Your last two letters have occupied much of my attention. I confess I feel the force of the argument; and though there are difficulties in my mind which I scarcely know how to state in form, yet I must ingenuously confess that the grand objections which I advanced are answered. The subject is more interesting to me than ever; it affects all the great doctrines of the gospel. My thoughts have already been at work upon its consequences. I could wish, after having discussed the subject, we could examine its bearings on the different systems which are embraced in the religious world. With your leave, I will mention a few of those consequences which have struck my mind as resulting from it; and shall be obliged to you for your opinion of their propriety, and the addition of any thing wherein you may perceive me defective.
First, If your views be just, I perceive that all mankind, without any distinction of sober and profligate, are utterly lost, and absolutely in a perishing condition. All men will acknowledge that they are sinners; that they have broken God’s commandments, most or all of them, in thought or in deed, at one time or other; and that the best of their works have their imperfections. But such acknowledgments are seldom expressive of any deep concern. On the contrary, it is common for men, while they speak thus, to discover a spirit of indifference, supported by a kind of hope that God will pardon a few sins, and make up for a few imperfections; otherwise, they say, he must keep heaven to himself. But if your views be just, their whole life has been one uninterrupted course of foul revolt and abominable apostacy; and the irregularities of their lives bear no more proportion to the whole of their depravity, than the particles of water which are occasionally emitted from the surface of the ocean to the tide that rolls beneath. Nor is there any propriety in men of this description acknowledging their imperfections: imperfections relate to a standard, and imply an habitual aim to conform to it. Such language is properly applied to the righteous, the best of whom fall short of the mark; but the life of wicked men is in one shape or other an uninterrupted course of evil.
Secondly, If your views be just, they seem to afford a presumptive, if not more than presumptive, proof of our need of a Saviour; and not of a Saviour only, but of a great one! I do not know whether I can exactly trace the operation of these principles, or their opposites, in the human mind; but this I know, it is a fact sufficiently notorious, that those professors of Christianity who reject the proper Deity and atonement of Christ at the same time entertain very diminutive notions of their own depravity. I have known many persons who, as soon as they have begun to lean towards the Socinian, Arian, or Arminian systems, have discovered an inclination to treat this doctrine with contempt. Those people, on the other hand, who have sat under such preaching as has led them to entertain low thoughts of Christ and the grace of the gospel, if at some period of their life they have been convinced of their guilty and perishing state as sinners against God, they have soon given up their other notions, and embraced the Deity and atonement of Christ with all their hearts, and that with but little if any persuasion on the part of their friends. Nor does this appear very difficult to be accounted for: as the whole need no physician, but those that are sick; so it is natural to suppose that, in proportion as a person feels the depth and danger of his malady, he will estimate the necessity, the value, and the efficacy of the remedy.
Thirdly, If your views be just, I perceive that the work of turning a sinner’s heart must be altogether of God and of free grace. If a sinner could return to God of his own accord, or even by Divine influence helping or assisting him, it must be upon the supposition of his having some will, wish, or desire to set about it. But if men are totally alienated from God, all desire after him must be extinct; and all the warnings, invitations, or expostulations of the word will be ineffectual; yea, Divine influence itself will be insufficient, if it falls short of renewing the heart. We have heard much of late concerning political regeneration. It has been warmly contended by many, in behalf of the change which has taken place in a neighbouring nation, that things were too bad for a mere reformation; and that therefore regeneration was necessary. However that be, is it not on these principles that we are told, “Ye must be born again.” Old things must pass away, and all things must become new? If men be so depraved as you suppose, the necessity of a Divine and entire change must be indubitably evident.
Fourthly, If your views be just, the doctrine of free or unconditional election may be clearly demonstrated and proved to be a dictate of right reason. If men be utterly depraved, they lie entirely at the discretion of God either to save or not to save them. If any are saved, it must be by an act of free grace. If some are brought to believe in Christ, while others continue in unbelief, (which accords with continued fact,) the difference between them must be altogether of grace. But if God make a difference in time, he must have determined to do so for eternity; for to suppose God to act without a purpose is depriving him of wisdom; and to suppose any new purpose to arise in his mind would be to accuse him of mutability. Here, therefore, we are landed upon election—sovereign, unconditional election. And does not this accord with the Holy Scriptures?—“You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins: wherein, in time past, ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Among whom, also, we all had our conversation in times past, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ. By grace are ye saved!”—“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion!”—“He hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”
Fifthly, If your views be just, the justification of sinners by the work of their hands utterly falls to the ground. The foundation on which sinners in general build their hopes is something like this: They have more virtue than vice, more good works than evil ones; that as none are without fault, (and which they conceive affords a good excuse for them,) God will not be strict to mark iniquity; but will weigh the good against the evil, and so balance the account! But if all the works of unregenerate sinners be of the nature of sin, there is an end to all hope of being accepted of God on their own account. When ministers have endeavoured to dissuade sinners from a reliance on their own righteousness, I have heard them reason to this effect: “Your good deeds are all mixed with evil, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God.” I acknowledge that this is just, and that the least mixture of sin is an eternal bar to our being justified by our own righteousness; but, methinks, if they could have alleged that all their works were essentially and entirely evil, their arguments must have been more effectual, as to the cutting up of self-righteous hopes. And such a doctrine would leave no room for the supposition of Christ dying to render our imperfect but sincere obedience acceptable to God, instead of that which is perfect; for, in this case, the idea of imperfect sincere endeavours in unregenerate men is inadmissible—there are no such endeavours in existence.
These things I have been used to believe in time past; but if the principle in question be admitted, I find such solid grounds on which to rest them as I never felt before. I shall leave you to conclude the subject, and remain
Affectionately yours,
CRISPUS.
Fuller, A. G. (1988). “Letter IV,” Dialogues and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Controversial Publications (J. Belcher, Ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 674–676). Sprinkle Publications.
