it operates on
the affections.85
Although Owens argument was important, Edwards had his own
unique emphasis in his interpretation of Pneumatologia. In the larger
context of the Pneumatologia, it turns out that the above quote is the
description of one of the four effects that the Holy Spirit has on human
faculties: the mind, conscience, affections and conversation.86 How-
ever, in Religious Affections, Edwards only alludes to two of the four,
namely, mind and affections.87 At this juncture it is extremely interest-
ing to see such Edwardsean emphasis of Pneumatologia also happens
to be the precise point of contention between Fuller and Mclean. When
Fuller highlights Owens notion of spiritual knowledge as not only
being mere ignorance (mind), but a stubborn resistance of light
(affection), Fuller could have been reading Owen through Edward-
seanhermeneutical lenses by placing the same emphasis upon it. While
there is no doubt that Pneumatologia was important to Edwardss the-
ory of knowledge, Fuller similarly draws upon Owen to explain his
own pneumatological epistemology. He asserts that, by the Holy
Spirit we perceive the glory of the Divine character and see the love-
liness of Savior.88 As was observed in Edwards, Fuller identifies the
Holy Spirit as the causing agent of the mind in not only intellectually
understanding external sensory data, but in sensing the knowledge of
loveliness and beauty that is innate within that perceptual data. This is
the basis that warranted Fullers statement to Mclean: spiritual knowl-
edge includes approbation in its very nature, and not merely in its
effect.89
84
RA, 2:291.
85
Smith, Editors Introduction, 2:69.
86
Pneumatologia, 3:238.
87
Edwardss reference to section 16 is the mind and section 18 is the affections RA,
2:250251, n. 7 and 372373, n.3, cf. Pneumatologia, 3:238239, 239240. See also,
4.3.5, n.85.
88
Appendix,2:413, italics mine. Fullers Edwardsean emphasis of Owen is quite the
contrary to the mainstream Scottish Enlightenment thinking. For instance, even a
great admirer of Edwards, John Erskine had more of a Glaslite interpretation of Owen
in seeing the will and heart in effectual workings. Owens Catechism is referenced by
Erskine in John Mcintosh, Church and Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Popular
Party, 17401800 (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 1988), 168.
89
Strictures, 2:602.
132 chapter five
5.3 Effects of Religious Affections and Nature of True Virtue

in Fullers Thoughts
Thus far, this study has argued that Edwardsean pneumatological epis-
temology in Religious Affections has extensively permeated Appendix
and Strictures. It will now be extended a step further in developing
the case that Religious Affections so saturated Fullers thinking that it
even pervaded his other writings, even when he did not explicitly
cite Edwards. For example, even though Edwards was never cited,
Tom Nettles appropriately saw Fullers Inward Witness of the Spirit as
summariz[ing] the substance of Religious Affections, when he claims
that, [Fuller] emphasizes that the internal work of the Spirit accompa-
nies the knowledge and heartfelt reception of what Scripture itself
actually teaches.90 Moreover, E.F. Clipsham identifies Fullers theologi-
cal indebtedness to Religious Affections as being especially noticeable in
The Excellence and Utility of Hope, and The Nature and Importance of
Walking by Faith.91 Of the two, while the former contains certain
themes from Religious Affections, especially in the area dealing with
types of hypocrites,92 the latter is more useful for the purpose of tracing
particular Edwardsean concepts in Fullers writings.
Fuller delivered the sermon The Nature and Importance of Walking
by Faith in 1784, before a congregation in Northamptonshire. It coun-
ters the antinomians who Fuller saw as living immoral lives despite
their confident view that they were Christians, fostered by the Hyper-
Calvinistic rendering of the doctrine of assurance.93 Although Edwards
was never cited, Fullers treatment of them (i.e. those who are lacks
evidence of their conversion) resembles Part 2, section 11, of Religious
90
Tom Nettles, Edwards and His Impact on Baptists, FJ, (Summer, 2003): 118.
http://www.founders.org/FJ53/article1_fr.html (accessed on November 17, 2006).
See also, Inward Witness of the Spirit, WAF, 1:624626.
91
See, Clipsham, 1. The Development of a Doctrine,111. The similarity between
Walking by Faith and Edwardss Humble Attempt, is striking (Morden, Offering
Christ, 124).
92
The Excellence and Utility of Hope, WAF, 3:311 cf. RA, 2:365367.
93
There are two different kinds of Antinomianism that Fuller responded to. On the
one hand, Fuller wrote The Gospel its Own Witness (1800) and The Calvinistic and
Socinian Systems Examined and Compared as to their Moral Tendencies (1792) against
Deists and Socinians; and on the other hand, Fuller debated with Hyper-Calvinists,
most notably, William Huntington, in Antinomianism Contrasted with the Religion
Taught and Exemplified in the Holy Scripture (1817). For further discussions on the
differences between these Antinomianism, see Curt Daniel, Andrew Fuller and
Antinomianism, 7482.
Affections. Edwards states that when the Scripture speaks of living or

walking by faith, and not by sight, the doctrine is often misunderstood
by many as meaning, Christians ought firmly to believe and trust in
Christ, without spiritual sight or light or spiritual experience. How-
ever, Edwards argues that this is an antiscriptural and absurd doc-
trine.94 Similarly, Fuller also refers to the typical antinomian outlook
as unscriptural and pernicious95 when he states:
As if a blessing should rest upon those who, destitute of all discernible
evidence of their Christianity, nevertheless believe it with an unshaken
confidence. If this is to walk by faith, then faith must stand opposed to
spiritual sight or spiritual discernment.96
Although there is no mention of Edwardss name throughout the entire
sermon, there are vivid parallels between the two. Both affirm that
walking in faith is a means to achieving spiritual insight; to deny this
premise is unbiblical. In keeping with Edwardsean language,97 Fuller
writes, Faith is the eye of the mind, and adds, it is that by which we
realize invisible and spiritual objects.98
In the Puritan and Westminster Conference of 1976, Lloyd-Jones sug-
gested that Religious Affections is a series of sermons derived from one
verse in 1 Peter 1:8. The main purpose of this treatise, is to show the
difference between the true and the false in the realm of experience.99
In the context of the saints fellowship with Christ,100 Fuller likewise
quotes 1 Peter 1:8, Whom having not seen ye love, in whom though
now see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full
of glory.101 Fuller cites this passage to distinguish the mark of genuine
Christian experience. Relationship and fellowship with Christ are such
that when saints behold the beauty of God with eyes of faith, they
are drawn to that which is divine. The saints are delighted to give up
many present enjoyments which, for Fuller, meant that the invisible
94
RA, 2:175.
95
Walking by Faith, WAF, 1:118.
96
Ibid., 119.
97
RA, 2:175.
98
Walking by Faith, 1:119.
99
Lloyed-Jones, Jonathan Edwards and the Crucial Importance of Revival, in The
Puritans, 363.
100
Fuller explains this fellowship as: Christs excellence, undertaking, and benefits
are the joy, and even the life, of our souls, if we are true Christians (Walking by Faith,
1:127).
101
Walking by Faith, 1:127, italics original.
134 chapter five
enjoyments relinquished would be such things as wealth, ease, [and]

honour.102 Fullers reference to giving up includes also discussions
at great length about self-denial, which seem to deny the whole
Edwardsean concept of holy affections that prefer holy action, if self-
denial is not properly understood.
When Fuller talks about self-denial and giving up present enjoy-
ment what was he referring to? Was he advocating the altruism of
Auguste Comte, or suggesting an idea similar to cessation of desire as
taught in Buddhism? Fullers language appears to create some theologi-
cal tension or perhaps the denial of the important Edwardsean premise
of holy affections, preferring (or desiring) holy actionif such state-
ments are taken in isolation without the comprehensive theological
backdrop of Edwards and Fuller.
However, denial or duty for Fuller are not a Kantian categorical
imperatives whereby an agent performs a moral action from a sense of
being the right thing to do. Such imperatives could be an ethical base
for altruism where the agent is morally obligated to benefit another
and, if necessary, even to the degree of sacrificing self-interest. In
opposing these ethical paradigms, Fullers understanding of motiva-
tion for duty and self-sacrifice may be seen as Edwardsean and can be
located in True Virtue and Religious Affections. In the midst of Fullers
heated dispute with William Button, Edwards on Virtue was also sig-
nificant for Caleb Evans, who shared a rather humorous book review
with Fuller:
I have just have [sic] been reading Edwards on Virtue, I am charmed
with it. With extent of that with precession, with modesty, with sublim-
ity! Surly [sic] such man as Button & Edwards, cant be of the same
species.103
Again, such a statement shows how Edwards was an important figure
not only for Fuller, but also for other Edwardss admirers in England.
Furthermore, to explain Edwardss True Virtue to one of his colleagues,
Robert Hall, Fuller wrote a section entitled, Nature of True Virtue,104
in which he quotes Edwards extensively.105 At any rate, what Fuller
means by self denial is different from the altruistic sense of living for
102
Ibid., 128.
103
Letter, C. Evans to Rev. A. Fuller, November 7, 1787, letter # 35, Fuller Chapel
Letters Vol 2 (3571), Fuller Baptist Church, Kettering, England.
104
Nature of True Virtue, WAF, 3:817818.
105
Nature of True Virtue, 3:817818 cf. True Virtue, WJE, 8:554555.
the sake of others. This notion is explained in Motives to a Virtuous

Life, in Gospel its Own Witness.106
According to Fuller, there are two kinds of self-love. First is private
self-love, which is the mercenary spirit that only serves the persons
own private interests, which is what we usually understand by the
expression, selfishness.107 The second notion of self-love, however,
has nothing intrinsically selfish in it. Fuller simply states that every
man considers himself, while pursuing his own interest.108 That is to
say, this condition merely denotes an indicative statement of the inter-
est without any sort of value or virtue attached to it, since it simply
describes how the human subject prefers the object. Therefore, for
Fuller, self-love does not necessarily have to be private, since it is pos-
sible for a person to love oneself and seek his own well-being in con-
nexion with the general good seeks.109 This means that someone can
find self-interest in the interest of another, as when he writes, the
interest of one is the interest of all, and the interest of all extends to
every one.110
Fuller further addressed the problem of private self-love in Dialogues
and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius by connecting it with the doc-
trine of human depravity. He writes, Private self-love seems to the root
106
For historical background, see Sell, The Gospel its Own Witness: Deism, Thomas
Paine and Andrew Fuller, 111143; see also, Fuller, To the Rev. Mr. Griffin, in Armies,
203205. For textual exposition of Gospel its Own Witness, see, Haykin, The Oracles
of God: Andrew Fullers Response to Deism, 128138.
107
Gospel its Own Witness, 2:24. Fullers first type of self-love is compatible with fol-
lowing statement of Edwards: Religion may alter greatly in process of time, as to its
consistence with mens private interest, in many respects; and therefore he that complies
with it only for selfish views (RA, 2:394).
108
Gospel its Own Witness, 2:24.
109
Ibid. Fuller wrote a letter to Edward Dorr Griffin (17701837) indicating, The
hope of a hypocrite may be and is entirely selfish. But Christian hope implies or
includes a disinterested affection to the divine character, and therefore ought not be
treated as a motive of love distinct from it Fuller then quotes one of the leading English
Deists for his support: If by the hope of rewards, says, Shaftesbury, be understood the
love and desire of virtuous enjoyment, or of the very practice or exercise of virtue in
another life, the expectation or hope of this kind is so far from being derogatory to
virtue, that it is an evidence of our love it the more sincerely, for its own sake (To the
Rev. Mr. Griffin, in Armies, 204). Although Fuller generally disagrees with Shaftesburys
view he often appeals to the Shaftsbury in rejecting the altruistic notion of virtue.
See, 5.3, n.116.
110
Gospel its Own Witness, 2:25. The second type of self-love that Fuller described
may had derived from the Religious Affections: gracious affections, is the transcen-
dently excellent and amiable nature of divine things, as they are in themselves, and not
any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest. This shows why holy affection
will cause men to be holy in their practice universally (RA, 2:394).
136 chapter five
of depravity.111 Although Edwards treats the subject of self-love in

Religious Affections,112 the particular notion of private self-love having
its origin in the fall has a noticeable parallel to Edwardss Charity and
its Fruits and True Virtue:
The ruin that the Fall brought upon the soul of man consists very much
in that he lost the nobler and more extensive principles, and fell wholly
under the government of self-love Immediately upon the Fall the
mind of man shrunk from its primitive greatness and extensiveness into
an exceeding diminution and confinedness.113
In common with Fuller, Edwardss view on human nature after the fall
was that the human heart contracted and it became, as John Piper
explains, slave to a private, narrow and limited self-love.114 This is
what Fuller may have meant by mercenary spirit. Fullers conception
of self-love therefore is congruent with the Edwardsean concept of self-
love in Religious Affections,115 since both Fuller and Edwards would
reject an altruistic rendering of living for the sake of other as promoted
by some deistic thinkers such as Viscount Bolingbroke and Volney.116
Does this necessarily imply a Christian need to give up the doctrine
of disinterested love to God and other human beings? This query has
some resemblance to the medieval discussion of shifting from self-love
to pure disinterested love to God,117 but in this situation, Fuller is
111
Human Depravity, in Dialogues, WAF, 2:662.
112
For Edwardss discussions on self-denial, self-love, private interest, and selfish
view, see RA 2:315, 394395.
113
Charity and Its Fruits, WJE, 8:252253. See also, True Virtue, 8:554557, 575
578, 582.
114
Piper, Gods Passion for His Glory, 104.
115
See, 5.3, n.112.
116
Viscount Bolingbroke (16781751) was an English politician and philosopher
who had a great impact upon the American Revolution. Volney (17571820) was a
French historian, philosopher and politician. In our context, both Bolingbroke and
Volneys views were in contrast with those of another deistic thinker named, Anthony
Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (16711713) who was an English moralist,
politician and philosopher. McDermott is correct in observing that not all deists think
alike. For a brief survey of the differences, see McDermott, Confronts Gods, 1921.
Although Fuller generally disagrees with Shaftesburys view on the matter of disinter-
ested love, he appeals to the latters rejection of altruistic virtue for support. For a com-
parison between Shaftesburys and Edwardss view on self-love and virtue, see Norman
Fiering, Jonathan Edwardss Moral thought and Its British Context (Williamsburg:
UNCP, 1981), 162163.
117
Following the Augustinian tradition, the Medieval scholastic, Thomas Aquinas,
articulated a position similar to Fuller and Edwardss view of self-love. See, Anders
Nygren, Agape and Eros (London: SPCK, 1953), 638645. For opposing arguments, see
Gene Outka, An Ethical Analysis (New Haven: YUP, 1972), 5663.
addressing the issue in the light of the robust reaction of some Christians
to Bolingbroke and Volney. Again, the answer Fuller provided can
be read as Edwardsean. Fuller asserts that the clear conception of the
nature of self love not only enables Christians to answer deistic
objections but do in a manner that avoids turning Christianity into an
egotistical or mercenary system. Although Edwards is not cited here,
the solution that Fuller provides in this scenario had its genesis in
Religious Affections.
In the face of some who believe that all love arises from self-love,
and that it is impossible in the nature of things, for any man to have any
love to God, or any other being, but that love to himself must be the
foundation of it,118 Edwards challenges that supposition in Religious
Affections. While it is certainly true that a person who desires the glory
of God will find his satisfaction and his happiness in God, Edwards
asserts that we must first ask the question, how the man comes to
place his happiness in Gods being glorified. The answer that he gives
has a close connection to regeneration, A man must first love God, or
have his heart united to him, before he will esteem Gods good his own,
and before he will desire the glorifying and enjoying of God, as his hap-
piness. From that point onwards, after a man loves God he comes,
as to look upon God as his chief good. Edwards therefore concludes
that a persons self-love to God was a consequence and fruit of his
regeneration.119 According to Edwards, before there can be such a thing
as disinterested love, one must first ask which factor caused the disin-
terested love.
It is fascinating to see the parallel between the people whom Edwards
was addressing, and those Christians described by Fuller as having
given up the doctrine of disinterested love, and as result, held to the
belief that, all religious affection is to be traced to the love which
bear to our selves as it first principle.120 Just as Edwards challenges the
idea of self-love being the foundation, Fuller likewise finds a problem
in seeing self-love as the first principle. In his response, Fuller states
that this belief would betray the truth by positioning Christianity
with all kinds of other apostasy and false religion that have prevailed
throughout the world.
118
RA, 2:240.
119
Ibid., 241.
120
Gospel its Own Witness, 2:24.
138 chapter five
Fuller, like Edwards, asserts that before a person finds happiness

in God, the question to be answered is how one comes to find that hap-
piness. This is an important point for Fuller because, no man can truly
desire the favour of God as his chief good, without a proportionate
esteem of his character.121 Of course, this presumes that a depraved
and fallen heart and mind will not esteem Gods character without
regeneration. Therefore, in Fullers view, a persons regeneration must
occur before one desires God as his chief good. When this occurs, the
self-love and disinterested love simultaneously can and must co-exist,
because a cordial approbation of the divine character is the same thing
as a disinterested affection to virtue.122 In short, for Fuller the expanded
self-love to God and others is none other than disinterested love.
All this is to say that when Fuller refers to self-denial,123 he is not
doing so in a contradictory manner124 but is, in fact, supporting the
Edwardsean notion of holy affections preferring holy action. In Walking
by Faith, self-denial is not merely the act of giving up present enjoy-
ments nor is there the altruistic sense of doing good works for the sake
of others. Rather, for Fuller, unselfisness is made possible by the sec-
ond type of self-love; and through this love the hearts of the saints
would no longer sees that present enjoyments as their chief good.125
Through expanded self-love for others (as opposed to private), saints
desire the wellbeing of others, even at the expense of their own. This is
because the hearts of the saints finds distaste in worldly enjoyments,
and instead see their invisible enjoyment in such attributes as love, zeal,
righteousness, meekness, and patience and so on. In the context of
Fuller addressing antinomianism, there is the Edwardsean theological
overtone of changeable inclination and moral necessity of holy acts as
found in the lives of the true saints. Hence, Fullers notion of walking
121
Ibid., 25.
122
Ibid.
123
In the context of discussing private-self love, Fuller likewise exclaims, the grand
lesson in the Christian school isto deny our selves (Human Depravity, 2:662).
124
It is not an inconsistency, unless one is willing to concede that Edwards himself
is contradicting his own theology of affections by elevating the act of self-denial as a
great Christian virtue in Religious Affections: This is the principal part of the great
Christian duty of self-deniala mans denying his worldly inclinations, and in forsak-
ing and renouncing all worldly objects and enjoyments in denying his natural self-
exaltation, and renouncing his own dignity and glory and in being emptied of himself;
so that he does freely and from his very heart, as it were renounce himself, and annihi-
late himself. Thus the Christian doth in evangelical humiliation. And this latter is the
greatest and most difficult part of self-denial (RA, 2:315, italics mine).
125
Walking by Faith 1:129.
with eyes of faith is evident and follows such exhortations: Let us deal
much with Christ and invisible realties.126 How would this be obeyed?
It certainly is not by forcing the will to do more virtuous acts, nor by
practicing the type of austere self-denial that one might find in the
ascetic practices of Eastern religions. However, as we saw in Edwardss
theology of affections, one knows the experience of God is genuine
when the saints take delight in the invisible world, and are ashamed,
when they find happiness in the things other than on the spiritual
plane.127 Fuller exhorts his listeners, Let the glory of God lie near our
heart! Let it be dearer than to us than our dearest delights!128
5.4 Jonathan Edwardss Legacy in Fullers Conception of Sense

of the Heart, Changeable Inclination, Holy Actions and their
Connection to Moral Inability
In common with Edwards, Fuller places a puritan emphasis on holiness

and self-denial as evidence of a new spiritual nature. Fuller believed
that the beauty of holiness lies at the heart of the saints acting in
accord with the Holy Spirit, and such evidence is the innate nature of
the new spiritual principle. However, this is not achieved through
a legalistic mechanism that may bring about the moral and ethical
decisions. When a person sets rules and keeps those principles by forc-
ing their will to obedience without expanded self-love, this is an act
of hypocrisy that Fuller has argued in Inward Witness of the Spirit, The
Excellence and Utility of Hope, Walking by Faith and Gospel of Its Own
Witness. Instead, in line with Edwardss thinking, Fuller maintains that
in the lives of true saints, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit manifests
itself as holiness and love, which is the renewed affection to desire
holy living.
Furthermore, in Appendix and Strictures Fuller upheld Edwardss
notion of sensible knowledge. This spiritual knowledge includes the
inclination and approbation to love what God loves and detests that
which God detests; to perceive ugliness as God perceives it and beauty
as that which God deems beautiful. This is because, like Edwards,
Fuller saw aesthetic features as an essential key to the perceiver and
126
Ibid., 134.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid., 132.
140 chapter five
regarded God as the source of this human beauty: [the saints] are
subject of a holy beauty [of God], or of the beauty of holiness, he adds,
God would impart them his beauty.129 As we saw in Edwards, for
Fuller holiness of a saint is not a performance, but an inherent external
manifestation of an inward action of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the unregenerate person will not receive the things that are
divine since it will appear as foolishness to him.130 Even if they pos-
sess natural, intellectual, physical, and metaphysical abilities as received
from God, the choice will continue to appear as an unattractive option
for the unregenerate (i.e. moral inability), unless, by the unction of the
Holy Spirit, they find the glory of things of the divine as beautiful.
Fullers conception of the sense of the heart is therefore closely associ-
ated with Edwardss doctrine of irresistible grace,131 and with the role
that the Holy Spirit has in moral ability and inability. The irresistibility
of this grace is not inconsistent with human freedom and choice, since
the Holy Spirit effects the agents in a manner that pervades the persons
own voluntary act. Hence, Edwards and Fuller maintain the compati-
bility view of freedom where the Holy Spirit functions as a new inward
disposition.
The legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the conception of natural and
moral inability is well embedded not only amongst Fuller and the
Northamptonshire Association in England, but also as the predomi-
nant theme of the New Divinity School in New England. However, the
same could not be said of Edwardss legacy of concerning the sense of
the heart. While some later New England theologians spoke of affec-
tional transformation occurring in regeneration, they do not have the
compelling and beautiful discussions about the sense of the heart that
one finds in Edwardss writings.132 Yet across the Atlantic this aspect of
129
Desire for the Success of Gods Cause, WAF, 1:415. This sermon was delivered on
June 25, 1801, at Boston, Lincolnshire. Although Edwards is not cited here, Fuller uses
the Edwardsean phrase, beauty of holiness (see, 4.3.2).
130
Appendix, 2:411.
131
God gives virtue, holiness and conversion to sinners, by an influence that deter-
mines the effect, in such a manner, that the effect will infallibly follow by a moral neces-
sity; which is what Calvinist mean by efficacious and irresistible grace. (FW, 1:434).
132
I am gratefully indebted to Sweeney for this point, since he does not recall a spe-
cific instance where the actual phrase sense of the heart was used. Among Edwardsean
traditions in New England the closest notion of sense of the heart may be found in
tasters such as Nathanael Emmons and Asa Burton, but their accounts are not nearly
as in-depth nor do they explicitly quote Edwardss notion of the sense of the heart as
does Fuller. See Nathanael Emmons, Mans Activity and Dependence Illustrated
and Reconciled (1842), Asa Burton, Essay XXX, (1824), in Douglas Sweeney Allen
Edwardss theological aesthetic was employed as a key component in

Fullers line of reasoning against Mclean. Fullers polemical dialogue
with Mclean relied heavily upon Edwards to argue that the mind and
heart are inseparable constituents in arriving at a spiritual knowledge
of faith. The Spirit of God is in action by engaging the heart in such a
way that it changes the inclination of the heart to overcome any preju-
dice for the distaste of truth in the sinful human nature. Being so largely
indebted to Edwards, Fuller saw the sense of the heart as a pneumato-
logical renewal of an inclination to, and affection for, the redirection of
those faculties towards the beauty of Gods holiness, which necessarily
leads to a preference for the personal holiness attained in the lives of
saints. As will be argued in chapter 6, this process was critically impor-
tant for Fuller since it was the means by which the application of Fullers
doctrine of the Limited Atonement takes place.
Guelzo, eds. The New England Theology: From Jonathan Edwards to Edwards Amasa
Park (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 171186.
CHAPTER SIX
FULLERS VIEW OF ATONEMENT

AND THE NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGIANS
What is philosophy, that it should become an oracle, by which to try

sentiments in divinity? See Jonathan Edwardss Thought on the Revival.
P. 4. Dr. Edwards, Dr. Hopkins, and others of their best divines, justly
inveigh against human authority in religion: I mean, taking up with a
sentiment on account of the men of great name that have held it; but what
is philosophy but human opinion?1
Andrew Fuller
6.1 The Controversy Between Fuller and Abraham Booth
Abraham Booth (17341806) was born at Blackwell, near Alfreton,

Derbyshire, England on May 20, 1734. Under the preaching of one of
the evangelical General Baptist ministers, Booths interest in religion
began as a young lad, resulting in his credobaptism by immersion in
1755. He began preaching in the East Midlands and started out as a
staunch advocate of Arminian doctrines, but circa 1764, he altered his
views to the Calvinistic position held by the Particular Baptists.
According to John Westby-Gibson and Clipsham, This change took
place at the same time as he was in contact with ministers from the
Northamptonshire Association such as Sutcliff, Fuller, Ryland, and the
younger Hall.2 His most notable work is considered to be The Reign of
Grace (1768; 2nd edn, 1771), which was directed against the Arminians
and Antinomians. Along with Fuller, Booth was the leading Particular
Baptist theologian of his day. Theologically, Booth was closer to the
hyper-Calvinists than Fuller, but unlike the majority of London-based
1
Fuller, Extracted Letter on October, 9, 1975, in Ryland Jr., Work of Faith,
(1st ed.), 370.
2
John Westby-Gibson and E.F. Clipsham, Booth, Abraham (17341806), Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, (OUP, 2004). www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2871.
(Accessed on October 21, 2007). See also, Robert Oliver, Remembering Abraham
Booth (17341806), in ed. Michael Haykin The Work of Abraham Booth: Confession of
Faith and Sermons (Springfield: Particular Baptist Press, 2006), 1:124.
fullers view of atonement and the new england 143
ministers of the period, he was an avid supporter of the BMS. One of

the important themes of Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners (1796) was
that the gospel contained a complete warrant for the ungodly to believe
Christ. However, what made Booth begin to doubt3 Fullers allegiance
to the Reformed orthodoxy was the fact that Fuller had actively read
the works of the New England theologians starting in the early 1790s,4
and by the summer of 1802, Booth actually accused him of being an
Arminian. More than any other doctrinal issue, the disputes between
Fuller and Booth over atonement, substitution, and imputed righteous-
ness, that commenced in 1796 and lasted until 1806, have been sub-
jected to the scrutiny of the Particular Baptists.
Fuller came under serious suspicion from Booth during the fifteen
years following the publication of the first edition, specifically at the
time of advertising for the second edition of Gospel Worthy (1801),
which included Fullers corrections and additions.5 Additionally, Fuller
published an article in 1802 on the topic of the atonement entitled, The
Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement. To counter Fullers views, Booth
wrote Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Nature in 1803. Having suc-
cessfully released Particular Baptists from the evangelistic restraint of
Hyper-Calvinism, and having already established a reputation as one
of the leading theologians in the championing of evangelical Calvinism,
perhaps Booth had every reason to be apprehensive of Fuller. Accord-
ingly, during the period when Fullers interest in New England theolo-
gians was growing, and when Booth heard that Fuller had made
corrections to the previous edition of Gospel Worthy, Booth saw these
alterations as a sign of a possible resurgence of moral government, a
development that was of enormous concern. Given his background,
there could have been two important reasons for his strong polemical
reaction. First, Booth was fully aware of Fullers ability to popularize a
doctrine within his own denomination. Second, as a former Arminian
himself, Booth was alarmingly aware of what it meant to hold the
3
This was largely because, as Oliver reports, Booth was aware of moves towards
governmentalism in New England, where Edwardss successors had moved beyond
their teachers position (Robert Oliver, Andrew Fuller and Abraham Booth, in Pure
Fountin, 216. Hereafter, Oliver, Booth).
4
In 1794, seventeen years after Fuller firsts exposure to Edwards, Fuller was soak-
ing himself in New England theologians, especially Edwards Jr.s Free Grace and
Atonement and Wests The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement Proposed to Careful
Examination. See, Modern, Offering Christ, 91.
5
Gospel Worthy (2nd ed.), 2:328.
144 chapter six
governmental view. He certainly did not wish the Particular Baptists to

go anywhere near what he saw as Grotianism. Consequently, in Booths
Divine Justice, he criticized Samuel Hopkinss notion of justification
since it did not have real imputation, and in that process also disap-
proved of Fuller for uncritically adopting the New Divinity School and
departing from the Reformed orthodoxy. In response to this harsh
criticism, Fuller fired back, contending that Booth as an older man
was merely protecting the older view.6 Fuller once made a complaint
to Carey about how Booth was rigidly set against everything from
America.7 Evidently Booth also shared his frustration concerning
Fullers position with Ryland Jr.8 In 1803, as a response to this, Fuller
composed letters under the title of Six Letters To Dr. Ryland Respecting
the controversy with the Rev. A. Booth, along with Three Conversations
on Imputation, Substitution and Particular Redemption. Fuller thought
that his views were misrepresented by Booths criticism of him. This
series of letters was finally published in the year that Booth passed
away. Booth died in London on January 27, 1806, in the midst of this
heated debate with Fuller. He was perhaps the most able theological
opponent with whom Fuller ever had to contend.
Bringing Booths reservations about Fuller to light raises the ques-
tion of Fullers relationship with the New England theologians, and the
degree to which Edwards, or the New England theologians, influenced
Fullers doctrines of atonement and imputation. An attempt to deter-
mine the answer to this question is the basis for the discussion to be
conducted in the next two chapters of this book.
6.2 Recent Scholarship on Fullers Atonement and

New England Theology
More than any other aspect of Fullers theology, his orthodoxy con-
cerning the doctrine of atonement has generated debate from those
who see themselves representing historic Protestant orthodoxy. Fullers
harshest recent critic, George Ella scolds Fuller on this issue, even to
6
Fuller wrote to Carey on November 26, 1802: I think [Booths] views of imputa-
tion are too much like those of Dr Crisp See, Morden, Offering Christ, 9293.
7
Fuller to Carey, August 22, 1798, as quoted in Oliver, Booth, 205.
8
Robert Oliver, The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community
Among the English Calvinistic Baptist, 17701850. (D.Phil. thesis, CNAA, London
Bible College, 1986), 109.
the extent of negatively tagging it, A Gospel Unworthy of Any Accep-

tation, Grotian rationalism and Socinian scepticism.9 However,
more reasoned criticism is made by Gerald Priest:
Fuller seems to be expressing a penal satisfaction, but he uses non-penal
language, overcompensating for his opposition to a pecuniary sacrifice.
He uses, instead governmental, moral expressions which give the over-
tone of a Grotian atonement.10
That said, most of the leading commentators on Fuller think otherwise.
Tom Nettles, for example, argues that:
Fullers use of governmental language did not involve him in the mis-
takes of governmentalists; the atonement never became merely symbolic
justice, but maintained its character as an act of actual justice.11
Moreover, Michael Haykin likewise states:
Fuller did not surrender his commitment to particular redemption. Nor
did he abandon his conviction that Christ died instead of sinners, though,
it must be admitted that his fondness for the governmental language
about the atonement hampered, rather than helped, a clear expression of
this conviction.12
However, Ella and Priest continue to take issue with Fullers orthodoxy
when they emphasize the discontinuity between Edwards, whose the-
ology they approve, but not Fullers. For instance, Ella thinks the noble
name of Edwards has been associated with Fuller to give it an aura of
respectability,13 since Fullers theology is so radically different from
Edwards.14 Similarly, Priest discusses the strong dichotomy between
Edwards and Fuller when he associates Fullers understanding of
human depravity as being dangerously close to Taylorism,15 when the
position of Edwards is presumably not:
If Edwards only cracked open the doorway of human ability, the New
Divinity men opened it wider until Nathaniel Taylor took the door of
9
George Ella, Gospel Unworthy of Any Acceptation, www.evangelica.de/An
_Unworthy_Gospel.htm (accessed on September 10, 2007) See, Ella, Law and Gospel,
144. It is one thing to accuse Fuller of being Grotian, but I do not see how one could
remotely associate Fuller with the Socinians.
10
Gerald Priest, Fuller on the Atonement, The Elephant of Kettering. www
.andrewfuller.blogspot.com/search?q=atonement (Posted on January 5, 2007).
11
Nettles, By His Grace, 128
12
Haykin, Particular Redemption, in The Gospel, 128.
13
14
Ibid., 168.
15
Priest, Modern Question, 66.
146 chapter six
inability off its hinges and cast it aside. Did Edwards really teach partial
depravity? In his treatise on Original Sin and elsewhere he boldly declares
for total depravity16
Then again, historical precedent suggests that the acceptance of
Edwards as proper heir to the Reformation, while rejecting his succes-
sors is routine. In nineteenth century America, Calvinistic Baptists in
the south embraced Edwardss theology insofar as Gods sovereignty
and human responsibility,17 yet many shared Booths concerns about
Fullers view of the atonement as some sort of moral governmental
theory. While there are other factors,18 from the traditional Calvinistic
perspective, New England theologians became stigmatized during the
nineteenth century largely as a result of the efforts of two great Prince-
tonians: Charles Hodge, with his criticism of Edwards Amasa Park,
and the abrasive judgment delivered by B.B. Warfield.19 Ever since the
debate between Park and Hodge, the practice of pitting Edwards against
his New England successors for deviating from orthodox Calvinism
has been the standard interpretation of New England theologians.
Whatever conclusion may be made about these New England theo-
logians, it is evident that such a ruling may well have been too callous
and even outright ruthless. However, this domineering historical trend
has been challenged recently. Ever since new interest in the legacy of
Edwardss scholarship arose in the mid-twentieth century, resurgence
has been evident in a more sympathetic reading of their texts as well as
16
Ibid., 6162.
17
See, Sean Lucas, He Cuts up Edwardsism By the Roots: Robert Lewis Dabney
and the Edwardsian Legacy in the Nineteenth-Century South in The Legacy, 200214;
See also the section The Soteriological Legacy of Fuller on Baptist in Paul Brewster,
Andrew Fuller: Model Baptist Pastor- Theologian (Ph.D. Thesis, Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2007), 109122.
18
Historically, an influential work in interpreting the New Divinity School was by
Foster. While commending that Edwards Amasa Park articulated the most perfect
system in New England theology, Foster believed that if this theology was to be con-
sistently carried out, must in the end disrupt the system of Calvinism (Frank Foster,
A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: UChP, 1907), 471, 452). Neo-
Orthodox criticism of New Divinity School was most notable in Joseph Haroutunian,
Piety versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Henry Holt
and Company, 1932).
19
See, Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (London: Thomas Nelson, 1874), 2:578
558; B.B. Warfield, Edwards and the New England Theology, in The Works of Benjamin
B Warfield, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 9:515538. For a concise and overall sum-
mary of provenience of New England theologians, see Douglas Sweeney, Edwards and
his Mantle: The Historiography of the New England Theology, NEQ, 17:1 (Mar 1998),
97119.
in attempts to reappraise the New England theologians. For instance,

Dorus Rudisill still has arrived at a similar conclusion to that of the
Princetonians, yet his method (and the amount of harsh language) in
his critique towards the New England theologians has been consider-
ably restrained in comparison.20 There are also those who view the
New England theologians as the proper Edwardsean legatees. Bruce
Kuklick describes New England Theology as an acceptable broadening
of Edwardss systematic and creative intellectual tradition.21 Another
thorough work in advocating that New England theologians followed
the legacy of Edwards was articulated by Allen Guelzo, who argued a
position that the men of the New Divinity were not original thinkers,
and claimed they were hardly more than a set of variations22 on a
certain theme that Edwards had left for them to follow. That said, it
may be the case that Guelzos labor is overly sympathetic to, perhaps
even biased toward, the Wesleyan tradition.23 However, even the most
avid Calvinists would have to admit that Guelzos work is nevertheless
a solid scholarly piece that carefully interprets the New England theo-
logians within their historical settings. A more balanced account of this
interpretation was offered by Douglas Sweeney who made the interest-
ing suggestion that, For too long now a rather narrow inordinately
intellectual approach to tradition has governed the study of the New
England Theology. Instead, what is needed is a scholarship that takes
their religious ideas seriously and that does so with appreciation for
the cultural contexts that supported their rise.24 Be that as it may, the
recent collection of primary sources entitled, The New England Theology
20
Dorus Rudisill, The Doctrine of the Atonement in Jonathan Edwards and His
Successors (New York: Poseidon Books, 1971).
21
Bruce Kuklick, Jonathan Edwards and American Philosophy, in American
Experience, 257.
22
Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 135136.
23
Guelzo often presupposes the Arminian paradigm in reading Edwards and the
New Divinity School. For example, he wrote, the New Divinity balked at the idea of
limited atonement because it seemed to conflict with Edwardss notion of the natural
ability of all sinners to repent (Guelzo, Edwards on the Will,134). Moreover, the fact
that Wesleyan University Press has published this book also confirms Gulezos sympa-
thy towards the Wesleyan tradition. For his interpretation on Edwardsean free will and
what is suspected to be Edwardss dialogue with the modern philosophers theories of
the will, see Gulezo, The Return of the Will: Jonathan Edwards and the Possibilities
of Free Will, in Our Time, 87110.
24
Sweeney, Edwards and his Mantle, 118. For his sympathetic treatment of New
England theologians and Nathaniel Talyor, see Douglas Sweeney, Nathaniel Taylor,
New Haven Theology, and the Legacy of Jonathan Edwards (New York: OUP, 2003).
148 chapter six
(2006), edited by Sweeney and Gulezo just may be the hallmark in this
new tradition of interpreting the New Divinity School as a true succes-
sor of Edwards. This may be the sentiment of Ava Chamberlain when
she refers to this edited primary text as the work that clearly reveals
both the continuing presence of Edwardsean thought and the diversity
of its expression in the century following Jonathan Edwardss death.25
6.3 Edwardss Outlook on Grotianism and New England Theology
Edwardss orthodoxy is hardly in question.26 Nevertheless, when a cer-

tain conservative strand of the Reformed camp expresses doubts as to
Fullers Calvinistic credentials, it is often done in the context of his
close network with New England theologians, thereby somehow impli-
cating Fullers view on the atonement as a species of Grotianism.27 This
leads us to inquire whether Fuller subscribed to the governmental
theory of the atonement that was proposed by Hugo Grotius (1583
1645)?28 This is highly improbable given that there is no actual evi-
dence that Fuller had read Grotius. It is also interesting to note that,
although Grotiuss name is not mentioned in the framework of
Edwardss own articulation of atonement, it may be scandalous to some
25
Ava Chamberlain, Back Cover, in Sweeney, Guelzo, eds., The New England
Theology.
26
Except, as Noll points out, it was only Hodge who expressed serious reserva-
tions concerning Edwards Sr., yet even then these reservations were quickly balanced
by Hodges general approval of him (Mark Noll, Jonathan Edwards and Nineteenth-
Century Theology, in American experience, 264).
27
Historically, Abraham Booth is the most prominent one, but there are others who
opposed Fullers atonement. See, William Rushington, A Defence of Particular
Redemption; Wherein the Doctrine of the Late Mr. Fuller Relative to the Atonement of
Christ, is Tried by the Word of God, (Liverpool, 1831), http://www.geocities.com/
Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/fuller.html (accessed on October 28, 2007).
Recently, Priest and Ella have raised similar concerns. Even after the revival
in Particular Baptist life led by Fuller, the Strict and other High Calvinists still loitered
on the outer edge of the Particular Baptists under the guidance of men like William
Gadsby (17731844). For more information on this subject, see Ian Shaw, High
Calvinists in Action: Calvinism and the City, Manchester and London, 18101860
(Oxford, OUP, 2002), 111153.
28
Grotius was a Dutch jurist and statesman who argued against the Socinian con-
ception of the atonement. His Arminian framework was sometimes portrayed as pro-
viding a balanced view between punitive substitutionary atonement and that embraced
in the Socinians concept. The most important work by Grotius in the matter of atone-
ment is entitled: Defensio Fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi. For more informa-
tion on Grotius, see Edwin Rabbie, General Introduction, in Hugo Grotius, Ordinum
Hollandiae AC Westfrisiae Pietas (1613) (New York: Brill, 1995), 135.
to realize that Grotius was no stranger to Edwards.29 Since Edwardss

own day, the majority of theologians and historians, despite all his odds
and ends,30 have interpreted Edwards in the line of the Westminster
Puritan tradition. Thus, Conrad Cherry was correct in saying, for
good or ill, Edwards was a Calvinist.31 Yet, in an attempt to see Edwards
solely as the Reformed theologian par excellence, Iain Murray, a confes-
sional Reformed scholar, has seriously downplayed the role of philoso-
phy in Edwardss thinking, and thereby fails to underscore the
uniqueness of Edwardss rendering of Calvinism.32 As much as many
traditional Calvinists would like to claim this intellectual giant as their
own, (and perhaps much to their shame), there are strands of
Grotianism in the thinking of Edwards that do not fit nicely into their
tightly molded system of traditional Calvinism. For example, John
Gerstner, whose interpretation of Edwards is strictly in the Westminster
Puritan tradition, laments and almost cannot believe the fact that
Edwards would say, If God did not punish sin, nobody could charge
God with any wrong. This, of course, would irritate Gerstner since the
classical formulation of the Grotian account would also maintain that
the nature of God does not demand sacrifice, and God can therefore
relax the penalty. This explains Gerstners perplexity when he wrote,
How could an Anselmian like Edwards say that? He adds, While we
are perplexed by this, pure governmentalism follows fast33 in Edwards
theology. He then disappointedly quotes, Edwardss Miscellanies 306,
and admits this aspect of Grotianism in Edwardss theology:
As Gods nature inclines him [to] order all things beautifully, properly
and decently, so it was necessary that sin should be punish there is this
necessity, beside what arises from the veracity of God.34
29
Grotuius was frequently cited in Edwardss Miscellaneous Observations on
Important Theological Subjects (Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1793), 67, 102, 107, 108, 111, 222,
375; Notes on the Bible, WJEEH, 2:689, 691, 694, 707, 711, 714715; FW, WJE, 1:402;
Discourse on the Trinity and Controversies Notebook: Justification, WJE, 21:127127,
344, 400, 403.
30
For example, did Edwards hold to mediate or immediate imputation? It will be
addressed in 7.2.
31
Cherry, A Reappraisal, 3.
32
See. 4.2, n.1213.
33
34
The Miscellanies, WJE, 13:391. Fuller had access to this aspect of Edwards
writings via chapter 6 entitled, Concerning the Necessity and Reasonableness of
the Christian Doctrine of Satisfaction for Sin in Remarks on important theological con-
troversies. By the late Reverend Dr. Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: J Galbraith, 1796),
336392.
150 chapter six
Likewise, Stephen Holmes confirms that these Miscellanies of Edwards

reject the traditional Reformed notion that God has any need to act
justly, rather than mercifully.35 How then can Edwards avoid full-
blown Grotianism in his understanding of the atonement? Again, one
solution can be closely linked with Gods moral inability. Even though
God is not required, or has a need to act justly, God will inevitably act
justly since it is His divine nature desires to do so. In other words, God
has a moral inability to act unjustly. In the Freedom of the Will, moral
inability for Edwards is just as debilitating as is natural inability; for
example, Christ has a moral inability to sin. Thus, as Holmes suggests,
while the governmental metaphor of the atonement is not the most
important one, yet Edwards has no problems with a moral govern-
ment theory.36 To be sure, even Gerstner has to admit this, and refers
to Edwardss sermon on Revelation 14:13 as: Grotius could not have
stated his governmental theory better.37 Therefore the historical trend
of traditional Calvinists to accept Edwards as their own, while strongly
rejecting Edwardss successors ought to be revisitedor, in the event
that this should this be done, to proceed with deliberation given the
complex nature and stigmatism associated with Grotianism in some
circles of Reformed tradition. The chief concern for their denunciation
is, of course, the moral governmental theory of the atonement in the
New England divines.
However, if their champion of Reformed orthodoxy had a certain
amount of Grotianism in his thinking, and if one admired Edwards as
one of their own, before dismissing the New Divinity men as a stereo-
typical lump, the New England theologians must be seriously consid-
ered. This ought to be the case, especially in light of the fact that Grotius
himself may not, as some commentators have argued, be clearly
Grotian.38 Furthermore, this bias must be treated with disdain not
only because there are complexities as well as significant variations
among the New England theologians,39 but more importantly, because
35
Holmes, God of Grace, 145.
36
Ibid., 145, n.65, italics mine.
37
38
For useful summaries of Grotiuss doctrine of the atonement, see L.W. Grensted,
A Short History of The Doctrine of The Atonement (Manchester: MUP, 1920), 281306.
See also, Robert Franks, The Work of Christ, A Historical Study of Christian Doctrine
(London: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 389409.
39
For differences between Bellamy, Hopkins, Edwards Jr. and West, see Foster,
Genetic History, 107207. For a concise summary of their position, see also Rudisill,
there is a qualitative difference between the so-called, Grotianism of

the New England theologians, and that of Grotianism which is more
classically associated with American Methodism in the nineteenth
century.40
If the critics grounds for accepting Edwards and rejecting his New
England disciples rests on the degrees of so called, govermentalism that
existed between Edwards and the New Divinitythat is, Edwards was
more orthodox than his students 2014 then a case could be made that
there are also degrees of Grotianism among the New England theolo-
gians. It is plausible to argue that not all New Divinity men are alike.
Hence, if one wishes to claim Edwardss voice in ones own theologi-
cal tradition, the New England theologians, especially the men41 imme-
diately following Edwardss death, ought not to be so swiftly dismissed
lest one might insult Edwardss theological discernment when he pro-
moted Bellamys True Religion Delineated. The assumption is that no
matter how fond Edwards was of his disciple Bellamy, if he was truly
hostile towards governmental language used in this work, Edwards
simply would not have written the preface praising it, especially not to
the high degree that he does. At this point, it is interesting to note that
Fuller also wrote a preface to an English edition of Bellamys True
Religion Delineated.
6.4 Fuller and Joseph Bellamy
If anyone deserves to be given a second look among the New England

theologians by the confessional Reformed critics, Joseph Bellamy42
Doctrine of the Atonement, 113124. For relevant historical background, see Guelzo,
Edwards on the Will, 87111.
40
This view was thoroughly captured in John Mileys The Atonement in Christ
(New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1879). Contrary to the position taken in Mileys version of
Grotianism, (i.e. Arminian), which claims that the atonement was not necessary, the
New England (i.e. Calvinists) version affirms the absolute necessity of the atonement.
As the title indicates, Jonathan Edwards Jr. strongly advocates this point in The Necessity
of the Atonement and the Consistency between that and free grace in forgiveness: Three
Sermons in Edwards Amasa Park, ed., The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises,
(Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859). I am gratefully indebted to
Oliver Crisp who brought this point to my attention. Crisps paper entitled Penal Non-
Substitution, was presented at the Theology Seminar at the University of St. Andrews
on March 14, 2007, and addressed this important distinction.
41
I am referring to Bellamy, Hopkins, and Edwards Jr.
42
Joseph Bellamy was born in 1719 in New Cheshire, Connecticut. Like Edwards,
he graduated from Yale in 1735. Bellamy arrived in Northampton to study under
152 chapter six
ought to be the first one in their list. He was the first pupil to study
under Edwards in Northampton, Massachusetts, and he is often seen as
the connecting link between Edwards and his successors in New
England. Again, the very fact that Edwards has written a preface to
True Religion Delineated (1750) and personally endorsed it by stressing
his intimate acquaintance with Bellamy should give instant credibil-
ity to him being a candidate as Edwardss faithful student. Edwards fur-
ther praises this work, since he has abundant reason to be satisfied
with what has governed [Bellamy] with this publication.43 He describes
Bellamys work as a careful consideration of important facts and most
diligent search of the holy Scripture. At the same time, Edwards noted
some discernment, time to time conversing freely and friendly with
Gentlemen in the Arminian Scheme.44 Despite this seeming friendli-
ness, he still continued to endorse Bellamys work: I cannot but express
my sincere wishes, that what is here written by this reverenced and
pious author, may be taken notice of, read without prejudice, and thor-
oughly considered.45 From my own perusal, Edwards guaranteed
that it would increase the light and that readers would discover truth
and, as result, would come to understand why they are true.46 Coming
from Edwardss pen, such language is a tremendously high endorse-
ment to read Bellamy without prejudice, and Fuller too, evidently fol-
lowed Edwardss advice to read Bellamy without bias. This is evidenced
by at least by two factors. First, as early as the first edition of Gospel
Worthy (1785), Fuller was already quoting from Religion Delineated at
length.47 Second, and more importantly, in 1812 Fuller also wrote the
Recommendatory Preface on top of Edwardss original preface when
the third edition of Religion Delineated was published in London.48
Fuller begins his preface by comparing the similarity between
Edwardss Religious Affections and Bellamys Religion Delineated. He
highlights the fact that Bellamy was Edwardss intimate friend, and by
Edwards in 1736. He was one of two of Edwardss famous pupils (along with Hopkins),
and was also an intimate friend.
43
Edwards, Preface, in Joseph Bellamy, Religion Delineated (Boston: S. Kneeland,
1750), v.
44
Ibid., vi.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., vi-vii.
47
Fuller, Gospel Worthy, (1st ed), 56.
48
Fuller, Recommendatory Preface, in Joseph Bellamy, Religion Delineated
(London: T. Hamilton, 3rd ed., 1812).
writing the preface, Fuller obviously implicates that Edwards must

have read and approved Bellamys work. That said, Fuller exercises
caution in reading Religion Delineated and points out that he does not
advocate every sentiment contained in it.49 Nonetheless, when it
comes to the extent of the atonement, Fuller is in accord with both
Edwards and Bellamy and indeed, quotes extensively from the Freedom
of the Will to make this point:
Mr. Edwards, however, believed with Mr. Bellamy, that the death of
Christ furnished a ground for universal invitations to sinners to believe
and be saved: and Bellamy believed with Mr. Edwards, that however
Christ, in some sense, may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible
Christians; yet there must be something particular in the design of his
death with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved
thereby.God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain num-
ber in his proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and,
therefore, such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does in
order to the salvation of men.50
It is interesting to note that even when Fuller is writing the preface to
Bellamys work, he quotes extensively from Edwards. Fuller certainly
could have talked about Bellamys view of atonement without appeal-
ing to Edwards, but the fact is that he does. This may be a window
into Fullers mind insofar as authoritative priority in his relationship to
Edwards and how he viewed New England theologians such as Bellamy.
This leads us to several observations that need to be made here. First,
Fuller studied Edwardss theology before reading the New England
theologians.51 Second, Bellamy is lesser known than Edwards. Thus
when Fuller is writing the new preface to the London edition for
Religion Delineated, by extensively quoting Edwards, he is extending
49
Ibid., vi-vii.
50
Freedom of the Will, as quoted in Fuller, Recommendatory Preface, vii. Cf. FW,
1:435. There are slight variants to the edition of Freedom of the Will quoted in the pref-
ace to that of the Yale critical edition, but these variants do not change its meaning.
51
A qualification needs to be made here. In the spring of 1775, Fuller was aware of
Edwards on the Will, but did not actually read it until 1777. But as early as 1776, when
Fuller became merely acquainted with Sutcliff and Ryland Jr., he made a reference to
partly reading the writings of Edwards, Bellamy, and Brainerd. This implies that
although Fuller did not have the chance to read other New England theologians until
later, Bellamy was included in the scope of his reading list just immediately after, or
nearly simultaneously with Edwards. See, WAF, 1:1516. Ryland Jr. was also fond of
Bellamys work since his proposals for printing by subscription contained True Religion
Delineated. See, John Ryland Jr. The law not against the promises of God (London:
J. Buckland, 1787).
154 chapter six
credibility to Bellamys work. This also shows that Fuller, having read
Edwards first, understands his view on the atonement well enough to
conclude that on the extent of the atonement, Bellamy is not in a differ-
ent position from that taken by Edwards. Accordingly, from these
efforts it could be seen that while Fuller finds Bellamys work to be
helpful, at the same time, Edwards holds weightier authority on the
issue than does Bellamy.
However, Fuller found Bellamy particularly helpful towards the end
of the third section of his first discourse52 regarding a valuable point
that was often overlooked by many of his contemporaries in England.
This concerned the necessity of the renewing influence of the Spirit
and the internal influence in relation to repenting and believing
that was consistent with the invitation and exhortation to repent and
believe; i.e., outward means.53 This notion is what Paul Brewster has
identified as: The outward call of the gospel versus the inward call in
Fullers thinking. The outward call is broadcast as widely as possible
through the use of means, whereas the inward call only comes through
the agency of the Holy Spirit operating within the heart. Fuller writes
that if the truths in Religion Delineated could be grasped by readers,
consistency of universal invitation without universal grace could be
maintained.54
Thus, in Fullers mind, it could be presumed that for the most part
Bellamy and other New England theologians closely resemble Edwards
in their thinking. In fact, it is rather common for Fuller to mention the
name of Edwards and his successors in the same sentence: Much is
said of my having read Edwards, Bellamy, and other American writ-
ers.55 However, this by no means should be taken to mean that Fuller
read them uncritically. When John Martin accused him of following
the New England theologians, Fuller made this retort:
Mr. M. may wish to insinuate that I have taken matters upon trust from
these writers without examining them; but in answer to such insinuation
it is sufficient to say, that more he can prove. All [Martin] knows or can
52
According to Bellamy, in the context of Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Israelites
in their natural covenant did not have any inward influences of the holy spirit, to keep
the stipulation, yet when God speaks as if he had done all for that nation that could be
done, Bellamy pointed out, he plainly has respect only to outward means (Bellamy,
Religion Delineated, (1750), 125).
53
Fuller, Recommendatory Preface, viiviii.
54
Ibid., viii. See, chapter 3 in Brewster, Pastor-Theologian.
55
On Mr. Martins Publication, WAF, 2:718.
of the matter is, that I have read [New England theologians], and approve
of some of their sentiments; and is there any crime in this?56
As Oliver has noted, this indicates, Fuller was aware that the New
England men to whom he owed so much had abandoned the doctrine
of particular redemption.57 In watchfully realizing these theological
trends, Fuller read the New Divinity men critically,58 and this study
will continue to validate this assertion with textual evidence.
6.5 Fuller and Samuel Hopkins
Another admirer whom Edwards had personally mentored in New

England was Samuel Hopkins.59 Despite this known fact, Fuller engages
Hopkins judiciously. In fact, whenever something that Hopkins wrote
appears to be unbiblical, Fuller not only opposes the New Divinity
School, but even abandons Edwardshis revered mentorhimself.
On the subject of regarding God as the author of sin, Hopkins is much
closer to Edwards than was Fuller. In sustaining the Edwardsean line of
reasoning that God is the ultimate cause of evil, Hopkins quotes at
length from Freedom of the Will. However, in the original context it is
with an enormous amount of reluctance that Edwards carefully quali-
fies the existence of Gods efficient or permissive cause of sin (as
opposed to a deficient or positive cause of sin):
what they mean by that phrase, the author of sin. I know the phrase,
as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the author of
sin, be meant the sinner, the agent, or actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked
thing, so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the
author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin;
rejecting such an imputation on the most High, as what is infinitely to be
56
Ibid., 718719.
57
Oliver, Booth, 220.
58
Morden was the first one to highlight that Fuller had read the New England theo-
logians critically. See, Morden, Offering Christ, 93.
59
Samuel Hopkins (17211803), a congregational minister, was born on September,
17, 1721, in Waterbury, Connecticut. Hopkins was one of the most influential of
Edwardss apprentices, and was Edwardss first biographer in writing, The life
and character of the late Reverend Mr. Jonathan Edwards, president of the College at
New-Jersey (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1765). In following the Edwardsean line of reasoning,
Hopkins offered a synthesis of a new Calvinism in New England. In 1793, Hopkins
first published his magnum opus entitled, System of Doctrines Contained in Divine
Revelation (Boston: Isaiah Thomas, 1793), although the 1811 edition is used in this
book.
156 chapter six
abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have
laid down. But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a
hinderer of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in
such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that
sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly
follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I dont
deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase,
as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no
reproach for the most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be
the actor of sin, but, on the contrary, of holiness.60
After much qualification, and even though Edwards detested portray-
ing God as the author of sin he is, in the final analysis, acknowledging
God as the author of the permissive cause of sin. However, in following
Edwards on efficient and deficient distinctions, and perhaps more
swiftly and certainly more metaphysically than Edwards, Hopkins also
saw God as the author of sin: God, in foreordaining whatsoever comes
to pass, may be, in this sense, the origin and cause of sin, consistent
with infinite holiness.61 Hopkins claimed that God causing and author-
ing sin is not at odds with His holiness because God is only the nega-
tive cause of moral evil.62 However, Fuller does not approve at all of
Hopkins idea.63 In a letter to Hopkins, Fuller reprimands Hopkins by
saying that although he has enjoyed great pleasure in reading many
of [Hopkins] metaphysical pieces, he still feels that Edwardss follow-
ers in New England paid too much attention to blind imitation of
Edwardsean reasoning:
I have observed that whenever an extraordinary man has been raised up,
like President Edwards, who excelled in some particular doctrines, or
manner of reasoning, it is usual for his followers and admirers too much
to confine their attention to his doctrines or manner of reasoning, as
though all excellence was there concentrated. I allow that your present
writer [i.e., Fuller] do not implicitly follow Edwards, as to his sentiments,
but that you preserve a spirit of free enquiry: Yet I must say, it appears to
me that several of your men [i.e., New England theologians] possess a
60
FW, 1:399. This extract of Edwards was significant since it is also quoted by
Samuel Hopkins in System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Revelation (Boston:
Lincoln & Edmands, 1811), 135.
61
Hopkins, System, 127.
62
Ibid., 129.
63
Fuller, Letter to Dr. Hopkins, in Morris, Memoirs of the Life, 295. Evidently, this
original correspondence between could be Fuller and Hopkins could be found in the
Grant Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. See, Guelzo,
Edwards on the Will, 290 n.6.
rage of imitating his metaphysical manner, till some of them become

metaphysic mad.64
Even with the great admiration that existed for Edwards and his suc-
cessors in New England, Fuller did not follow their philosophical
extension when, 1) that philosophy did not serve Fullers evangelistic
purpose and, 2) is contrary to what Fuller believed to be taught in the
Scripture. Fuller thus writes to Hopkins:
To say God is the author of sin, does so naturally convey to almost every
mind the ideas, that God is the friend and approver of sin; that we are
mere passive instruments, and that he himself being the grand agent,
ought only to be accountable for it,that I should think, by using it,
I conveyed ideas directly contrary to James i. 13.65
Fuller appears to have taken issue with Hopkins rendering God as
author of sin for the following reasons. First, being in a particular
Baptist setting in England, Fuller could have had a theological allergic
reaction to any Hyper-Calvinistic66 idea that seemed to suggest that sin
was a divine decree and that we are mere passive instruments.
However, the robust Supralapsarianism of Hopkins and, to some degree
of Edwards67 would have allowed such ideas to be more palatable for
them. Yet Fuller probably thought that this idea could lead to
Antinomianism and could potentially dampen evangelism. After dis-
cussing human volition and commenting extensively on Edwards in
respect to natural and moral inability in his 1783 letter to Ryland Jr.,
Fuller says:68
64
Fuller, Letter to Dr. Hopkins, 296.
65
Ibid., 295.
66
It is significant that while all Hyper-Calvinists have elements of Supralapsarians,
not all Supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinists.
67
For further discussion on Hopkins Supralapsarianism, see Rudisill, Doctrine of
the Atonement, 5557. There are some debates whether Edwards was Supra or
Infralapsarian. Cherry Jenson, and Holmes all identify Edwards as Supralapsarian,
whereas Crisp thinks Edwards articulated a middle way between Supra and
Infralapsarianism. Lastly, Gerstner highlights an aspect of Edwardss Infralapsarian
tendency. See, Cherry, A Reappraisal, 104; Jenson, Americas Theologian, 45; Holmes,
God of Grace, 129131. Cf. Oliver Crisp, Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 22. Cf. Gerstner, Rational, 2:152156, 162.
68
The Calvinistic debates, which get at the logical order of divine decree in the elec-
tion are as follow:
Supralapsarianism: 1) The decree to elect some and reprobate others; 2) The decree
to create both the elect and the reprobate; 3) The decree to provide salvation for only
the elect. Infralapsarianism: 1) The decree to create humanity; 2) The decree to permit
the fall; 3) The decree to elect some and reprobate others; 4)The decree to provide
158 chapter six
I think, upon the sublapsarian scheme; but a Supralapsarian, at-a-time-

but-b would not allow of its reflecting any shame upon human nature.
I have formerly professed my self a Supralapsarian, at a time when, per-
haps, I hardly knew meaning of that hard word. I own I am not now
versed in arguments on either side. Only one thing has for some time
struck me; namely, that the sublapsarian scheme is of use to me in the
conviction of sinners. I can prove to them that they lie absolutely at the
discretion of God, and have no claim whatever upon him; that to them
beloneth nothing but shame and everlasting confusion; that therefore
God is entirely at liberty in chusing whom he will. I cannot make this
use of the supralapsarian scheme; for then I must tell them, that as
CREATURES God had a right to chuse some to a higher degree of bliss
than others. This cannot be charged with injustice, and so far may silence
them; but it cannot convict them of sin, or bring them to fall at the feet of
God 69
Fuller confess that he had formerly been a Supralapsarian without fully
knowing what it entailed, but he came to find Sublapsarian to be more
useful in evangelistic ministry. While Fuller affirms the Calvinistic
principle that no one can charge God with injustice in election, he still
finds Supralapsarianism to be useless in his ministerial setting when it
came to convicting people of their sin.
Second, Fuller may have taken with more issues Hopkinss expres-
sion of seeing God as the author of sineven though it was negative
causehe found it to be unbiblical. Fuller saw James 1:13 as a con-
trary scriptural text to Hopkinss position: Let no man say when he is
tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,
neither tempteth he any man (KJV). Based on these biblical convic-
tions, Fuller believed that God could not be blamed for sin. I am of the
opinion that Fuller did not fully grasp Edwardsean reasoning on this
topic. Regardless of the truthfulness of this claim, for our purposes,
the most important point is that despite his fondness for Edwards
and the New England theologians, Fuller did not subscribe to their
views on every issue. His deep commitment to Scripture could not be
overridden by any system of philosophy, including an Edwardsean one.
salvation for only the elect. Sublapsarianism: 1) The decree to create humanity; 2) The
decree to permit the fall; 3) The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all; 4) The
decree to save some and reprobate others. See, Millard Erickson, Christian Theology.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 842843. Points 3 and 4 under Sublapsarianism are what
Fuller was emphasizing in these debates.
69
Andrew Fuller Letter to John Ryland Jr., March 22, 1783, Typed Fullers Letters,
Box 4/5/1, Angus Library, University of Oxford. All spelling errors and underline
emphasis is original.
On one occasion, Fuller cited Edwardss Some Thoughts Concerning the

Revival, which reveals the role of reason and scripture in his theologi-
cal framework:
What is philosophy, that it should become an oracle, by which to try
sentiments in divinity? See Jonathan Edwardss Thoughts on the Revival,
Part I. p. 4. Dr. Edwards [i.e. Edwards Jr.], Dr. Hopkins, and others of
their best divines, justly inveighs against human authority in religion:
I mean, taking up with a sentiment on account of the men of great name
that have held it; but what is philosophy but human opinion? I have no
objection to such a way of advancing truth as consists in pointing out its
rationality: on the contrary, it is a great satisfaction to feel both scripture
and reason on our side; and so it is to find great and good men agreeing
with us in important doctrines; but as I would not make an oracle of
them, neither would I of a set of human opinions, though they may go
under the name of philosophy. Philosophy seems to me out of its place
when seated upon the bench by the side of Gods word.70
This excerpt indicates that Fuller was certainly capable of praising
Edwards Jr. and Hopkins, especially for their efforts in speaking against
those who saw scripture to be subservient to reason. Yet as a child of
the enlightenment era, reason had a vital role in Fullers theology since
he had no objection to such a way of advancing truth, and it gave him
a great satisfaction to feel both scripture and reason to be in harmony.
Nevertheless, when Fuller felt that the metaphysics of his New England
friends went beyond the scriptural boundary, he was never afraid to
diverge from them. It is apparent that Fuller and Hopkins also had run-
ins concerning the doctrine of disinterested love, as evident when
Fuller wrote:
I have an answer to Dr. Hopkins, in which I have defended that position.
He is a mighty reasoner: but on this subject I feel my ground. Should he
furnish a reply, the correspondence may hereafter be published.71
Fuller stood his own ground no matter how refined a reasoner his
opponent. On this occasion, Fuller was more than willing to bring
Hopkins to the task in print. Thus Fullers contemporary biographer,
J.W. Morris was right in stating, Mr. Fuller dissented from opinions of
the American writers, and as freely stated his own convictions.72
70
Fuller, Extracted Letter on October, 9, 1975, 370371. The section that Fuller
refers to in Some Thoughts on the Revival is entitled, Scripture as a Whole the
Criterion. See, WJE, 4:296297.
71
Fuller, Remarks on American Writers, in Morris, Memoirs of the Life, 298.
72
Ibid., 297.
160 chapter six
6.6 Fuller, Edwards and Jonathan Edwards Jr.
Bellamy and Hopkins were to be the first generation of Edwardss pupils

who were literally under continuous tutelage throughout Edwardss
lifetime. However, Edwardss own son, Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745
1801) who is often referred to as Dr. Edwards or Jonathan Edwards
the Younger73 is an important figure for this study. Born in Northamp-
ton, Massachusetts, as Edwardss second son, he graduated from
Princeton in 1765, and then studied theology under Bellamy. When
Edwards Jr. arrived at the Bellamys home he was carrying a letter of
introduction from Hopkins.74 That letter plus Bellamys close friend-
ship with his by then late father was an instant recipe for a cordial rela-
tionship between the two men. It may be worth noting here that
otherwise fine scholars have made the mistake75 of confusing the two,
Edwards Jr. with Edwards his father. This is especially so since the cover
of the younger Edwardss Free Grace and Atonement ambiguously listed
its author as Jonathan Edwards, D.D.
When Booth accused Fuller of being overly fond of, and uncritically
dependent upon, New England theologians, Booth was only partially
right. It is difficult to overstate Fullers esteem for Edwards. However, it
was not only Edwards of whom Fuller was fond but of his son as well:
I have read Dr. Edwards on Free Grace and Atonement with great plea-
sure. I suppose I read it sometime ago; but I never relished it so well
before Thus Booth was correct in judging this aspect of Fuller, but
he was mistaken about Fullers nave reliance since in the same breath
he also said, I do not coincide with every thing it contains.76 This
investigation will therefore continue to address Booths skepticism of
whether Fuller uncritically adopted the American moral governmental
theory of atonement. This chapter could have utilized Bellamy, John
Smalley or Stephen Wests approach to atonement as a basis for com-
parison with Fullers version. However, the younger Edwards was
selected to represent the New Divinity school as a case study because:
1) together with John Erskine, Edwards Jr. had a significant role
73
Edwards Sr. was referred to as President Edwards and the elder Edwards.
74
Foster, Genetic History, 189.
75
Sheehan listed Free Grace and Atonement as a one of the works of Edwards Sr.,
when in fact it was his sons sermon. Sheehan, Great and Sovereign Grace, 85 n.12.
76
Fuller, Extracts from Diary on April 21, 1794, in Ryland Jr., Work of Faith,
(1st ed.), 365366.
in promulgating his fathers writings in Britain; 2) the content of

Dr. Edwardss text concerning the atonement and its historical signifi-
cance in the later development of New England theology; and 3) in
response to Ellas suggestion that when Nettles presents Fuller as a
follower of Jonathan Edwards, he had mistaken the younger Edwards
for his father.77
6.6.1 Edwards Jr. The Necessity of the Atonement and the Consistency
between that and Free Grace in Forgiveness: Three Sermons78
During the mid 1780s the concept of moral government rapidly began
to infuse New England. Prior to this period it had strong roots in the
theologies of Edwards, Bellamy, and Hopkins. Although the theme of
moral government cannot be seen as a full blown system of thought
until, most notably, it began to emerge with Edwards Jr.s response to
Universalism. The rise of Universalism in New England was champi-
oned by John Murray (17411815), and Charles Chauncy who denied
the traditional doctrine of hell, which led to disclaiming the necessity
for conversion. This alarmed the New Divinity School. Stephen West,
John Smalley and Edwards Jr. responded79 rigorously in challenging
Universalism and, in that process, the son modified the fathers posi-
tion with what he believed to be an improvement, which furthered
the advancement of the governmental idea of the atonement.80 The
understanding that such an historical context provides may be yet
another reason to be sympathetic towards this new Calvinism in New
England from a more traditional Calvinistic camp. In any case, as
77
George Ella, The Atonement in Evangelical Thought: Part IV http://www
.evangelica.de/The_Atonement_IV.htm (accessed on October 21, 2005). Nettles has
not mistaken Edwards Jr. for Sr.
78
This sermon was originally delivered in 1785, but it could be located in Edwards
Amasa Park, ed., The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises (Boston: Congregational
Board of Publication, 1859), 342. In this one volume, there are other New Divinity
men like: John Smalley, Jonathan Maxcy, Nathanael Emmons, Edward Dorr Griffin,
Caleb Burge, and William Raymond Weekss take on atonement could be located as
well. For another useful textual exposition of Necessity of the Atonement, see Foster,
Genetic History, 200204.
79
Sweeney described this response as rapid-fire succession, each one published
on the nature and extent of the atonement within span of a single year (Sweeney,
Nathaniel Taylor, 104).
80
For these so called, improvements, see Jonathan Edwards Jr. Remarks on the
Improvements Made in Theology of His Father, President Edwards, in The Work of
Jonathan Edwards D.D. Late President of Union College with a Memoir of His Life and
Character, by Tryon Edwards, 2 vols. (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co), 1:486488.
162 chapter six
Sweeney suggests, in many ways the sermons of Edwards Jr. on Free

Grace and Atonement provided a cornerstone81 for New England the-
ology. Charles Hodge also saw Edwards Jr. as a key theologian who
advanced this theory: The death of Christ, therefore, could have no
other design than to render the forgiveness of sin consistent with the
best interests of the moral government of God. This theory was elabo-
rated by [Edwards Jr.]82
As the title of the three sermons suggests,83 in following President
Edwards position, Dr. Edwards grounded the nature of atonement in
free grace in forgiveness and that grace [is] consistent with atone-
ment rather than seeing its divine commutative justice as being sine
qua non. Paving the ground for other developments within the New
Divinity School, Edwards Jr. distinguishes three types of justice that
need to be satisfied in atonement:
Commutative justice, in the recovering of debts, has no respect at all to
the character or conduct of the debtor, but merely to the property of the
creditor. Distributive justice, in the punishment of crimes, has no respect
at all to the property of the criminal, but merely to his personal conduct;
unless his property may, in some instances, enhance his crimes General
or public justice comprehends all moral goodness whatever is wrong or
improper to be done, is said to be unjust, or an act of injustice. To practise
justice in this sense [i.e. General], is to practise agreeably to the dictates
of general benevolence, or to seek the glory of God and the good of the
universe. And whenever the glory of God is neglected, it may be said that
God is injured or deprived of his right. Whenever the general good is
neglected or impeded, the universe may be said to suffer an injury.84
Commutative justice has reference to proper and exact payment of
debts, which entails God making the death of Christ satisfy the exact
payment that correspond to the debts owed. The younger Edwards
explicitly denies this point, one on which the elder Edwards remained
wary. Moreover, Edwards Jr. explained that distributive justice relates
to the punishment of crimes and sins and hence the forensic justifica-
tion of the elect is the ground upon which expiation is based. Lastly,
general, public or rectoral justice refers to divine goodness in general;
Gods regard for the good of the universe. With this distinction,
81
Sweeney, Nathaniel Taylor, 104.
82
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:578.
83
1) The Necessity of Atonement; 2) The Atonement Consistent with Free
Grace; 3) Inferences and Reflections.
84
Edwards Jr., Necessity of Atonement in Park, ed., The Atonement, 21.
Edwards Jr. explicitly denies the first two justices within divine satisfac-
tion and affirms only the third:
In what sense justice and the divine law are satisfied by the death of
Christ; and in what sense the atonement of Christ is properly called a
satisfaction. It is only the third kind of justice before mentioned, that is
satisfied by the death of Christ. No man, for the reasons already given,
will pretend that commutative justice is satisfied by Christ; for the con-
troversy between God and the sinner is not concerning property. Nor is
distributive justice satisfied. If it were, there would indeed be no more
grace in the discharge of the sinner, than there is in the discharge of a
criminal, when he hath endured the full punishment to which, according
to law, he hath been condemned. If distributive justice were satisfied, it
would have no further claim on the sinner If distributive justice be
satisfied, it admits of no further punishment, and to punish him further,
would be as positively unjust, as to continue a mans punishment, after he
hath endured the full penalty of any law Distributive justice, therefore,
is not at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But general justice to the Deity
and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which
supports the authority of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory
of God and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner.85
While one may be able stretch the words of both Edwards and Fuller
to establish a trajectory in the direction of the moral governmental
realm (if that), nowhere in their works do they explicitly deny the first
two justices in this way. Such a feature in the work of Edwards Jr. can-
not be found in either Edwards or Fuller. Edwards Jr. then proceeds to
describe the satisfaction not in terms of a divine reaction to sin, which
sees God as not an offended party, but God as a moral governor of the
universe whose interests lay in the common good, the only firm rec-
toral justice in public law and order. The account of the atonement by
Edwards Jr. is external to the purpose of the ontological God being for
the public good. This means Christ did not suffer the penalty under
which sinners stood legally condemned, but suffered according to gen-
eral justice. Rudisill summarizes the younger Edwardss atonement as
having absolutely nothing to do with making Gods grace effectual in
individuals life! The Atonement was effected not for us as persons but
for the government of God.86 Such an understanding of the atonement
makes perfect sense in Edwards Jr.s historical context, especially since
he was writing in a period when the young American government was
85
Ibid., 3738.
86
Rudisill, Doctrine of the Atonement, 94.
164 chapter six
advancing a similar ideology in its judiciary system. In writing about

the idea of moral government, Mark Noll suggests that it did not
become a theological category through the simple process of intellec-
tual borrowing, but rather it was shaped by the usages of broader
public life.87 This modification of his fathers theory on the atonement
seems a better fit with the intellectual and political climate of the era.
6.6.2 Was Fullers approach to the Atonement nearer to that of Edwards

or Edwards Jr.?
It is widely recognized that Fuller has been accused of advocating the
governmental theory of atonement, and from the traditional perspec-
tive such concerns are not entirely without warrant. Therefore I will
propose a hermeneutical reading of Fullers account of the classically
Reformed position on the atonement in the next chapter, 7.5. Meanwhile
this section demonstrates several distinguishing points of departure
that make it clear Fuller did not follow Edwards Jr.
The historical Reformed position has maintained that vicarious sat-
isfaction is the substitution equivalent to the penalty incurred by
human sin.88 The atoning works of Christ are equivalent to that penalty
whereas according to the governmental theory, the creditor can dis-
charge his debtor without full payment since God can forgive the pen-
alty of sin without satisfaction. Yet as Rudisill observes, It is true that
President Edwards looked upon the Atonement as work of pure grace89
and it is this aspect of atonement where Edwards and Edwards Jr. were
in accord with Fuller. Fuller may have been referring to this idea when
he wrote to Timothy Dwight in 1805: The writings of your grandfa-
ther, President Edwards, and of your uncle, the late Dr. Edwards, have
been food to me.90 However, where the elder and younger Edwards
87
Mark Noll, Americas God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (Oxford:
OUP, 2002), 291.
88
We are unable to make that satisfaction in our own persons, or to deliver our-
selves from the wrath of God, he hath been pleased of his infinite mercy to give his
only-begotten Son for our surety, who was made sin, and became a curse for us in our
stead, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf. (Second Head of
Doctrine, Article II, Canons of the Synod of Dort (1619), in Philip Schaff and Henry
B. Smith, eds., The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1877), 2:586).
89
Rudisill, Doctrine of the Atonement, 107.
90
WAF, 1:85. As Clipsham argued, for Fuller, quid pro quo in the doctrine of substi-
tution meant that it made the salvation a matter of right rather than grace (Clipsham,
1. The Development of a Doctrine, 112).
differed, Fuller appeared to have followed Edwards and not Edwards Jr.
It is accurate to say that Edwards and Fuller saw atonement as a work
of grace. Still, for them Gods real justice had been satisfied,91 not only
in the sense of general justice. All three theologians saw that grace was
logically prior to the atonement, but for Edwards and Fullerunlike
Edwards Jr.the efficacy of the atonement was applied to the elect per-
sonally. Indeed where Edwards Jr. and Edwards differ, Fuller subscribed
to the view of Edwards. According to Morriss report:
Much as [Fuller] approved of the able Discourses of Dr. Jonathan Edwards
on the consistency of the Atonement with the doctrine of Grace, I object,
says he, to [Dr. Edwardss] account of public justice, as being too
indefinite.92
Fuller was apparently closer to President Edwards given that he obvi-
ously thought the Dr. Edwardss account of public justice in the atone-
ment was indefinite. Mordens appraisal was thus appropriate in reading
Fuller as someone who would never follow Edwards Jr. in holding to a
general, rather than particular, redemption. He continued to speak of
the atonement in substitutionary terms.93 Although Fuller saw atone-
ment as the pure grace of God, in common with Edwards, it was still
not at the expense of Gods justice in satisfaction; a point where Fuller
follows the elder Edwards when he said, if the atonement is not made,
then mercy triumphs at the expense of righteousness.94 Such reserva-
tions about the notion of divine grace and mercy overtaking at the
expense of justice95 are not the concern of Edwards Jr. Nevertheless, the
significant and defining features of the younger Edwardss governmen-
talism appear to be exactly the opposite of what Fuller argued in The
Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement:
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 redemp-
tion as a kind of commercial transaction betwixt a creditor and his
91
In The Gospel its Own Witness, Fuller refers to chapter 6 entitled, Concerning the
Necessity and Reasonableness of the Christian Doctrine of Satisfaction for Sin, in
Jonathan Edwards, Remarks on Important Theological Controversies (Edinburgh:
J. Galbraith, 1796). See, WAF, 2:74.
92
Morris, Memoirs of the Life, 298.
93
94
Deity of Christ, WAF, 3:694, italics mine.
95
Perhaps Fuller is referring to some types of commutative and distributive justices
here.
166 chapter six
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 con-
duct of the offender, equal to what the nature of the offence is in reality.96
Fuller accentuates the words satisfaction and equal the necessity of
satisfaction and the specified canceling of the debt should be noted,
which are in the divine internal structure. This leads to a further funda-
mental violation to that with which Edwards Jr. and other, later New
Divinity men would have problems. In this sense Fuller is clearly of a
higher Calvinist order than his New England friends. Although Fuller
may not be as rigid a literalist as Booth, he is still working within the
general boundaries of both commutative and distribute framework in
that Christs satisfaction, which is equal payment of the debt (commu-
tative), and the basis for the classical forensic justification (distribu-
tive). Of course, when Fuller said it was, improper to represent the
great work of redemption as a kind of commercial transaction betwixt
a creditor and his debtor it was this notion that concerned Booth.
However, Edwards denied this strict equivalence as well. Amy Plantinga
Pauw for instance, observes that for Edwards, transactional language
of atonement falls away.97 Perhaps Pauw was overstating her case, for
the language of Edwardss transactional never completely falls away,
especially in History of Work of the Redemption, which Fuller had in his
catalogue and cited.98 In Remarks there are more glimpses of Edwards
Sr.s moral governmental ideas:
Christ suffered the wrath of God for mens sins in such a way as he was
capable of, being an infinite holy person, who knows that God was not
angry with him personally, knew that God did not hate him, but infi-
nitely loved him.99
96
Deity of Christ, 3:693, italics his, underlining mine.
97
Amy Plantinga Pauw, The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of
Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 141. If Edwards did work within
this commutative and distributive framework, what would be the mechanics of a non-
transactional transaction here? Perhaps T.F. Torrance offers one possible solution:
atoning reconciliation as accomplished within the incarnate constitution of the
Mediator and not in some external transactional way between himself and mankind
(T.F. Torrance, Karl Barth, Biblical and Evangelical Theologian, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1990), 230). Mindful of the risk of appearing somewhat anachronistic here, it should be
noted not that I am advocating a proto-Bartian Edwards and Fuller here, but Torrances
insight may shine some light on how non-transactional yet commutative and distribu-
tive justice functions in the thinking of Edwards and Fuller.
98
The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, WAF, 2:208.
99
Edwards, Remarks, 375. Since 1796 the Edinburgh edition of Remarks is not read-
ily accessible, but a very similar text can be located in Hickmans edition, under the
Edwards certainly held penal substitution, yet in common with Fuller,

he was quite wary of speaking in terms of strict quid pro quo. He stressed
that God was not personally angry with Christ but treats the son as
though he was a sinner (see 7.2.17.2.2, 7.3.17.3.3). Thus Rudisill is
right to observe that Edwards avoid[ed] saying that God punished
His son.100 However, it should be noted that a similar idea penetrates
Fullers thinking when he writes, I believe the wrath of God that
was due to us was poured upon [Christ]; but I do not believe that God
for one moment was angry or displeased with him 101 Like Edwards,
Fuller had problems seeing Christ as being punished and did not see
God as being angry with Christ. God was treating his son as if he were
a sinner. Morden identifies this feature of Fullers thinking that, Christ
as not being punished, is indicative of a place where more than any-
where, the influence of the New England theologians can be seen.102
Still if Edwards also had problems with the insinuation that God pun-
ished his son, and thereby introduced the languages of as though and
as if to articulate the doctrine of substitution and imputation (a point
which will be fully demonstrated in the next chapter), then there are no
compelling reasons to assume that such ideas were derivative of the
New England theologians. Contrary to the consensus in Fullerite
scholarship, Edwardss mediatory influence via the New England theo-
logians does not need to be presumed here since Fuller certainly could
have received those concepts directly from Edwards.
6.7 The Nature of Atonement
6.7.1 Edwards on the Nature of Atonement

E.F. Clipsham has argued that Edwardss influence on Fuller on the
issue of atonement was indirect and mediated through Edwardss
successors.103 Oliver likewise states, Fullers inspiration from Grotianism
subheading of Of Gods Moral Government and Of Satisfaction WJEEH, 2:511

515; 565578. In the Yale edition, see also Wisdom of God Displayed in the Way of
Salvation, in Miscellanies, WJE, 20:329334.
100
Rudisill, Doctrine of the Atonement, 32, italics mine. Morden agrees that the elder
Edwards had rejected the literal payment of a debt, but had nevertheless the events of
the cross God did punish Christ in order to vindicate his own character (Morden,
Offering Christ, 90).
101
Letters to Dr. Ryland, WAF, 2:705.
102
103
168 chapter six
appears to come from New England, where Joseph Bellamy and

Jonathan Edwards Jr. had resurrected the governmental theology of the
Atonement.104 There is no doubt that this appears to be the prevailing
consensus in Fullerite scholarship, and I am willing to concede that
these agreements are not without warrant per se. Yet what has been
overlooked by the secondary sources is the influence of the Grotian
language of the elder Edwards in Fullers writing. As careful a scholar as
Morden is when he argued, it is almost impossible to believe that
Fuller would have started using the language of moral government
without the New England writers,105 this may still be an overstatement
insofar as the degree of influence exercised by the New England theo-
logians upon Fuller is concerned. While I am by no means accusing
Edwards of being a Grotian, it is evident that Edwardss usage of gov-
ernmental language may have been influential on Fuller. This inquiry
will now consider the governmental language of Edwards.
In order to fulfill the terms of Sarah Edwardss will, her children
committed Edwardss sermons and miscellanies manuscripts to the
custody of Jonathan Edwards Jr., who was charged with the responsi-
bility of seeing to their publication. As Thomas Schafer points out,
there were those on both sides of the Atlantic who enthusiastically
received the new literary extracts of Edwards.106 Among several, one
particular volume that Edwards Jr. transcribed and Erskine edited was,
Remarks on Important Theological Controversies (1796). In it there is a
host of what came to be known as New Divinity Schools governmental
ideas in their embryonic form.107
The outlook of the elder Edwards on Grotianism and New England
theology has been addressed already. It has been demonstrated
that even Gerstner, perhaps the staunchest Calvinistic interpreter of
Edwards, admitted to a strand of Grotianism in Edwards. In addition
104
Robert Oliver, The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community
Among the English Calvinistic Baptists, 17701850, (PhD thesis, CNAA, London
Bible College, 1986), 113.
105
106
Thomas Schafer, Editors Appendix, WJE, 13:545.
107
The titles of chapters in Remarks are as follow: Chapter 1, Concerning Gods
Moral Government, a future state, and the immortality of the soul; Chapter 2, Concern-
ing the endless punishment of those who die impenitent; Chapter 3, Concerning
the divine decrees in general, and election in particular; Chapter 4, Concerning effica-
cious grace; Chapter 5, Concerning the perseverance of saints; Chapter 6, Concerning
the necessity and reasonableness of the Christian doctrine of satisfaction for sin;
Chapter 7, Concerning faith.
to Edwardss excerpts that were brought to our attention by Gerstner,

Remarks lays further claim to evidence that Edwards certainly did not
hesitate to use the language of moral government, and saw God as the
moral governor of the universe: [God] has infinitely the greatest right
to exercise the power of a moral governor, if he pleases.108 Furthermore,
He is infinitely the most worthy of that respect, honour and subject
that is due to a moral governor. He has infinitely the best qualifications
of a governor 109 Notice the elder Edwardss language of rectorship,
which one would expect to find in the classical expression of moral
governmentalism:
the law of God should be maintained and executed the law is the great
rule of righteousness and decorum, and that the Supreme and Universal
Rector has established and published, for the regulation of things in the
commonwealth of the universality of intelligent beings and moral agents,
in all that relates to them as concerned one with another 110
Some scholars have acknowledge that Edwards Sr. denied quid pro quo
commutative justice in atonement,111 but there were also times when
he was not too keen to push distributive justice: There is nothing in
Gods disposal towards men in this world, to make his distributive jus-
tice and judicial equity manifest or visible 112 This means Edwards
(not Edwards Jr.) not only was wary of speaking of the atonement as
the exact payment of debt, but he also laid the principle of satisfaction
that is general to justice that establishes authority in the divine law in
support of governmental theory. Additionally, in one of Fullers favorite
Edwards sermons, Justification by Faith Alone, the elder Edwards
writes:
Christ came into the world to that end, to render the honour of Gods
authority and law, consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners;
he came to save them, and yet withal to assert and vindicate the honour
of Lawgiver, and his holy law.113
108
Edwards, Remarks, 7.
109
Ibid, 8.
110
Ibid, 347.
111
Morden wrote, The elder Jonathan Edwards had rejected the idea of the
atonement as the literal quid pro quo payment of a debt (Morden, Offering Christ,
90). Rudisill likewise argued, President Edwards modified the Penal theory,
since he abandoned the view of a rigid quid pro quo (Rudisill, Doctrine of Atonement,
114).
112
Edwards, Remarks, 15.
113
Justification, WJE, 19:188.
170 chapter six
If these texts of governmental languages were taken in isolation with-

out the firm grasp of the elder Edwardss overarching theology of
redemption,114 and should the identity of the author of these quotations
remain concealed, one could easily mistake the elder Edwards for his
son. Accordingly, it is on these points, that along with Edwards, Fuller
could be seen as expressing himself in a similar vein to Edwards
Jr. Should there be any discrepancy between Edwards and Fuller the
latter only made explicit what Edwards had implicitly said. Hence, the
elder Edwardss usage of governmental language reveals that he was not
tied down to any specific theories of atonement. This was because
watershed debates of the late nineteenth century between Hodge and
Park would not have factored this in for consideration. Instead,
Edwards embraced the multifaceted nature of the atonement, as indeed
did Fuller.
6.7.2 Fuller on the Nature of Atonement

The demand of the governmental theory for a consequence of sin is not
due to the divines own intrinsic inner nature, but for the welfare of the
created order. In other words, sin is more or less viewed as an infrac-
tion of the law for it does not give personal injury to God. God is sim-
ply acting as a moral governor for the public good. The atonement,
according to Edwards Jr., is ab extra to God. The purpose of penology
is not to express the divine internal distaste for sin as promulgated by
divine holy attribute, but for the benevolent ruler to properly govern
His creation. However, Fullers language regarding the divine disposi-
tions of ab intra distaste for sin and personal injury of God should be
noted when he maintains, it is necessary that the displeasure of the
offended [i.e. offended God] should be expressed in as strong term.115
For both Fuller and Edwards,116 the law is grounded in the very nature
114
For excellent treatment of this overarching view, see Holmes, God of Grace, 125
167. There are other parts of Edwardss works where transactional metaphors are very
much alive and well. For instance, in History of Redemption, the metaphor that Edwards
brings to light is a mercantile rather than governmental metaphor. That is, Christ pur-
chases redemption by his satisfaction and merit. See, History of Redemption, WJE,
9:127128, 295296. While Edwards used the moral governmental language in his ser-
mon on Justification in the same breath, he continues to talk about the active and pas-
sive obedience of Christ.
115
Deity of Christ, 3:694.
116
Like Fuller, other commentators of Edwards have argued the same point for
Edwards as well. See, Rudisill, Doctrine of Atonement, 91.
of God. However, a true Grotian would argue that since God as gover-
nor stands above the created world, the penalty of sin can be remitted
without the inner nature of God being offended. Yet in Fuller, notice
the internal principle of the divine nature in action when it meets the
disobedient subject: [punishments] design is to express displeasure
against disobedience 117 but the purpose of this punishment, accord-
ing to Fuller, is not the misery of the offender, but the general good.
It is with language such as general good that is often taken in isolation
that makes him susceptible to charges of being a Grotian. Edwards
never explicitly said this in the context of the atonement, although the
idea of the public good118 is deeply imbedded in the elder Edwardss
understanding of true virtue.
This concept seemingly laid the foundation for Fuller and other New
England theologians to pursue this end. It is only in this respect that I
concede that Fuller may have been serving a mediating position on the
issue of the atonement between the elder Edwards and the New England
theologians. To be fair to Fuller and other New England theologians,
Edwards probably did not explicitly reach the conclusions of Fuller
because the doctrine of atonement was not a contested issue in New
England during his lifetime.119 With regard to the atonement, Edwards
did not attack any view presented by a then living theologian nor was
he attacked by any contemporary New England Calvinist for this
view,120 whereas Edwards Jr. and Fuller certainly dealt with opposition
from all sorts of directions. Be that as it may, despite such language as
the general good, if Fuller can be read in light of the overall structure
of his theology, then any Grotian indictment ought to be dropped.
In this particular case, Fuller makes an argument within the context of
an internal principle of a divine, judicial characteristic. It is grounded
117
118
McDermott pursues various aspects of the public good: In a 1738 sermon, the
pastor-turned-political theorist lectured the handful of magistrates in the congregation
(and the voters who elected them) that good rulers would serve the public good, not
their own private interests Gerald McDermott, One Holy and Happy Society: The
Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards (University Park: PSUP, 1992), 122. See, Charity
and Its Fruits, 8:261262, see also True Virtue, 8:582583.
119
This is not to argue that the elder Edwards had taken the line of Edwards Jr.
Given his commitment to traditional Calvinism, had Edwards engaged in the atone-
ment controversy in his lifetime, I suspect, he probably would have ended up in the
same place as Fuller, but probably would not have gone as far as his sons position on
the subject.
120
Rudisill, Doctrine of Atonement, 21.
172 chapter six
in the inner satisfactory nature of divine justice: where punishment is

inflicted according to the dessert of the offence, there justice is satis-
fied.121 Hence Fullers rendering of the atonement includes Gods
external structure such as His created order and general good, but not
to the exclusion of the divine internal principle that demands satisfac-
tion for sin as we witnessed with Edwards Jr. The younger Edwards
only affirmed the general good at the exclusion of commutative and
distributive justice. The same could not be said of Fullers account of
atonement, and such an implication would construe a misreading of
him. This can be avoided by understanding Fuller as one who actually
believed in penal substitution, yet one who was quite wary of speaking
about the atonement in only those terms. Fuller, like Edwards, held to
a view of the multifaceted nature of the atonementand denied the
concept of atonement where penal substitution and governmental the-
ory are necessarily viewed as mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore,
reading Fuller as Grotian would be deeply inadequate.
However, Ella has criticized the New Divinity School for being
influenced by Grotius and, in following their lead, Fuller also denies
that the atonement of Christ is a necessary revelation of the righteous-
ness of God.122 On the contrary, that is precisely the opposite of what
Fuller maintains when he says it is necessary that the displeasure of
the offended should be expressed in as strong terms otherwise
atonement is not made, and mercy triumphs at the expense of righteous-
ness.123 According to this text, Fuller is arguing that the righteousness
of God being demonstrated in the work of the atonement is sine qua
non. The atonement not only is necessary (because divine inner prin-
ciple is offended), but if there is no propitiatory sacrifice, then the
divine intra righteous attribute is denounced by His merciful one.
Insofar as the notion of propitiation is concerned, Fuller did not
hesitate to use propitiatory language. If Fuller was truly a Grotian, he
should have been extremely reluctant to make such remarks as, In the
atonement of Christ, God is said to have set him forth to be a propitia-
tion declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.124 It may be
true that Fuller regularly portrayed God as ruler and moral governor,
yet he did not reduce the divine satisfaction in atonement to a mere
121
122
Ella, Law and Gospel, 6768, italics mine.
123
Deity of Christ, 3:694, italics mine.
124
Ibid., 3:694, italics mine.
general justice as did Edwards Jr. Fuller maintains that Christ had suf-
fered under the penalty of the law as a penal substitute. On the posi-
tive side, Fuller believed that if there is such thing as the pardoning of
sin without justification by Christs righteousness, then in his own
words, Fuller would be charging himself with perverting the gospel
and thereby, denying the very nature of the deity of Christ.125 Hence the
reading of Fuller as a Grotian is in need of serious reevaluation since
there are too many features in his thinking that are quite contrary to
the governmental theory of atonement.
6.8 The Extent of Atonement
6.8.1 Edwards on the Extent of Atonement

A plausible explanation for the driving force behind Fullers usage of
governmental language in his rendering of the atonement might be due
to his commitment to the notion of sufficient for all, yet particular
redemption for the elect with a robust emphasis on that application of
the atonement. While Ella continued to label Fuller a heretic, which
is most clearly revealed in the issues relating to the atonement, it
was Booth who brought more theologically sophisticated charges.
Although Booth had charged Fuller for abandoning Calvinistic ortho-
doxy, Nettles, who presumably maintained a position of coherence
with Booth on the atonement, argues otherwise.126 Even though Nettles
diverges from Fullers viewpoint, he rightly acknowledges that histori-
cally the reformers had maintained the doctrine of limited atonement
from two different perspectives. Nettles, therefore states, Fuller must
never be viewed as forsaking the Calvinistic view of atonement.127
The first group maintains that while arguing that the atoning work of
Christ is sufficient for all, it is particularly and covenantally designed
for the elect through unconditional election. It is this assembly, of
which Fuller is a member, which is also accompanied by orthodox
Reformed traditions as articulated by the Synod of Dort (1618), and
125
If the Deity of Christ be a Divine truth, it cannot reasonably be denied that it is
of equal importance with the doctrine of justification by his righteousness. If therefore a
rejection of the latter was deemed a perversion of the gospel, nothing less can be ascribed
to the rejection of the former (Deity of Christ, 3:695, italics mine).
126
Nettles ultimately does not agree with Fuller, and is closer to Booth. See, Nettles, By
His Grace, 304321. However, Nettles rightly acknowledges, Fuller remained a staunch
Calvinist. (Tom Nettles, Preface to the New Edition, WAF, 1:[unpaginated, 4]).
127
Nettles, Preface,1:[unpaginated, 6].
174 chapter six
Jonathan Edwards. On the other hand, the second group has taken
a step further in contending that limited atonement was not only
grounded in particular design through the election but also propitia-
tory penal substitution in their formulation of this doctrine. The propi-
tiatory sacrifice was not only sufficient for all, but the strict commercial
understanding was necessary to maintain the doctrine of limited atone-
ment. Tobias Crisp John Gill, Abraham Booth and, to some degree,
John Owen128 held the latter position. Therefore, the debate between
Booth and Fuller in Particular Baptist denomination is closely linked to
the giants of the pastBooth mainly to Owen and Fuller to Edwards.129
Contrary to popular misconception, the Canons of Synod of Dort
are not as limited in confession to the atonement as one might expect.
If one considers the orthodoxy of Dort as properly Reformed, then
considering Christs atonement as sufficient for all, but saving efficacy
is applied to the elect ought to be seen as a proper Calvinistic expres-
sion of atonement. The Synod of Dort confesses:
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and
satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to
expiate the sins of the whole world.130
For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious and will and pur-
pose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the
most precious death of his Son should extend to all elect.131
The Canons of Dort demonstrate that Christs atonement is sufficient
for all, but saving efficacy is applied only to the elect. In his affirmation
of this confession, Edwards wrote the following in Freedom of the Will:
Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all
visible Christians; yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be
128
According to Clifford, John Owens understanding of the limited atonement
relies too heavily on the commercial analogies (Alan Clifford, Atonement and
Justification: English Evangelical Theology 16401790: an Evaluation (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990), 9). However, Trueman points when Owen wrote The Death of Death
(1647), he firmly held that Christs satisfaction is solutio eiusdem, yet since this could
lead to eternal justification, he rejects this position in the later work, The Doctrine of
Justification by Faith (1677) (Carl Trueman, Claims of Truth: John Owens Trinitarian
Theology (Carlisle: Authentic Media, 2002), 212213). Based on Truemans account,
Edwards appears to be closer to the later Owen since Edwards likewise emphasized
union in Christ over the commercial analogies.
129
Oliver, Booth, 204.
130
Second Head of Doctrine, Article III in Canons of the Synod of Dort, 586, italics
mine.
131
Ibid., Article VIII, 587, italics mine.
something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he

intended should actually be saved thereby.132
Likewise, in Miscellanies 424 entitled, Universal Redemption Edwards
states:
Christ did die for all in the sense, that all by his death have an opportunity
of being [saved]; and he had design in dying, that they should have that
opportunity by it. For it was certainly a thing that God designed, that all
men should have such an opportunity, or else they would not have it; and
they have in by the death of Christ133
The idea of sufficiency of atonement to save all, but particular applica-
tion of that atonement to the elect are through divine unconditional
election and not through propitiatory sacrifice. This is what Edwards
meant in Miscellanies 424 where he states, God decreed that faith, cho-
sen them they should believe.134 Holmes explains Edwardss ideas are
primarily doxologically driven:
[Edwards] was so impressed with the magnitude for the sacrifice of
Christ. This must be to accomplish something definite, rather than merely
establishing a possibility, and a doctrine of limited atonement offers this
certainty. On the other hand, the same vision of the magnitude of Christs
death leads him to struggle with the idea that anything could remain
untouched by it.135
According to Edwards sufficiency for all brings about more glory to
sovereign God, since all of creation is somehow touched by the death
of His Son. Edwards was able to affirm the Dorts expression of limited
atonement by maintaining the sufficiency of redemption for the whole
world, because of his awesome vision of the absolute sovereignty of
God. Divine sovereignty has a close connection with how Edwards saw
the atonement, since he exulted sovereignty over atonement by under-
scoring divine sovereignty to originate with, and apply to, election in
the work of redemption.136 This entails the disclosure of divine will for
the sovereign elect being experienced in the process of the applica-
tion of the atonement. For Edwards, this notion of grace is morally
efficacious (as opposed to metaphysical) to the elect.137 Such Edwardsean
132
FW, 1:435.
133
Miscellanies, 13:478, italics mine. For similar ideas, see Edwards, Remarks,
262263.
134
Miscellanies, 13:478, italics mine.
135
Holmes, God of Grace, 158.
136
See, Remarks, chapter 3.
137
See, Ibid., chapter 4.
176 chapter six
value on absolute sovereignty in divine election, together with particu-

lar emphasis on the sufficiency of, yet efficaciousness in its application
to, the atonement laid the foundation for extenuated preaching of the
gospel as witnessed in Fullers ministry. Furthermore, in Edwardss ser-
mon, The Excellency of Christ, which Fuller had access to via Sermon on
Various Important Subject (1785), stated the following:
Rev. xxii. 16, 17. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him
that heareth, say, come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever
will, let him take of the water of life freely. How does Christ here gra-
ciously set before you his own winning attractive excellency! And how
does he condescend to declare to you not only his own invitation, but the
invitation of the Spirit and the bride, if by any means he might encourage
you to come! And how does he invite every one that will, that they may
take of the water of life freely, that they may take it as a free gift, however
precious it be, and though it be the water of life!138
Therefore, Rudisills assessment of Edwardss work on the atonement is
an accurate description: [I]t is through universal proclamation that
Gods efficacious grace becomes known and effective in whomsoever
He has elected.139
6.8.2 Fuller on the Extent of Atonement

The extent of the atonement in Fullers Edwardsean Calvinism is con-
sistent with the Synod of Dort:
They suppose the sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered,areof
infinite value, sufficient to have saved all the world, and a thousand worlds,
if it had pleased God to have constituted them the price of their redemp-
tion, and to have made them effectual to that end there is in the death of
Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls and universal invitations 140
Here, Fuller believes that atonement was sufficient for all, but the appli-
cation of it was limited to Gods elect.141 Edwardsean emphasis on the
whole notion of sufficiency and efficacy was enormously significant for
Fullers limited atonement, since it not only enabled him to make sense
of Scripture in the context of enlightenment skepticism, but also served
138
The Excellency of Christ, WJEEH, 1:687, italics mine.
139
Rudisill, Doctrine of Atonement, 15, italics mine.
140
Philanthropos, 2:488489.
141
Some of the biblical imageries Fuller uses to describe the elects are: Christs
sheep, and Christs bride. See, Philanthropos, 2:490491.
as the basis for the universal invitation residing within the gospel. This
may be one of the primary reasons why Fuller avoided the transac-
tional language of atonement. Regarding Christs death, as Haykin
points out, Fuller did not speak the substitutionary nature in strictly
commercial terms where Christ suffers the exact amount necessary to
pay for the debt of the elect.142 Like Edwards, Fuller avoids the idea of
quid pro quo found in the commercial theory of atonement:
If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of
debtif 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 man-
ner as that if more had been saved, or if those who are saved had been
more guilty, his sorrows must have been proportionately increasedit
might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations.143
The significance of sufficiency is important because the denial of
strictly commercial terms allowed Fuller to render the expiation to be
sufficient for everybody in the world. In Edwardsean fashion, by declin-
ing the exact quid pro quo understanding of limited atonement, Fuller
was liberated from the idea that there will be precisely enough suffering
to cover only the sins of the elect. Conversely, this theory also means
that should anyone become more elect, there will be an insufficiency of
Christs suffering to cover their sin. Fuller thought this view stifled
what he believed to be the biblical mandate for the universal invitation,
and rejected the scheme.
This raises the question as to whether Fuller then became an Amyral-
dian or hypothetical universalist.144 There are parallels145 between
142
Haykin, Particular Redemption, 118.
143
Gospel Worthy (2nd ed), 2:373, italics mine.
144
In following the footsteps of John Cameron (15801625), Moise Amyraut, prolif-
erated the teaching that the atonement offered universal grace and unlimited atone-
ment. Amyraut divided divine will into two basic categories: a general will and an
effectual will. The extent of the intent of the general will with reference to Christs
atonement is for every single individual to be saved in the universal provision, as well
as prospective potential, and the extent of the intent of the effectual will is for only the
elect to be saved in particular application. In some sense, Amyraut wed Calvinism and
Arminianism together by modifying the doctrine of atonement. Nichole has critiqued
Amyrauts view to which Armstrong responded. See, Roger Nichole, Moyse Amyraut
(15961664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase (16341637),
(Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1966) cf. Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the
Amyraut Heresy (Eugene: UWP, 1969). For a concise summary, see Andrew McGowan,
Amyraldianism, ed. Trevor Hart, The Dictionary of Historical Theology, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1213.
145
To my knowledge, there are no indications that Fuller ever read Amyraut. Had
Amyraldian ideas reached Fuller in England, it would have been through the writings
178 chapter six
Moise Amyraut and Fullers view on the extent of atonement. They

both agree the extent of atonement is in the intent of the effectual will
that is applied only to the elect. For Fuller, the sufficiency of the extent
of the atonement simply meant that if unregenerates believed the gos-
pel, then Christs blood would expiate their sin. It is not the case that
atonement would expiate their sin if they do not believe. Thus on the
issue of gospel proclamation, both Fullerites and Amyraldians could
have common ground in a ministerial setting. Nevertheless, Fullers
rendering of the extent does differ from Amyraldianism in that Fuller
did not concur that Christ hypothetically died to save everyone in the
world. In common with Edwards, the death of Christ achieved some-
thing definite for Fuller. Unlike Amyraut, for Fuller the death of Christ
did not merely institute the possibility of salvation for the world. There
is a significant idea that Fuller would be comfortable affirming and
Amyraut would not; that is, God in his sovereign wisdom intends
and orders the design such that the effect of the atonement to the
non-elect is not to cover their sin (see Fullers response to Booth in the
next page). This is the way in which Fuller will avoid problems associ-
ated with double jeopardy,146 a theological flaw often associated with
Amyraldianism. To be precise, for Fuller unregenerate sinners are
either forgiven or not forgiven; the blood of Christ is either effectual or
not effectual (not hypothetically effectual). In following Edwards,
Fuller would agree that there was some sense in which Christ died for
all. Still, unlike Amyraut, he posited that the atonement reflected a par-
ticular intent for the elect alone. Hence although Fuller denied exact
quid pro quo in a commercial understanding of limited atonement, he
of Richard Baxter. Fuller has been accused by Booth of being Baxterian but in 1803,
Fuller goes to pains to point out the dissimilarity between Baxter and himself:
Mr. Baxter pleads for universal redemption; I only contend for sufficiency of atone-
ment. He further adds, Mr. Baxter considers Calvinist and Arminians as reconcilable,
making the difference between them of but small amount. I have no such idea (Letters
to Dr. Ryland, 2:714715).
For a concise summary of Baxterianism, see J.I. Packer, Introduction, in Richard
Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 919. For an
extensive treatment, see Paul Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard
Baxters Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
173187.
146
If not this, on the other side, there are problems of God having two
wills. Amyraldianism affirms the impossibility of combining the two wills (i.e. God
willing everyone to be saved, but Gods actual will to save only the elect). This
hypothetical universalism presents the potential problem of the will of God being
schizophrenic.
would not be a four points Calvinist as was Amyraut. Fuller was able
to keep away from the problem of hypothetical universalism and
argued for the Dortian confessional formula, sufficient for all, efficient
only for the elect.
According to Booth, Fullers conception of atonement was too
indefinite, which may be suggestive of the Arminian view of the extent
of atonement. The question as to how explicit was Fullers particular-
ness in the application of limited atonement is essentially raised
by Booth (Peter), in Three Conversations on Particular Redemption.
Booth asked, is there any thing in the atonement, or promised to it,
which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was
made?147 Fullers (James) response to Booth is extremely lucid, thereby
revealing the extent of his clear position on the application of limited
atonement:
If you [i.e. Booth] by this you mean all for whose salvation it was suffi-
cient, I answer there is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was
intended, I answer, there is.148
Fuller has answered that there is an infallible application for those
whom God intended to save through the divine sovereign election, but
not for all those for whom its salvation was sufficient. Amyraut cer-
tainly would be uncomfortable with such a proposal, and this is radi-
cally different from James Arminius (15601609) who claimed: The
grace sufficient for salvation is conferred on the elect, and on the non-
elected; that, if they will, they may believe or not believe, may be saved
or not saved.149
Fullers view on the atonement was objective, definite, and has a
robust Edwardsean emphasis on divine sovereign intentionality in
election. Oliver was thus correct to point out in Three Conversations
that Fuller was passionately loyal to historic Calvinism as he under-
stood it, but felt that Booth had misrepresented him.150 In my assess-
ment, Fuller was right in seeing himself as a Dortian Calvinist, for he
never abandoned the doctrine of limited atonement. However, as a
result of his robust Edwardsean emphasis on the application of that
atonementperhaps even more strongly than EdwardsFuller could
147
Conversation Particular Redemption, WAF, 2:696.
148
Ibid., 2:696.
149
James Arminius, The Work of James Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 2:53.
150
Oliver, Booth, 220.
180 chapter six
easily be misread by some as being Amyraldian, or some sort of

Arminian, in making the subjective whosoever will a means to merit-
ing salvation. For instance, Fuller wrote:
There is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls and
universal invitations; that God does invite mankind without distinction
to return to him through the mediation of his son, and promises pardon
and acceptance to whomsoever shall so return.151
This kind of statement causes Fullers critics to be disturbed. Ellas
problem with Fuller was that instead of divine election being grounded
in the atonement, it is based on whosoever wills.152 However, as has
been demonstrated, election not being grounded in propitiatory sacri-
fice does not, as his critics argued, constitute pseudo Calvinism. The
maintenance of limited atonement through unconditional election
was more than adequate to be within the historical Reformed ortho-
doxy to which Fuller undoubtedly adhered. From this doctrine of sov-
ereign election, Fuller, like Edwards, advocated that there is a special
design in the death of Christ: If the doctrine of eternal, personal, and
unconditional election be a truth that of a special design in the death of
Christ must necessarily follow.153
Regarding the objection of whosoever wills as a means of meriting
the benefits of atonement, Fullers unsympathetic critic again paints the
worst possible portrait. The problem with this interpretation is that Ella
addresses the issue of divine elections only in terms of Gods eternal
perspectives at the expense of the human temporal standpoint. He is
very keen to argue the divine eternal degree, but refuses to mention
how this intersects with the human person at specific points in time.
Because he seemingly rejects the whole category of temporal perspec-
tive, Ella has no option but to accuse Fuller of making whosoever wills
a means of meriting the work of the atonement:
instead of the atonement objectively securing faith and reconciliation
for the elect, [in Fullers theory] it is the subjective believing of sinner
which makes the atonement, working backwards, effective. It is repenting
and believing that gives the atonement its power, not the atonement that
empowers the sinner to believe.154
151
Philanthropos, 2:496, italics mine.
152
153
Philanthropos, 2:493, italics mine.
154
Nevertheless, such interpretation does not account for many of Fullers

explicit statement:
If there be an objective fullness in the atonement of Christ sufficient for
any number of sinners, there is no other impossibility in the way of any
mans salvation to whom the gospel comes than what arises from the
states of his own mind.155
Fuller does not therefore equate the act of subjective belief as the sin-
ners way to merit the work of the atonement, but for him those who
are objectively elected from the eternal perspective will infallibly fall
into the category of whosoever wills in the temporal perspective. If
this view, as Ella has argued, is the most distorted view of uncondi-
tional election recorded by the so-called Calvinist,156 then Fuller is cer-
tainly not alone and his theological mentor, Jonathan Edwards, would
also be in his company.
In Fullers conception of whosoever wills there is Edwardss doc-
trine of irresistible grace and his conception of the sense of the heart
at work,157 since the will is closely connected with the role the Holy
Spirit plays in that work (see 5.4). Fullers conception of whosoever
wills deals with the ability of the sinner to respond to the gospel invita-
tion, and there is a category of natural and moral inability. Given that
an unregenerate person is unable to come to a saving knowledge of
faith without unconditional election, Fullers whosoever wills to
believe in tempus are those for whom God has elected from objective
eternuse; it is the manner in which divine eternal decree intersects with
the human temporal standpoint. Reprobates are naturally able to come
and on these grounds, the invitation of the gospel should extend to all,
yet they remain as those who are unable to do so because they are mor-
ally unable to come. In other words, in Fullers conception of whoso-
ever wills to believe, the fact that the reprobates cannot believe is
actually nothing more than they will not believe because they do not
want to believe. There is no irresistible grace that awakens them to a
new spiritual awareness so that the human agent is irresistibly drawn to
that grace to believe the saving knowledge. This process is enormously
155
Letters to Dr. Ryland, 2:709.
156
157
In the context of peculiarity of design in the death of Christ, Fuller writes, the
death of his Son, have promised salvation to all who comply with the gospel; and if
there be no natural impossibility as to a compliance, nor any obstruction but that which
arises from aversion of heart (Gospel Worthy (2nd ed.), 2:374).
182 chapter six
important for Fuller since it is the means by which the application of

Fullers atonement takes place. The limited atonement is sufficient for
all, but efficacious only to the elect. Thus Fuller did not reverse the
divine plan of redemption, nor was it the case that Fuller made whoso-
ever wills the subjective means of meriting the atonement; rather,
those who are unconditionally elect from the objective eternity will, in
time, fall into the category of whosoever wills thereby receiving the
work of propitiation.158
In conclusion, if Fullers conception of atonement had been altered,159
this does not necessarily signify his indebtedness to New England
theologians. Even with the historical and textual evidences Fuller
scholars have put forth, this chapter has proposed that the evidence
could just as well be traced back to Edwardss direct influence on Fuller.
In fact, the rediscovered handwritten draft of Gospel Worthy (see 2.2),
dated approximately as early as 1778, also indicates Fuller used govern-
mental language prior to his active correspondences with the New
England Theologians in the 1790s. It may therefore be moreor at
least equallyplausible to read Fullers usage of governmental lan-
guages of atonement as indicative of his indebtedness to Edwards him-
self. With this in mind, the study will now engage the doctrine of
justification with particular emphasis on the problem of Fullers figura-
tive imputed righteousness by investigating Edwardss Justification by
Faith Alone.
158
The terms ransom, propitiation [are] true only of those who are finally saved
(Philanthropos, 2:496). Once again, Fuller does not hesitate to use the word propitia-
tion to describe that which Grotian theory tends to avoid. Here, he is arguing that
propitiation is applied to those who are finally saved.
159
For example, Clipsham wrote, it is not surprising therefore that Abraham Booth
misunderstood him, for between 1787 and 1802 his idea underwent a change
(Clipsham, 1. The Development of a Doctrine, 113). Oliver likewise said after 1785,
Fullers theology did not remain static (Oliver, Booth, 203). Morden also argued,
Fullers view changed by the beginning of 1799, although he was already using govern-
mental language from at least 1796 (Morden, Offering Christ, 84 n.31). Even though
these claims may be plausible, this premise ought not to be simply assumed.
CHAPTER SEVEN
EDWARDSS INFLUENCE ON FULLERS CONCEPTION

OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
The greatest, though not the only, instruction that I have received from
human writings, on these subjects, has been from President Edwardss
Discourse on Justification.1
Andrew Fuller
A general consensus of the secondary literature on Fuller to date2 indi-

cates that throughout his life, he altered his theological viewpoints.
Perhaps most clearly in terms of assigning specific dates,3 E.F. Clipsham
has articulated that these changes took place over three stages: before
1787 (earlier view),4 between 17871799 (intermediate view),5 and
after 1806 (mature view).6 If what Clipsham has argued is in fact his-
torically accurate, or even generally true, it is important to determine
the nature of some of the factors that were influencing Fuller to change
his mind during those stages. As noted in chapter 6, most commenta-
tors of Fuller identify that his so called intermediate view was influ-
enced by the New England theologians. This consensus, however, does
1
Baxterianism (January 22, 1803), WAF, 2:715.
2
Morden, Offering Christ, 8792; Oliver, Booth, 203; Tom Ascol, The Doctrine of
Grace: A Critical Analysis of Federalism in the Theologies of John Gill and Andrew
Fuller (Th.D. Thesis, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), 166169.
3
Clipsham, 1. The Development of a Doctrine, 114, n.40.
4
The Nature and Importance of Walking by Faith (1784); Fullers responses to
William Button, Dan Taylor, John Martin: A Defense of a Treatise Entitled, the Gospel
Worthy (1787); A Defense of a Treatise Entitled The Gospel of Christ With a Reply to
Mr. Buttons Remarks and the Observations of Philanthropos (1787); Remarks on
Mr. Martins Publication (1787).
5
The Christian Doctrine of rewards (1799); Fullers responses Abraham Booth:
Appendix to Gospel Worthy (1801), Three Conversations on Imputation, Substitution
and Particular Redemption (1806, but written 3 years earlier). Clipsham argue that it
is not surprising therefore that Abraham Booth misunderstood him, for between 1787
and 1802 for his idea underwent a change (Clipsham, 1. The Development of a
Doctrine, 113).
6
Dialogue, Letters and Essay (1806); Expository Discourses on the Book of Genesis
(1806); Strictures on Sandemaniansim (1810); Fullers Recommendatory Preface to
Religion Delineated (1812).
184 chapter seven
not account for a letter dated June 18, 1785, which is located in the
University of Edinburgh archive. This correspondence indicates that
Erskine had sent Ryland Jr., a copy of Edwardss sermon on Justification.7
This means Fuller probably had access to it soon afterwards,8 and
preached his sermon on Justification most likely some time between
the late 1780s or early 1790s.9 Although Clipsham claimed to have
some evidence of validation, in the light of this discovery, he does over-
look the fact that it was also during this intermediate period (perhaps
even slightly before), that Fuller was carefully reading Edwardss
Justification by Faith Alone. In fact, it was during this period that Fuller
preached his sermon, The Christian Doctrine of Rewards (1799),10
which contains an excerpt from Edwardss sermon on Justification. As
will be demonstrated, this does not help the types of arguments that
implicate Fuller as being heavily influenced by the New England theo-
logians from 1787 to 1799. Therefore if Fuller was influenced by
Edwardss sermon on Justification as early as 1785, then Fullers usage
of figurative language in the doctrines of imputation and justification
(that were so rigorously opposed by Abraham Booth) do not have to be
seen as influential features of New England theologians, but rather
from the master architect, Edwards himself. The significance of this
sermon is with Fuller and is well said in his own words:
The President [Edwardss] sermons on justification have afforded me
more satisfaction on that important doctrine than any human perfor-
mance which I have read.11
7
Erskine writes to Ryland Jr.: Booksellers to whom the usual allowance will be
given, chose to commission a number from M. Gray (Correspondence of John
Erskine to John Ryland, June 18, 1785, Letter 16, Special Collections Division,
Edinburgh University Library, University of Edinburgh). In the light of this inkling,
Erskine probably sent the Edinburgh edition of Edwardss Sermons on Various
Important Subjects (Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1785), which includes his sermon on
Justification. The close network between Erskine and Ryland Jr. served as a direct line
to Fullers possession of Edwardss corpus. The Humble Attempt also reached Fuller in
a matter of days via the same route (3.1.2).
8
At the latest, by March 27, 1790, Fuller surly had access to it, since his diary
records how Edwardss sermons on Hebrew 5:12 and Psalm 72:25 were for Fullers
spiritual edification. See, Ryland Jr, The Work of Faith (1st ed.), 190. The fact that Fuller
mentions these two sermons means that he would have had access to Edwardss
Practical Sermons, Never Before Published This volume would have given him an entry
into thirty-one other sermons of Edwards as well, see Appendix, n.2.
9
I am gratefully indebted to Michael Haykin for this point.
10
Christian Doctrine of Rewards, WAF, 1:178.
11
Letter to Timothy Dwight on June 1, 1805, WAF, 1:85.
edwardss influence on fullers justification by faith 185
Therefore, if an argument could be made that Freedom of the Will was

the most important source for Fullers development of evangelical
Calvinism, and if Religious Affections contained longest Edwards
excerpt quoted by Fuller, then Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone
could be seen as the most frequently cited or quoted text.12 Indeed, it is
not an exaggeration to see Edwardss sermon on Justification as Fullers
authoritative text book.13 This may be one of the reasons why Fuller
thought that New Englands Northampton congregation must have
been quite intelligent to understand the compass of argument con-
tained in Mr. Edwardss Sermons on Justification.14 An example of how
Fuller saw this sermon as a sophisticated theological textbook may be
glimpsed in his emphasis on the doctrine of union in Christ as an
essential aspect of the doctrine of justification.
7.1 The Influence of Edwardss Interested Union in Fullers

Doctrine of Justification
Both confessional theologians and academic interpreters of Edwards

agree that Edwards used the orthodox Protestant language of forensic
justification.15 Moreover, Edwardss emphasis on the significance of
union in his doctrine of justification is something upon which most
Edwardsean scholars agree, whether they are reading Edwards from
the vantage point of a staunch supporter to one of moderate Reformed
tradition, or neo-orthodox to liberal tradition.16 For instance, classical
liberal scholar Frank Foster has argued:
[Edwardss] definition of faith and of repentance marks a distinct advance
upon the tone of the previous century, and the explanation of the reason
why faith should be made the condition of justification departs widely
from the mechanical methods of Calvinistic scholasticism.17
12
WAF, 1:85, 178, 287, 288; WAF, 2:123, 572, 715; WAF, 3:63, 747; Morris, Memoirs
of the Life,181.
13
14
Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, 2:123.
15
Gerstner, Rational, 3:197198; Cherry, A Reappraisal, 9092; Morimoto, Catholic
Vision of Salvation,78; Thomas Schafer, Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,
Church History, 20:4 (December, 1951): 58.
16
See, Gerstner, Rational, 3:206; Holmes, God of Grace, 160; Morimoto, Catholic
Vision of Salvation, 8586; Foster, Genetic History, 53.
17
Foster, Genetic History, 53.
186 chapter seven
In the light of such remarks, Gerstner criticizes that this may be an

overstatement on Fosters part; nevertheless, he admits that there
can be little doubt that Calvinistic theologians did not usually stress
faith as uniting with Christ in the penetrating way in which Edwards
did.18 According to Foster, this aspect of Edwardss justification would
make him less traditional, a point that Gerstner would emphatically
deny. Regardless of the degree of Edwardss adherence to traditional
Calvinistic tradition, the emphasis on interested union with Christ
inthe doctrine of justification can be seen as a unique formulation of
Edwardss forensic justification. For instance, the Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith states: Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his
righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.19 However,
Edwards had reservations about the use of traditional Reformed lan-
guage in speaking of faith as an instrument:
by faiths being the instrument of our justification; which has been misun-
derstood, and injuriously represented, and ridiculed by those that have
denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as though they had
supposed faith was used as an instrument in the hand of God, whereby
he performed, and brought to pass that act of his, viz. approving and
justifying the believer: whereas it was not intended that faith was the
instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument wherewith we
receive justification; not the instrument wherewith the justifier acts in
justifying, but wherewith the receiver of justification acts in accepting
justification. But yet it must be owned, this is an obscure way of speaking,
and there must certainly be some impropriety in calling it an instrument
wherewith we receive or accept justification.20
Because the rendering of faith as an instrument was a somewhat
obscure way of speaking, Edwards considered that its use was often
misunderstood. This is because Edwardss understanding of faith was
very active and volitional in character,21 perhaps more so than his
classical Reformed processors, and radically different from the type of
faith derived from the doctrine of eternal justification, which was often
accompanied by Hyper-Calvinism. Thus, rather than stressing the
18
19
Chapter XI, Of Justification, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), in
Schaff and Smith, eds., The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, 2:626, italics
mine.
20
Justification, WJE, 19:153, italics mine. To differentiate between Edwardss and
Fullers sermons on Justification, WJE and WAF are cited hereafter.
21
Morimoto, Catholic Vision of Salvation, 88.
instrumental factors, Edwards draws attention to the agents faith as

active in the union with Christ, or interested in justification:
God dont give those that believe, an union with, or an interest in the
Saviour, in reward for faith, but only because faith is the souls active unit-
ing with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part And
thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christs satisfaction and
merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes
Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge.22
Despite his weariness in the subject of seeing faith as an instrument,
Edwards still concurs with the classical Reformed tradition, for this
union with Christ or interest is not a reward for possession of ones
faith; but by justifying grace given through faith (i.e. the instrumental
factor), the soul is actively united with Christ. However, this is not
merely a passive instrument, for the human agent is actively interested
in, and participates in the work of justification. Justification for Edwards
is, as Schafer puts it, re-statement in forensic terms of a fait accompli;
for faith is the union, and the union effects the justification.23 This
rather unique component of Edwardss doctrine of justification also
permeates Fullers thinking.
While Fuller does not quote Edwards here, in his concept of inter-
ested union in Christ, the circumstances wherein Fuller discusses the
word, interested is similar to Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone.
Edwardss discussion on the interested union in Christ takes place in
the context of what manner faith is the only condition of justification,
yet cannot be seen as meritorious. This, according to Edwards, is
because faith is a condition of justification in a manner peculiar than
any other graces (this of course, is not to suggest that other things
may be no less excellent than faith).24 In any case, notice the strong
parallel with Fullers thinking when he also states:
Thus it is that justification is ascribed to faith, because it is by faith that
we receive Christ; and thus it is by faith only, and not by any other grace.
Faith is peculiarly a receiving grace, which none other is.25
Fuller likewise describes faith as peculiar, different from any other
grace. Therefore it is unlikely to be coincidence when, in this context,
Fuller talks about an interested union in Christ:
22
Justification, WJE, 19:158, italics mine.
23
Schafer, Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith, 58.
24
25
Justification, WAF, 1:281.
188 chapter seven
Whatever properties faith may possess, it is as receiving Christ, and

bringing us into union with him, that it justifies. In order to be interested
in justification we must first be interested in Christ himself.26
By interest, Fuller defines, I use the term interest as I do that of justifi-
cation.27 He also sees faith as a condition of justification but not meri-
torious.28 In essence, it is a condition that actively unites the person
with Christ. Consequently, justification cannot be seen as a reward for
having faith anymore than a groom giving himself to his bride can be
seen as her reward for marrying him:
We perceive that faith justifies, not in a way of merit but as uniting us
to Christ. It is that which act of marriage is on the part of a female; by it
she becomes one with her husband, and (whatever might be her former
poverty) legally interested in all that he possess.29
When Fuller states, It is thus that justification stands connected, in the
Scriptures, with union with Christ,30 he could be reading the Scripture
through an Edwardsean lenses in stressing Edwardss unique rendering
of interested union in Christ. Hence, Fullers conceptions of forensic
justification and union with Christ are thoroughly Edwardsean.
7.2 The Influence on Fuller of Edwardss Forensic Justification

and Figurative Imputation
Although Reformed traditions claim Edwards as their own, much con-

fusion exists concerning Edwardss stance on the imputation of Adams
sin to posterity. For instance, Warfield and John Murray thought
Edwards held immediate imputation,31 whereas Hodge and Foster
argued that Edwards maintained mediate imputation.32 However,
Clyde Holbrook and Gerstner thought Edwards believed in none of
26
Ibid.
27
Fuller, as quoted in J.W. Morris, Miscellaneous Pieces: On Various Religious
Subjects (London: Parternoster Row, 1826), 59.
28
By faith we receive the benefit; but the benefit arises not from faith, but from
Christ (Justification, WAF, 1:282).
29
30
Ibid.
31
B.B. Warfield, Edwards and the New England Theology in Studies in Theology
(New York: Oxford University Press), 530; John Murray, The Imputation of Adams Sin
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 5457.
32
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson
and Sons, 1874), 2:207208; Foster, Genetic History, 442.
those mentioned.33 The latter seemed the most plausible in the pre-
sumption that Edwards was not quite satisfied with the traditional doc-
trine of federalism to describe the doctrine of imputation. This is why
Edwards made enormous metaphysical efforts34 in his Original Sin to
once and for all settle the nagging objection: why should we be held
culpable for Adams transgression? Nevertheless, most Edwardsean
theologians agree that his philosophical endeavors were not success-
ful.35 This study, however, is less concerned with the soundness of
Edwardss philosophical arguments in dealing with original sin than it
is with the fact that he was not fully pleased with the theological answer
put forth during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to defend the
doctrine of imputation of Adams sin. This effort is yet another example
of Edwardss desire to make traditional Calvinism compatible with the
Enlightenment. That said, neither Edwards nor Fuller spoke explicitly
against traditional federalism;36 they had too much reverence for their
Reformed predecessors to say such. Yet it would be equally difficult to
completely deny that there were some reservations concerning federal-
ism (i.e., guilt by virtue of representation) in Edwardss thinking, thus
it is not too surprising to find Fuller expressing a similar hesitancy. By
1787, Fuller had finished reading Original Sin37 and had arrived at a
similar conclusion to Edwards,38 but he did not use the metaphysical
arguments proposed by Edwards. Instead Fuller uses figurative lan-
guage from Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone to describe the
imputation.
33
See, Clyde Holbrook, Editors Introduction, WJE, 3:5659; Gerstner, Rational,
2:328330.
34
I am primarily referring to ideas such as: Personal Identity, Sameness of
Consciousness, Sameness of Substance and Continuous Creation. See, Original Sin,
WJE, 3:397412.
35
Paul Helm, A Forensic Dilemma: John Locke and Jonathan Edwards on Personal
Identity, in Philosophical Theologian, 4559; Oliver Crisp, Jonathan Edwards and the
Metaphysics of Sin, 2550; Sam Strom, Tragedy in Garden: Original Sin in the Theology
of Jonathan Edwards (Lanham: UPA), 224258.
36
For discussions of the modification of federalism in Edwards, see Holmes, God of
Grace, 147. For the differences between Gill and Fullers federalism, see Ascol, Analysis
of Federalism in the Theologies of John Gill and Andrew Fuller, 6791.
37
On February 2, 1787, Fuller wrote to Ryland Jr.:I return you Edwards on Original
Sin, and thank you for use of it. I hope it has been of use to me (Ryland Jr., Work of
Faith, (1st ed.), 357).
38
Here, Clipsham would support my point, stating [Fullers] final opinion was
essentially same as that of Edwardss Treatise on Original Sin (Clipsham, 1. The
Development of a Doctrine, 113).
190 chapter seven
When Booth saw Fuller using figurative language, he chastised

Fuller for following Samuel Hopkinss figurative imputation, thereby
abandoning real and proper imputed righteousness.39 With the simi-
larity between Fuller and Hopkins this should be expectedit would
be strange not see any resemblance given that they shared the same
theological mentor. This, however, does not necessarily mean that
Fullers figurative imputation was a derivative of Hopkinss doctrine of
imputation. If Fuller drank deeply from Edwardss Justification by Faith
Alone in the mid to late 1780s, then there is no compelling reason to
deny that Edwardss forensic but figurative imputation was the influen-
tial source for Fuller.
7.2.1 Edwardss Forensic Justification but Figurative Imputation

The Arminian concept of justification is grounded in the Grotian
notion of seeing grace as sovereign leniency towards negative pardons
without imputing positive righteousness. Anri Morimoto succinctly
summarizes this aspect of the Arminian doctrine of justification:
(1) To justify means to pardon; (2) there is no imputation of Christs righ-
teousness; (3) sincere obedience is sufficient in order to receive justifica-
tion understood in this sense, for God of his sovereign grace regards our
imperfect human effort as perfect.40
It is against such a notion that Edwards preached this sermon, which
was first published in 1738 as a part of Discourses on Various Important
Subjects. Edwards would affirm the Arminian point 1 as defined by
Morimoto, but Edwards denied points 2 and 3. He saw it as much more
than that. Edwards staunchly affirmed forensic justification and the
imputed righteousness of Christ,41 and he spoke against viewing justi-
fication only in terms of pardon. Edwardss forensic Justification was
chiefly articulated against the Arminian theory of justification where it
stresses that the imperfect obedience of sinners is seen as perfect due
divine grace. Still, Edwardss imputation of positive righteousness is
not the type of literal imputation that Booth was advocating in his
debate with Fuller but rather, it could be seen as figurative imputation.
39
See, Oliver, Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community Among the
English Calvinistic Baptists, 111112.
40
Morimoto, Catholic Vision of Salvation, 76.
41
Edwards wrote, justification is manifestly a forensic term, for it is a judicial
thing (Justification, WJE, 19:188).
Notice the relation between forensic justification and the figurative lan-
guage used by Edwards:
Tis absolutely necessary that in order to a sinners being justified, the
righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for tis
declared, that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly;
but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for
justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in Scripture,
and a judicial thing, or the act of a judge The sentence of justification
would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed that
is the judge properly looked upon as his.42
Edwards here uses traditional Protestant language of forensic justifica-
tion as an image of a penal legal court, which sees God as the lawful
judge. In addition, he describes positive imputed righteousness as
absolutely necessary for a sinners justification. Yet when Edwards
talks about the ontological reality of this, he uses the phrase, looked
upon as his to connect what Christ accomplished with his posterity
and that which Edwards employs with figurative language to articulate
the nature of imputation. In the face of an Arminian objection as to the
fairness of imputing Christs obedience to his posterity, Edwards
claims there is nothing absurd in the notion that when one man pays
a price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had pay
it.43 He continued to argue:
If Christ has suffered the penalty of the law for us, and in our stead, then
it follow, that his suffering that penalty is imputed to us, i.e. that is
accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our account, as
though we had suffered it.44
To illustrate the validity of this claim, Edwards points to Philemon 18.
Just as Paul requested Philemon to impute the wrong charges that
Onesimus might have made to his own account, likewise Christs per-
fect obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have
the benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves.45 As will be
further demonstrated later, Edwards does not hesitate to use such
metaphorical or figurative phrases as: Looked upon as, as if, as
though to describe traditional understanding of forensic justification
and imputation.
42
Justification, WJE, 19:188189, italics mine.
43
44
45
192 chapter seven
7.2.2 Fullers Forensic Justification but Figurative Imputation

Similar to Edwardss sermon on Justification, Fuller believed that there
are many errors on this important subject of justification. The term
is forensic, referring to the proceedings in a court of judicature, and
stands opposed to condemnation. Fuller then illustrates, If a prisoner
who stands charged with a crime be convicted of it, he is condemned; if
otherwise, he is acquitted, or justified. Thus, he who is justified in an
earthly court can only consider himself pardoned of the crime.
Furthermore, the imagery of forensic justification in Fullers thoughts
are such that, they are not [in] all respects alike from the earthly
court. It is more than merely pardoning of sin, because in the justifica-
tion of the earthly court, the prisoner must be found guilty, and then
he can be acquitted as innocent. However, the gospel justification is
distinguishable from being pardoned in that pardon is an essential
branch of [justification]. This is because pardon only removes the
curse due to sin, whereas justification confers the blessing of eternal
life. What then is this blessing according to Fuller? Pardon indeed is an
essential part of it, since a blessing is pronounced on him whose iniq-
uities are forgiven. Yet for Fuller it is much more than that because
the apostle argues from the non-imputation of sin [i.e., pardon] to the
imputation of righteousness [i.e., positive imputation]. Hence this jus-
tification blessing does not only refer to imputing not sin, but also
imputing of a positive righteousness without works.46 In this articula-
tion Fuller, like Edwards, denies the second and third Arminian points
in Morimotos definition of justification. Fuller spoke against the doc-
trine of sincere obedience in his sermon on Justification, as did
Edwards. For Fuller critiques those who consider the grand object of
the death of Christ to have been that he might obtain for us that repen-
tance, faith, and sincere obedience should be accepted as the ground of
justification. If this were so, they would be under the influence of a
self-righteous spirit and would not be much different from those
Pharisees who thank God for being what they are.47 By following the
lead of Edwards, Fuller clearly held the classical position of forensic
justification while rejecting the Arminian stand based on sincere obe-
dience. That said, it is important to note that, Fuller expresses this
classical justification to us as a figurative imputation:
46
47
Ibid., 284.
Believing in Jesus, we are united to him; and, being so, are treated by the
Judge of all as one with him; his obedience unto death is imputed to us,
or reckoned as ours; and we, for his sake, are delivered from condemna-
tion as though we had been innocent, and entitled to eternal life as though
we had been perfectly obedient.48
In Edwardsean fashion, Fuller points to Philemon 18 for the exegetical
basis for his figurative imputation.49 However, Booth had major prob-
lems with this aspect of Fullers figurative language, arguing that it was
Hopkinism.50 While there is some similarity, as we will see, Fuller did
not have to rely on Hopkins at all. It is more plausible to view this as his
adoption of those ideas from the authoritative theological textbook,
Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone. To prove this supposition, the
following section will demonstrate that it was Edwards who influenced
Fuller to use metaphorical or figurative language to describe the tradi-
tional Calvinistic understanding of imputed righteousness.
7.3 Textual Analysis of Fullers Utilization of Edwardss

Sermon on Justification
To substantiate Fullers understanding of figurative imputation as his

means of holding fast to Edwardsean theology, this investigation now
will engage in a detailed textual analysis to demonstrate the extent to
which Fullers doctrines of imputation and justification were influ-
enced by Edwards.
The text for Edwardss sermon was Romans 4:5.51 It is suffice to say
that simply looking at Fullers exegesis of Romans 4:5 and comparing it
with that of Edwards adds weight to any subsequent textually-oriented
argument. However, prior to plunging into these comparisons, a review
of the relevant biblical passage from Romans 4:28 in the KJV might
prove helpful:
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but
not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that wor-
keth is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that
48
49
Ibid., 287. For helpful discussion on Fullers exegesis of Philemon 18, see Haykin,
Particular Redemption, 113.
50
See, Oliver, Booth, 210214; Morden, Offering Christ, 8489.
51
However, Fullers sermon was based on Romans 3:24.
194 chapter seven
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessed-
ness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
In the following sections four quotations from Edwards will be criti-
cally analyzed. To begin, the first two extracts in which Fuller quotes
from Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone will be explained in its orig-
inal context. This will be followed by an examination of the way in
which Fuller utilized these extracts. In that process this study will com-
pare the handling of figurative language by Edwards and Fuller to
describe justification and imputation. Next, we will examine the third
extract from the work of Edwards in its original context, and address
Fullers usage of it by addressing such questions as, Is Fuller reading
Edwards correctly? Lastly, a fourth quotation from Edwardss sermon
on Justification will be analyzed to measure the significance of the pas-
sage in Fullers conception of faith and work, which will further expli-
cate the extent of Fullers theological indebtedness to Edwards.
7.3.1 Edwardss Quotation 1

It is evident, says President Edwards, that the subject of justification is
looked upon as destitute of any righteousness in himself, by that expres-
sion, it is counted, or imputed, to him for righteousness.52
In Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone, this statement is made against
those Arminians who oppose the Solifidians and their insistence on
obedience as the grounds of ones own righteousness. In the preceding
context this excerpt sets up a series of exegetical arguments in which
Edwards is about to prove why the Arminian notion of justification
based on sincere obedience is flawed. Immediately following his remark
regarding quotation 1, Edwards then presents quotation 3. Thus the
flow of Edwardss original order of argument progresses from quota-
tion 1, through 3 to 2. However, in adopting Edwardss argument,
Fuller changes the sequence. This analysis has been approached in the
same sequence as Fuller; i.e., quotations 1, 2, 3.

As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning, or
counting it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it
52
Justification, WAF, 1:287, italics mine, cf. Justification, WJE, 19:148.
were a righteousness; for if he has works, he has that which is a righteous-

ness in itself, to which reward properly belongs.53
Even though Edwards used quotation marks54 around quotation 2, it is
actually his interpretation and paraphrasing of verses 45, for the
phrase underlined in the above quotation is not in the KJV or in the
original Greek text that was available for him. This is to say, the itali-
cized phrase is Edwardss own unique interpretation of verses 45 and
was guided by his theological framework. In this sermon, the para-
phrasing can be contrasted with Edwardss quotation of verse 6, (imme-
diately following quotation 2). He does not paraphrase on this occasion,
but directly quotes verse 6 from the KJV to explain how David also
described the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righ-
teousness without works.55 In any case, what was the theological
framework that permitted Edwards such an interpretation of verses
45?
This is a very interesting question since therein resides Edwardss
figurative language of imputation: He wrote, causing the reward to fol-
low as if it were a righteousness. This imputation is not a literal transfer
of guilt and righteousness to another, but points to figurative imputa-
tion. In like manner, in quotation 1, Edwards wrote, the subject of
justification is looked upon as destitute of any righteousness. In quota-
tion 3, he further confirmed, the consequence shall be the same as if
he had righteousness.
7.3.3 Fullers Utilization of Quotations 1 and 2

The use of quotations 1 and 2 in Fullers Justification by Faith and Abram
Justified by Faith has at least three parallels in Edwardss sermon. 1) It
underscores imputed righteousness as not ones own, but the righteous-
ness of another; 2) Romans 4:28 provided the groundwork for Fullers
exegesis; 3) His usage of figurative language describes imputed
righteousness.
Fullers position on imputing the righteousness of another in
Justification by Faith is thoroughly Edwardsean. This is indicated by the
actual subheading of quotations 1 and 2, which reads, The terms used
relative to gospel justification render it evident that it is not our own
53
Justification, WAF, 1:287 italics and underlining mine, cf. Justification, WJE,
19:148149.
54
Fuller does not use quotation marks here.
55
196 chapter seven
righteousness that is imputed to us, but the righteousness of another.56

To prove this point, Fuller (as with Edwards) refers to Romans 4:28,
particularly, Abraham and David, to support his case about imputed
righteousness. In that process, Fuller cites Edwardss quotations 1 and
2 to validate his position. At this point, it is interesting to note Fullers
use of Edwardss figurative language in describing imputation:
The terms imputed and counted, in this connexion, are manifestly used
to express, not that just reckoning of righteousness to the righteous
which gives to every man his due, but the gracious reckoning of righ-
teousness to the unrighteous, as though he were righteous.57
Booth had serious concerns about Fullers usage of figurative language
to describe the imputed righteousness of Christ, and this was the pre-
cise point of contention between them. The whole series of debates was
recorded in Fullers Six Letters to Dr Ryland, and Booths response enti-
tled Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Character is one of the better
known.58 The details of these disputes will not be repeated here though
Booths accusation concerning Fullers abandonment of Calvinistic
orthodoxy ought to be revisited. Booth was quite concerned with
Fullers imputation as it related to the doctrine of justification because
Fuller argued for figurative rather than proper imputation.59 Yet,
ifFuller regarded Edwardss sermon on Justification as a more impor-
tant doctrine than any human performance60 than any he had previ-
ously read, then Fullers figurative language in describing the imputation
should be viewed as deriving from Edwardss sermon. Still, Booth was
terribly concerned about Fullers close correspondence with the New
England theologians and their influence on him. Perhaps of greater
concern was Fullers ability as the leading theologian in the Particular
Baptist denomination to popularize doctrines. However, if Fuller read
Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone as early as 1785, it may not be
56
57
58
Oliver, Booth, 203222; Haykin, Particular Redemption, 107122; Morden,
Offering Christ, 7793; Ella, Law and Gospel, 103107.
59
Regarding the terms figurative and proper, there seem to be some genuine
equivocation between Fuller and Booth. As Oliver points out, what Fuller described
as real, Booth called personal and what Fuller labeled figurative, Booth called
imputed. It is perhaps not surprising that confusion ensued (Oliver, Booth, 212).
Booth argued for what he saw as proper and literal imputation and criticized Fullers
view: If, therefore Jesus made a curse, he was punished in a real and proper sense
PUNISHED (Booth, Divine Justice, as quoted in Oliver, Booth, 212).
60
Letter to Timothy Dwight, 1:85.
prudent to assume Booth was right in attributing the figurative lan-

guage as a feature that Fuller picked up through extensive reading of
the works of the New England theologians in the 1790s. Fuller had
already been exposed to these ideas from Edwards around the time
when the first edition of Gospel Worthy was published. Thus Fullers
adoption of figurative imputation can be viewed as his way of adhering
to Edwardss theology.
If such an interpretation of Edwards and Fuller is accurate, then it
may be conceivable for some conservative Reformed critics to claim
that it is not only Fuller, but Edwards who deviated from Reformed
orthodoxy. In so doing, their doctrine of imputation and atonement
would destroy the force of the penal theory of the cross about which
Martin Luther spoke so verbosely:
Christ was to become the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, des-
ecrator, blasphemer, etc., there has ever been anywhere in the world. He
is not acting in His own Person now. Now he is not the Son of God, born
of the Virgin. But he is a sinner, who has and bears the sin of Paul, the
former blasphemer, persecutor, and assaulter; of Peter, who denied
Christ; of David, who was an adulterer and a murderer, and who caused
the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord (Rom 2:24). In short, He
has and bears all the sins of all men in His bodynot in the sense that He
has committed them but in the sense that He took these sins, committed
by us, upon His own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with his
own blood.61
For Luther, Christ literally becomes the greatest sinner on the cross. In
the human nature that Christ adopted, he bears the sins of all human-
kind in a real manner. This would be the type of proper imputation
and satisfaction that Booth defended against Fuller. Nevertheless,
could there be a fallacy of bifurcation here? Namely, did Booth set up a
false dilemma for Fuller in his accusation? That is to say, it may have
been possible to hold a full-blown Luther-like sine qua non for penal
substitution without holding a literal quid pro quo transactional account
of imputation. If so, could it be possible for the metaphorical imputation
of Edwards and Fuller to be as ontologically real as Booths version?
The answer to these questions largely hinge upon ones understanding
of metaphorical language to describe ontological reality. Be that as it
may, if these inquiries are pressed further it would surely fall beyond
61
Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians (1535), in Luthers Works, ed. Jaroslav
Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), 26:277.
198 chapter seven
the boundary of what Edwards and Fuller actually articulated,

which could lead to a fair degree of anachronism. These inquisitions
will therefore be treated as a systematic analysis, which will be explored
at the end of this chapter. I will attempt to offer a hermeneutical read-
ing of the metaphorical language of Edwards and Fuller without com-
promising the traditional doctrine of imputed righteousness and
substitution. Still adhering to the historical inquiries relating to what
Edwards and Fuller believed, we will proceed to Edwardss quotations
3 and 4.

The Phrase, as the apostle uses it, says a great writer, manifestly imports
that God, of his sovereign grace, is pleased, in his dealings with the sin-
ner, to take and regard that which indeed is not righteousness, and in one
who has no righteousness, so that the consequence shall be the same as if
he had righteousness, and which may be from the respect which it bears
to something which is indeed righteousness.62
Although this excerpt is from Fullers Abram Justified by Faith, it is
appropriate to treat it here because, in Edwardss original sermon, it
is literally the next sentence following quotation 1. Having made the
statement contained in quotation 3, Edwards further comments that
this is how the Apostle Paul emphasizes the argument for the free
grace of God. When referring to the faith of Abraham found in verse
3, he underscores on the word counted or imputed when addressing
Abrahams righteousness and points out that Abrahams faith is no
righteousness in itself.63 In other words, according to Edwards, there is
nothing intrinsically meritorious about Abrahams righteousness.
7.3.5 Fullers Utilization of Quotation 3

Quotation 3 in Fullers Abram Justified by Faith was used to argue that
there is nothing inherently righteous about faith in itself. In his exposi-
tion of Genesis 15:16, Fuller contends that the act of counting
Abramas righteousness does not mean that God is merely acting on
justice, but is graciously reckoning it what in itself it was not.64 This
can be read as Fullers restatement of Edwardss original statement in
62
Abram Justified by Faith, WAF, 3:63, cf. Justification, WJE, 19:148, italics mine.
63
64
Abram Justified by Faith, 3:63.
quotation 3, since this was the precise point Edwards also made when
he said, Abrahams faith and righteousness is no righteousness in
itself.65 Hence, having extracted quotation 3 from Edwards, Fuller
concludes, The faith of Abram, though of a holy nature, yet contained
nothing in itself fit for a justifying righteousness.66 At this point a care-
ful reader may probe whether Fuller is reading Edwards correctly.
Although Edwards affirms Fullers latter statement regarding there
being no intrinsic righteousness in faith per se. At least in this context,
he says nothing about faith being a holy nature either. What does
Fuller mean when he asserts that faith is holy, yet there is no righteous-
ness in itself?
The answer is most clearly revealed in Fullers debate with Sandema-
nianism as he exegetes Romans 4:5. As we recall from Chapter 5,
Sandeman has argued that any involvement of mind, will or affection
in faith would be considered a work. Therefore, in order to truly main-
tain sola fide, faith must be wholly passive and not have any goodness
at all. According to Sandemanianism, the faith of the ungodly in
Romans 4:5 is actual enmity with God.67 This is because if faith were
holy, just as Fuller argued, then in Sandemans scheme the recipient of
justification could not be considered ungodly. Fuller disagrees with
Sandemans assertion because unless [Sandeman] can prove that by
ungodly the apostle meant one who was at the time an enemy of God, it
makes nothing in [Sandeman] favour.68 Fuller therefore believes that
the burden of proof should rest on Sandemans shoulders because nei-
ther Abraham nor David was, at the time referred to, the enemy of
God.69 The reason is that Abraham was a believer in God and a true
worshipper of him for many years, at the time when he is said to
have believed in God.70 Thus, the expression ungodly, according
to Fuller, is not designed to express the actual state of the mind
whichthe party at the time possesses, but the character under which
65
66
67
Piper, Andrew Fullers Broadsides against Sandemanianism, Hyper-Calvinism,
and Global Unbelief (Desiring God 2007 Conference for Pastors). In the context of
responding to N.T. Wrights arguments, Piper refers to Fullers debate with Sandemanian
on this issue. John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright,
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 171, n. 14.
68
Strictures, 2:568, italics his.
69
Type of Sandemanianism Fuller refers to Jospeh Jenkins of Walworth, see
Remark on Gods Justifying the Ungodly, WAF, 3:717
70
Justifying the Ungodly,3:717.
200 chapter seven
God considers71 when bestowing justification. For Fuller, it really does

not make any difference whichever state of sinners mind possesses,
whether he is a haughty Pharisee or a humble publican unless, he
actually has the power to overturn the balance [of] the curse which
stands against him, or possesses the ground of acceptance with God
through his own merits. Fuller declares that if the sinner cannot over-
turn the curse, or possess this righteous ground by ones own efforts,
he must [and needs to] be justified. Thus, in that sense, he is
ungodly.72 Fullers conception of the ungodly in Romans 4:5 there-
fore encompasses the totality of the character of who he is as a human
person, rather than it being a mere state of the mind, a thoroughly
Edwardsean resolution.
Regarding faith, that is of a holy nature, yet contained nothing in
itself fit for a justifying righteousness, Fuller has a space for a category
of faith having capacity for other holy properties, but not justifying
type. Fuller states whatever other properties faith may possess, it is as
receiving Christ, and bringing us into union with him, that it justi-
fies.73 Still this justifying aspect of faith cannot be constituted as a work
or merit, because of this peculiar aspect of nature of faith.74 Among all
variety of graces that God may bestow, Fuller identifies faith as pecu-
liarly a receiving grace.75 If we were justified by say, repentance, love,
or any other kind of grace, this would convey that there is something
good in us whereby human beings can become candidates for merit-
ing divine justification. But, as Fuller argues, in the doctrine of justifi-
cation faith conveys no such idea.76 Rather, faith in Christ by virtue of
union in Christ becomes the grounds for Gods acceptance. For both
Fuller and Edwards, while faith is the condition for justification, but it
can never be the grounds for it. Faith, therefore, is a duty77 for the
71
Ibid., 715, italics his.
72
Ibid.
73
74
Like Fuller, Edwardss understanding of faith has some particular bearing on jus-
tification which the good works implied in and flowing from faith do not have (Cherry,
A Reappraisal,100).
75
76
Ibid.
77
In a similar debate with Mclean, Fuller wrote, we are justified by that which is a
holy exercise of the mind, and that which is a duty, though its not for the sake of any
holiness in it, or duty performed by us. Fuller then adds the following indebted state-
ment in his footnote: The reader may see this subject clearly and satisfactorily in
President Edwardss Sermon on Justification (The Abuse of Reviews, WAF, 3:747).
ungodly since there are other properties of it that are holy in nature.
Nonetheless, it is significant to note that it is not such, but as uniting
us to Christ and deriving righteousness from him. On this particular
point, Fuller credits Edwards for his insight and acclaims him for refin-
ing justification. Based on this Edwardsean concept, Fuller concludes,
it is no necessity for reducing faith to nullity, in order to maintain the
doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.78
Returning to the question of whether Fuller read Edwards correctly,
in my assessment Fuller appears to be the better interpreter of Edwardss
understanding of ungodly and holy faith when compared with
many modern reviewers of Edwards, including Conrad Cherry.
Although the latter is a fine theologian who has many insights into
Edwardss thoughts, especially concerning the doctrine of Justification,79
Cherry appears to mishandle Edwards on this point:
There are ample grounds for interpreting Edwardss holy act of faith
as holy by virtue of its foundation, Gods Spirit, and not by virtue of
human subjects own being and act. But the choice of words and the man-
ner of framing the answer are still unfortunate. To refer to faith as mans
own holy act, as the inherit good, is to enfeeble the proposal that it is
ungodly man who is justified. Regardless of the qualification added, the
language strongly suggests that faith is a holy, human prius to justifica-
tion. The consequence is one contrary to the thrust of Edwards thought.80
Although Cherry rightly acknowledges that there are ample examples
that see holy faith as grounded in God rather than in human endeavor,
he still considers it is unfortunate for Edwards to refer to mans faith
as holy since it will inevitably weaken the notion that man is ungodly
and in need of being justified. Since this still could be suggestive of man
possessing holy faith prior to justification (even with all of Edwardss
qualifications). Cherry therefore finds Edwardss language of the holy
act of faith to be contrary to the thrust of his own theology. However,
if Cherry had taken Fullers route of interpreting Edwards (as men-
tioned above), he could have avoided these doubts and attributing
Edwardss argument as enfeeble in justification of the ungodly man.
In contrast to Cherrys view of Edwards, Fuller did not see this aspect
78
Strictures, 2:572.
79
In the Foreword of the new edition of Cherrys A Reappraisal, Stein observes the
following: one early critic took the Cherry to task for not entitling his volume
Justification by Faith in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Stephen Stein Foreword
in Cherry, A Reappraisal, x).
80
Cherry, A Reappraisal, 96.
202 chapter seven
as being contrary to other features of Edwardsean theology. Fuller cor-

rectly read Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone and adopted it to
make his case against the Sandemanians. To be fair, Fuller may have
had some advantages over Cherry in establishing the accuracy of
Edwardss point since he gained much clarity on the subject due to his
own wrestling with the Sandemanian problem. In other words, since
more was at stake, Fuller might have had more pressing motivation
than Cherry, to give some precision to this aspect of Edwardss theol-
ogy. Having done so, Fuller fittingly credits Edwards for this theologi-
cal resolution of the paradox of holy faith and the ungodly.81

It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven
and earth to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, con-
demned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be
removed.82
Unlike quotations 13, which can be viewed as a unit in Edwardss
thought, quotation 4 is several pages removed. In light of modern
divines who think God regards imperfect human effort as perfect, in
quotation 4 Edwards was illustrating why this could not possibly be so.
For Edwards nothing that is accepted as any godliness especially,
humans imperfect sincere obedience until after the justification.83
For if God accepts a sinners virtue before the sinner has been united in
Christ, then the virtue must be first accepted, before [the sinner] is
rewarded.84 To suggest that virtue can be acceptable in the unregener-
ate state implies that works in themselves are meritorious, but for
Edwards this would be none other than good-bad works.85 It is in this
81
Strictures, 2:572.
82
Justification, WAF, 1:288; cf. Justification, WJE, 19:165.
83
84
Ibid., 165.
85
This notion is clearly articulated in a sermon, All that Natural Men do is Wrong
(1736), which is a corollary to Edwardss Justification by Faith Alone; see WJE, 19:518
536. Although outward good works are certainly possible, according to Edwards true
morality (one that God accepts) without union with Christ is impossible. Edwards
then gives three reasons why it falls short: 1) The unregenerate may do those things
that are negatively and comparatively right by means of avoiding wrong though
never actually doing right. 2) The unregenerate may do those things that are externally
right but if we look at the inward principle, the one which God looks at, it is alto-
gether wrong. 3) The unregenerate does right in this respect, but those right actions
are motivated by private self-love, one that speaks of a self-love without God. See, WJE,
19:520521.
context that Edwards gives quotation 4. If God accepts a sinners imper-

fect obedience as a virtue, then: What need of Christs suffering to
satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no
suffering?86
7.3.7 Fullers Utilization of Quotation 4

Fullers Justification by Faith is not the only text87 from which quotation
4 may be extracted. He also makes use of this quote in Christian
Doctrine of Rewards, which he preached in 1799 in Edinburgh, a period
that due to the influence of New England theologians, has at times been
labeled the epitome of Fullers liberalism. But even in the late 1790s,
Fuller continually cites Jonathan Edwards as his authority rather than
his New England friends. Fullers repeated use of this quotation is sug-
gestive of the significance this particular passage held for Fuller. In
Fullers sermon on Justification, quotation 4 is located under the title of
the segment called, The rewards promised in the Scriptures to good
works suppose the parties to believers in Christ.88 This underscores a
logical sequence in order for good work to take place. Fuller articulates
what type of work can be the ground of justification. For him, no
amount of good work can be regarded as good from Gods perspective
until it is subsequent to justification. This notion also provided Fuller
with the ammunition to reject the doctrine of eternal justification,
often held by Hyper-Calvinists. Fuller states, works before faith are
never acknowledged by the Scriptures to be good89 and hence, it is in
this context that he took up Edwardss illustration in quotation 4 for
support in arguing that the King will not accept anything from a con-
demned person until that condemnation is removed. How then, can
our sacrifice be acceptable to God? The spiritual sacrifices, Fuller con-
cludes, are no otherwise acceptable to God than by Jesus Christ.90
86
87
In Christian Doctrine of Reward, there is a slight textual variant, which does not
change the meaning of this passage. See WAF, 1:178, cf. 1:288. The difference between
the quote from Fullers Justification by Faith Alone, and Christian Doctrine of Rewards
is that the latter breaks the sentence after heaven and earth. He then inserted as a
great writer expressed it which, of course, refers to Edwards. Fuller then continues to
finish the sentence until condemnation be removed. What is more, there are two
other instances where this quotation is used by Fuller. See, WAF, 3:63; see also Morris,
Memoirs of the Life, 181.
88
Justification, WAF, 1:287288, italics mine.
89
90
Ibid.
204 chapter seven
In Christian Doctrine of Rewards, quotation 4 is similarly used to

argue that, God not only accepts of all who believe in his Son, for his
sake, but their services become acceptable and rewardable through the
same medium. In other words, because of his union with Christ, the
believers service now becomes acceptable to God. As was observed in
Edwardss text, Fuller claimed that whenever the unregenerate per-
forms any good acts, they could only constitute as good-bad works
because if unbelievers had any thing truly good in them it would still
be impossible that they should be acceptable to God.91 Having made
this point, Fuller refers to quotation 4 and concludes that when we are
accepted in the Beloved by the virtue of union with the Son, our
works are accepted likewise.92
7.4 Conclusion
Having submitted critical textual evidences, there is now every reason

to suppose that Edwardss sermon on Justification was more than ade-
quate for Fuller to develop his full doctrine of forensic but figurative
imputation without any additional aid from the New England theolo-
gians. From 1787 to 1799, Fuller not only had access to Edwardss
Justification by Faith Alone but, based on this sermon, preached his
own sermon on Justification and Doctrine of Christian Rewards. Despite
this, in the midst of a heated debate with Booth, Fuller was accused of
having uncritically followed the figurative language of Hopkins. How-
ever, a careful reader ought evaluate if the influence was in fact attrib-
utable to Hopkins, or whether it stemmed from Edwards. The historical
and textual evidence that has been put forth strongly indicates that
the influence of figurative language put on Fuller came from Edwards.
This was largely because Edwardss biblical exegesis also influenced
Fullers own scriptural interpretation.93 Furthermore, in common with
Edwards, Fuller clearly held the classical position on forensic justifica-
tion while rejecting both the doctrine of the Hyper-Calvinist eternal
justification and the Arminian justification based on sincere obedi-
ence. Hence, should there be doubts within the conservative Reformed
91
Christian Doctrine of Rewards, 1:178.
92
Ibid., 178179.
93
There is remarkable similarity between how Edwards and Fuller approach the
problem of faith and work found in Paul and James. See, Justification, WAF, 1:288, cf.
camp concerning Fullers governmental language to describe the atone-

ment, such mistrust ought not spill into doubting Fullers orthodoxy in
respect to the doctrine of justification.
In view of the accumulated weight of historical, textual, theological
and philosophical arguments presented in the last two chapters, we are
in a position to assess the extent of Fullers theological indebtedness to
Edwards and the New England theologians doctrines of atonement,
substitution, justification and imputation. First, while Fuller held a
mild intention of defending his New England friends, he was by no
means committed to their theology. Yet it is equally true that he did not
see the New Divinity as heretical, as they often were accused of. Indeed,
Fuller was sympathetic to and, to some degree influenced by New
England divines; nonetheless, he approached their theology judi-
ciously. Whenever Edwards and his New England disciples diverged on
an issue, Fuller followed Edwards in nearly all instances, as this inves-
tigation has demonstrated. Second, it has been established that there is
no proper warrant for accepting Edwards as the true heir of the
Reformation while, at the same time, rejecting Fuller. Contrary to com-
mon misconception, Edwards was not the kosher Calvinist as some
conservative Calvinists would like to think. If one accepts the voice of
Edwards in that tradition, then Fuller should also be part of that theo-
logical heritage. This would be the correct interpretation of Fuller not
only because he saw himself in this way, but also because his theologi-
cal writings are consistent with the broader historical Reformed
tradition.
7.5 Metaphorical Realism: Hermeneutics of Reading Edwardss and

Fullers Figurative Language
L.W. Grensted, a critic of traditional penal substitution has argued that

Owen represents the extremest form of English Calvinism94 and
that Edwards followed a similar extreme Calvinist position. Never-
theless, Grensted suggests that because Edwards was more conscious
than Owen of difficulty and he therefore attempted to safeguard it
from some of the more obvious objections.95 To Grensteds theological
standard, I suspect, Luthers literalism in portraying Christ as the
94
Grensted, Short History, 275.
95
Ibid., 276.
206 chapter seven
greatest sinner certainly constituted obvious objections. Yet, in assess-

ing Edwardss motive, Grensted raised a persuasive point because if
thisliteralism did not bother Edwards, why would he employ figurative
language to speak about substitution and imputation? It follows that
Edwards appears to be taking safeguards from more obvious Enlight-
enment objections by making traditional Calvinism defensible in the
context of the so-called Age of Reason, and Fuller was merely following
Edwardss lead as has been textually demonstrated earlier in this
chapter.
In contrast, Booth firmly believed that Christ literally had become
sinner at the cross in order to bear the sins of humanity, and anything
short of this would be considered improper since there is no real
imputation as was contained in Fullers figurative version. This would
be an extremely serious objection if one wished to see Edwards and
Fuller as proper heirs of the Reformation. For this reason, I propose a
hermeneutic of metaphorical realism for reading Edwards and Fullers
figurative language. It is an attempt to review the texts without compro-
mising traditional doctrines of substitution and imputed righteous-
ness. The logic behind Booths objection is that since Fuller uses
figurative language as if it were to describe imputation, it cannot be
literal. It therefore follows by assumption that if it is not literal, then it
is not ontologically real. As result, the recipients of figurative imputed
righteousness would still be sinners. However, the premise that I dis-
agree is, the idea that if it is not literal, it is somehow less real. At the
risk of being anachronistic96 with regard to the metaphors in theologi-
cal language, the late British systematic theologian Colin Gunton pro-
vides tremendously helpful considerations.
Booth thinks Fullers use of meta-language would inevitably lead to
the loss of its true meaning, and ultimately to the loss of its ontological
essence as well as the effects of real imputation and atonement.
However, according to Guntons categorization, Booth would fall con-
ceptually into the group of those who believe that:
What cannot be translated from metaphorical into literal language can-
not be held to be true. On such accounts, metaphor is disqualified from
being a means of our rational interaction with the world; unless it ceases
to be metaphor, it cannot tell the truth.97
96
Of course, Edwards and Fuller did not specifically speak about metaphor in quite
this way, nor did they read Colin Gunton.
97
Colin Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality and
the Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 30, italics his.
That is to say, If there is to be genuine knowledge, it must be expressed

in literal terms.98 At this juncture, it is important to probe whether
such assumptions are necessarily true, and it could be argued other-
wise, as indeed did Gunton:
The truth of a claim about the world does not depend upon whether it is
expressed in literal or metaphorical terms, but upon whether language of
whatever kind expresses human interaction with reality successfully
(truthfully) or not.99
What then, are the tendencies when a metaphor becomes successful in
what it is intended to communicate? The insightful truth is that the
users of metaphor often forget it was once a metaphor. Gunton illus-
trates this by bringing up the Latin word, musculus, literally meaning
little mouse, and from which our word muscle is derived. Yet no one
thinks of the association between musculus and muscle any longer100
because the metaphor has been so successful in what it is trying to
communicate that it has lost its metaphorical status. In fact, much of
our language had its origins in metaphor because, without metaphor
we are left with very few words with which to describe reality. Gunton
therefore writes:
[The] metaphors are not odd, unusual, improper or merely decorative.
They are so pervasive a part of our experience that they are a, if not the
clue to what language is and does.101
Of course, there are instances when metaphorical and figurative lan-
guage does not work. In Rudolf Bultmanns Demythologization, when
the metaphorical interpretation is applied to the historicity of the res-
urrection could be very problematic. As Gunton justly points out, the
Easter was that the events of Jesus history whereas the metaphors of
atonement are ways of expressing the significance of what had hap-
pened and was happening.102
At any rate, is it possible for the metaphorical imputation of Edwards
and Fuller to be just as ontologically real as Booths literal account?
The answer to this question largely hinges upon ones understanding of
the metaphorical language used to describe the ontological reality.
98
Gunton, Actuality of Atonement, 34.
99
100
I tested this association with second year of students in theology at University of
St. Andrews.
101
Gunton, Actuality of Atonement, 32.
102
208 chapter seven
If metaphor is the way in which much of our language functions, per-

haps the figurative phrase as if it were to describe substitution and
imputation is often forgotten or omitted and as result, loses its meta-
phorical status precisely because it has been so successful in what it was
intended to communicates over centuries of ecclesiastical history. If
this be the case, Edwards and Fullers figurative rendering of the atone-
ment and imputation does not necessitate that their language speaks
any less real about the reality of Christs atoning work than does Owen
and Booths version of it. Therefore, I propose that Edwards and Fullers
figurative language ought to be read as communicating the means that
convey the real ontological reality of what happened on the cross. If
so, it is possible to hold a full-blown, Luther-like classical substitution
and imputation account without holding a literal quid pro quo transac-
tional account of imputation. To be precise, if Gunton was correct
about the metaphorical language function in theological discipline,
both Edwards and Fullers abandonment of exact quid pro quo language
and their adoption of more figurative approaches do not have to be
read as any sort of legal or forensic fiction. The metaphor of penal sub-
stitution and imputation can, and does, point to the ontological reality
of what had historically taken place at the cross.103 Perhaps the lost
metaphorical status in Booths language of atonement and imputation
just goes to prove how profitably as well as edifying such metaphors
have served the Reformed tradition.
103
For further discussions, see Stephen Holmes, The Wondrous Cross: Atonement
and Penal Substitution in the Bible and History (London: Paternoster, 2007); Stephen
Holmes, Can Punishment Bring Peace? Penal Substitution Revisited, SJT 58, no.1
(2005): 104123; see also J.I. Packer, What Did the Cross Achieve?: the Logic of Penal
Substitution, TB 25(1974): 345. For Calvins usage, see Roland Frye, Calvins
Theological Use of Figurative Language, in John Calvin and the Church, ed. Timothy
George, (Louisville: WJP, 1990), 172194.
CONCLUSION
THE LEGACY OF JONATHAN EDWARDS

IN THE THEOLOGY OF ANDREW FULLER
The legacy left by Jonathan Edwards is well remembered in New

England, but historians are only now beginning to discover the signifi-
cance of Edwards beyond the American context.1 This monograph has
demonstrated that in addition to being Americas Theologian2 in the
eighteenth century, Edwards had significant theological impact in
England and Scotland. From a British perspective, his legacy in the
theology of Andrew Fuller would ultimately make him a giant in the
history of modern Christianity.
Chapter 1 has established that it was Edwards who laid the philo-
sophical foundation for Fuller to pursue a theology of the Modern
Missionary Movement in the context of the Enlightenment. Chapter 2
began with the historical setting where there was a rapid decline among
Baptist denominations in Englanddue largely to Hyper-Calvinism
among Particular Baptists and Unitarians as well as deistic tendencies
among General Baptists. In this situation, Fullers Gospel Worthy fell
like a bombshell on the playground of theologians. It has been argued
that if Carey was the ethical catalyst for the missionary awakening,
Fuller was its theological stimulus. Chapters 1 and 2 demonstrated
how Fullers theological ammunitions for this dispute relied largely on
the distinctions made by Edwards in Freedom of the Will between nat-
ural and moral inability and the use of means. While Fuller did not
usually give as detailed a philosophical account of natural and moral
inability as did Edwards, Fullers distinctions are more inclined to the
implications for salvation. It is as if the results of the complex mathe-
matical formula solved by Edwards were taken to their maximum
potential by Fuller and applied to the formulation of a precise theology,
which became the basis for what was to become known as the Modern
Missionary Movement.
1
Kling and Sweeney, eds., Home and Abroad (2003); Stout, Minkema and Maskell
eds., Edwards at 300 (2005); Gerald McDermott ed., Introducing Americas Theologian
(2009); Minkema, Neele and Van Andel eds., Jonathan Edwards in Scotland (2011).
2
Jenson, Americas Theologian.
210 conclusion
Chapter 3 continued to press the theme of Fuller and the Modern

Missions. It has shown Humble Attempt helped spark the missionary
movement when Ryland Jr. received a parcel of books from Erskine in
1784 that included Humble Attempt. Ryland, fully aware of the esteem
in which Fuller and Sutcliff held Edwards, swiftly send them the books
and thereby changed missions history. The secondary literatures have
recognized the influence of Humble Attempt on the Prayer Call of 1784,
but few have seen the role that Edwardss eschatological optimism
played in driving the British missionary enterprise. Edwardss thinking
about the end of the world depended on his interpretation of the slay-
ing of the witnesses in Revelation 11. Some thought this implied a
coming catastrophe for the church, but Edwards argued for the exact
opposite in order to promote the Concert of Prayer. Edwards feared
that if the slaying of the witnesses were a future event yet to be fulfilled,
it would be a great hindrance for the Concert. But Edwards argued
for an unprecedented outpouring of the Spirit of God, and a time when
the whole world would embrace the light of the gospel, with Christs
kingdom victorious against the dark world. Fuller also saw the ran-
sacked days of the church as a thing of the past, for he interpreted the
French Revolution as a crucial sign that that shook the papal world to
its centre.3 The fact that Humble Attempt was reprinted in 1789, when
the Revolution began, seemed to confirm the optimistic Edwardsean
eschatology which Fuller adopted. Although Fuller did not stress
immediacy in the way Edwards did, both believed the latter days would
be publicly discernible, and that the current ascendancy of Protes-
tantism, coupled with diminishing papal authority in Europe and
America, were evidence of fulfillment of apocalyptic forecasts in the
Book of Revelation. Chapter 3 has concluded that both Edwards and
Fuller misinterpreted the biblical prophecies. Yet there is little doubt
that Edwardss eschatology inspired Fuller to promote missionary work
so vigorously.
Many historians are right to say that David Brainerds piety func-
tioned as a model for missionaries of the nineteenth century. They are
also justified in saying that Edwards was a fountainhead of modern
missions. However, Chapters 1 to 3 have demonstrated that because of
the evangelistic restraint of Hyper-Calvinism, the Modern Missionary
Movement might never have gotten off the groundif it hadnt been
3
Apocalypse, 3:252253.
the legacy of edwards in the theology of fuller 211
for the metaphysics of natural and moral inability and the use
of means found in Freedom of the Will. We could speak similarly of
Humble Attempt. Had it not been for Edwardss optimistic outlook
and exhortation to communal prayer, the fuel for the rigors of the for-
eign missions might well have been depleted. Due to Edwardss influ-
ence in the theology of Fuller and Northamptonshire Association,
Edwardss missiological legacy is far greater than that of simply editing
The Life of David Brainerd. Therefore, if a case can be made for Edwards
as the Grandfather of modern missions, then Fuller might appropri-
ately be portrayed as the Theological Father of the Modern Missionary
Movement.
Chapter 4 illustrated how the sense of the heart is considered by
many to be one of the unique aspects in Edwardss thoughts, yet this
facet of his theological aesthetic was not as well transmitted as his theo-
logical legacy in New England. Yet across the Atlantic, in the hands of
Fuller, the pneumatological epistemology found in Religious Affections
became the central argument against those who believed faith to be a
completely passive feature of human faculties. Thus, Chapter 5 traced
how Fuller used Religious Affections to argue against Sandemanianism
in Scotland, and explored ways in which Fuller applied Edwardsean
pneumatological epistemology against Mclean. Fullers polemical dia-
logue relied heavily upon the sense of the heart to argue that the mind
and heart are inseparable constituents in arriving at a spiritual knowl-
edge of faith. The Spirit of God is therefore in action by engaging the
heart in such a manner that it changes the inclination of the heart to
overcome any prejudice for the distaste of truth in sinful human nature.
This is why when the disposition of a person be altered in the context
of soteriology, it has to do with the metaphysics of choice relating to
the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting a strong motive or an inclination
of the human heart. Being so largely indebted to Edwards, Fuller saw
the sense of the heart as a pneumatological renewal of inclination to,
and affection for, the redirection of those faculties towards the beauty
of Gods holiness, which necessarily lead to a preference for the per-
sonal holiness attained in the lives of saints.
Chapters 6 and 7 pointed out that, more than any other doctrinal
issues, the disputes between Fuller and Booth over atonement, substi-
tution, and imputed righteousness have been subjected to the scrutiny
of the Particular Baptists. Fullers allegiance to Reformed orthodoxy
has been questioned because of his close association with the New
England theologians. However while Fuller held a mild intention of
212 conclusion
defending his New England friends, he was by no means committed to

their theology. Yet it is equally true that he did not see the New Divinity
as heretical, as they often were accused of. Indeed, Fuller was sympa-
thetic to and, to some degree, influenced by the New England divines;
nonetheless, he approached their theology judiciously. Whenever
Edwards and his New England disciples diverged on an issue, Fuller
followed Edwards in nearly all instances. It been argued that there is no
proper warrant for accepting Edwards as the true heir of the Reformation
while, rejecting Fullers theology as some species of Grotianism. This is
because, contrary to popular misconception, Edwards was not a Hodge-
like Calvinist as some in the conservative Reformed community accept
him to be. Moreover, like Edwards, Fuller clearly held the classical
position on forensic justification while rejecting both the doctrine of
Hyper-Calvinist eternal justification and the Arminian justification
based on sincere obedience. Hence, if one accepts the voice of Edwards
in the Reformed tradition, then Fuller should also be part of that theo-
logical heritage. This would be the correct interpretation of Fuller
not only because he saw himself in this way, but also because his theo-
logical writings are consistent with the broader historical Reformed
tradition.
In the final analysis, when the leading Particular Baptist theologian
of the eighteenth and nineteenth century spoke of Edwardss writings
as The Greatest instruction he has received from human writings,4
this study has demonstrated that such statement was not mere lip
service. Why then does Fuller describe the Stockbridge missionary as
the great writer5 and praise Edwardsean ideas as better than any
human performance he has ever read?6 Surely, there were other great
writers who significantly influenced Fullers life and thought. In Fullers
conception of the distinction between natural and moral ability
and inability Caleb Evans (2.2) was also an important figure. Fullers
Missiolgical optimism could have been influenced by Moses Lowman
(3.2.13.2.2). Insofar as pneumatological epistemology, John Owen
(5.2.2) may be the person to whom Fuller might owe his debt. On
the subject of doctrines of atonement, justification and imputation, the
New Divinity men such as Joseph Bellamy, Samuel Hopkins and
Jonathan Edwards Jr. come to mind (6.46.6). Notwithstanding the
4
Baxterianism, 2:715.
5
6
WAF, 1:85.
the legacy of edwards in the theology of fuller 213
evidence, in every case Fuller credits Edwards as the principal teacher

to whom he has a theological indebtedness. Why? Edwards towered
over the other great writers who have been mentioned because his
ideas gave Fuller intellectual pleasure7 and satisfaction8 in the con-
text of the prevailing skepticism of the Enlightenment. Edwardsean
Calvinism provided Fuller with the philosophical underpinnings and
theological categories to become one of the foremost Christian apolo-
gists in his time. But that is not all. When Fuller referred to Edwards as
a penetrating, edifying writer,9 he underscored how the spirituality of
Edwards influenced his devotional life. That is to say, Edwards not only
spoke to Fullers mind but to his heart and both were profited and
[were] much solemnized by what [he] read.10 For the elephant of
Kettering, the greatest instruction received from human writings,
indeed, was from Jonathan Edwards.
7
8
Gospel Worthy (2nd ed.), 2:330.
9
Extracts from his Diary on February 3, 1781, 1:25.
10
Extracts from his Diary July 9, 1784, 1:36.
APPENDIX
FULLERS ACCESS TO PUBLISHED LITERATURE OF

EDWARDS IN BRITAIN1
* An Account of the Conversion and Religious Experience of the Late Reverend

and Learned Mr. Jonathan Edwards. London: J Mathews, 1780.
An Account of the Life of Mr. David Brainerd. Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1798.
An Account of the Life of Mr. David Brainerd. London: R. Ogle, 1798.
An Account of the Life of the Late Mr. David Brainerd. Edinburgh: William,
Gray, 1765.
A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom
of Will. London: Thomas Field, 1762.
of Will. Glasgow: James Duncan, 1790.
of Will. London: C. Dilly, 1790.
of Will. 3rd ed. London: J. Johnson, 1768.
of Will. 4th ed. London: J. Johnson, 1775.
of Will. 5th ed. London: J. Johnson, 1790.
* A Dissertation on Gods Last End in the Creation of the World. Edited by
C. De Coetlogon. London: H. Trapp, 1788.
The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Edinburgh:
T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1742.
The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Glasgow: R. Smith,
1742.
The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. London: S. Mason,
1742.
The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Edited by John Wesley.
London: W. Strahan, 1744.
2nd ed. London: Henry Cock, 1755.
1
Comprehensive list of Edwardss work published abroad can be found in
M.X. Lesser, An Honor Too Great: Jonathan Edwards in Print Abroad, in Home and
Abroad, 304319. However, I have exclusively listed British editions in which Fuller
may have accesses to during his lifetime. An asterisk preceding an entry marks an item
published abroad before its first American issue, two asterisks for an item published
only abroad.
216 appendix
3rd ed. London: G. Paramore, 1795.
4th ed. Dublin: B. Dugdale, 1790.
4th ed. London: G. Story, 1803.
* An Essay on the Nature of True Virtue. London: T. Payne and Son, 1778.
* The Eternity of Hell Torments. Edited by C.E. De Coetlogon. London:
R. Thomson, 1788.
The Eternity of Hell Torments. Edited by C.E. De Coetlogon. 2nd ed. London:
R. Thomson, 1789.
* The Excellency of Christ. Northampton [England]: Thomas Dicey, 1780.
The Excellency of Christ. 2nd ed. Northampton [England]: Thomas Dicey,
1780.
An Extract of the Life of the Late Rev. Mr. David Brainerd. Edited by John
Wesley. Bristol: William Pine, 1768.
Wesley. 2nd ed. Bristol: William Pine, 1771.
Wesley. 3rd ed. London: G. Paramore, 1793.
Wesley. 4th ed. London: G. Story, 1800.
Wesley. 4th ed. Dublin: R. Napper, 1812.
Wesley. Penryn: W. Cock, 1815.
A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. Edinburgh: J. Oswald,
1737.
A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. Edinburgh: Thomas
Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1738.
* A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. London: John Oswald,
1737.
A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. 2nd ed. London: John
Oswald, 1738.
A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. London: C. Whittingham,
[1800].
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. London: G. Keith,
1766.
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. London: J. Johnson and
Co., 1766.
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. Dublin: Robert
Johnston, 1768.
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. Glasgow: Robert Urie,
1768.
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. Glasgow: James
Meuros, 1772.
fullers access to literature of edwards in britain 217
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. 4th ed. London:
J. Murgatroyed, 1789.
The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. Edinburgh: Murray
and Cochrane, 1798.
History of Redemption. London: T. Pitcher, 1788.
History of Redemption. London: C. Dilly, 1791.
* A History of the Work of Redemption. Edinburgh: W. Gray, 1774.
A History of the Work of Redemption. Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1788.
A History of the Work of Redemption. 4th ed. Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1793.
A History of the Work of Redemption. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Alexander Jardine,
1799.
A History of the Work of Redemption. Edinburgh: John Walker, 1808.
A History of the Work of Redemption. London: W. Baynes, 1808.
A History of the Work of Redemption. London: Baynes, Williams and Son,
1812.
An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of Gods
People in Extraordinary Prayer. Northampton [England]: T Dicey and Co.,
1789.
An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifica-
tions Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible
Christian Church. Edinburgh: William Coke, 1790.
An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifica-
tions Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible
Christian Church. Edinburgh: Hugh Inglis, 1790.
The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. Edited by C. De Coetlogon.
London: J. Buckland, 1774.
The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. Edited by C. De Coetlogon.
London: J. Mathews, 1788.
The Life and Character of the Late Reverend, Learned, and Pious Mr. Jonathan
Edwards. London: C. Dilly, 1785.
Edwards. 2nd ed. Glasgow: James Duncan, 1785.
Edwards. Edinburgh: Alexander Jardine, 1799.
The Life and Experience of the Rev. Jonathan Edwards. Bristol: Bristol Religious
Tract Society, [1780].
The Life of David Brainerd. Edited by John Styles. London: Williams and
Smith, 1808.
**Miscellaneous Observations on Important Theological Subjects. Edinburgh:
M. Gray, 1793.
A Narrative of the Late Work of God. Edited by John Wesley. Bristol: Felix
Farley, [1744].
A Narrative of the Late Work of God. Edited by John Wesley. 2nd ed. London:
Henry Cock, 1755.
A Narrative of the Late Work of God. Edited by John Wesley. 3rd ed. London:
G. Whitefield, 1798.
218 appendix
** Practical Sermons, Never Before Published. Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1788.2

** Remarks on Important Theological Controversies. Edinburgh: J. Galbraith,
1796.
2
SERMON I. The Importance and Advantage of a thorough Knowledge of Divine
Truth. HEBREWS, v. 12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need
that one teach you again which be the
SERMON II. The Subject continued. HEBREWS, v. 12. For when for the time ye
ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first princi-
ples of the oracles of God; and are
SERMON III. GOD the best Portion of the Christian. PSALM, lxxiii. 25. Whom
have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee.
SERMON IV. The sole consideration, that God is God, sufficient to still all objections
to his Sovereignty. PSALM, xlvi. 10. Be still, and know that I am God.
SERMON V. Great Guilt no Obstacle to the Pardon of the returning Sinner. PSALM,
xxv. 11. For thy names sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
SERMON VI. The Most High a Prayer-hearing God, PSALM, lxv 2. O thou that
hearest Prayer.
SERMON VII. Great Care necessary, lest we live in some way of Sin. PSALM, cxxxix.
23. 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see
if there be any wicked way in me,
SERMON VIII. Great Care necessary, lest we live in some way of Sin. PSALM,
cxxxix. 23. 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts;
and see if there be any wicked way in me,
SERMON IX. Great Care necessary, lest we live in some way of Sin. PSALM, cxxxix.
if there be any wicked way in me,
SERMON X. Great Care necessary, lest we live in some way of Sin. PSALM, cxxxix.
if there be any wicked way in me, and
SERMON XI. The great Guilt of those who attend on the Ordinances of Divine
Worship, and yet allow themselves in any known Wickedness. EZEK. xxiii. 37. 38. 39.
That they have committed adultery, and
SERMON XII. The great Guilt of those who attend on the Ordinances of Divine
Worship, and yet allow themselves in any known Sin. EZEK. xxiii. 37. 38. 39. That they
have committed adultery, and blood is
SERMON XIII. The World judged righteously by Jesus Christ. ACTS, xvii. 31.
Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness,
by that man whom he hath ordained.
SERMON XIV. The World judged righteously by Jesus Christ. ACTS, xvii. 31.
SERMON XV. The World judged righteously by Jesus Christ. ACTS, xvii. 31. Because
he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that
man whom he hath ordained.
SERMON XVI. The World judged righteously by Jesus Christ. ACTS, xvii. 31.
SERMON XVII. The vain Self-flatteries of the Sinner. PSAL. xxxvi. 2. For he flat-
tereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.
SERMON XVIII. Wicked Men useful in their Destruction only. EZEK. xv. 2. 3. 4.
Son of man, What is the vine-tree more than any tree? or than a branch which is among
the trees of the forest? Shall wood
* Remarks on the Essays. Edinburgh: [s.n.], 1758

Remarks on the Essays. 3rd ed. London: J. Johnson, 1768.
** Sermons on Various Important Subjects. Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1785.3
SERMON XIX. The Fearfulness, which will hereafter surprise Sinners in Zion, rep-
resented and improved. ISAIAH, xxxiii. 14. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness
hath surprised the hypocrites: Who
SERMON XX. The Fearfulness, which will hereafter surprise Sinners in Zion, repre-
sented and improved. ISAIAH, xxxiii. 14. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness
hath surprised the hypocrites: Who
SERMON XXI. When the Wicked shall have filled up the Measure of their Sin,
Wrath will come upon them to the uttermost. 1 THESS. ii. 16. To fill up their sins
alway; for the wrath is come upon them to
SERMON XXII. The Torments of the Wicked in Hell, no Occasion of Grief to the
Saints in Heaven. REV. xviii. 20. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and
prophets, for God hath avenged
SERMON XXIII. The Torments of the Wicked in Hell, no Occasion of Grief to the
Saints in Heaven. REV. xviii. 20. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and
prophets, for God hath avenged
SERMON XXIV. The Preciousness of Time. EPHES. v. 16. Redeeming the Time.
SERMON XXV. The preciousness of Time. EPHES. v. 16. Redeeming the time.
SERMON XXVI. The Sin and Folly of depending on future Time. PROV. xxvii. 1.
Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.
SERMON XXVII. The Sin and Folly of depending on future Time. PROV. xxvii. 1.
Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.
SERMON XXVIII. The Sin of Thest and of Injustice. EXOD. xx. 15. Thou shalt not
steal.
SERMON XXIX. The Duty of Charity to the Poor, explained and enforced. DEUT.
xv. 7. 12. If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren, within any of thy
gates, in thy land which the Lord
SERMON XXX. The Duty of Charity to the Poor, explained and enforced. DEUT. xv.
7. 12. If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren, within any of thy
gates, in thy land which the Lord thy
SERMON XXXI. The Duty of Charity to the Poor, explained and enforced. DEUT.
SERMON XXXII. The Duty of Charity to the Poor, explained and enforced. DEUT.
SERMON XXXIII. The Nature and End of Excommunication. 1 COR. v. 11. But now
I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a
fornicator, or covetous, or an
3
DISCOURSE I. Justification by Faith alone. ROM. iv. 5. But to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.
DISCOURSE II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. LUKE, xvi. 16. The law and the
prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every
man presseth into it
DISCOURSE III. Ruths Resolution. RUTH, i. 16. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to
leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whether thou goest, I will go; and
where thou lodgest, I will
DISCOURSE IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of sinners. ROM. iii. 19.
That every mouth may be stopped.
220 appendix
Sermons on Various Important Subjects. London: Printed for the Booksellers,

1795.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and
J.Robertson, 1745.
Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival. Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and
J.Robertson, 1743.
Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival. Edited by John Wesley. London:
W.Strahan, 1745.
Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival. Edited by John Wesley. London:
G. Whitfield, 1798.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. London: T. Field, 1762.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Edinburgh: E. and C. Dilly, 1772.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Edinburgh: W. Laing, 1789.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. London: Printed for the Booksellers,
1796.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1810.
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1812. [Another
edition.]
A Treatise on Religious Affections. London: G. Story 1801.
** Twenty Sermons, on Various Subjects. Edinburgh: M. Gray, 1789.4
DISCOURSE V. The Excellency of Christ. REV. v. 5. 6. And one of the elders saith
unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath pre-
vailed to open the book, and to
DISCOURSE VI. God Glorified in Mans Dependance. 1. Cor. i. 29. 30. 31. That no
slesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is
made unto us wisdom, and
DISCOURSE VII. Sinners in the Hands of an angry God. DEUT. xxxii. 35.
Their foot shall slide in due time.
DISCOURSE VIII. A Farewell Sermon. 2. Cor. i. 14. As also you have acknowledged
its in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord
Jesus.
The RESULT of a Counsel of Nine Churches, met at Northampton, June 22. 1750;
with a PROTEST against the same, by a Number of the said Counsel.
4
FIFTEEN SERMONS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS:
1. The Manner in which the Salvation of the Soul is to be sought (Gen. 6:22)
2. The Unreasonableness of Indetermination in Religion (1 Kings 18:21)
3. Unbelievers contemn the Glory and Excellency of Christ (Acts 4:11)
4. The folly of Looking Back in fleeing out of Sodom (Luke 17:32)
5. (the same subject continued)
6. The Warnings of Scripture are in the best manner adapted to the awakening
and Conversion of Sinners (Luke 16:31)
7. Hypocrites deficient in the Duty of Prayer (Job 27:10)
9. The future Punishment of the Wicked unavoidable and intolerable (Ezek.
22:14)
11. The Eternity of Hell Torments (Matt. 25:46)
12. The Peace which Christ gives his true Followers (John 14:27)
13. The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath (1 Cor. 16:12)
Twenty Sermons, on Various Subjects. Edinburgh: John Fairbairn, 1804.

** Two Dissertations. Edinburgh: W. Laing, 1788.
United Prayer for the Spread of the Gospel. London: R. Williams, 1814.
* The Works of President Edwards. 8 vols. Leeds: Edwards Baines, 18061811.

FIVE SERMONS ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS:
1. A Divine and Supernatural Light, immediately imparted to the Soul by the Spirit
of God, shown to be both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine (Matt. 16:17)
2. The Churchs Marriage to her Sons, and to her God (Isaiah 57:45)
3. True Saints, when absent from the Body, are present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8)
4. Gods awful Judgment in the breaking and withering of the Strong Rods of a
Community (Ezek. 19:12)
5. True Grace distinguished from the Experience of Devils (James 2:19)
Bibliography
I. Primary Sources
a. The Writings of Jonathan Edwards

The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 2 vols. Edited by Edward Hickman. Carlisle: Banner
of Truth, 1974.
The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Perry Miller, John E. Smith, and Harry S.
Stout. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956 -.
Vol. 1. Freedom of the Will. Edited by Paul Ramsey, 1957.
Vol. 2. Religious Affections. Edited by John E. Smith,1959.
Vol. 3. Original Sin. Edited by Clyde A. Holbrook, 1970.
Vol. 4. The Great Awakening. Edited by C. C. Goen, 1972.
Vol. 5. Apocalyptic Writings. Edited by Stephen J. Stein, 1977.
Vol. 6. Scientific and Philosophical Writings. Edited by Wallace E. Anderson, 1980.
Vol. 7. The Life of David Brainerd. Edited by Norman Pettit, 1985.
Vol. 8. Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey, 1989.
Vol. 9. A History of the Work of Redemption. Edited by John F. Wilson, 1989.
Vol. 10. Sermons and Discourses, 17201723. Edited by Wilson H. Kimnach, 1992.
Vol. 13. The Miscellanies, Entry nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1500. Edited by Thomas A.
Schafer, 1994.
Vol. 14. Sermons and Discourses, 17231729. Edited by Kenneth P. Minkema, 1997.
Vol. 15. Notes on Scripture. Edited by Stephen J. Stein, 1998.
Vol. 16. Letters and Personal Writings. Edited by George S. Claghorn, 1998.
Vol. 17. Sermons and Discourses, 17301733. Edited by Mark Valeri, 1999.
Vol. 18. The Miscellanies, Entry nos. 501832. Edited by Ava Chamberlain, 2000.
Vol. 19. Sermons and Discourses, 17341738. Edited by M.X. Lesser, 2001.
Vol. 20. The Miscellanies,Entry nos. 8331152. Edited by Amy Plantinga Pauw,
2002.
Vol. 21. Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith. Edited by Sang Hyun Lee, 2003.
Vol. 22. Sermons and Discourses, 17391742. Edited by Harry S. Stout, Nathan O.
Hatch, Kyle P. Farley, 2003.
The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, vols. 2773. Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale
University, 2010. http://edwards.yale.edu/
Unpublished MS sermon of Eccl.9:10 (2) (December, 1733). Quoted with permis-
sion by the courtesy of Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale Divinity School.
b. The Writings of Andrew Fuller

The Armies of the Lamb: The Spirituality of Andrew Fuller. Edited by Michael A. G.
Haykin, Dundas: Joshua Press, 2001.
The Complete Works of the Rev Andrew Fuller: With a Memior of is Life by the Rev.
Andrew Gunton Fuller. 3 vols. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1988.
Vol. 1. Memoirs, Sermons, ETC.
Vol. 2. Controversial Publications.
Vol. 3. Expositions Miscellaneous.
The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation: or the Obligations of Men Fully to Credit,
and Cordially to Approve, Whatever God Makes Known. Where in is Considered the
224 bibliography
Nature of Faith in Christ, and the Duty of Those Where the Gospel Comes in that
Matter. Northampton: T. Dicey, 1785. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. http://
www.galenet.galegroup.com
Recommendatory Preface in Joseph Bellamy, True Religion Delineated: or, Experi-
mental Religion Set in a Scriptural and Rational Light. London: N.p., 1809.
Various Fuller extracts in J.W. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev.
Andrew Fuller. London: Wrightman and Cramp, 1826.
Various Fuller extracts in John Ryland Jr., The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and
the Patience of Hope, Illustrated; in the Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller.
London: Button and Son, 1816, 1818.
The Works of Andrew Fuller. Edited by Michael A.G. Haykin. Edinburgh: The Banner
of Truth, 2007.
c. Manuscripts and Pamphlets

Andrew Fuller Manuscript on Thoughts on the Power of Men to do the Will of
God, approximately dated 17771778, Handwritten Linen Bound Notebook, The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Archives.
Andrew Fuller Letter to John Ryland Jr., March 22, 1783, Typed Fullers Letters, Box
4/5/1, Angus Library, University of Oxford. Transcribed by E.A. Payne.
Andrew Fuller Letter to My Dear Friend [John Ryland Jr?]., Feb, 1815, Typed Fullers
Letters, Box 4/5/2, Angus Library, University of Oxford. Transcribed by E.A. Payne.
Correspondence of John Erskine to John Ryland, June 18, 1785, Letter 16, Special
Collections Division, Edinburgh University Library, University of Edinburgh.
Transcribed by Jonathan Yeager.
Extracts from Religious Intelligence. In Connecticut Evangelical Magazine. vol.2 no.4
(October, 1801).
John Erskine Letter to Andrew Fuller, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library,
Yale University, Isaac Mann Autograph Collection, Box 1, Folders 23.
John Erskine Letter to John Ryland Jr., August 13,1801, July 26, 1802, Beinecke Rare
Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, Isaac Mann Autograph Collection,
Box 1, folders 18. Transcribed by Chris Chun.
John Erskine Letter to John Ryland Jr., Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library,
Yale University, Isaac Mann Autograph Collection, Box 1, folders 49.
John Erskine Letter to John Sutcliff, October 14, 1788. Beinecke Rare Book and
Manuscript Library, Yale University, Isaac Mann Autograph Collection, Box 1, fold-
ers 19. Transcribed by Chris Chun.
John Erskine Letter to Samuel Pearce, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library,
Yale University, Isaac Mann Autograph Collection, Box 1, Folder 40.
Letter, C. Evans to Rev. A. Fuller, November 7, 1787, letter # 35, Fuller Chapel Letters
Vol 2 (3571), Fuller Baptist Church, Kettering, England. Transcribed by Chris
Chun.
Unpublished MS sermon of Jonathan Edwards, Eccl.9:10 (2), December, 1733.
Quoted with permission by the courtesy of Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale Divinity
School.
d. Other Sources Prior to the Twentieth Century

Arminius, James. The Work of James Arminius. Vol. 2. The London Edition. Translated
by James Nichols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986.
Augustine. Anti-Pelagian Writings. Vol. 5. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1.
New York: Christian Literature Crusade, 1887.
bibliography 225
Bellamy, Joseph. Religion Delineated. Boston: Printed and sold by S. Kneeland, 1750.
Eighteenth Century Collection Online.
_____. True Religion Delineated: or, Experimental Religion. London: N.p., 1809.
Booth, Abraham. The Collected Works of Abraham Booth, With Some Account of his
Life and Writings. 3 vols. London: N.p., 1813.
_____. Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Character. In The Works of Abraham Booth.
3 vols. London: Button and Sons, 1813.
_____. Glad tidings to perishing sinners: or, the genuine Gospel a complete warrant for the
ungodly to believe in Jesus. Second edition. London: Cumbersome, 1800.
Brine, John. A refutation of Arminian principles, delivered in a pamphlet, intitled, The
modern question concerning repentance and faith, examined with candour, &c. In a
letter to a friend. London: A. Ward, 1743.
Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. Middlesex: Penguin, 1987.
Button, William. Remarks on a Treatise Entitled The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All
Acceptation. London: N.p., 1785.
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill.
Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Carey, William. An Enquiry into the Obligations for Christian to use Means for the
Conversion of the Heathen. In Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William
Carey, E.3-E.57. Birmingham: New Hope, 1991.
Chambers, Ephraim, ed. Cyclopedia or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Science.
2 vols. London: Printed for James and John Knapton, 1728. http://digital.library
.wisc.edu/1711.dl/HistSciTech.Cyclopaedia02
Dwight, Sereno. Memoirs of Jonathan Edwards. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards.
Vol.1, edited by Edward Hickman. Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1974.
Edwards Jr., Jonathan. The Necessity of the Atonement and the Consistency between
that and free grace in forgiveness: Three Sermons. In The Atonement: Discourses
and Treatises, edited by Edwards Amasa Park. Boston: Congregational Board of
Publication, 1859.
_____. Remarks on the Improvements Made in Theology of His Father, President
Edwards. In The Work of Jonathan Edwards D.D. Late President of Union College
with a Memoir of His Life and Character, by Tryon Edwards, 2 vols. Vol. 1. 486488.
Boston: John P. Jewett & Co.
Fuller, Andrew Gunton. Men Worth Remembering: Andrew Fuller. London: Hadder
and Stoughton, 1882.
Gill, John. Cause of God and Truth. London: N.p., 1855. Eighteenth Century Collection
Online.
_____. The doctrines of Gods everlasting love to his elect and their eternal union with
Christ: together with some other truths, stated and defended. In a letter to Mr.Abraham
Taylor. London: A. Ward; and H. Whitridge, 1732.
Grotius, Hugo. Ordinum Hollandiae AC Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Critical Edition.
Translated and Commentary by Edwin Rabbie. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson
and Sons, 1874.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. Jonathan Edwards. In The Works of Oliver Wendell Homes,
Vol. 8, Pages from an Old Volume of Life: A Collection of Essays, 18571881. Boston:
Mifflin and Company, 1892.
Hopkins, Samuel. The life and character of the late Reverend Mr. Jonathan Edwards,
president of the College at New-Jersey. Boston: Printed and sold by S. Kneeland,
1765.
_____. System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Revelation. Boston: Lincoln & Edmands,
1811.
Kant, Immanuel. What is Enlightenment? (1784) In The Enlightenment: A Sourcebook
and Reader, edited by Paul Hyland. London: Routledge, 2003.
226 bibliography
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clardendon Press,

1894.
_____. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In History of Modern Philosophy,
edited by Robert Cummins and David Owen. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, 1992.
Lowman, Moses. A paraphrase and notes on the Revelation of St. John. London: printed
for John Noon, 1737. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
Luther, Martin. De Servo Arbitrio On the Enslaved Will. Grand Rapids: Christian
Classics Ethereal Library, 2005. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.html
_____. Lectures on Galatians (1535). In Luthers Works. Vol. 26, edited by Jaroslav
Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 1963.
Maurice, Matthias. A modern question modestly answerd. London: James Buckland,
1737.
Mclean, Archibald. The Commission Given by Jesus Christ to his Apostles Illustrated.
Edinburgh: Printed for W. Gray, Paternoster Row, 1786.
Miley, John. Atonement in Christ. New York: Jennings & Graham, 1879.
Morris, J.W. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. London:
Wrightman and Cramp, 1826.
_____. Miscellaneous Pieces: On Various Religious Subjects. London: Parternoster Row,
1826.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Carlisle: Banner of Truth,
2002.
_____. Pneumatologia. In The Works of John Owen, Vol. 3, edited by William H. Goold.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965.
Parkhust, John. A Greek and English lexicon to the New Testament. London: printed for
W. Faden; B. Law; E. and C. Dilly; J. Robson; and F. Newbery, 1769.
_____. An Hebrew and English lexicon, without points. London: printed by and for
W. Faden, 1762.
Rushington, William A Defence of Particular Redemption; Wherein the Doctrine of the
Late Mr. Fuller Relative to the Atonement of Christ, is Tried by the Word of God,
(Liverpool, 1831), http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/fuller
.html (accessed on October 28, 2007).
Ryland Jr., John. The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and the Patience of Hope,
Illustrated; in the Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller. London: Button and
Son, 1816.
_____. The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love and the Patience of Hope Illustrated in the
Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. 2nd ed. London: Button and Son, 1818.
_____. The law not against the promises of God. London: J. Buckland, 1787.
Sandeman, Robert. Letters on Theron and Aspasio. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Sands,
Donaldson, Murray, and Cochran, 1759. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.
Schaff, Philip and Henry B. Smith, eds., The Canons of Synod of Dort. In The Creeds of
the Evangelical Protestant Churches. Vol. 2. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877.
_____, eds., The Westminster Confession of Faith. In The Creeds of the Evangelical
Protestant Churches. Vol. 2. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877.
Sutciff, John. The first principles of the oracles of God, represented in a plain and familiar
catechism, for the use of children. Printed and sold at Ewood Hall, near Halifax. Sold
also by the author, at Olney, and by W. Button, London, [1795?].
Sutcliff, John and Andrew Fuller. Jealousy for the Lord of Hosts: and, The pernicious
influence of delay in religious concerns. Two discourses delivered at a meeting of min-
isters at Clipstone, in Northamptonshire, April 27, 1791. London: sold by Vernor;
Ash; Matthews; Button; Gardiner; and by Smith, at Sheffield, [1791]. Eighteenth
Century Collections Online.
Taylor, Dan. Observations on the Rev Andrew Fullers Late pamphlet Entitled The Gospel
of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation. St Ives: Cambridge shire, 1786.
bibliography 227
Warfield, B.B. Edwards and the New England Theology. In The Works of Benjamin
B Warfield. Vol.9. 515538. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.
Wellwood, Sir Henry Moncreiff. Account of the Life and Writings of John Erskine, D.D.,
Late One of the Ministers of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable and
Company, 1818.
Wesley, John. Free Grace. In Sermons on Several Occasions, 482490. New York:
Carlton & Lanahan, 186-?.
_____. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., edited by John Telford. London: The
Epworth Press, 1931.
II. Secondary Sources
a. Monograph, Books and Booklets

Armstrong, Brian G. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy. Madison, Milwaukee, and
London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
Bebbington, D.W., ed. The Baptist in Scotland: A History. Glasgow: The Baptist Union
of Scotland, 1988.
_____. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. London:
Unwin Hyman, 1989.
_____, ed. The Gospel in the World: International Baptist Studies. Vol. 1, Studies in
Baptist History and Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Brown, Raymond. The English Baptists of the Eighteenth Century. Vol. 2, A History of
the English Baptist. London: The Baptist Historical Society, 1986.
Brown, Stuart, ed. British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment. Vol. 5, Routledge
History of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1996.
Brewster, Paul. Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian. Studies in Baptist Life Thought.
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Campbell, John McLeod. The Nature of the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Handsel Press.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Chai, Leon. Jonathan Edwards and the Limits of Enlightenment Philosophy. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cherry, Conrad. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards: A Reappraisal. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1990.
Chevreau, Guy. Catch the Fire: The Toronto BlessingAn Experience of Renewal and
Revival. Toronto: HarperCollins, 1995.
Clifford, Alan C. Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 16401790:
an Evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Coppege, Allan. John Wesley in Theological Debate. Wilmore: Wesley Heritage Press,
1987.
Crisp, Oliver D. Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2005.
Davies, Ronald E. Jonathan Edwards and His Influence on the Development of the
Missionary Movement from Britain. Cambridge: Currents in World Christianity
Project, 1996.
Delattre, Roland A. Beauty and Sensibility in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards:
An Essay in Aesthetics and Theological Ethic. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1968.
Ella, George. Law and Gospel: in the Theology of Andrew Fuller. Eggleston: Go
Publication, 1996.
228 bibliography
Erdt, Terrence. Jonathan Edwards: Art and the Sense of the Heart. Amherst: University
of Massachusetts Press, 1980.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1998.
Escott, Harry. A History of Scottish Congregationalism. Glasgow: Congregational
Union of Scotland, 1960.
Farley, Edward. Faith and Beauty: a Theological Aesthetic. Burlington: Ashgate Pub-
lishing Co., 2001.
Ferguson, S.B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987.
Fiering, Norman. Jonathan Edwardss Moral Thought and Its British Context.
Williamsburg: University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
Foster, Frank Hugh. A Genetic History of New England Theology. Chicago: University
Chicago Press, 1907.
Franks, Robert. The Work of Christ, A Historical Study of Christian Doctrine. London:
Thomas Nelson, 1962.
Gay, Peter. A Loss of Mastery: Puritan Historians in Colonial America. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1966.
Gellinek, Christian. Hugo Grotius. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983.
George, Timothy. Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey. Birmingham:
New Hope, 1991.
George, Timothy and D.S. Dockery, eds. Baptist Theologians. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Press, 1990.
Gerstner, John H. Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria,
1999.
_____. The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. 3 vols. Orlando: Ligonier,
1991.
Grensted, L.W. A Short History of The Doctrine of The Atonement. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1920.
Guelzo, Allen C. Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate.
Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989.
Gunton, Colin E. The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality and the
Christian Tradition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
Haggund, Bengt. History of Theology. Translated by Gene J. Lund. St Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1968.
Haroutunian, Joseph. Piety versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1932.
Haykin, Michael A.G. Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival. Webster:
Evangelical Press, 2005.
_____. One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his Friends and his Times.
Durham: Evangelical Press, 1994.
_____, ed. At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist. Vol. 6,
Studies in Baptist History and Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004.
Helm, Paul. John Calvins Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Holmes, Stephen R. God of Grace and God of Glory: An Account of the Theology of
Jonathan Edwards. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
_____. The Wondrous Cross: Atonement and Penal Substitution in the Bible and History.
London: Paternoster Press, 2007.
Jenson, Robert W. Americas Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
_____. Systematic Theology. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Jinkins, Michael. A Comparative Study in the Theology of Atonement in Jonathan
Edwards and John McLeod Campbell: Atonement and the Character of God. San
Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993.
Kuklick, Bruce. Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
bibliography 229
Laws, Gilbert. Andrew Fuller: Pastor, Theologians, Ropeholder. London: Kingsgate

Press, 1942.
Lee, Sang Hyun. The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1988.
Leith, John. John Calvins Doctrine of the Christian Life. Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1989.
Lesser, M.X. Jonathan Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography, 19791993. Westport:
Greenwood, 1994.
_____. Jonathan Edwards: A Reference Guide. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1981.
Lim, Paul C.H. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxters Puritan
Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press,
1979.
MacArthur, John. Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern. Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 1994.
Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003.
Mauldin, A. Chadwick. Fullerism as Opposed to Calvinism: A Historical and Theological
Comparison of the Missiology of Andrew Fuller and John Calvin. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2011.
McClymond, Michael J. Encounters with God: An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan
Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDermott, Gerald R. Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology,
Enlightenment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
_____. One Holy and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian
Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
McIntosh, John R. Church And Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Popular Party,
17401800. East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1988.
Miller, Perry. Jonathan Edwards. New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949.
Mitchell, Louis. Jonathan Edwards on the Experience of Beauty. Vol. 9, Studies in
Reformed Theology and History. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2003.
Morden, Peter J. Offering Christ to the World: Andrew Fuller (17541815) and the
Revival of English Particular Baptist Life. Vol. 8, Studies in Baptist History and
Thought. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003.
Morgan, Chris. Jonathan Edwards and Hell. Glasgow: Mentor imprint, 2004.
Morimoto, Anri. Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
Murray, Iain H. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography. Carlisle: Banner of Truth,
1987.
_____. Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism
17501858. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994.
Murray, John. The Imputation of Adams Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1959.
Nichols, Stephen J. An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of
Jonathan Edwards. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co., 2003.
Nichols, William C., ed. Seeking God: Jonathan Edwardss Evangelism Contrasted with
Modern Methodologies. Ames: International Outreach, 2001.
Noll, Mark A. Americas God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford:
Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. London: SPCK, 1953.
Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1989.
230 bibliography
Outka, Gene. An Ethical Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.
Parker, T.H.L. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1950.
Pauw, Amy Plantinga. The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of
Jonathan Edwards. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
Piper, John. Desiring God: Mediations of a Christian Hedonist. Sister: Multnomah
Press, 1996.
_____. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 2007.
_____. Gods Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards. Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 1998.
_____. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Rinaldi, Frank. The Tribe of Dan: A Study of the New Connexion of General Baptists,
17701891. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2008.
Rudisill, Dorus Paul. The Doctrine of the Atonement in Jonathan Edwards and His
Successors. New York: Poseidon Books, 1971.
Shaw, Ian J. High Calvinists in Action: Calvinism and the City, Manchester and London,
18101860. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Simonson, Harold P. Jonathan Edwards: Theologian of the Heart. Grand Rapids:
Sproul, R.C. Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1997.
Stout, Harry. The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern
Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Strom, Sam. Tragedy in Garden: Original Sin the Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Strong, A.H. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Griffith & Roland, 1907.
Sweeney, Douglas A. Nathaniel Taylor, New Haven Theology, and the Legacy of Jonathan
Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Sweeney, Douglas A. and Allen C. Guelzo. The New England Theology: From Jonathan
Edwards to Edwards Amasa Park. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Talbot, Brian R. The Search for a Common Identity: The Origins of the Baptist Union of
Scotland 18001870. Vol. 9, Studies in Baptist History and Thought. Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 2003.
Toon, Peter. The Emergence of Hyper Calvinism in English Nonconformity 16891765.
London: Olive Tree, 1967.
Torrance, T.F. Karl Barth, Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1990.
Trueman, Carl R. Claims of Truth: John Owens Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle: Authentic
Media, 2002.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1976.
Walls, Andrew F. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the
Transmission of Faith. New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
Yeager, Jonathan. Enlightened Evangelicalism: The Life and Thought of John Erskine.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
b. Journal Articles, Encyclopedia, Chapters in Collected Works

Anderson, Wallace E. Editors Introduction. In Scientific and Philosophical Writings,
Vol. 6, The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.
Bebbington, D.W. Remembered Around the World: The International Scope of
Edwardss Legacy. In Jonathan Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Memo-
ries,Cultural Movements, Global Horizons, edited by D.W. Kling and D.A. Sweeney,
177200. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.
bibliography 231
Beverley, James A. Torontos Mixed Blessing. Christianity Today 39, no. 10 (September
11,1995): 2227.
Bierma, L.D. Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century: Two Traditions?
Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 304321.
Bombaro, John. Jonathan Edwardss Vision of Salvation. Westminster Theological
Journal 65 (2003): 4567.
Breitenbach, William. Piety and Moralism: Edwards and the New Divinity. In
Jonathan and the American Experience, 177204. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988.
Brown, Robert E. Edwards, Locke, and the Bible. The Journal of Religion 79 (1999):
3684.
Chun, Chris. A Mainspring of Missionary Thought: Andrew Fuller on Natural and
Moral Inability. American Baptist Quarterly 25, no. 4 (Winter, 2006): 335355.
_____. Alternative Viewpoint: Jonathan Edwardss Life and Career. In Understand-
ing Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to Americas Theologian, edited by Gerald
R. McDermott, 2936. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
_____. Sense of the Heart: Jonathan Edwardss Legacy in the Writing of Andrew Fuller.
Eusebeia: The Bulletin of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, 9 (Spring,
2008): 117134.
_____. The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards: Eighteenth Century Catalysts for the Revivals
among Presbyterians and Baptists in Scotland. In Jonathan Edwards in Scotland,
edited by Kenneth Minkema, Adriaan Neele, and Kelly Van Andel, 6374.
Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 2011.
Claghorn, George S. Editors Introduction. In Letters and Personal Writings, Vol.16,
The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Clipsham, E.F. Andrew Fuller and the Baptist Missions. Foundations 10, no. 1
(January 1967): 196208.
_____. Andrew Fuller and Fullerism: A Study in Evangelical Calvinism. Baptist
Quarterly 20, no. 14 (1967); 1. The Development of a Doctrine. 99114; 2. Fuller
and John Calvin. 14754; 3. The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. 21525; 4.
Fuller as a Theologian. 26976.
Conforti, Joseph A. David Brainerd and the Nineteenth-Century Missionary
Movement. Journal of the Early Republic 5 (Fall 1985): 309329.
_____. Jonathan Edwardss Most Popular Work: The Life of David Brainerd
and Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Culture. Church History 54 (June 1985):
188201.
Cooper, Thompson and D.B. Murray. McLean, Archibald (17331812). In Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004. www.oxforddnb
.com/view/article/17648, (accessed on November 10, 2006).
Copan, Paul. Jonathan Edwardss Philosophical Influences: Lockean or
Malebranchean? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 1 (March
2001): 107124.
Craig, Philip A. And the Prophecy Shall Cease Jonathan Edwards on the Cessation of
the Gift of Prophecy. Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002).
Daniel, Curt. Andrew Fuller and Antinomianism. In At the Pure Fountain of Thy
Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist History and Thought,
edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 7482. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004.
Davies, Ronald E. Jonathan Edwards: Missionary Biographer, Theologians, Strategist,
Administrator, Advocate-and Missionary. International Bulletin of Missionary
Research 21, no. 2 (April 1997): 6067.
Demarest, B.A. Amyraldianism. In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by
Walter E. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Dickinson, H. T. St John, Henry, styled first Viscount Bolingbroke (16781751).
In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004.
www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/24496 (accessed on November 10, 2006).
232 bibliography
Ella, George M. The Atonement in Evangelical Thought: Part IV. http://www

.evangelica.de/The_Atonement_IV.htm (accessed on October 29, 2005).
_____. A Gospel Unworthy of Any Acceptation. http://www.evangelica.de/An
_Unworthy_Gospel.htm (accessed on October 29, 2005).
_____. John Gill and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism. Baptist Quarterly 36, no. 4
(October 1995): 166177.
_____. John Gill and his Successors. http://grace-for-today.com/559.htm (accessed
on March 17, 2006).
Elwyn, Thornton. Particular Baptist of the Northamptonshire Baptist Association as
Reflected in the Circular Letters, 17651820. Baptist Quarterly Part 1, 36, no. 8
(October 1996): 386381; Part 2, 37, no.1 (January 1997): 319.
Eversley, Walter. The Pastor as Revivalist. In Edwards in Our Time: Jonathan Edwards
and the Shaping of American Religion, edited by Sang Hyun Lee and Allen Guelzo,
113130. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Fiering, Norman. Will and Intellect in the New England Mind. William and Mary
Quarterly 3rd ser., 29 (October 1972): 515558.
Frame, John. Review of Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy by Brian G. Armstrong.
Westminster Theological Journal 34, no. 2 (May 1972): 186192.
Frye, Roland M. Calvins Theological Use of Figurative Language In John Calvin and
the Church: A Prism of Reform, edited by Timothy George, 172194. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1990
Guelzo, Allen C. The Return of the Will: Jonathan Edwards and the Possibilities of
Free Will. In Edwards in Our Time: Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American
Religion, edited by Sang Hyun Lee and Allen Guelzo, 87110. Grand Rapids:
_____. Sproul on the Will. Christianity Today 42 (March 2, 1998): 5961.
Hayden, Roger. Evans, Caleb (17371791). In Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/
view/article/40192 (accessed on June 18, 2007).
Haykin, Michael A.G. Andrew Fuller [17541815] and the Free Offer of the Gospel.
Reformation Today 183 (September-October 2001): 2932.
_____. Andrew Fuller Project. http://haykin.luxpub.com/index.php?option=com
_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=47 (accessed on October 29, 2005).
_____. Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanian Controversy. In At the Pure Fountain
of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist History and
Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 223236. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004.
_____. Editor Introduction. In The Armies of the Lamb: The Spirituality of Andrew
Fuller. Dundas: Joshua Press, 2001.
_____. Eighteenth-Century Baptists and the Political Realm, with Particular Reference
to the Thought of Andrew Fuller. In Recycling the Past or Researching History?, Vol.
8, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, edited by Philip E. Thompson and
Anthony R. Cross, 264278. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2005.
_____. A Habitation of God, Through The Spirit: John Sutcliff (17521814) and the
Revitalization of the Calvinistic Baptists in the Late Eighteenth Century. Baptist
Quarterly 34, no. 7 (July 1992): 30419.
_____. The Oracles of God: Andrew Fullers Response to Deism. In At the Pure
Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist
History and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 122138. Carlisle: Paternoster
Press, 2004.
_____. Particular Redemption in the Writings of Andrew Fuller. In The Gospel in the
World, Vol. 1, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, edited by D.W. Bebbington,
_____. Sutcliff s friends: Andrew Fuller. In One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of
Olney, his Friends and his Times, 133152. Durham: Evangelical Press, 1994.
bibliography 233
Helm, Paul. A Forensic Dilemma: John Locke and Jonathan Edwards on Personal
Identity. In Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, edited by Paul Helm and
Oliver D. Crisp, 4559. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
_____. The Great Christian Doctrine (Original Sin). In God Entranced Vision of All
Things: The Legacy of Jonathan, edited by John Piper, and Justin Taylor, 175200.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
_____. The Logic of Limited Atonement. Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 3
(1985): 4754.
Hindmarsh, D. Bruce. The Reception of Jonathan Edwards by Early Evangelicals in
England. In Jonathan Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Memories, Cultural
Movements, Global Horizons, edited by D.W. Kling and D.A. Sweeney, 201221.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Holbrook, Clyde A. Editors Introduction. In Original Sin, Vol. 3, The Works of
Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.
Holmes, Stephen R. Can Punishment Bring peace? Penal Substitution Revisited.
Scottish Journal of Theology 58, no. 1 (2005): 10423.
_____. Does Edwards Use a Dispositional Ontology? In Jonathan Edwards:
Philosophical Theologian, edited by Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 99114.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
_____. Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. In The Devoted Life, edited by Kelly
M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason, 285297. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press,
2004.
_____. Strange Voices: Edwards on the Will. In Listening to the Past: The Place of
Tradition in Theology, 86107. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Howson, Barry. Andrew Fuller and Universalism. In At the Pure Fountain of
Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist History
and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 174202. Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
2004.
Kimnach, Wilson H. Jonathan Edwards and Literature. In Understanding Jonathan
Edwards: Introducing Americas Theologian, edited by Gerald R. McDermott. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, Forthcoming in Fall 2008.
Kirby, A.H. Andrew Fuller, Evangelical Calvinist. Baptist Quarterly 15, no. 5 (January
1954): 195202.
Kuklick, Bruce. Jonathan Edwards and American Philosophy. In Jonathan Edwards
and the American Experience, edited by Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout,
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. Jonathan Edwards on Hell. In Jonathan Edwards Philosophical
Theologian, edited by Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 111. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
Lang, Amy Schrager. A Flood of Error: Chauncy and Edwards in the
Great Awakening. In Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, edited by
Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, 160173. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988.
Lesser, M.X. An Honor Too Great: Jonathan Edwards in Print Abroad. In Jonathan
Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Memories, Cultural Movements, Global
Horizons, edited by D.W. Kling and D.A. Sweeney, 297319. Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Lucas, Sean Michael. He Cuts up Edwardsism By the Roots Robert Lewis Dabneyand
the Edwardsian Legacy in the Nineteenth-Century South. In The Legacy of Jonathan
Edwards: American Religion and the Evangelical Tradition, edited by D.G. Heart,
Sean Michel Lucas and Stephen J. Nichols, 200214. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003.
Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Sandemanianism. In The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors:
Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and Westminster Conference, 19591978, 170
190. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996.
234 bibliography
_____. Jonathan Edwards and the Crucial Importance of Revival. In The Puritans:
Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and Westminster
Conference, 19591978, 348371. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996.
Marsden, George M. Reformed and American. In Reformed Theology in America:
A History of its Modern Development, edited by David F. Wells, 114. Grand Rapids:
McCann, Hugh J. Edwards on Free Will. In Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical
Theologian, edited by Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 2743. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2003.
McGowan, Andrew T.B. Amyraldianism. In The Dictionary of Historical Theology,
edited by Trevor A. Hart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
Miles, Lyon. The Red Man Dispossessed: The Williams Family and the Alienation of
Indian Land in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, 17361818. New England Quarterly 67
(March 1994): 4676.
Miller, Perry. Jonathan Edwards on the Sense of the Heart, Harvard Theological
Review 41 (1948): 123145.
_____. as quoted in The Sense of the Heart Time Magazine (Monday, Dec. 26, 1949)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8011972,00.html (accessed on
July 4, 2007)
Milner, J. Andrew Fuller. Reformation Today 17 (January-February 1974): 1829.
Minkema, Kenneth P. Jonathan Edwards in the Twentieth Century. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 4 (December 2004): 659687.
Mitchell, Christopher W. Jonathan Edwards Scottish Connection. In Jonathan
Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Memories, Cultural Movements, Global
Horizons, edited by D.W. Kling and D.A. Sweeney, 222247. Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Morden, Peter. Andrew Fuller and the Baptist Mission Society. Baptist Quarterly 41,
no. 3 (2005): 134157.
Murray, D.B. Archibald Mclean. In Dictionary of Scottish Church History and
Theology, edited by Negel M. de S. Cameron, 528. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
_____. John Glas. In Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, edited by
Negel M. de S. Cameron, 304. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
_____. Robert Sandeman. In Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology,
edited by Negel M. de S. Cameron, 744. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
_____. The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. In Baptists in Scotland: A History,
edited by D.W. Bebbington. Glasgow: The Baptist Union of Scotland, 1988.
Murray, Iain. Iain Murray on Whitefield and Wesley. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/
wesley/murray.htm (accessed on February 27, 2006).
Naylor, Peter. Andrew Fuller. In Calvinism, Communion and the Baptists: A Study of
English Calvinistic Baptists from the Late 1600s to the Early 1800s, Vol. 7, Studies in
Baptist History and Thought, 205217. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003.
Nettles, Thomas. Andrew Fuller and Free Grace. Reformation Today 17 (January
1985): 614.
_____. Christianity Pure and Simple: Andrew Fullers Contest with Socinianism. In
At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in
Baptist History and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 139173. Carlisle:
_____. Edwards and His Impact on Baptists. Founders Journal (Summer 2003): 118.
_____. On the Road Again. In By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological
and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life, 108130. Grand Rapides:
Baker, 1986.
_____. Preface. In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: With a Memior of is
Life by the Rev. Andrew Gunton Fuller, Vol. 1. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications,
1988.
bibliography 235
_____. Why Andrew Fuller. Reformation Today 17 (January 1985): 36.

Nicole, Roger R. Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 38, no. 3 (September 1995): 403412.
Noll, Mark A. Jonathan Edwardss Freedom of the Will Abroad. In Jonathan Edwards
at 300: Essays on the Tercentenary of His Birth, edited by Harry Stout, Kenneth
Minkema, Caleb Maskell, 89108. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005.
_____. Jonathan Edwards and Nineteenth-Century Theology. In Jonathan Edwards
and the American Experience, edited by Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout,
OBrien, Susan. A Transatlantic Community of Saints: The Great Awakening and the
First Evangelical Network, 17351755. America Historical Review 91 (1986):
811832.
Oliphint, K. Scott. Jonathan Edwards on Apologetics Reason and the Noetic Effects of
Sin. In The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards: American Religion and the Evangelical
Tradition, edited by D.G. Hart, Sean Michael Lucas and Stephen J. Nichols, 131
146. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Oliver, Robert. Andrew Fuller and Abraham Booth. In At the Pure Fountain
of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist History
and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 203222. Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
2004.
_____. Remembering Abraham Booth (17341806). In The Work of Abraham Booth:
Confession of Faith and Sermons, Vol. 1, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 124.
Springfield: Particular Baptist Press, 2006.
Outler, Albert C. Editors Introduction. In Sermons, Vol. 1, The Works of John Wesley.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984.
Packer, J.I. Introduction. In Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor. Edinburgh Banner
of Truth, 1997.
_____. What Did the Cross Achieve?: the Logic of Penal Substitution. Tyndale Bulletin
25 (1974): 345.
Payne, E.A. Andrew Fuller as Letter Writer. Baptist Quarterly 15, no. 7 (July 1954):
290296.
Pettit, Norman. Editors Introduction. In The Life of David Brainerd, Vol. 7, The
Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
_____. Prelude to Mission: Brainerds Expulsion from Yale. New England Quarterly 59
(March 1986): 2850.
Piggin, Stuart. The Expanding Knowledge of God: Jonathan Edwards Influence
on Missionary Thinking and Promotion. In Jonathan Edwards at Home and
Abroad: Historical Memories, Cultural Movements, Global Horizons, edited by
D.W. Kling and D.A. Sweeney, 266296. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 2003.
Piper, John. Holy Faith, Worthy Gospel, World Vision: Andrew Fullers Broadsides
Against Sandemanianism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Global Unbelief. Desiring God
2007 Conference for Pastors. www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/EventMessages/
ByDate/1977_Holy_Faith_Worthy_Gospel_World_Vision/ (accessed on February 7,
2007).
_____. James D. Strauss Critique of Jonathan Edwards Freedom of the Will,
(November 1, 1976). www.desiringgod.org (accessed on July 20, 2007).
Priest, Gerald L. Andrew Fuller, Hyper-Calvinism, and the Modern Question. In At
the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, Vol. 6, Studies in
Baptist History and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin, 4373. Carlisle:
_____. Andrew Fullers Response to the Modern QuestionA Reappraisal of the
Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 6 (Fall 2001):
4573.
236 bibliography
_____. Fuller on the Atonement. The Elephant of Kettering, The official Andrew Fuller
scholars blog under the auspices of the Andrew Fuller Centre for Reformed
Spirituality. http://andrewfuller.blogspot.com/search?q=atonement (Posted on
Friday, January 5, 2007).
Proudfoot, Wayne. From the Theology to a Science of Religions: Jonathan Edwards
and William James on Religious Affections. Harvard Theological Review 82, no. 2
(1989): 149168.
Rabbie, Edwin. General Introduction. In Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae AC
Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). New York: Brill, 1995.
Ramsey, Paul. Editors Introduction. In Freedom of the Will, Vol. 1, The Works of
Roberts, Phil. Andrew Fuller. In Baptist Theologians, edited by Timothy George and
David S. Dockery, 121139. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990.
Ruston, Alan. Lowman, Moses. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford
University Press, 2004. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17097 (accessed on
April 11, 2007).
Schafer, Thomas A. Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith. Church History 20,
no. 4 (December 1951): 5567.
Sell, Alan P.F. Andrew Fuller and the Socinians. In Testimony and Tradition: Studies
in Reformed and Dissenting Thought, 119137. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
_____. The Gospel its own Witness: Deism, Thomas Paine and Andrew Fuller. In
Enlightenment, Ecumenism, Evangel, Studies in Christian History and Thought, 111
143. Bletchley: Paternoster Press, 2005.
Sheehan, Clint. Great and Sovereign Grace: Fullers Defence of the Gospel against
Arminianism. In At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist,
Vol. 6, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, edited by Michael A.G. Haykin,
Smith, John E. Editors Introduction. In Religious Affections, Vol. 2, The Works of
_____. Testing the Spirits: Jonathan Edwards and the Religious Affections. Union
Seminary Quarterly Review 37, no. 1/2 (1981): 2737.
Stein, Stephen J. Editors Introduction. In Apocalyptic Writings, Vol. 5, The Works of
_____. Foreword. In Conrad Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards: A
Reappraisal. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Storms, Sam. The Will: Fettered Yet Free: Freedom of Will. In A God-Entranced
Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards, edited by John Piper and
Justin Taylor, 201220. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
Strauss, James. Jonathan Edwards: A Puritan in a Post-Puritan World. In
Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Press,
1975.
Svetlikova, Anna. Alternative Viewpoint: The Literary Life In Understanding
Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to Americas Theologian, edited by Gerald
R. McDermott, 145149. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Sweeney, Douglas. Edwards and his Mantle: The Historiography of the New England
Theology. The New England Quarterly 17, no. 1 (March 1998): 97119.
Thompson, John Handby. Taylor, Abraham (fl. 17261740). In Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. http://www.oxforddnb.com/
view/article/27016 (accessed on July 4, 2007).
Trueman, Carl R. John Owen as a Theologian. In John Owen: The Man and His
Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson, Graham S. Harrsion, Michael A. G.
Haykin, Robert W. Oliver, and Carl R. Trueman, 4168. Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing, 2002.
bibliography 237
Wainwright, William J. Jonathan Edwards and the Doctrine of Hell. In Jonathan

Edwards Philosophical Theologian, edited by Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 1326.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
Walls, Andrew F. Missions and Historical Memory: Jonathan Edwards and David
Brainerd. In Jonathan Edwards at Home and Abroad: Historical Cultural Movements,
Global Horizons, edited by David W. Kling and Douglas A. Sweeney, 248265.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Webb, R.K. The emergence of Rational Dissent. In Enlightenment and Religion:
Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain, edited by Knud Haakonssen, 1241.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Weber, Donald. The Recovery of Jonathan Edwards. In Jonathan Edwards and
American Experience, edited by Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, 5070. Oxford:
Westby-Gibson, John and E.F. Clipsham. Booth, Abraham (17341806). In Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography Oxford University Press, 2004. http://www
.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2871 (accessed on October 21, 2007).
Westra, Helen. Divinitys Design: Edwards and the History of the Work of Revival.
In Edwards in Our Time: Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American Religion,
edited by Sang Hyun Lee and Allen Guelzo, 131157. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1999.
Wheeler, Rachel. Friends to Your Souls: Jonathan Edwardss Indian Pastorate and the
Doctrine of Original Sin. Church History 72 (December 2003): 73665.
Whitefield, George. Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley
(1740). http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm (accessed on February 27,
2006).
Winter, R.D. Four Men, Three Eras, Two Transitions: Modern Missions. In Perspec-
tives: on the World Christian Movement, edited by S.C. Hawthorne and R.D. Winter,
3rd ed. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1999.
Yeagar, Jonathan. Puritan or Enlightened?: John Erskine and the Transition of
Scottish Evangelical Theology, Evangelical Quarterly 80 no. 3 (2008): 237253.
Young D.L. Andrew Fuller and the Modern Missionary Movement. Baptist History
and Heritage 17, no. 4 (1982): 1727.
c. Unpublished Theses, Dissertations, Papers

Ascol, Tom. The Doctrine of Grace: A Critical Analysis of Federalism in the Theol-
ogies of John Gill and Andrew Fuller. Ph.D. thesis. Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1989.
Box, Bart. Atonement in the Thought of Andrew Fuller. Ph.D. thesis. New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009.
Brewster, Paul. Andrew Fuller (17541815): Model Baptist Pastor-Theologian.
Ph.D. thesis. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.
Chun, Chris. The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Conception of Sense of Heart in
Jonathan Edwards Treaties Concerning the Religious Affections. Th.M. thesis.
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2004.
Clipsham, E.F. Andrew Fullers Doctrine of Salvation. Incomplete B.D. thesis. Oxford
University.
Crisp, Oliver. Penal Non-Substitution. Delivered at the Theology Seminar. University
of St. Andrews on March 14, 2007.
Hayden, Roger. Evangelical Calvinism Among Eighteenth Century Particular Baptists
with Particular Reference to Bernard Foskett, Hugh and Caleb Evans and the Bristol
Baptist Academy 16901791. Ph.D. thesis. Keele University, 1991.
238 bibliography
Kirby, A.H. The Theology of Andrew Fuller in its Relation to Calvinism. Ph.D. thesis.
Edinburgh University, 1956.
Minkema, Kenneth. Jonathan Edwardss Life and Career. Jonathan Edwards in
Europe Conference, sponsored by Yale University. Delivered at the Karoli Gaspar
University, Budapest, Hungary on May 8, 2007.
Mitchell, Christopher W. Jonathan Edwardss Scottish Connection and the
Eighteenth-Century Scottish Evangelical Revival, 17351750, Ph.D. thesis.
University of St. Andrews, 1997.
Nichole, Roger. Moyse Amyraut (15961664) and the Controversy on Universal
Grace, First Phase (16341637). Ph.D. thesis. Harvard University, 1966.
Oliver, Robert. The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community Among
the English Calvinistic Baptist, 17701850. D.Phil. thesis. CNAA, London Bible
College, 1986.
South, Thomas. The Response of Andrew Fuller to the Sandemanian View of Saving
Faith. Th.D. thesis. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993.
Young, D.L. The Place of Andrew Fuller in the Developing Modern Missions
Movement. Ph.D. thesis. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1981.
INDEX OF NAMES
Amyraut, Moise 44, 17779 Elliot, John 63

Arius 15, 74 Elwyn, Thornton 70
Arminius, James 10, 1516, 179 Erasmus, Desiderius 10
Augustine 10 Erdt, Terrance 3, 86
Erskine, John 42, 6669, 131, 160, 168,
Baxter, Richard 103, 178 184, 210
Bebbington, David xix, 8, 35 Evans, Caleb 4245, 134, 212
Bellamy, Joseph 38, 69, 15154, 16061, Eve, John 3738, 51
168, 212 Eversley, Walter 86
Bellarmine, Robert 44
Berkeley, George 86 Farley, Edward 9394
Bolingbroke, Viscount 136 Foster, Frank 146, 150, 18586, 188
Booth, Abraham 14244, 146, 160, Fuller, Andrew Gunton 3940, 42, 44
166, 17374, 17879, 184, 190, 193,
19697, 204, 2068, 211 Gay, Peter 3, 87, 92
Brainerd, David 11, 38, 63, 82, 153, George, Timothy 33, 78
21011 Gerstner, John 21, 86, 9092, 14950,
Brewster, Paul xix, 8, 154 16869, 186, 188
Brine, John 33, 3637, 51 Gill, John 33, 3637, 79, 174
Bultmann, Rudolph 207 Glas, John 11013
Bunyan, John 63 Grensted, L.W. 2056
Button, William 3334, 134 Grotius, Hugo 14850, 172
Guelzo, Allen 3, 62, 147, 156
Calvin, John 63, 71, 86, 99, 208 Gunton, Colin 2068
Cameron, John 44
Carey, William xv, 3435, 38, 60, 6364, Hall Sr., Robert 38, 43, 134, 142
70, 8182, 86, 144, 209 Hayden, Roger 4345
Chai, Leon 88, 91 Haykin, Michael xix, 67, 35, 52, 55, 69,
Chamberlain, Ava 148 85, 145, 177
Chambers, Ephraim 94, 115, 12324 Hickman, Edward 2
Chauncy, Charles 85, 161 Hindmarsh, Bruce 34
Cherry, Conrad 86, 149, 2012 Hodge, Charles 71, 146, 162, 170, 188,
Claghorn, George 105 212
Clipsham, E.F. 7, 47, 132, 142, 167, Holbrook, Clyde 106, 188
18384 Holmes, Stephen xix, 19, 48, 105, 150,
Comte, Auguste 134 175
Constantine 7375 Hopkins, Samuel 142, 144, 15561, 190,
Crisp, Oliver xix, 35, 151, 157 193, 204, 212
Crisp, Tobias 36, 144, 174
Jenson, Robert 3, 55, 89, 92, 157
Delattre, Roland 3, 93
Dwight, Sereno 67, 78 Kant, Immanuel 12, 86
Dwight, Timothy 164 Knox, John 63
Kuklick, Bruce 87, 147
Edwards, Jonathan, Jr. 15973, 184, 212
Edwards, Sarah 168 Latimer, Hugh 63
Ella, George 55, 14445, 161, 17273, Lee, Sang Hyun 9092, 104
18081 Lim, Paul xix, 178
240 index of names
Lesser, M. X. 67, 216 Priest, Gerald 35, 145

Lloyd-Jones, Martyn 114, 133 Prince, Thomas 68, 76
Locke, John 1718, 8692, 99100, 122 Proudfoot, Wayne 87, 9091
Lovelace, Richard 4
Lowman, Moses 7276, 212 Ramsey, Paul 44, 48
Luther, Martin 10, 63, 197, 205, 208 Rudisill, Dorus 147, 16364, 167, 176
Ruston, Alan 72
MacLaurin, John 66, 68 Ryland, John, Jr. 3839, 43, 53, 69, 142,
Marsden, George 11, 77, 80, 92, 100 144, 157, 184, 196, 210
Martin, John 33, 154 Ryland, John, Sr. 34
Maurice, Matthias 36
McCann, Hugh 21 Sandeman, Robert 85, 11113, 199
McClymond, Michael 92, 97, 99, 122 Schafer, Thomas 168, 187
McCulloch, William 68 Shakespeare, William 94
McDermott, Gerald xix, 3, 102, 136, 171 Sheehan, Clint 48, 127, 129
Mclean, Archibald 11221, 12428, 131, Smalley, John 16061
141, 211 Smith, John E. 2, 87, 131
Mclean, Isabella 112 South, Thomas 111, 113
Miller, Perry 2, 43, 8687, 90, 92 Spurgeon, Charles xv, 6
Minkema, Kenneth xix, 2, 14 Stein, Stephen 69, 71, 75
Mitchell, Christopher 67 Stout, Harry 2
Moore, William 112 Sutcliff, John 3839, 43, 70, 7879, 142,
Morden, Peter xix, 7, 9, 3940, 60, 127, 210
129, 165, 16768 Sweeney, Douglas xix, 44, 140, 14748,
Morimoto, Anri 190, 192 16162
Morris, J.W. 159, 165
Murray, D.B. 112 Talbot, Brian 113
Murray, Iain 7071, 86, 105, 149 Taylor, Abraham 3637
Murray, John 161, 188 Taylor, Dan 3334, 45, 48, 51, 57
Taylor, Nathaniel 145
Nettles, Tom xix, 132, 145, 161, 173 Tennent, Gilbert 63
Newton, John 79 Torrance, T.F. 166
Nichols, Stephen 90 Trueman, Carl 174
Noll, Mark 148, 164
Volney 136
OBrien, Susan 84
Oliver, Robert 155, 167, 179 Walls, Andrew 4, 35, 71, 82
Onesimus 191 Warfield, B.B. 146, 188
Owen, John 115, 12631, 174, 205, 208, Weber, Donald 2
212 Wesley, John 11, 125
West, Stephen 16061
Packer, J.I. 178, 208 Westby-Gibson, John 142
Park, Edward Amasa 146, 170 Whitefield, George 11, 63, 85
Parkhust, John 12829 Winter, Ralph 35
Pauw, Amy Plantinga 166
Pelagius 10 Yeager, Jonathan xix, 6768
Piper, John xix, 3, 102, 129, 136, 199 Young, Doyle 60
INDEX OF TERMS
Age of Reason. See Enlightenment Enquiry (Carey) 3435, 60, 63

Albigenses 77, 80 Epistemology 1, 8990, 9293, 96,
Amyraldianism 17879 100101, 104, 11415, 117, 12026,
Anachronism 198 13132, 21112
Anselmian 149 Eschatology 1, 7181, 210. See also
Antichrist 77, 79, 81 Revelation, Book of
Antinomianism 13233, 138, 142, 157 Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Amyraldianism. See Hypothetical (Locke) 17, 8890
universalism Exposition of the Apocalypse (1810) 72,
Arianism 15, 7374 77, 79
Atonement
ab extra 170 Faithful Narrative (1737) 85
ab intra 170 Figurative language 188, 190, 19293,
quid pro quo 167, 169, 17778, 197, 2058. See also Metaphorical realism
208 Forensic justification 162, 166, 18593,
sine qua non 162, 172, 197 204, 208, 212
Freedom of the Will (1754) 1, 1032,
Baptism 112, 142 3851, 58, 6162, 69, 82, 97, 107, 114,
Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) xv, 11821, 150, 153, 155, 174, 185, 209,
35, 64, 71, 8182, 112113, 143 211
Baptist French Revolution 80, 210
English Particular 3334, 37, 86, 113,
127, 14244, 174, 196, 209, 21112 Glasites, xvii 111
General 33, 142, 209 Gospel Its Own Witness (1800) 135, 139
Scotch 110, 11213 Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785)
Bare faith 111 xv 23, 3237, 3943, 45, 6163, 113,
Beauty 92109, 11517, 11920, 11520, 127, 143, 152, 182, 197, 209
12226, 13031, 133, 13941, 211 Great Awakening 66, 69, 8485
Bohemians 77, 80 Grotianism 144, 14851, 16768, 212.
See also Moral government
Calvinistic and Socinian Systems
Explained (1792) 132, 166, 185 Hopkinism 193
Christian Doctrine of Rewards Humble Attempt (1747) 1, 6683,
(1799) 184, 2034 21011
Cyclopedia (Chambers) 94, 115, 12327, Hypothetical universalism 17779
130
Inability
Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement occasional 2527, 59
(1802) 143, 165 habitual 2527, 59
Divine Supernatural Light (1734) 93, Imputed righteousness 2, 16, 14344,
98100, 105 155, 167, 182, 184, 188198, 201,
Dort, Synod of 10, 17376 2048, 21112
Duty 36, 55, 5860, 6364, 75, 134, 200
Justification by Faith Alone (1738) 114,
Empiricism 88, 9091, 122 169, 184208
Enlightenment 1, 1213, 44, 48, 60, 110,
159, 176, 189, 206, 209, 213 Kettering, England 113, 213
242 index of terms
Lapsarianism Reductio ad absurdum 20, 47, 56

Infralapsarianism 15758 Religious Affections (1746) 12, 11, 63,
Sublapsarianism 159 8485, 88141, 152, 185, 211
Supralapsarianism 15758 Relishes 96, 101, 11516, 119
Letters on Theron and Aspasio Revelation, Book of, xvi, 7181, 150, 210
(1759) 111
Life of David Brainerd (1749) 11, 82, 211 Sandemanianism, xvii 2, 46, 85, 90,
Lockean 87, 90, 92, 99, 122 11016, 12021, 199, 202, 211
Scotland 2, 5, 14, 6667, 6970, 83, 110,
Metaphorical realism 2058. See also 11213, 209, 211
Figurative language Seven Seals 7374. See also Eschatology
Methodism 151 Sense of the Heart 12, 61, 8693,
Modern Missionary Movement, xv, 1, 32, 96109, 11415, 11920, 12324, 128,
3435, 58, 6465, 71, 8183, 20911 13941, 181, 211
Modern Question 28, 3638, 61 Sensible knowledge 9293, 9698, 101,
Moral government 14351, 16073, 182, 104, 109, 11415, 120, 128, 139
205. See also Grotianism Simple idea 8789, 91
Mortification of Sin (Owen) 127 Six Letters to Dr. Ryland (1803) 144, 167,
178, 181, 196
Nature and Importance of Walking by Slaying of the Witnesses, xvi, 7679, 210
Faith (1748) 70, 132 Socinianism 15, 37, 145
Nature of True Virtue (1755) 115, Soham, England 38
13239 Sola fide 110113, 199
New Divinity School 140, 14451, 155, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present
16062, 166, 168, 172, 205, 212. See Revival of Religion in New England
also New England theologians (1741) 85, 159
New England theologians 2, 140, Solifidians 194
14260, 16568, 171, 18285, Stockbridge, Massachusetts 14, 212
19697, 2035, 209, 211. Strictures on Sandemanianism (1810) 85,
See also New Divinity School 11415, 11832, 139, 202
Northamptonshire Association 3839, Sweetness 90, 9396, 101, 1046, 109,
6970, 81, 83, 132, 140, 142, 211 117, 130
Northampton, Massachusetts 1415, 84,
152, 160, 185 Theological aesthetics 4, 92109
Three Conversations on Imputation,
Original Sin (1758) 146, 189 Substitution and Atonement
(1803) 144, 179
Personal Narrative (1722) 93, 1057 Transactional language 166, 177, 197,
Pneumatologia (Owen) 115, 12731 208
Pneumatology. See Epistemology
Post-millennialism 76 Unitarians 110, 209
Prayer Call of 1784, 6971, 80, 210 Universalism 161, 179
Prayer, Concert of 6670, 7778, 210 Use of means 1, 2831, 50, 6163, 82,
Princeton 14647, 160 154, 209, 211
Propitiation 172, 182
Protestant Reformation 63, 75, 77, Waldenses 77, 80
7980, 11013, 146, 2056, 212 Wesleyan 147,
Puritanism 90, 12627, 133, 139, 149 Westminster Confessions 5, 186
Quality 8889, 94, 96 Yale University 2, 8, 25, 42, 67, 151

SHCT 162 Chun - The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in The Theology of Andrew Fuller 2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHCT 162 Chun - The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in The Theology of Andrew Fuller 2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards

in the Theology of Andrew Fuller

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/shct

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by KoninklijkeBrillNV

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1. Edwards on the Will ............................................................................10

2. Fullers Theological Indebtedness to Freedom of the Will ...............32

2.3.4 Philosophical Basis for Universal Offer of the

3. Fullers Missiological Optimism and Humble Attempt ...................66

4. Edwards on the Affections ..................................................................84

5. Fullers Theological Indebtedness to Religious Affections ..............110

6. Fullers View of Atonement and the New England

7. Edwardss Influence on Fullers Conception of Justification

7.2 The Influence on Fuller of Edwardss Forensic

Conclusion: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the Theology

Appendix: Fullers Access to Published Literature of Edwards

Index of Names ........................................................................................239

WAF The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: With a

Journals and Series

ABQ American Baptist Quarterly

BOT The Banner of Truth Trust

1703 Born in East Windsor, Connecticut

1754 Born in Wicken, Cambridgeshire

1802 Published The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement

Fuller slavishly followed, or brought something original to the develop-

College in London, who kindly helped me to collect many of the Baptist

Overview of the Intended Course of the Investigation,

For decades historians and theologians have claimed that Jonathan

the Heart. Chapter 5 will trace Fullers theological indebtedness to

History of Edwardsean Scholarship to Date

October 5, 2003, marked the tercentennial of the birth of Jonathan

There are numerous interpretations of Edwardss writings, often-

apologist,11 revivalist12 and a leader of a contemporary charismatic

been examined from various perspectives18 as well as the renowned

History of Fullerite Scholarship to Date

In comparison to the depth of Edwardsean scholarship, the secondary

a comprehensive understanding in this field can be accomplished

book-length secondary treatments on Fuller exist solely in those from

recently superseded it.25 Even so, his account of Edwardss theological

Overall, the secondary literature on Fuller is limited, especially com-

EDWARDS ON THE WILL

The nature of moral inability, as distinguished from natural: where it was

1.1 Historical Background

Debates over freedom and determinism were not new to Jonathan

on the Will became a staple of Calvinist theology.8 With this perspec-

1.1.1 Theological Climate of Enlightenment

The influence of the new ideologies on the politics, economics, social,

1.1.2 Historical Setting for Freedom of the Will

Dissent, Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain,

was dismissed from his Northampton Parish in 1750. As consequence,

1.2 Thematic Textual Exposition19 of Freedom of the Will

The purpose of the exposition contained in this and the following

of Edwardsean concepts within those polemical debates. While the

Preface: Danger of Using Labels

Christians after his name, the founder of such movement becomes

As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, it is intriguing to

Part 1: Definition of the Will, Motives and Action

Edwards further clarifies this by saying that, the strongest motive, is

The Arminian account of freedom leads to illogicality because it denies

Part 2: Absurdity of Self-determination, Indifference and

made. Thus, according to Edwardss observation of the Arminian

attempting to influence Jacks free will.45 In order for Jack to make a